Laserfiche WebLink
J. Lasko moved to recommend City Council grant PetSmart Inc. of 26063 Great Northern <br />Plaza a conditional use permit for adding an indoor animal boarding facility to their <br />existing store based upon the commissions findings in accordance with Chapter 1118 <br />including conditions imposed. M. Meredith seconded the motion which was unanimously <br />approved. <br />J. Lasko moved to table any further consideration of any specific development or site <br />improvement plans pending the receipt of specific development information from the <br />applicant. G. Malone seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. <br />3. Fortnev & Wevgandt; 31269 Bradlev Road: (WRD # 3) <br />Proposal consists of additional parking. <br />Ms. Wenger reported that Fortney & Weygandt requires additional parking and proposes to add <br />parking on the vacant Space Age property, in the front yard and along the west side of the <br />building and includes three points of cross access for the two properties. A number of trees are <br />scheduled to be removed for the parking and the applicant's landscape plan shows some plant <br />additions along the front and side of the vacant building. However the zoning code requires <br />certain landscaping standards met for industrial developments, even redevelopments. Dense <br />buffering is required to screen parking along the side and rear property lines. Also, a minimum <br />of 15 % of the total site area is to be improved landscaping. Front parking should be limited to <br />officials and visitor parking only. The landscape plan and site plan differ; the correct plan shows <br />the angled parking designed to accommodate the narrow drive. <br />Mr. Conway said no variances are required but the commission needed to make determinations <br />of ineeting various parts of the light industrial district regulations. <br />Mr. Collins said a current drainage ditch along the rear of the property needed to be shown on <br />the plans as chapter 926.06b4 requires a 25 foot setback. If the area disturbed is larger than one <br />acre storm water quality measures are to be considered. <br />Mr. O'Malley advised that the proposed shared drives required access easements to be submitted <br />as there are two separate property owners. <br />Mr. Fortney was present to review his proposal. Mr. Fortney reviewed that his business was <br />growing and purchased the neighboring property to expand his business, and the growth of the <br />business requires additional parking. In the future, he may expand into the vacant building; <br />however the exact plans of the expansion are not finalized. <br />Mr. Malone asked why the applicant didn't leave the front trees and just add the rear parking. <br />Mr. Fortney advised that only a small section of the rear wooded area would be removed and <br />needs the parlcing for many visitors and workers at the site. The intent is to provide front parking <br />now as the buildings will be joined and once joined do not want vehicles in the rear of the <br />building. Mr. Malone recommends any trees to being installed be a minimum of 2 inch caliper <br />or larger. Any evergreen shrubs be planted a minimum of 36 inches and any deciduous shrubs <br />be 5 gallon container size or more. Mr. Lasko questioned why the rear area was being cleared if <br />the parking was going to be along the front. Mr. Fortney said the intent was to square off the <br />pavement areas of the two sites and have a grass area. The two lots are owned under two <br />separate corporations so cross easements will be developed. 1VIr. Rerko questioned the front <br />underground retention system. Mr. Fortney suggested the underground retention system was an <br />7