Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Wilson asked for a favorable recommendation based on the conditions so that they could <br />move forward. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: <br /> <br />Commissioner McAllister is disappointed that the commercial design guidelines have not been <br />met. He doesn’t think that putting trees in the detention pond is meeting the intent of our open <br />space requirements, and does not like the mass of parking in front of the building. It does not <br />connect well to the other sites and traffic has not been addressed. He feels that this is more of a <br />Preliminary application instead of a Final application. McAllister has some concerns about the <br />project in general. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pritchard also feels that this is a preliminary plan, not a final. He feels that this is <br />too big of a building for this particular lot and doesn’t agree with the applicant that they have <br />done everything that they possibly can to meet our guidelines. <br /> <br />Chairman Boulet also does not think that the applicant has met the guidelines, nor do they intend <br />to. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Nostrand is discouraged about the conflicting information regarding how big <br />the site is, how big the building is on the site, and that there is not enough parking. He would <br />also like to see a building of this size on a bigger lot. <br />Commissioner Klahn reminded the applicant that they do have the option of not taking any <br />money, and if they don’t take any money, then they may be more willing to deal. She does not <br />feel that a lot of community concerns have not been addressed in the way of traffic, noise, <br />landscaping and the applicant does not seem interested in addressing the issues. <br /> <br />Bill Boulet suggested that the Commission move to disapprove the application and state reasons <br />why. <br /> <br />Chairman Boulet made a motion to disapprove the Final Subdivision Replat for Centennial Valley <br />Parcel ‘O’, Filing No. 4 and a Final PUD Development Plan for Sam’s Club on lot 1. Boulet <br />stated what the reasons are as follows: <br /> <br /> <br />1.The proposed landscaping does not meet the CDDSG minimum requirement of 30 percent <br />minimum on-site landscaping. (The applicant’s proposal to receive landscaping credit for <br />off-site landscaping in the detention ponds in Lots 10 and 11, Centennial Valley, Parcel O <br />is not acceptable.) The landscape plan also does not meet CDDSG standard 5.4.C and <br />9.3.C which requires a six-foot planting bed adjacent to the building on the west elevation; <br /> <br /> <br />2.The proposed building does not meet CDDSG standards 4.3.A, 4.3.B and 9.5.A that <br />require significant architectural features and treatments to diminish the building mass. <br />Sufficient horizontal reveals and vertical articulation and other architectural features are <br /> <br /> 6 <br /> <br />