Laserfiche WebLink
All of the existing building and Phase I required parking <br />spaces must be paved; the plan currently only shows 5 spaces <br />as being paved. Overall the plan is short 3 parking spaces <br />and it is staff's opinion that these parking spaces should be <br />provided specifically for the warehouse use in accordance <br />with Section 24 of the zoning code. <br />10. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management plan has <br />been approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "A" <br />stormwater permit can be issued. <br />11. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with <br />Ordinance #84-47. The plan depicts Type "A" screening in <br />accordance with the requirements of the ROSE -4 district <br />regulations. <br />12. Utilities: The site currently utilizes on-site water and <br />septic systems. <br />In the letter dated 3/3/88 by the applicant's attorney, there <br />is a statement that a new septic system is no longer <br />proposed, and that restroom facilities will continue to be <br />provided through the use of the existing mobile home. In <br />this case then a note would have to be placed on the plan <br />indicating that facilities .in the mobile home are open to <br />public use. <br />13. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: <br />North: Vacant/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District <br />South: Vacant/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District <br />East: Residences/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District <br />West: Vacant/ROSE-4, Roseland Residential District <br />SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: <br />Staff presented the following six (6) reasons, along with staff's <br />mmendation for denial of this application, to the Planning and <br />_fig Commission at its regular meeting of March 24, 1988. At <br />meeting the Commission voted 4-1 to deny this application for <br />the reasons outlined below and for reasons stated by individual <br />Commission members in the official minutes of that meeting. The <br />six (6) reasons presented by staff were: <br />1. The applicant is proposing uses that are not permitted within <br />the ROSE -4 zoning district [section 15(b)(4)a-d]; <br />2. The applicant has failed to provide a statement that iden- <br />tifies, by name, all family members living within the resi- <br />dence, and all employees who are currently employed with the <br />use. As proposed, the expansion would provide capacity to <br />accommodate additional employees. Thus, the applicant's <br />proposal does not meet the no non -family (resident) employee <br />requirement [Section 15(b)(4)e.1]; <br />3. The applicant has failed to "size" the proposed use in such a <br />manner that satisfies the trip generation criterion [Section <br />15(b)(4)e.4], both in terms of total trips and type of <br />traffic. <br />4. The applicant has failed to provide for adequate parking <br />[Section 24]; <br />Y r( i988 <br />28 <br />BOOK 7.2 FACE .) 71 <br />