Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5148 Staff AnalysisFebruary 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued)______ E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff and City Engineering Staff have thoroughly reviewed this proposal and have concerns in several areas, the first of which is the existing parking and drives. These, in every respect, should be brought up to City standard with respect to proper base course and riding surface. The parking lot should be properly landscaped, screened and marked for parking stalls. The circulation pattern for the truck traffic should be reflected in the pavement markings. A second concern is the apparent inability to access this lot cab first and leave the site cab first by an 18 -wheel vehicle. It is our understanding from previous discussions with the developer that the warehousing element of this proposal will be serviced by regular deliveries by 18 -wheel trucks. These vehicles require significant turning radius on site in order to service loading docks and/or overhead doors. The property at issue is located on a critical curve and an arterial street immediately south of Baseline Road. This location suggests that no truck traffic be permitted to back onto the site or back off the site in order to service the loading facility. That could cause significant disruption in a four -lane arterial. The last concern of ours is that the materials filed by the owner for the PUD review are somewhat sketchy in nature. We would suggest that the owner have a more detailed plan developed in concert with the parking and drive improvements so as to give better information on the location of all physical improvements. This will, of course, be a requirement of the ordinance should the matter go to the City Board. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends denial of the requested PCD based upon the inability of this site to accommodate long -wheel based vehicles. The site with the existing structure in place and the parking improvements required suggests that the site is impossible or difficult to access. The retail store proposed on the site is of no consequence inasmuch as the property is currently zoned "C-3" and small trucks and customer traffic would not be a problem. The proposal involves a wholesaling or warehousing kind of activity within the larger portion of the building February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) devoted to warehousing. The turnaround of the merchandise and the activity associated with that turnaround is the major concern. The Staff feeling is that this activity will normally occur in the early morning hours in order to afford the small delivery vans to make deliveries in east Arkansas and other locations over 100 miles from this site. That activity in the early morning hours will involve lights, horns on vehicles accessing the property and, of course, the human involvement of people talking and banging doors. There is a residential involvement in this proposal in that there are houses to the south and west of the property with very little in the way of sound baffle on the intervening land. Should a project of this type be approved in a location such as this lot, the complete improvement of all the parking, screening and landscaping would be required. This is perhaps an excessive financial burden for the owner. The existing building has been rented for a long period of time, apparently outside the City limits, with less than City standards. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 9, 1989) Mr. Ed Tucker of Pro Realty, Inc. was present representing the application. Mr. Tucker presented a brief statement with his feelings as to the Staff's recommendation and offered some history of this proposal. The Staff clarified its comments on the recommendation with respect to the ability of large vehicles to service the property. Staff indicated that was the primary objection. The Committee discussed the size of the property, its orientation and accessibility. There were comments made as to the width of the property and the minimum turning radius for an 18 -wheeled truck. Mr. Tucker then offered that he had adjacent properties over which the trucks could take access, either exiting or entering this site, and eliminate the problem. Staff and Committee both remarked that his other property is not a part of the application; therefore could not be considered as resolution of the parking and turning movement requirements. The Staff pointed out the proximity of residential uses to this site. Mr. Tucker indicated that he felt the houses were far enough removed that there would be little or no effect from the small trucks entering and leaving the site twice each day. He further indicated that he didn't know February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued)_ exactly the times of day the 18 -wheelers would visit the site but that their visits would be limited in total number per week and the existing site, with its current paving and openness, will allow the trucks to service the property properly. The basis for the Staff's recommendation concerning the large trucks was explained. The explanation was that this site is in a critical location on Chicot Road and that should the trucks be forced to back into the site or back off the site, they would present a hazard on Chicot Road. To buttress that comment, the Staff further pointed out that if this proposal is approved, the applicant will be required to build a parking lot to proper standards, place interior curbs and driveways as required by ordinance, and the appropriate landscaping. Once that is accomplished, it will eliminate some of the freedom of movement of the larger trucks on the site. The interior curbing on the parking areas will tend to eliminate the trucks driving off onto the grass and gravel areas of the property. The Committee then turned its attention to the plan as submitted, indicating to Mr. Tucker that this plan was deficient in that it did not provide the amount of detailing, dimensions and location that would afford the Commission basis for proper review. The owner indicated that he would deal with a revised plan and provide that information to Staff before 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday. The plan would include the parking and turning numbers as to radius for both automobiles and truck traffic. This item was then forwarded on to the full Commission without additional comment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 21, 1989) There were no objectors in attendance. The application was represented by Mr. Ed Tucker. The Planning Staff presented its recommendation on this matter, the recommendation being denial based upon the several points expressed in the Staff commentary. The Chairman then asked Mr. Tucker to present his application. Mr. Tucker offered a lengthy presentation wherein he addressed the Staff's comments. He described accessibility to the property and recent access and use by long -wheel based vehicles. His feeling was that the Staff requirement was inappropriate. He stated that the use at hand was principally a retail use with some distribution by small trucks, the hours of operation were limited to early February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued)_ morning and late afternoon for the small delivery vans and, to the best of his knowledge, the large long -wheel based vehicles would only visit the site on the weekend and one weekday. He further responded to the Staff comments by indicating that the nearest residence to the west is over 200 feet and to the south is over 300 feet from this building. Commissioner McDaniel then inserted a comment to the effect that he did not understand why this item was being presented when the property was already zoned "C-3." The Staff presented a background of this application, including its history before the Board of Adjustment and conversations with the Staff. Mr. Tucker then offered additional commentary on his experience in attempting to relocate this business from a nearby location. His feelings were that he was frustrated and that he was unable to gain some final resolution of this matter. He stated that he felt he had not received proper direction or enough information in the form of guidance. The Planning Staff addressed Mr. Tucker's comments. A lengthy discussion of the matter then followed. The several options that have been offered to Mr. Tucker were discussed. The Planning Staff, at the suggestion of the Commission, offered specifics as to what was needed to bring the site plan to a finished product which could then be the basis for a decision. A motion was then made to defer this matter to the April 4, 1989 Planning Commission Agenda in order to permit Mr. Tucker additional time to respond to the issues, work to a finished design sch=eme on the property reflecting the drives, parking, landscaping, the building and other physical elements associated with this proposal. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (John McDaniel).