Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4654 Staff AnalysisZ-4654 - Continued C. Analysis A proposed commercial use at this location was rejected previously due to its noncompliance with the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. Staff opposes the project based on the proposed use and design. The site is not adequate to place the required lanes and provide for stacking distance. The plan also impacts the residential area to the north and does not allow adequate buffer areas on the east. Engineering reports that the Traffic Engineer's review is a must, due to numerous design problems. D. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was asked to work with the City and Traffic Engineers to resolve design issues before the public hearing. The basic problem was identified as use, since the proposal does not conform to the Heights -Hillcrest Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-13-86) A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Z-4654 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86) A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86) The applicant was present and offered a number of revisions to the site plan. These were: (1) elimination of the first parking space off West Markham, (2) moving the menu board to allow additional stacking space for the driveway and adjustment of the handicap parking, (3) a gate to be added to the fence along the east property line to provide access to the adjacent apartments as a courtesy to those residents, (4) the addition of a new retaining wall and drainage improvements along the east line and north portion of the site. These items were identified by the applicant as generally being supported by Mr. Koornstra of the Traffic Engineer's Office. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Several letters and phone objections were noted for the record. The Planning staff restated its recommendation of denial based on the Heights/Hillcrest Land Use Plan, the entrusion into an established residential area and poor site design possibility. The applicant was present and offered an overview of the project and the latest revisions. He addressed the letter of opposition by Z-4654 - Continued noting that the person has moved and is selling the residence. A general discussion then followed involving access, nonconformity and plan provisions for land use along West Markham Street. A motion was made to approve the application as filed. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote, but received the majority cast. Therefore, the item is automatically deferred to the August 12, 1986, meeting as required by By -Laws. The vote on the motion 5 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstaining (John Schlereth) and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-31-86) There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff's recommendation was reported to be unchanged. It was still felt that this proposal represented an unacceptable departure from the LUP adopted by the City Board. Mr. Mike Berg and Mr. Bill Hastings, of Rector -Phillips -Morse were both present in support of the application. They submitted a petition with 12 signatures of property owners residing in the area of Peck's Drive -In. It stated their strong support of a "family restaurant," which would "result in the removal of the blighting effects of the existing establishment," and one that "would not be objectionable." They expressed confidence that the Planning Commission and the Little Rock Board of Directors supported them in their desire to improve their neighborhood. Commissioner Rector stated he would abstain from consideration of this time because the agents for Taco Bell worked for Rector -Phillips -Morse, and he is currently on the Board and an officer for that Corporation. Commissioner Schlereth stated that he was abstaining because his place of employment has a lessor or lessee arrangement with Taco Bell at another location. No one was present in opposition. A motion for approval as revised, was made and passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent.