Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Fialho clarified that when Mr. Fischer approached staff and sought direction, staff <br />provided him two options to either remove the retractable canvass awning or submit a PUD <br />modification for review and consideration by the City Council. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Heinrich Fischer, applicant and appellant, said he was confused and believed he had <br />purchased a patio cover. After installing the retractable canvass awning to the rear of his <br />existing home he received a letter from the Rosepark HOA objecting to it primarily because of <br />the canvass material. He said the actual material of the awning is acrylic and not canvass <br />which is more fade resistant and at least eight months out of the year, the awning is completely <br />retracted into its shell. He informed Council that he has been going back and forth over this <br />matter with the HOA for some time and was invited to a Board of Directors meeting on <br />September 21, 2005. At this meeting, he was informed by a Boardmember that the HOA would <br />be in legal trouble with the City if the HOA approved the addition of the awning. He was <br />informed by another Boardmember that the HOA was not so much against the awning as it was <br />presentable, but afraid it would be setting a precedent to allow another resident to install one <br />that would be objectionable and the HOA would have no recourse. He noted the concern that <br />the awning did not add to the aesthetic value in the community and added that several <br />homeowners have wooden patio covers that are in poor condition and inquired whether they <br />were a detriment to Pleasanton's aesthetics. He provided a petition to Council of 41 neighbors <br />who supported allowing the retractable canvass awning. He believed the reason the Planning <br />Commission denied the application was due to the awning being to close to the neighboring <br />property line. He referenced several sections of the October 26, 2005 Planning Commission <br />minutes that outlined the Commission's discussion and staff responses. He believed anything <br />that he installed at this point would be considered a view obstruction. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan asked the applicant how he would reconcile the matter if Council granted <br />the PUD modification, which from the City's standpoint would allow him to retain the awning <br />while the CC&Rs and the Rosepark HOA still prohibited it? <br /> <br />Mr. Fischer mentioned that he was provided with the Rosepark HOA's summary of <br />procedures for approval of visual changes to a property, which stated in the event of any conflict <br />between the summary and the CC&Rs, the CC&Rs would control. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan pointed out that Council could not change the CC&Rs and it would only be <br />changing the City's code. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked the applicant if he considered going to the HOA and asking the <br />Board of Directors to amend the CC&Rs, which would make it easier for Council to approve if it <br />believed it was something that the HOA would agree to do for the entire Charter Oaks <br />Development? <br /> <br />Mr. Fischer said he would consider it. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked the applicant when the opposition to the awning began? <br /> <br />Mr. Fischer said he installed the awning in March of 2004 and he believed a neighbor <br />registered the first complaint as soon as he installed the awning. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />01/03106 <br />