Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0045-E Staff AnalysisNovember 9, 1982 t SUBDIVISIONS Item NO. 4 - File No. 45E NAME: Otter Creek Mall Preliminary LOCATION: I-30 at Otter Creek Road DEVELOPER ENGINEER: Otter Creek Mall and Garver and Garver Ark. Ltd. Partnership llth and Battery Streets c/o Otter Creek Dev. Co. Little Rock, AR 72201 P.O. Box 868 Phone: 376-3633 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 128 acres NO. OF LOTS: 51 Lots FT. OF NEW ST._: 0 5 Tracts ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Commercial VARIANCES REQUESTED: (1) Waiver of sidewalks. (2) Concrete aprons. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This is currently a huge, wooded site that is located at the southwestern intersection of I-430 and I-30. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal by the applicant to develop approximately 132 acres into a suburban shopping mall. The request includes the platting of five lots containing approximately 96.0 acres and five reserved parcels containing 19.3 acres, which are to be subdivided into lots with a minimum width of 200' at a later date. The adjoining parcel located to the south and known as the "Kochtitzky property" is included on the plat since there is a common line formed by South Mall Drive; thus, requiring one half right-of-way to be obtained from this property. A site plan will be submitted when architectural plans for the mall building are available. November 9,-19_P2 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued C. CONFORMANCE TO THE ORDINANCE Two variances have been requested: (1) Entrance to mall site be allowed to be constructed as public street intersections (no concrete driveway aprons). (2) Waiver of sidewalks. D. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS None. E. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS Comments will be made at the meeting. F. ANALYSIS There have been considerable discussions between the applicant and staff regarding this proposal. No significant problems have been found. The request for a sidewalk waiver presents no problems since the City Board has passed a resolution to this effect; however, staff would like to see (1) An internal pedestrian circulation plan. The City Engineering staff will comment relative to the second variance at the meeting. The applicant is asked to present color -coded graphic material indicating the what, where and when of the total street system. The applicant should also specify the amount of acreage since several figures have been submitted. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to further comments. November 9,,1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 -- Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant was present. Color -coded graphics indicating the proposed highway work in Phase I was shown to the Committee. The applicant stated that they would work with the staff to develop an appropriate plan for a pedestrian walkway system. Engineering reported that they were agreeable to the variances requested. Further comments from the Engineering Department regarding off -site improvements are as follows: (1) The traffic analysis by Barton-Aschman Associates dated October 21, 1982, is approved based on the land uses outlined in the Barton-Aschman plan for October 21 that includes the following: (a) Otter Creek Shopping Center: 750,000 square feet. (b) Discount Store: 50,000 square feet and restaurant: 200 seats. (c) Office buildings: 80,000 square feet. (d) Motel: 150 rooms, restaurant: 200 seats, commercial/service station: 6,500 square feet, and office: 30,000 square feet. (2) Further development to the mall and adjacent sites could not be made until the new Interstate bridge is completed. This requirement is consistent with our previous agreements with the developers that the existing Interstate bridge could only support the mall at 75 percent development. Therefore, further development of the mall north perimeter should be delayed until the new bridge is completed. (3) Developer off -site improvements to include: (a) I-430 ramps, Otter Creek Mall Drive, realignment of Otter Creek Road, approach to new bridge north of existing Otter Creek Road, off and on ramps to I-30, new interchange on the south side of the Otter Creek Road.Bridge to tie to Mabelvale West Road at I-30 Frontage Road, and all interval streets within each site. November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (b) Request additional details on motel site to include internal traffic analysis, widening of Frontage Road for left turn movement, and perimeter street details. (c) On the mall site request widening of the Frontage Road of the easternmost access to assist turning movements. Request consideration be given to extending Otter Creek Mall Drive median beyond I-430 off ramp. (d) Request traffic volumes be provided for all other major intersections shown on the Barton-Aschman Associates of October 21, 1982. (e) Request developer perform preliminary design of the approaches for the new bridge and place any excess fill from the four development sites and to the bridge approaches. (f) The development of the new service road on the south side of I-30 and adjacent to the Otter Creek Industrial Park, to be as required by the City in a previous action to plat the Industrial Park. A motion was made for approval, subject to the comments made. It passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Sanford Wilbourn of Garver and Garver, represented the developer. There were no objectors. After being questioned by the Commission, the applicant stated that the 75 percent mall development agreed to was equivalent to approximately 750,000 square feet, that would be tied down more firmly when the proposal was resubmitted for site plan review. He agreed to negotiate with the staff relative to a written agreement specifying this figure. A motion was made for approval, subject to comments of the Subdivision Committee. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. a B Tvvo Allen Center, Suite 2640 Houston, Texas 77002 713-757-1120 ot MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cindy Jones Paul Broadhead & Associates, Inca�. 11 FROM: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. v► W tl DATE: November 4, 1982 SUBJECT: Staff comments to Subdivision Committee, Little Rock Planning Commission, October 28, 1982, Item No. 5, Paragraph F., ANALYSIS Paragraph F. of Item No. 5, from the Little Rock Planning Commission, Sub- division Committee agenda for October 28, 1982, states the following: "F. ANALYSIS Staff's major concern with this proposal revolves around the increased amount of traffic which will be generated by more commercial development in such close proximity to the proposed mall. A traffic stuff by Barton-Aschman indicates that access roads p anned in conjuction with the first phase of fitter Creek Mall lat will be operating at capacity upon mall completion. Since this plat will greatly magnify traffic, the Engineering Department has been asked to look into resulting implications and/or the capacity of the "ring road" for further com- mercial development." The second sentence in paragraph one above, (underlined), indicates that some misunderstanding has occurred regarding thedefinition of "capacity". To clarify what we stated in our evaluation, we offer the following example of "capacity at a given Level of Service". EXAMPLE A person has an ordinary water glass in which they wish to transport water. The person has two basic choices regarding the amount of water to put into the glass. These are: a. Fill the glass to the brim, or b. Fill the glass to some level below the brim 0artos,-disc l-tm.-,n Associate s, Inc. This person wishes to minimize the risk of spilling any of the water. Therefore, the glass should be filled to some level below the brim, at the three-quarter level for instance. The person might then classify the "capacity" of the glass to transport water, and minimize the risk of spi_lla2e, at three quarters full. Our analysis of the traffic conditions for the Otter Creek Mall area, summarized in our letter reports dated March 20, 1981 and October 21, 1982 (copies attached), was very similiar to the example. We had a range of options regarding the calculations of "capacity" for the study. Refer to Table 1 attached. Levels of Service A through D correspond to a glass of water less than full. Level of Service E corresponds to a glass filled to the brim. Level of Service F corresponds to a glass that has been filled to over- fl ovii ng . Our analysis was based upon Level of Service C. Our analysis stated that to obtain traffic flow conditions similiar to those described in Table 1, that the "capacity" of the intersections and roadways should equal the traffic volumes stated. This does not mean that the roadways and intersections are operating in a congested condition. On the contrary, the "capacity" we defined insures that a good traffic flow condition will be maintained. It should be noted that in our March, 1981 and October, 1982 reports, we did not directly state a capacity. We referred to traffic volumes that could be accommodated at Level of Service C. We did these in an attempt to avoid a misunderstanding regarding the concept of "capacity". Conversely, if a lower Level of Service is acceptable, then additional traffic can be accommodated which would permit development in addition to the current stated levels. We hope this brief explanation will clarify the apparent misunderstanding regarding the capacity of the proposed roadway network.