Planning Commission Minutes 1998 05 21

Home Browse Search

money, and if they don’t take any money, then they may be more willing to deal. She does not feel that a lot of community concerns have not been addressed in the way of traffic, noise, landscaping and the applicant does not seem interested in addressing the issues. Bill Boulet suggested that the Commission move to disapprove the application and state reasons why. Chairman Boulet made a motion to disapprove the Final Subdivision Replat for Centennial Valley Parcel ‘O’, Filing No. 4 and a Final PUD Development Plan for Sam’s Club on lot 1. Boulet stated what the reasons are as follows: 1.The proposed landscaping does not meet the CDDSG minimum requirement of 30 percent minimum on-site landscaping. (The applicant’s proposal to receive landscaping credit for off-site landscaping in the detention ponds in Lots 10 and 11, Centennial Valley, Parcel O is not acceptable.) The landscape plan also does not meet CDDSG standard 5.4.C and 9.3.C which requires a six-foot planting bed adjacent to the building on the west elevation; 2.The proposed building does not meet CDDSG standards 4.3.A, 4.3.B and 9.5.A that require significant architectural features and treatments to diminish the building mass. Sufficient horizontal reveals and vertical articulation and other architectural features are not provided to diminish the building mass, nor are other techniques utilized to reduce the scale and apparent massing of the building. The proposed building fails to blend with surrounding neighborhoods; 3.The proposed parking lot lighting is excessive and does not meet CDDSG standard 8.7.A which requires ‘adequate and appropriate’ site lighting levels; 4.The proposed building does not meet the 35-foot side yard setback requirement contained in standard 9.2.A of the CDDSG. 5.Based upon the type of building construction and occupancy, the current building proposal must meet the 1997 Uniform Building Code requirement for a 60 feet yard or public way on the north and south sides of the building. If applicant is to address this requirement through a platted “no build” easement, applicant must address uncertainty in the ultimate site layout on the proposed Lot 2, and the enforceability of the proposed ‘no-build easement’ on Lot 2. 6.Fire Marshall requirements for access to the south building elevation have not been resolved and should be resolved on-site; 7.Traffic and pedestrian flow on the proposed Sam’s Club site is poorly integrated with surrounding development in Parcel O. The functionality of the main entry into the parking lot from McCaslin Boulevard has not been adequately addressed; 9