Laserfiche WebLink
There was collective support by Council to issue proclamations honoring returning Pleasanton <br />military men and women Jn appreciation for their commitment for service to our nation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky requested support to address sports courts as an accessory structure on a <br />citywide basis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush noted that historically, the Planning Department has not considered sports courts <br />as accessory structures and, therefore on that issue, has not found there to be any violation of the <br />Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance defines structures and accessory structures, and in the R-1 <br />40,000 zoning in which these properties are located, the Ordinance states that accessory structures <br />have to be set back from rear or side property lines a certain distance. If sports courts are considered <br />an accessory structure, it does not meet this definition. This issue will be presented to Council at <br />some point, and at that time, if there is a different interpretation, Council can make that decision. Staff <br />has advised the Frosts that historically, sports courts have not been interpreted as accessory <br />structures, and therefore, the setback requirements have not been applicable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked about the height requirements, as he believed sports courts exceeded <br />these limits. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said that historically, the Planning Department has not applied the height limitation <br />to basketball standards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky believed this issue needed to be addressed on a citywide basis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho clarified that this individual item would only come to Council at a future meeting if <br />the Frosts or the Sweeneys appeal the matter. If staff is able to mediate the situation, the matter may <br />not be presented to Council. If Council chooses to take up this issue separately, there needs to be <br />collective support from the Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern asked if this matter could be referred to the Planning Commission for its <br />review? <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said the matter could be referred to the Planning Commission if Council provides <br />that direction to staff. <br /> <br /> There was collective support by Council to refer sports courts as an accessory structure on a <br />citywide basis to the Planning Commission to study, evaluate and provide recommendations to <br />Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern requested an update on the proposed cul-de-sac and/or electronic gate at <br />Happy Valley Road and Alisal Street as proposed by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern requested information regarding lighted tennis courts before the five site plan <br />alternatives for the 318-acre City-owned portion of the Bernal property and two alternatives for the <br />future Bernal Community Park comes back to Council. <br /> <br /> Mayor Hosterman shared the same concern. She suggested requesting a needs assessment <br />for lighted tennis courts at the Bernal property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fiaiho indicated that staff is working on this matter internally. As part of the upcoming joint <br />City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff will provide an analysis of the <br />conditions, uses and availability for lighted tennis courts on the Bernal property in the staff report. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 26 04/05/05 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />