Taco Bell concept at 529 E. Baltimore stalls after residents raise safety, cut‑through and lighting concerns

The Planning Commission continued review of a concept site plan for a proposed Taco Bell at 529 East Baltimore Street after an extended public comment period in which residents urged the commission to eliminate or restrict a proposed rear access into Amicus Street.

Staff summarized the plan and the Board of Zoning Appeals sign variance previously granted. The applicant described plan revisions since the last planning meeting — added curb stops, extended pedestrian connections, relocated a dumpster, a proposed sidewalk along the driveway, and updated landscape and screening commitments. The applicant provided lot‑coverage and height numbers: building footprint is about 4.3% of Lot 1 with total impervious coverage around 50.7%, and maximum building height shown as 23.54 feet to the arch feature.

Kevin Savage, the traffic consultant, presented a transportation impact study prepared for the project. He said combined trip generation for Taco Bell and a conservative second small fast‑food building on Lot 2 would be about 150 one‑way trips (≈75 vehicles) during a weekday evening peak and about 250 one‑way trips (≈125 vehicles) on a Saturday peak. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers pass‑by percentages, the consultant assumed 55% pass‑by for the weekday peak (leaving roughly 34 vehicles of new trips during the weekday peak under conservative modeling assumptions) and conservatively assumed no pass‑by for the Saturday peak.

Residents who live on Amicus Street and adjacent subdivisions spoke at length about safety and quality‑of‑life concerns if rear access were left open. Common points: (1) Amicus is residential and not intended to be a commercial access; (2) the proposed rear access could encourage cut‑through traffic from 140 (especially during peak times) and increase noise, headlights and late‑night activity; (3) tractor‑trailer deliveries and lighting could worsen nighttime impacts; (4) sight‑distance at the curved rear exit is limited. “That’s my only issue,” one resident said of the potential overflow and cut‑through parking; another called the prospect “an absolute nightmare” and urged the commission not to convert residential streets into commercial access.

Commissioners discussed several mitigations with the applicant: a gated, emergency‑only access with keyholder control for fire/police; geometric restrictions to force left‑out only movements; enhanced landscaping and a more substantial buffer (trees/shrubs) to reduce light and noise; and formalized agreements for delivery times/methods. The commission asked the applicant to return next month with options and additional truck‑circulation and sight‑distance analysis. No final action was taken on the Taco Bell concept plan at the meeting.