PC 02/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

In summary, he stated that he is willing to work with staff to finalize the landscaping plans and other minor details. However, he voiced his strong opposition with moving the parking lot driveway any further than 25 feet. In response to a question from Commissioner Barker, Mr. Iserson stating that there is currently no condition relating to the location of the driveway. He also stated that staff is in agreement with the applicant's proposal, but is awaze of Mr. Ferguson's concerns. Commissioner Wright asked Reverend Danielson to clazify his concern relating to the tree planters in the pazking lot. He said that he could understand eliminating the four planters in the center of the lot in order to not interfere with the future playground. However, he asked Reverend Danielson if would agree to keeping the end planters in place in order to allow some shade. Reverend Danielson responded that he is open to reviewing that suggestion further. Commissioner Kumazan noted that there were 74 conditions of approval and asked Reverend Danielson whether he objected to any of them. He responded that although not all of them were his original preference, he is willing to agree with most of them. However, he noted that he is against moving the driveway entrance any further into the proposed school zone. In addition, he prefers that the condition requiring trees in the middle of the parking lot be deleted because he feels that they would be unsafe for a childrens' playground. Generally, he agrees with all of the other conditions. Commissioner Dove asked Mr. Iserson how many of the 36" and 48" boxed trees are being conditioned by staff. Mr. Iserson answered that there is no assigned number at this time, and it is an issue that can be worked out with the applicant. The Planning Commission could specify a number if it wished. Steve Friends, 4377 Krause Street, noted that an error appears on page 7, pazagraph 4, line 11 of the staff report. It should read that Mr. Ferguson may want the driveway moved another 10-15 north along Rheem Drive. He also noted that under item 18 on Page B-3, Armstrong and Eilene Streets should be included as streets that could be affected by overflow parking. In addition, he requested that the number of 36" and 48" boxed tree be determined and included as a condition of approval. He stated that as a concerned neighbor, he would like to see the maximum amount of trees included. He also reported that the lights in the existing parking lot aze on day and night, and he has even called the police in the past to complain about it. He stated that he would agree to having a few lights on during the night in the new pazking lot, but certainly not all of them. In addition, he stated that he would like to see the parking lot landscaped. However, if it is actually intended to be a playground, he would like the plans to be amended to reflect that. Mr. Friends further stated that he feels the City should approve the funding as soon as possible for the improvements along Stoneridge Drive. In addition, he reminded the Commission that the rectory on Alexander Drive is subject to the rules of the Pleasanton Village Homeowner's Association and that all of the CC&R's apply to that property, even though it will be a part of the church. He also noted that there is a heritage tree behind the existing residence on Bowen Street and wondered whether it would be affected by the proposed driveway on Rheem Drive. Mr. Iserson stated that it is a walnut tree which is about 50 feet from the residential property line. He also stated that the proposed -- driveway will not affect that tree if the proposed driveway is not moved any further north and the future school is not moved any further south. After further discussion, Mr. Iserson stated that although the Planning Commission Page 12 February 25, 1998