HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4066-B Staff AnalysisU
August 11, 1987 ;
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
- File No. 4066-B
N Al- F
LOC:
M. Mitchell - Short Form
Planned Commercial District
SE corner of west Markham
Street at Alamo Street
(11,601 West Markham
ENGINEER:
DEVELOPER: Ross McCain Suite 1015
300 Spring Bldg-,
Maury Mitchell #400 AR
212 Center St. Little Rock,
Little Rock, AR
374-2231 1 FT.
NEW STREET: 0
.473 acres N0. OF LOTS:
�C- l
AREA: sales per 1isting
11 PROPOSED USE. Retail Laundry and
zONING. C-1 L
Dry Cleaning
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None.
A. pr�osal llC-1" Commercial s
building constructed
in that
The existing cleaning establishment only
a dry �� This use is the
will be permittin the °C -l.
now prohibited ling a PUD.
purpose for
Comments With
B. Engineerin especially
roblems structure
circt on the rear of this that a
There
are
drive through °n staff agree
respect ineer and planning given the
The Traffic dropoff is inappropriate
drive through
design -
Utility
Comment
C. report the issue okay
AP&L, and Bell Telephone
Arkla, as Submitted.
for easements
August 11, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
y D. Analis
i
This is a very simple issue requiring little comment
except to say that the use proposed apparently will not
1 offend the neighbors. It is our understanding that the
chemicals used in dry cleaning will not be offensive.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Planned Commercial District as
requested except for the possiblity of a drive through.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87)
A brief discussion of this proposal centered upon whether or
not it was appropriate to introduce a drive-thru window for
customers on the rear of this building. The Traffic
Engineer's Office indicated that it opposed such a proposal
with the design constraints now in place. Mr. Koornstra of
the Traffic Engineering Office will look at the
modifications which may be needed if the Planning Commission
determines a drive-thru is appropriate. There were no other
issues of consequence attached to this proposal. The Water
Works indicated they had no comment on the application.
Wastewater indicated they did not have comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed
on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made
for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements
set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position.