CCMIN010306 - Laserfiche WebLink

continue to exacerbate the continued problem of getting Mr. Fischer to remedy his improper installation of an awning without permission from the HOA Board of Directors. Mr. Fischer provided rebuttal comments. In response to a statement made that his awning was installed over his neighbor's property line, he noted that a knothole was located in one of the beams which necessitated in moving the awning over while the fabric material was exactly on the property line. At the time he asked Mrs. Miller if it was acceptable and she agreed. He believed he had an agreement with the Millers; however, when the issue kept resurfacing that his awning was over the property line, he called the company who installed the awning and requested that it be moved as far away from the property line without taking it down and rebuilding it. He noted that the fabric of the awning is two inches from the property line and he would be willing to move it another six to eight inches. Mr. Brozosky asked the applicant how the retractable awning was attached to his home? Mr. Fischer said the awning was attached to the eaves underneath the roof. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Fialho said typically anything exterior in nature in a duet setting is regulated by the HOA because it has the responsibility for maintenance including the roofline and painting. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Mr. Sullivan referred to the PUD from 1988 and believed the developer, Standard Pacific, constructed the Rosepark duets. He asked if Standard Pacific applied for the PUD modification? Mr. Iserson said Standard Pacific applied for the PUD modification and worked with staff to develop the site development standards. Mr. Sullivan asked staff what the rationale was for denying architectural projections such as awnings, eaves, etc? Mr. Iserson said the term "architectural projection" is limited to around a window or door or a limited space on a wall of a house. While he was not certain, he believed Standard Pacific did not want awnings over the windows or doorways. Ms. McGovern asked how the color of the duet buildings was chosen and if they were painted the same color? Mr. Iserson said typically in this type of situation, the colors are part of the PUD approval to avoid having two attached units painted different colors, which could be incompatible. Ms. McGovern asked if the decision to approve only wooden latticework patio covers was a way to control the same look from one duet to another? Mr. Iserson was not certain, as this was the Rosepark HOA Board of Directors decision and not the City's. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 15 01/03106