Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC recommends Planning Commission approve 70,480‑sq‑ft Jada Windows expansion with reduced parking
Summary
The Development Review Committee recommended on Jan. 14 that the Planning Commission approve a 70,480‑square‑foot metal manufacturing building and a use permit to reduce parking to 50 spaces for Jada Windows at 179 Clydesdale Court.
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jan. 14, 2025 — The Grass Valley Development Review Committee voted Tuesday to recommend that the Planning Commission approve a 70,480-square-foot metal manufacturing building and an associated use permit allowing a reduction in parking for Jada Windows at 179 Clydesdale Court.
City staff described the project as a consolidation of Jada Windows operations onto a single campus parcel, located on a 7.74‑acre site annexed into the city in 2010. The proposal includes a single large metal building for final assembly, glazing and shipping, 50 parking spaces, fire truck access around the structure, perimeter and internal landscaping, and an on‑site storm drainage system with bioswale and detention pond. "This building essentially is our final assembly, our glazing, and our shipping department," owner Jada Beyer said at the meeting.
Under the city's parking standards, a 70,480‑square‑foot manufacturing building would ordinarily require about 141 parking spaces. The applicant asked for a reduction to 50 spaces, citing a maximum employee count of about 42. Staff included a condition that any change of occupancy would require a revised traffic study and that any change affecting employee counts or use would require additional review. "If the occupancy does change, there will be a requirement that they come in and do a new traffic study," staff said.
Site work would remove an estimated 21 trees, ranging from 8 to 24 inches diameter at breast height, and the plans estimate about 12,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. A retaining wall spans roughly 100 feet along the northwest portion of the parking lot; staff report text lists the wall height as "ranges in height between 46 feet." A tree removal permit was made a condition of approval.
The project team told the committee the site has capacity to add parking in the future if required. Project engineer Kevin Nelson said earlier design layouts showed about 140 spaces to the west of the building and additional rows elsewhere, but the applicant reduced impervious area to limit environmental impacts and to minimize grading and tree removal. Nelson added the project team holds an easement across adjacent property to provide secondary access.
Environmental and safety conditions were among the edits the committee required before the Planning Commission review. The project team has submitted a preliminary environmental assessment to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and entered a voluntary agreement; staff said DTSC clearance will be required before grading and building permits are issued. The committee removed a staff finding that would have allowed 20‑foot lighting and said the applicant revised lighting to meet the city's standard of 14 feet.
Fire staff requested revisions to ensure aerial apparatus access: the committee added a condition to widen the drive aisle around the building to meet the required 26‑foot width for aerial apparatus given the building size and height. The committee also requested recorded access assurances (an easement or deed restriction) before building permits would be issued and that any gates include a locking mechanism accessible by emergency responders (e.g., Knox key) under a standard fire‑access condition.
After discussion, the committee recommended the Planning Commission: adopt the proposed environmental review at the appropriate level (staff recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the earlier annexation project and staff provided a project environmental package for review), adopt findings of fact in the staff report, approve the development review permit and approve the use permit to reduce parking standards in accordance with the modified conditions. The motion passed by voice vote and the item will move to the Planning Commission, with environmental document review and the commission hearing likely in February due to timing of the 30‑day review period.
Key next steps listed by staff include resolving access/easement language or recording deed restrictions, completing DTSC clearance, finalizing the fire apparatus access width on construction drawings, obtaining the required tree removal permit, and providing a recorded instrument before building permit issuance.

