My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:154
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:154
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2005 11:40:38 AM
Creation date
7/14/2005 11:14:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/19/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:154
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br />On May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Phase I of the project <br />subject to amended conditions of approval. The Commissioners discussed at length the impacts <br />that would be generated by the expansion of the Church from 250 to 450 seats and by the <br />anticipated growth and expansion of the Church related to the building locations and sizes. The <br />Commission had concerns that the approval for all three phases at this time would limit future <br />City discretion if future requests would only be a review of the design of each phase related to <br />the approved master plan. The applicant had requested an approved phased master plan to <br />ensure that as each phase moves forward, the approvals are in place to justify the investments <br />made, particularly at Phase I, because each phase is interconnected by function and design. <br />However, the Commission only approved Phase I of the application. The applicant would need <br />in the future an amendment to the use permit plus design review approvals to allow Phases II <br />and III to proceed. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS <br /> <br />The appeal filed by Carl Pretzel and Phillip Sayer addressed several issues concerning <br />notification of the proposed development, compliance to the General Plan, building layout, <br />existing parking/circulation pattern, parking lot expansion and safety, noise from the existing <br />preschool, and prohibition of future expansion of the preschool program. <br /> <br />Neighborhood Meetings <br /> <br />Prior to the hearing held by the Planning Commission, staffhosted two neighborhood meetings. <br />All Valley Trails residents were sent written notices and were invited to attend and comment on <br />the proposal. <br /> <br /> First Neighborhood Meeting: The proposal presented at the December 6, 2004 neighborhood <br /> meeting included the creation of a new driveway off National Park Road, a residential street that <br /> abuts St. Clare's property to the west. This proposed driveway location raised concerns with the <br /> residential property owners in the Valley Trails neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Approximately 12-15 residents attended the meeting. The residents had the following <br /> comments/concerns: <br /> <br /> They did not want a new driveway off National Park Road <br /> The current property maintenance was questionable <br /> They did not want an expansion of the existing preschool program <br /> They were concerned about the possible activities in the parking lot <br /> · They did not like the courtyard location and requested the buildings be grouped to create <br /> internal circulation rather than having a new driveway. <br /> <br /> SR:05:154 <br /> Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.