Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5215 Staff Analysisr August 22, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G Name: Goodyear Conditional Use Permit (Z-5215) Location: The northeast corner of Cantrell and Foxcroft Roads. Owner/Appl.'Ca�':: Pulaski Bank and Trust Company/ C. J. Cropper PROPOSAL: To raze the existing building and to construct a 10,020 square foot commercial building (6,120 square feet Goodyear Tire and Auto Service Center - 3,900 square feet retail area) and 49 parking spaces on 0.91 acres of land that is zoned "C-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a major arterial (Cantrell Road), a collector (Foxcroft Road) and a residential street ("W" Street). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The site is abutted by: a commercial and industrial use located to the north; an office, multifamily and commercial uses located to the south; commercial (outdoor display - landscape nursery) and single family (which is substantially below grade) located to the east; a street intersection (Cantrell Road, Foxcroft Road and "W" Street); and an office use located to the west. Due to such a diversity of adjacent land uses, as well as the fact that all the proposed activity will be enclosed, the staff feels that the proposed land use will be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal contains one existing common access on Cantrell Road and one access drive onto "W" Street. The plan also calls for 49 parking spaces (includes 2 handicapped spaced). 1 August 22, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G (Continued) 4. Screening and Buffers ...._.._ .... ...... The site plan contains landscaped areas. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed land use will be compatible with the surrounding area (see note #2). The applicant does, however, need to submit a revised site plan that contains the width of the access drives. Finally, the staff has received some calls expressing concern about the design of the Cantrell, Foxcroft, "W" Street intersection and this proposal's impact upon it. 6. City Engineer Comments (1) "W" Street must be either closed or improved to its end; (2) Provide handicapped ramps at the existing and proposed driveways; (3) Provide a street name sign for the "W" Street and Foxcroft Road intersection. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan as outlined in the Analysis section; and (2) comply with City Engineering comments number one through three. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and stated that he would be making an effort to close "W" Street from where its pavement currently ends to the east end of the right-of-way. He also stated that the proposed structure would be one story in height but that he did not have an exact figure in feet, and that he would work with the City Engineer's office regarding the drainage of the site. The applicant also stated that he was working on obtaining a cross easement (on the Cantrell access) and that Goodyear wanted to eliminate five or six proposed parking spaces on the north property line to ensure more room for maneuverability for the cars entering and K August 22, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS ItemNo. G (Continued) .... ............ .......... ... exiting the service bays. The staff stated that 42.48 parking spaces were required and that the site would still meet parking requirements after the elimination of the aforementioned spaces. Finally, the discussion focussed on the Cantrell, f=oxcroft and "W" Street intersection. It was generally agreed that this site was not responsible for the intersection or any potential redesign. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 8, 1989) The applicant was present. There were five people in the audience who wished to express their concerns. Commissioner Schler-th stated that he had what he thought was a conflict of interest and would have to abstain from voting. The City Attorney agreed with Mr. Schiereth's opinion. The item was then deferred automatically to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting (8-22-89) due to the lack of a quorum as there were only five other Commissioners present. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 22, 1989) The applicant was present. There were two neighbors present. The staff stated that they had received and were recommending approval of a revised site plan that included: (1) a maximum building height of 22 feet; (2) the closing of the balance of "W" Street and the construction of a "hammerhead turnaround"; (3) the elimination of six parking spaces for a better maneuvering area (the site would still meet parking requirements - room for 50 cars - 42 required); and (4) the applicant working with the City Engineer to meet drainage detention requirements. The applicant agreed to comply with the staff's recommendations. Mrs. Sarah Karpov of #77 White Oak Lane stated that the staff and the developer had visited the site with the neighbors and discussed the area's drainage problems. In addition, she asked that the applicant construct a wall of some sort on the east end of the parking area to prevent any car from accidently falling down the hill into the residential area, and that any outside lighting be oriented away from the residential area. The applicant stated that they would build an eight to ten inch vertical curb that 3 August 22, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G(Continued) would prevent vehicles from falling down the hill and that they would orient all outside lighting away from the residential area. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineer's office stated that the applicant had agreed to work with the Public Works Department both on site and off site, if necessary, to prevent any worsening of drainage in the area that mi ht result from this project. g Mr. Louie Fason, owner of Cantrell Garden's Nursery located next to the site, stated that he was concerned that his trucks might be limited by this project from using the common access drive located on Cantrell Road. He also stated that he thought that the access was located in an alley. The staff stated that turning movements were not being restricted on the common access drive and that the survey showed neither an alley or the closure of an alley at the access's location. A lengthy discussion ensued about the alley. A five minute recess was taken so that the staff could check with the City Clerk's office to determine whether an alley had been closed. The staff found no record of an alley closure on the site. It was determined that if an alley had existed, it was, in all likelihood, still there. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention (Schlereth) and 3 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant. 4