The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-0865 Staff AnalysisSUBDIVISION AGENDA FORMS P � F MEETING DATE, IT=#)ii A. PROPOSAE RE UEST: U �o ad & L44L,,,j�� l -f-z, 5 e A&eel 4c f �LrlfG.l d � ►�sn� •1�1 V Q v1.� CJ> LO sy Unj�n �r G 6 6 �6 0 rI 4tGL B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: lql . a A t 4 ket5 very � C� V C. ISSUESIDISCUSSION LEGAL. TECHNICAL DESIGN C F F M ,J f°Er'5clj\e26bN re 5< r- A�5►► vW 155� {�(� b r" � � c � s r+� � J D: ENGINEERING C40MENTS: � � � �p �� 5"� f, H �u �e, 'DPri ,, ,-( r to AC 2 C ►tiS E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: [gojCJ C��'`� a� I v" � Ciu• n r(� rer o August 23, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Rector -Phillips -Morsel United Artists' Communications P. O. Box 7300 Little Rock, AR 72217 Phone: 664-7807 Village Shopping Center Addition University and Asher ENGINEER/ARCHITECT: Townley, Williams, Blair and and Associates 18 Corporate Hill Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 224-1900 AREA: 29.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Proposed 11C-3" Existing "I-2"/"C-3" PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Propos_al_/Request 1. To add square footage to an existing shopping center on 29.8 acres 2. Deve..l.o_pmen t. D.at a Existing: Main Center 79,850 square feet 65,115 square feet Union Bank 2,155 square feet Cinema 150 12,800 square feet 159,909 square feet New: Theatre 40,000 square feet Option A 22,200 square feet 26,200 square feet Option B 15,000 square feet 103,400 square feet Total Building Square Footage ...... 263,309 sq. ft. Parking ........... 298 cars Parking Ratio ....... 4.93/1,000 sq. ft. August 23, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A (con.t.inUed) B. Existing Conditions This site is located at the intersection of two major arterials. The area is developed as commercial and has very heavy traffic. C. I ss,ues/D„i scuss i on/Lega I /Techn i ca I ,tp s.i__qn, 1. Indicate parking layout. 2. Clarify Options A and B. 3. Meet with Engineering and Parks regarding any floodway issues. 4. Traffic is a major concern of the area. D. Eng i nee_r_i ngComments 1. Coordination of approval with the State Highway Department. 2. Address detention concerns with City Engineering. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved, until further information is available since traffic is major concern in this area. Staff cannot lean support to this item until it is coordinated with State Highway Department and City Engineer gives his report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant was informed that the Option A Building at the rear of the existing shopping center was shown over an existing easement and contained a main feeder and branch service to telephone cable; and that Wastewater and Water Works also had concerns about the building in this area. He was asked to work with the utility companies to resolve the issues. The main issue was identified as traffic. Comments were needed from both City Engineering and the State Highway Department. 0 August 23, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings of Rector, Phillips, Morse and Mr. Joe White, engineer. Staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to resolution of the traffic issue on Asher Avenue. There was a lengthy discussion on whether or not the site plan should be approved, since there were no technical issues to be resolved, subject to negotiations with the State Highway Department and the City Engineer regarding access onto Asher Avenue. Mr. Coleman of Coleman Dairy stated concerns about access to Asher from his property. He had no problems with the site plan. A motion for deferral of the site plan was made and passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 19, 1988) The Planning staff reported that the site plan was in good shape except for some utility issues but that the plan is affected by the unresolved traffic issues. Staff recommends approval of the plan subject to resolution of the traffic access problem. There was one objector present, Mr. Buddy Coleman. The application was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings and Joe White of White-Daters Engineers. Mr. Hastings offered a brief statement on the need to progress with the project. He stated that Mr. Peters, the traffic engineer he had retained, was present to answer any questions. Mr. White, the project engineer, offered comments on the need to defer the matter as suggested by several persons pending the Highway Department and City Engineer working out access issues. Mr. Coleman, an adjacent property owner on the east, stated his concerns as being associated with the access to his dairy facilities and the present plan's impact. He stated that he had no objection to the site plan. Don McChesney, the City Engineer, offered comments on the traffic issue. The design and effect are all associated. He indicated that the layout of the project could be r, August 23, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A (Continued; affected by the final resolution of access. He said he believed that the questions associated with the Highway Department's concerns could be worked out within 90 days. The Planning Commission then discussed the pros and cons of deferral and the appropriate time period. A motion was made to defer the plan for a period of six weeks to permit the various parties sufficient time to resolve the concerns of all involved. The motion included a provision for additional deferrals without Commission involvement as needed to obtain resolution. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The City Engineer, Don McChesney, reported his department has had meetings with the State Highway Department. The major concern regarded spacing between what has been proposed and the existing status of University Avenue. An r� even greater concern is congestion. He explained that he was now waiting for final comments from the State. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) A motion for a thirty -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988) A motion for deferral until August 23 was made and passed so that City Engineering could have more time to review the plans. The vote was: 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant discussed the revised plan that reflected some of the changes requested by City Engineering. The off -site improvements on Asher and traffic signals had not been worked out. The Applicant agreed to work with Engineering, but felt that they were limited in what could be accomplished until the State Highway Department reached an ,. August 23, 1988 r SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A (Continued) agreement. He also agreed to submit landscaping and revised parking figures, and to submit justification if drainage improvements are not needed. It was decided that Engineering should have the final review on the off -site improvements to Asher. PLANNING COMMISSION „ACTION: (August 23, 1988) Staff's recommendation was stated as approval, subject to the City Engineer and State Highway Department's approval of access and improvements on Asher Avenue; and no commitment to a use on the out -parcel, since a site plan or plat would be required. Mr. Jerry Gardner, Assistant City Engineer, reported that the State Highway Department promised to send a letter of approval for the perimeter drive and traffic signal. Mr. Gardner stated that Engineering recommended against access from the out -parcel. He felt that this was represented as an expansion of an existing shopping center and a lot of time and trouble was experienced due to the efforts to reach an agreement based on that premise. Mr. Bill Hastings represented the proposal. He was favorable to all comments by Staff and Engineering, except the restriction of access to Asher. He felt that the out - parcel was beyond the scope of this site plan and the proposed plan was not an extension of the existing shopping center, but a new plan. Furthermore, it was felt that he could be sued if the existing drive to the west was closed, with the new signal light intersection being the only access on Asher. Some of the existing tenants had been in their perspective locations for thirty years. There was discussion on whether or not this was an extension of an existing shopping center, or whether this proposal represented a new center. Also, whether or not consideration of this proposal allowed the Commission to consider access and traffic impact from the out -parcel. Assistant City Attorney Stephen Giles determined that the Site Plan Review process did encompass consideration of off - site traffic impacts. Mr. Gardner explained that University and Asher is the busiest intersection in the entire State. His department reviewed the expansion and seized the opportunity to improve an existing bad traffic situation. August 23, 1988 A SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A (Continued). Finally, a vote was made and passed for approval, according to all recommendations made by Staff and Engineering, except the elimination of the curb cut. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. �1