PC 06/11/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

an entrance off of Stanley Boulevard. He referenced the General Plan policy prohibiting entrances off of arterial roads. He commented that he feels this is a good looking project and it is certainly an improvement over the current vacant lot. He stated that it is important to make an effort to save all of the heritage trees along Stanley, and with the undergrounding of utilities it will not be necessary to continue topping the those trees and the trees will look even better. He supports the monument sign as the only sign, but if something can be done with the "welcome" sign, he would support the name of the facility on that sign. In response to Chair Barker's question about the traffic calming device, Mr. Higdon advised that Reflections Drive was designed knowing that there would be residential development on one side and commercial on the other. It was designed to allow an entrance to the commercial parcel. He stated that this is a very appropriate use of the traffic-calming device. Commissioner Kumaran asked about the possibility of traffic entering at the other end of Reflections Drive to access the facility. Mr. Iserson stated that he feels it is unlikely that vehicles would enter at the other end of Reflections Drive to access this site. Commissioner Kumaran stated that he does not see this as an issue between the residents and their interests and the developer and his interests. His focus is on the issue of where the entrance to the project should be located. He looks at this as the interest of 100+ residents in the California Reflections subdivision and the interest of the 50,000+ residents of Pleasanton, in that he represents both. He indicated that he would have to stay with his original decision to support the entrance on Reflections Drive. He would like to see the facility assigned a Stanley Boulevard address or change the short section of Reflections Drive were the entrance is located to California Avenue. Commissioner Wright stated that he would like to see the lap-siding for the wall like the California Reflections subdivision. He commented that if the applicant wants to work with the "gateway" sign he would like to see it tastefully done. He supports staff's recommendation for a single monument sign. Commissioner Dove stated that there would be an advantage to renaming this portion of Reflections Drive. He noted that Bill van Gelder has indicated to him that the Reflections Drive access would be a lot safer that an entrance off of Stanley Boulevard. He noted that the Capital Improvement Program plans for the widening of Stanley Boulevard within the next five years, and that the Irby site and other properties along Del Valle Parkway will be developed. Granting an entrance off of Stanley for this property would be setting a precedent for future development in this area. Chair Barker stated that she still favors Site Plan 2, commenting that once a neighborhood is developed it should be protected. She also stated that if the Commission votes for Plan 2, more parking should be considered. She also thinks that reducing the speed limit on Stanley is a good idea. Commissioner Cooper expressed his concerns about the safety issues and noted that he sides with the need to protect children. He noted that other General Plan policies protect neighborhoods from cut-through traffic. He urged the people opposing the Reflections Drive entrance not to give up and to bring their concerns to the City Council. He stated that he would like to see the wall seamless with the existing wall and that he is not opposed to the two signs. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 11, 1997