Laserfiche WebLink
<br />not provided to diminish the building mass, nor are other techniques utilized to reduce the <br />scale and apparent massing of the building. The proposed building fails to blend with <br />surrounding neighborhoods; <br /> <br /> <br />3.The proposed parking lot lighting is excessive and does not meet CDDSG standard 8.7.A <br />which requires ‘adequate and appropriate’ site lighting levels; <br /> <br /> <br />4.The proposed building does not meet the 35-foot side yard setback requirement contained <br />in standard 9.2.A of the CDDSG. <br /> <br /> <br />5.Based upon the type of building construction and occupancy, the current building proposal <br />must meet the 1997 Uniform Building Code requirement for a 60 feet yard or public way <br />on the north and south sides of the building. If applicant is to address this requirement <br />through a platted “no build” easement, applicant must address uncertainty in the ultimate <br />site layout on the proposed Lot 2, and the enforceability of the proposed ‘no-build <br />easement’ on Lot 2. <br /> <br /> <br />6.Fire Marshall requirements for access to the south building elevation have not been <br />resolved and should be resolved on-site; <br /> <br /> <br />7.Traffic and pedestrian flow on the proposed Sam’s Club site is poorly integrated with <br />surrounding development in Parcel O. The functionality of the main entry into the parking <br />lot from McCaslin Boulevard has not been adequately addressed; <br /> <br /> <br />8.The project lacks sufficient interior directional signage; <br /> <br /> <br />9.The proposed sign text on the west elevation of the building does not comply with <br />CDDSG 7.5.B.1; <br /> <br /> <br />10.It should be noted on the PUD that outdoor sales are limited to 14 days per year and <br />outdoor storage is prohibited; <br /> <br /> <br />11.The landscape plan proposes mostly rock mulch, in violation of CDDSG standard 5.6.I.3 <br />which allows a maximum of 50 percent of mulched areas to use decorative rock; <br /> <br /> <br />12.The proposed roof color should be darker to be compatible with similar roofs on adjacent <br />and surrounding existing buildings as required by CDDSG Standard 4.5.2.B; <br /> <br /> <br />13.The application materials do not demonstrate that the applicant has sufficiently addressed <br />potential noise impacts from the trash compactor and condenser units on the east side of <br />the building; and <br /> <br /> <br />14.The traffic study submitted is in draft form and is deficient in that it does not include other <br /> <br /> 7 <br /> <br />