Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0641-I Staff AnalysisJuly 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. H NAME: Markham Commercial Center LOCATION: West Markham Street (west of Quality Ford and east of McDonald's) nV17VT-f)D P George Wells Flake & Co. 425 West Capitol Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-8000 AREA: 17.647 acres ENGINEER/ARCHITECT: Robert M. Brown. Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson, and Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 Phone: 375-5331 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: General Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail A. Pro o� sal/Request ! 1. Approval of multiple building site plan review on 17.647 acres for use as a shopping center. 2. Submission of tvpicals regarding buildings, parking, and drive-thru arrangement. Final layout approval will be given by the City Engineer prior to construction of restaurant building. 3. Development Proposal Primary Tenants .............. 169,815 Restaurant Tenants ........... 13,396 Total Building Area ......... 183,271 sq. ft. Total Parking ................ 971 July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. H - Continued B, Existinq Conditions This site is located in an area that is developing as commercial. It is bounded on the west side of McDonald's Restaurant and on the east by a Fora dealership. Multifamily uses are to the north. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Specify planting to occur in the terraced area. 2.. Future sale of freestanding buildings will require platting. 3. Provide more variety in setbacks of fast food restaurants. 4. Provide more green space/berm along Markham. 5, Reduce number of fast food establishments. 6. Provide pedestrian access to restaurants. i. Show dumpsters. D. Engineerinq Comments Contact City Engineer about transition lane on the west end. See Don McChesney. E. Staff Recommendation Defer until issues addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agree to address the provision of directed lighting before the meeting and provide a berm along Markham. He explained thel. Heawouldsmeetbwithe�he�devedloper inq trees in the upper regarding other comments. July 12, 1988 tem No. H (Conf_ STAFF REPORT_ (Revis.e,d Plan): 1. Need Developers redesign of the parking areas as specified by the City Engineer. 2. Suggest angled parking stalls along Markham Street frontage to increased landscaped area. 3. Need verification of the 45 foot access easement behind McDonald's restaurant. If the easement has expired, a curb should be provided in the easement area to prevent access. 4. Lack of interior curbing, to control east -west -flow in the parking lot, is a safety concern. ST.AFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to satisfactory resolution of the above issues and staff approval of final plans for fast food restaurant locations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1 9�f3 ) The application was represented by Mr. George Wells of Flake and Company and Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Wes Lowder of Mehlberger, Tanner, Robinson and Associates. The issues were discussed. Mr. Robert Brown explained that: (1) the Applicant desired flexibility, with 15 feet to 25 feet variation in set -backs until the final tenants are confirmed; (2) they will develop a low berm along Markham with a 12" rise; (3) they couldn't reduce the number of fast food restaurants. Mr. Wes Lowder explained that they were working with Public Works to convert the northernmost excel/decel lane to serve this property. He agreed to look into the alignment of curb cuts for the property south of Markham. July 12, 1988 t em No . H ..(.Cnr t.,_i n.L.F.9.d.)...... One of the major concerns eras the affect of traffic that is generated by such a large amount of commercial and fast food uses on this rapidly developing commercial area. The Applicant was asked to subrnit a traffic study. Chairman Jones summed up the S'taff's concerns: (1) one too many fast food sites; (2) pedestrian traffieways between parking areas; (3) variety in set -backs. A motion for deferral of this item, subject to submission of a traffic study, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ( Ju I y 1 2 , 1 988 ) The Applicant was present. No one objected. Staff recommended approval, subject to: (1) interior curbing to control east -west trafi flow; (2) all landscaping islands be curbed and contained; (3) posting of financial agreements to cover tr,jffic signal Find street improvements at time of Building Permit; and (^) Staff approval of final plans for each restaurant. Mr. Gregg Simmons, Traffic Analyst with Mehlburger, Tanner, and Robinson, gave his analysis Of the traffic impact. The main issue discussed invol!ed the timing of the traffic signal. The Engineering Staff's policy was fdr the Developer to put tlp rr:on=:y for the installation of the traffic signal when it is justified by the traffic count. The Developer preferred to install the traffic light when the initial anchor site is developed. Mr. George Wells, representing the application from the perspective of Flake and Company, objected to restricting "freedom of movement" by ulterior curbing to control the traffic. His reasons for doing so were because the major tenant, Mr. Walton (Wal-mart); objected to it and felt that the success of the center would depend on uninhibited traffic movement. Staff felt that interior curbing was in the best interest of public safety. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering Staff explained that University Plaza and Southwest f1al i are channel ized in the manner that Staff vas druggestinq. He pointed out that the t:aff,ic signal wou•.tr Pik°,dvr traffic on N11arkham, but help traffic in and out of th' center. t July 12, 1988 Item Mo. H..,.(Continuedj Chairman Jones felt that it was not a "travesty" to approve the plan without the interior curbing. Commissioner Massie agreed. He explained that major tenants usually have various "quirks" that they desired, and in shopping center development, "the world centered around the major tenant Fie felt that 150' of protection was adequate, and that the public safety issue was satisfied as long as the traffic could flow in and out of the site easily. Thus he felt that any congestion within the site would be the Developer's problem. Finally, a motion to approve the plan was made and passed, subject to: (1) Traffic lights installed at the time of shopping center development; and (2) Staff review of restaurant locations. The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.