Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> <br />Item 05A <br />Central Sandblasting <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Construction Timetable Construction is estimated from September 2018, to be <br />completed in spring 2019. <br /> <br /> <br />Summary <br />Central Sandblasting proposes to remove a 16,000 sq ft building (east building), and add a <br />20,000 sq ft addition onto the west building, requiring approval of a Development Review. A <br />Development Review is a review of proposed plans for compliance with the City Code. <br /> <br />The proposed Site Plan, dated July 19, 2018, does not comply with minimum standards for; (1) <br />minimum number of parking stalls; (2) curb & gutter; (3) landscaping; and, (4) parking lot <br />setback. <br /> <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommends approval of the Development Review, subject to: <br /> <br />1. Minimum Number of Parking Stalls: <br /> Proposed parking (20 stalls) is adequate. The City Code requires a minimum number of <br />parking stalls based on land use. In this case, it is 16 stalls, or 49 stalls (+ 9 proof of <br />parking stalls), whichever is greater. The Development Review process provides the <br />Planning Commission/City Council with some discretion. <br /> <br />2. Curb & Gutter: <br />The applicant’s request to use concrete curb stops for every parking stall, and NOT <br />install B-6-12 curb & gutter is reasonable considering the partial area of the lot that curb <br />& gutter would be required. If permitted, this should not be interpreted as setting a <br />precedence for other projects. <br /> <br />3. Landscaping: <br />Additional landscaping should be installed in front of the SE parking lot. Because of the <br />amount of impervious surface area, it is not practical for the site to comply with the <br />required landscaping standards, but the site should comply as much as practical. <br /> <br />4. Parking Lot Setbacks: <br /> The SE parking lot should be moved back to match the setback of the building to be <br />removed (28.4’). If done, this would be a continuation of a non-conforming use (vs. an <br />expansion). An alternative is a Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback from <br />40’ to 16’ (Site Plan, dated Jul 19, 2018). <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options; <br /> <br />1. Resolution 1086-18, recommending approval is attached. <br /> <br />2. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend denial of the Development Review. If <br />the Commission chooses this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution of <br />denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. <br />