Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0169 Staff Analysisi it May 12, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Geyer_ Springs Shopping.Center, Lot 5R Preliminary LOCATION: APPLICANT: DEVELOPER: Wal-Mart/Weingartens/ Sidney Thom A. EXISTING CONDITIONS tic y Northeast Corner of Baseline Road at Geyer Springs Tom Buford 400 Gaines Street Little Rock, AR ENGINEER: William F. Williams 210 Victory Little Rock, AR This site is located outside of the Little Rock City limits near the corner of Geyer Springs and Baseline Road. The area is mainly commercial with single family developments immediately to the north and east. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a plan by Weingartens to expand upon an existing building, which currently houses Wal-Mart. What this has resulted in is the development of a lot on an existing preliminary plat that was to be served by the 50' preliminary platted street north of the property. The applicant is planning to construct a 40' access easement through an area for parking, which would also serve as access for the abutting property. There will be a 5' setback on the east side of the property because they do not want to build on this property. 1. Conformance to the Ordinance This plan does not conform to the current Ordinance because it was constructed in 1969 according to what was appropriate at that time. Areas of noncompliance are right-of-way improvements on Geyer Springs and Baseline and setbacks. 1 f' May 12, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued 2. Legal Considerations None. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS None. D. ANALYSIS Staff_ is basically in agreement with the plan as presented. No adverse effects are expected from the areas of noncompliance, simply because most are already in place, and no purpose will be served by requiring revisions. The 5' setback on the proposed addition is not an issue because it is in the County. Staff is in agreement with the planned 40' access easement that would also serve what is almost a landlocked parcel to the north. However, staff strongly feels that in conjunction with the platting of a development of this nature right outside of the City limits, annexation is 40 essential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the applicant's commitment to annexation. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The applicant agreed to comply with the Staff 's annexation suggestion. The Committee voted in favor of approval, subject to annexation. The vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The applicant, Mr. Tom Buford, was in attendance. There were no objectors. Mr. Buford reported that two problems had evolved in respect to his application. One involved the inability to obtain the required signature of a property owner on Elrod Drive because of her belief that the Staff suggested 40' access easement would generate an undesirable amount of traffic. The other involved a refusal by Weingarten's to annex. Staff withdrew the request for a 40' access easement. After a request by the Commission, the applicant agreed to annex to whatever extent possible. A motion was made and passed subject to this agreement. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.