CCMIN071905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Other Speakers Vince Casha, a Pleasanton resident, emphasized the need for lighted tennis courts in Pleasanton. He did not believe the concerns and needs that have been expressed by the tennis players in the community were being heard. He did not believe the tennis needs assessment study would be indicative of the current situation and proposed Council look at the tennis court reservation records approximately three months ago which would accurately show what courts are being used in the evenings and what times. He believed Amador Park would be an ideal location for lighted tennis courts. There were no other speakers. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MA'II'ERS 6~a PAP-79~ Carl Pretzel and Phillip Sayre (PCUP-118/PDR-391~ St. Clare's Episcopal Church (SR 05:154) Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a design review and conditional use permit for the construction of an approximately 4,970-square-foot sanctuary and multipurpose room extension to an existing church facility (Phase I), which is part of a proposed master expansion plan consisting of an approximately 9,250-square-foot new sanctuary and expansion of the existing parking lot (Phase II), and an approximately 5,000-square-foot administrative office expansion (Phase III). The property is located at 3350 Hopyard Road and is zoned RM-2,500 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. Donna Decker, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Thorne, Ms. Decker clarified that the Planning Commission approved Option 3 as noted in the staff report. Staff recommended Option I to the Commission. Mr. Sullivan asked if Phase I included changes to the parking lot? Ms. Decker said no. Mr. Sullivan believed Option 2 included approval of the total 28,955 square-feet and would entitle St. Clare's Episcopal Church to that amount. The configuration and how it looks would be the discretionary pert of this project in the future. Ms. Decker said that was correct. She noted that the design review process would go before the Planning Commission and not the City Council. Mr. Fialho pointed out that Option I as reflected in the staff report approves the use, square footage and location of the entire master plan. Option I also includes approval of Phase I design review. Option 2 also approves the use and square footage but does not approve the location of the buildings, which is subjective to discretionary approval by Council. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to approve Phase I expansion with the use, square footage and location of Phases II and III to come back before the Planning Commission and Council at some point in the future. Pleasanton City Council 5 07/19/05 Minutes