Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5151 Staff AnalysisFebruary 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) There was a lengthy discussion of the means of screening this property from its neighbors and the provision for adequate landscaping. Several comments were made by Committee members to the effect that they felt the dimensions of the proposed landscaping strips were deficient and provided little in the way of greenspace or separation of this use from its neighbors. Mr. Salazar offered comments concerning his proposal on the site relative to excavating the north end of the property so as to prepare a generally level site. He indicated that a retaining wall would be constructed along the north boundary of the parking and drive area which would have a six foot fence above it, thereby providing a significant screening effort. He also indicated that a considerable amount of landscaping would be provided in the form of new trees and shrubs. Comments from the Engineering Department were offered. It was pointed out that the driveways as located with the narrow median between violate the basic design criteria for commercial driveways. This proposal constitutes two driveways with less than the minimum spacing between. The City Engineer suggests that a narrower configuration be looked at, perhaps in the neighborhood of 40 feet. Mr. Salazar indicated that he could perhaps use that narrower dimension inasmuch as he had that type of driveway design on Geyer Springs Road. Mr. Salazar indicated that his response to the dumpster location and the bollard removal was to review the west boundary of the plat adjacent to the screening fence and possibly place the dumpster in the landscaped area adjacent to the west parking area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 21, 1989) There were several objectors in attendance. The application was represented by Mr. Salazar. The Planning Commission was presented with a verbal request through the Planning Staff for deferral of this item from Mr. Salazar. On the occasion of the extension of this request, Mr. Salazar was not in the meeting room. However, he did arrive at a later point in the meeting. The Planning Commission discussed the appropriateness of deferring the item without a proper written request or the owner's presence. The Commission determined to hear this item inasmuch as there were several objectors present. February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) The Public Hearing began with a presentation of comments by Marie Garvin, owner of a property immediately north on Monroe Street currently zoned 110-1," Quiet Office. Mrs. Garvin presented comments to the effect that she had acquired this property as an investment property and the rezoning was an attempt on her part to gain some future financial benefit. She did not express strong concerns one way or the other on this matter. However, she indicated the appropriateness of commerc al use on the corner. The Chairman noted that toward the end of Mrs. Garvin's comments, Mr. Salazar entered the room. The Commission then directed Mr. Salazar to present his case. Mr. Salazar presented comments on the Staff concerns. He described his proposal in detail as to the landscaping, buffering and its relationship to its neighbors. He compared this site to Geyer Springs and indicated the types of landscaping and trees that he would place on 'he site. He stated that he has two other stores in the Little Rock area and plans to expand this Little Rock based fast-food operation statewide. He then described adjacent houses on the west as being in a deteriorated state, perhaps a\,en condemned. He stated at the current time these are eye3ores and their replacement would be of benefit to the neighborhood. He said that he was working on revisions of hi; plan and that had been part of the basis for the deferral. He had proposed to add more grass and trees on the perimeter of the site and enhance the project considerably. He a ke] then that the Commission grant him a deferral for severA months in order to address all the concerns stated. The Commission Chairman then asked the next listed objector present, Katherine King, to present her position. Mrs. King offered concerns about compatibility of this use with the neighborhood and the direct property line relationship between commercial and single family. She felt that traffic was already severe in the area and this would only increase the existing problem. She indicated that the people on her side of the street had purchased their homes for their principal residences and not for business investments. She offered a petition to the Chairman stating that it contained approximately 75 signatures. She then continued her comments by stating that she felt the dumpsters and the hours of operation for their pick-up would be a disruptive factor for the neighborhood. She felt that this type of use would have too much lighting at night-time, especially since Y February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) the use proposes to stay open until midnight. felt that trash burners on the premises such as that MacDonald's operate are a nuisance to the She further the ones neighborhood. The Chairman then recognized the third objector present, Mr. Robert East. Mr. East stated that his family owns a home adjacent on the north. He stated that this use, much like the Wendy's use adjacent on the west, would be a disruptive factor for the neighborhood. He indicated that the noise from the property, especially the speakers mounted in order boards, were quite annoying. He felt that traffic and other factors associated with this commercial development would be a detriment to the neighborhood. The Chairman then recognized the next objector, Mr. Roger Davis. Mr. Davis presented comments on traffic and on trash accumulation in the neighborhood. The Commission then recognized Mr. Salazar. Mr. Salazar discussed the concept of his business. The concept was described as one of pick-up and leaving of the site with the merchandise purchased. He felt that his use did not generate the kind of out -the -window trash from automobiles as other nearby businesses. He indicated that the dumpster on this site would be picked up in the morning immediately prior to the store's opening for the day, or approximately 9:00 a.m. Deliveries that are made to the business are made around 3:00 p.m. each afternoon. He indicated the size of his business and building would have less impact on the neighborhood than Wendy's. He then added comments concerning the visibility of this site. He felt that inasmuch as the project would be excavated somewhat on the north end, that the project would be somewhat visually separated from the Monroe Street neighborhood. He indicated the structure that he proposes to build would be smaller than most of the houses in the immediate area. Mr. Salazar closed his comments on his presentation by stating that he requested a withdrawal of his previous request for deferral and asked that the Commission take action on this matter today. The Chairman then recognized another person present who desired to offer comments in objection. This person was Terry Davis. Ms. Davis offered additional comments concerning traffic problems in the immediate area and on Markham Street. She discussed the composition of the February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) residences in the neighborhood as being one of young families and those proposing to raise their families in this neighborhood. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Salazar for a closing statement. He offered that his drives and access onto Markham Street were the result of having talked to the Planning Staff and other City persons prior to filing and during the course of his review. He stated that he had made an attempt to eliminate traffic from his business onto Monroe Street and he felt that there would be little or none. A member of the Commission then called the question. The Chairman placed the matter before the Commission for a vote. A vote was then presented as 0 ayes, 9 noes, 2 absent. The application was denied.