PC 06/11/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson indicated that the applicant has done a good job of designing the project in light of the unique parcel shape. He stated that staff understands the neighbors' concerns regarding traffic, however, staff feels that with the design of Reflections Drive and people wanting to get in and out of the facility quickly, they would not use the interior streets. He advised that the traffic calming device would help in deterring traffic from entering the California Reflections subdivision. Mr. Iserson reported that a second petition protesting use of Reflections Drive East for commercial traffic purposes was received and distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Wright asked if Mr. Cannon advised if the split-face block was supposed to be a particular color or painted to match the soundwall. Mr. Iserson advised that it would be a standard color and not painted to match. In response to Chair Barker's inquiry, Mr. Iserson noted that Condition #20 indicates that the proposed building-mounted sign shall be deleted. Dwight Davis, 1148 Alpine Road, Walnut Creek, represented the application. He presented a rendering of the traffic calming area and the proposed wall. He stated that they would prefer to do a decorative split-face block wall, noting the requirement to do extensive landscaping, and that he feels the landscaping will substantially cover the wall. He advised that the split face should be left natural but would be agreeable to painting the rest of the wall to match. He also presented a rendering of the architecture and design elements. With regard to the signage, Mr. Davis advised that the monument sign is small and they would like to have a low-key sign on the wall at Valley and Stanley. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dan 1. Stuber, 3610 Reflections Drive, represented the California Reflections homeowners. Mr. Stuber expressed the following points regarding the proposed project: . the parking for staff is inadequate. . the rules to dissuade professional drivers will be disregarded. . the size of the vehicles that will be accessing the facility is ridiculous. . there are already two other public storage facilities near the proposed site and that it will probably impact the business of the two existing facilities. . the City is allowing an out-of-town developer to use inferior materials which do not match the existing soundwall (the developer should be required to use what is existing or improved materials). . the proposed signage to discourage vehicles from entering the California Reflections subdivision is inadequate. . the proposed 89 cars per day is astronomical and will create a safety hazard. . the integration of commercial traffic in a residential neighborhood will not work. In response to Chair Barker's inquiry regarding Mr. Stuber's opinion of the traffic calming device, Mr. Stuber advised that he doesn't feel it will work. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 11, 1997