Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0490 Staff Analysisr January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 475 NAME: K Mart Site Plan Review LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Asher Avenue at University Avenue DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Flake and Company Finley Williams 401 West Capitol Avenue 210 Victory Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR Phone No.: 376-3505 AREA: 21.01 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 PT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-3" General Commercial PROPOSED USES: Retail food sales. Three new building locations VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existina Conditions The K Mart Center involved is a built up except for the frontage area involved in this request. With the exception of the subject area, the site is almost 100 percent paved or built upon. Development of this property occurred during an era when landscaping and good interior parking lot design was not required. Free movement of vehicles in all directions is permitted. The base you, being a K Mart retail outlet, was developed in 1966 with over 95,000 square feet of floor face. The addition of a 20,000 square foot retail strip center on the west and an auto service center of 8,300 square feet spaced out the initial development. There have been several other uses in detached buildings on separate lots developed out of the original property holdings. The Asher Avenue frontage was not improved along most of its length of some 8001. South University Avenue is developed at a State Highway Department standard. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued B. Development Proposal The applicant proposes to develop three new freestanding commercial buildings oriented to South University and mostly accessed internally. The lot areas proposed meet standards for commercial lots, but are not proposed for platting or sale. The interior traffic flow has been discussed with the City Engineer and prospective tenants and appears to be acceptable to all except as noted later in traffic comment by the Engineering Division. C. LeQal Considerations None evidenced at this writing. D. Engineering Considerations 1. One-way entrance from University Avenue is acceptable to the City Engineer. Request detail plans be submitted to the City and the Arkansas State Highway Department. 2. Request in -lieu contribution for improvements on Asher Avenue adjacent to this property and dedication of additional right-of-way for Arkansas Highway and Transportation Project 6965. 2. Request channelization and landscaping improvements throughout the parking area of the total shopping center. That the project engineer discuss this topic with the City Engineer's Office. E. Analysis The proposal as drafted represents a significant change for one of Little Rock's older shopping centers. We feel utmost attention should be given to functional use environment that will serve both the owners and operators and the public. Staff concerns are much the same as those expressed by the Engineer staff and support the completely the idea of redesign and reconstruction of all uncontrolled parking area. We also support the requirement of in lieu funds for Asher Avenue. This project has an intensification of the use around a heavily impacted major intersection and all possible steps should be taken to soften the impact of further development. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No, 6 - Continued F. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plan subject to resolution of of commitment to establishing the changes in the above analysis. This is a site plan review and the Subdivision Committee is required to make a determination as to the need for notice to adjacent property owners. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application and determined that they needed more information regarding the in -lieu contribution and right-of-way dedication on Asher. There was some discussion as to whether or not landscaping should be required throughout the site. Some Committee members felt that this proposal makes a significant impact on the total site, so the applicant should consider complying with staff°s wishes. Notification to adjacent property owners is required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. George Wells represented the application. No one objected. The issues were identified as involving dedication of right-of-way, curb improvements and landscape requirements. There was some discussion as to whether or not there was authority to acquire the applicant to do such improvements throughout the site. Staff clarified the issue as being that of magnitude rather than legality of review since this was a multiple building site plan review, which in a broad sense grants authority. This proposal was viewed as creating a new entrance off University in addition to the other entrances, and as creating three intensive traffic generators. Engineering reported that circulation needed to be defined. Mr. Wells and Mr. Finley Williams, his engineer, reported that this could be accomplished by striping and arrows instead of curbs. Some Commission members felt that striping would be adequate only if it could be enforced. A motion was made to approve the site plan, subject to the applicant working out the required right-of-way dedication and striping for traffic arrangement with the Engineering department. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.