HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0497 Staff AnalysisApril 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
LOCATION:
nVx)1Wr nnVu .
I-430 Shopping Mall
Preliminary/Site Plan
NE Corner of Colonel Glenn
and Bowman Road
VMn TMT: W0 .
Rector Phillips Morse Edward G. Smith and Associates
Prospect Bldg. 401 Victory
1501 N. University Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 13 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-2"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
None.
B. Proposal
(1) Gross Site. �
.. ............
(2) Landscaped Open Space ........
(3) Bldg. Total Gross Sq. Ft.....
(4) Total Net Leasable Sq. Ft....
(5) Paved Area...................
(6) Parking:
Regular ......................
Handicapped ..................
EmDlovee.....................
Total
13 acres
3.6 acres
121,767 sq. ft.
101,540 sq. ft.
297,079 sq. ft.
475 spaces
18 spaces
32 spaces
525 spaces
C. Engineering Considerations
1. Improve Bowman Road to include one-half of a
five -lane pavement section for the full length of
this project; dedicate right-of-way for minor
arterial.
April 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
2. Improve Colonel Glenn to five -lane arterial
standards; dedicate right-of-way for minor
arterial.
3. A detailed plan for the intersection of Colonel
Glenn and Bowman Roads to be included in the
submission of engineering plans for street
improvements.
4. Street improvements on Colonel Glenn Road should
extend eastward to include the adjacent
development; clarify driveway location on the east
side of Colonel Glenn.
C. Analysis
Staff is favorable to the developmental concept, but
would like to make sure during this review that the
drives proposed in this plan are coordinated with the
recently approved Colonel Glenn preliminary site plan
which abuts this property. This plan does not show any
access to the future building. Staff is requesting
that this access be internal and not external.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a revised plan which addressed
staff's concern about access to the future building. He
stated that there was no problem with complying with
Engineering's requests 1-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
Engineering reported that #4 of their comments should be
deleted. A motion for approval was made and passed by a
vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Rector
abstained).