CCMIN010306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Janis McWilliams Miller, a Rose Park resident, noted that she and her husband resided next door to the applicant and spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she and her husband moved to Rosepark when it first opened in 1989 and they are the original owners of their duet. She and her husband share the common wall with Mr. Fischer and his family and their backyard patios are on either side of the shared fence. She requested Council to deny Mr. Fischer's request for modification of City site standards for Rosepark Duets regarding the large canvas solid awning erected in his backyard. One reason she and her husband purchased a duet in Rosepark was because of the strict architectural guidelines governing the development. She wanted to reside where homeowner improvements must be approved or denied by the HOA according to CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines. In 1990, she and her husband buill a lattice, wood patio cover after obtaining HOA approvals. Approximately two years ago, Mr. Fisher erected a large canvass awning and did not obtain required prior approval. He also erected the awning on the common fence line on her side of the property where it remained until only a few months ago. Only recently did Mr. Fischer move the awning one or two inches from her side of the fence to zero foot setback on his side and he moved the awning only because he was requesting modification of City side standards and needed to be in compliance with the City. She pointed out that the HOA Architectural Guidelines, which are more restrictive than City site standards, require a five-foot setback from the common fence. The site move did not alternate the negative visual impact of the awning for her and her husband. She objected to the awning for several reasons: (1) solid canvass awnings are visually overwhelming in duet backyards and Mr. Fisher's awning installs a feeling of encroachment while sun filters through wood lattice patio covers and provides an open feeling in duet backyards and solid canvass awnings do not; (2) the size, length and solid mass of the awning makes her feel closed in when she is sitting in her patio looking up and (3) canvass awnings do not blend in with the desired aesthetics that Rosepark has throughout its wood patio covers that are natural in color which the Board of Directors said at its recent HOA meeting that awnings do not add value to the Association aesthetics and in fact diminish it. She believed awnings might be suitable for detached, single family homes because there is ample space between homes for its solid, dark mass and duets do not have the luxury of this type of space. Her wood patio cover is not allowed to extend further than nine feet into her backyard while Mr. Fischer's awning extended 15 feet from the structure of the home which is over half the length of their common fence. She expressed concern regarding the noise associated with extending or retracting the awning which can be heard from her family room and because there is no guarantee or obligation that Mr. Fishcher would keep the awning retracted when not in use, nor was there any effective way to enforce it. She disagreed with the Planning Commission staff report that stated awnings were no different than wood patio covers. It was her understanding that the majority of most HOAs in Pleasanton do not allow awnings and in light of this, she believed the original authors of the City's development site standards for Rosepark fully intended to exclude awnings indicating a definite difference. She questioned the validity of Mr. Fischer's petition and noted the HOA worked diligently to maintain the appearance of the Rosepark development. She asked Council to support the HOA and deny the applicant's request. Alex Faymonville, Community Association Manager, Rose Park Homeowners Association, informed Council that Mr. Fischer installed the awning without permission. The HOA Board of Directors gave him three chances for approval and his request was denied each time as according to the PUD, the Board of Directors could not approve it because the HOA could not violate City law. According to the HOA's Architectural Guidelines, no structure erected above the developer installed fence elevation shall be constructed closer than five feet to any property line. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 13 01/03106