CCMIN010306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman asked Mr. Faymonville if the Rosepark HOA's position was that because of the constraints as set out in the City's PUD, the HOA was precluded from ever allowing Mr. Fischer's awning? Mr. Faymonville said that was the reason for denial initially; however, Mr. Fischer is in violation of the Architectural Standards which require five-feet from any property line. If Council decided to approve the PUD modification, Mayor Hosterman believed it would give Mr. Fischer the opportunity as well as the Rosepark HOA the opportunity to revisit the 1988 language and make a determination which might better serve the Rosepark neighborhood regarding patio covers. Mr. Faymonville said he could ask the HOA Board of Directors to reconsider this item again; however, it would strictly be up to the Board of Directors who are elected by the homeowners. Mr. Sullivan asked if there was a process that would allow Mr. Fischer the opportunity to request a vote of the homeowners to have the Board of Directors reconsider this matter? Mr. Faymonville said Mr. Fischer could make a request to the HOA Board of Directors to conduct a special meeting regarding this issue. Mr. Sullivan requested clarification regarding the two reasons why the Rosepark HOA Board of Directors denied Mr. Fischer's request. Mr. Faymonville said the Rosepark HOA Board of Directors denied Mr. Fischer's request because it did not meet the City's code and because it did not meet the Architectural Standards for setbacks as well as an aesthetic concern about a solid awning. Mark Voegele, a Rosepark resident, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he was vice president of the HOA Board when the first complaint was received. The Board of Directors was largely opposed to the idea of a solid cover awning, which was not in concert with the rest of the architectural design of the community, which is to stay with a wood latticework structure. He noted that if there were other homeowners who have structures that are not in good repair, the HOA Board of Directors would need to address it. He said it was the responsibility of the purchasers in an HOA to read, understand and sign the CC&Rs through the escrow process. He noted a specific delineation is made between awnings and patio covers are a structure and an awning is not. He requested Council to be uniform with the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal. With respect to Mr. Fisher's comments regarding the length of time it has taken for the HOA Board of Directors to address the matter, he noted that Mr. Fischer ignored the requirements of the CC&Rs and never brought to the Board's attention any request for installing the awning. While it appeared in a photograph that the awning was mounted on to what looked like a fascia board, there is no fascia board in the community and all of the covers that are at the edge of a hip-roof drop are gutters that are designed to look like a fascia board which is not designed to hold the weight, yet the HOA is responsible for the entire exterior structure. He believed an awning was a projection that was not supported at its outside edges and structurally is not something aesthetically the HOA Board of Directors would approve, as it has always been the practice to approve wood latticework structures. If Council approved the PUD modification, he feared Mr. Fischer would interpret this to mean the City would be overriding the HOA Board of Directors decision, which would Pleasanton City Council Minutes 14 01/03106