pc_05 19 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SUBDIVISIONS
MAY 19, 1987
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum of 11 members were present.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present: William F. Rector, Jr.
William Ketcher
John Schlereth
Fred Perkins
Rosa Collins
Walter Riddick, Jr.
Jerilyn Nicholson
Richard Massie
Dorothy Arnett
Betty Sipes
David Jones
IV. City Attorney: Stephen Giles
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION AGENDA
MAY 19, 1987
Deferred Items:
A. (Z -4797) - Special Use Permit for Day Care
Preliminary Plats /Replats:
1. Charleston Heights Subdivision
2. Culin Addition
3. Westchester Estates, Phase V
Planned Unit Development:
4. Shackleford Place "Long- Form" PCD (Z -4824)
Site Plan
5. Rock Creek Court "Revised" Site Plan Review
Conditional Use Permits:
6. Otter Creek parkway (Z- 4384 -A)
7. Potter Street (Z -4804)
8. West 12th Street (Z -4814)
9. Catfish Park (Z- 4822 -B)
9A. (Z -4822) Rezoning from "R -2" to "I -2"
Riqht -of -Way Abandonment:
10. South Cedar Street
Street Name Change:
11. North Parkway Place Drive
Other Matters:
12. Fire Station No. 20 - Conditional Use Permit (Z -4831)
May 19, 1987
Item No. A - Z -4797
Owner: Various Owners
Applicant: Leah D. Tillman
Location: 2316 Chester Street
Request: Special Use Permit
Purpose: Day -Care, 10 Children or Less
Size: 0.16 acres
Existing Use: Residential (Zoned "R -4 ")
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -4"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The issue before the Commission is to grant a special use
permit for a day -care family home. The Zoning Ordinance's
definition of a day -care family home is:
Any facility which provides family like child
care in the care giver's own family residence
in accordance with provisions of licensing
procedures established by the State of Arkansas
and which serves no more than 10 children
including the care giver's own children. Said
facility must obtain a special use permit in
all zoning districts where day -care centers
are now allowed by right.
Also, the Planning Commission has final authority except
that appeals from the Commission's action may be filed with
the Board of Directors.
The property is a conventional residential lot with a single
structure on it. The house is somewhat in disrepair and
the problems should be corrected prior to the day -care
opening. It appears that there is adequate yard area for
the children which is important for providing a quality care
program. The other lots in the block are occupied by single
family residences, but there should be no problems created
by the proposed use because of the number of children.
May 19, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
An important element of day -care operation is having a safe
drop off point. Chester Street does not provide such a
location and also there is no driveway coming off Chester.
The lot abuts an alley along the rear property line, and the
alley is in good condition, so it can function as the drop
off and pick up area. This should minimize disruption of
traffic in the neighborhood and protect the children.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the
following conditions:
1. That only the alley be used as the drop off and
pick up point.
2. Additional screening be provided along the south
property line.
3. That the structure meet all necessary City codes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 24 -87)
Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be
deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the
May 19, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 19 -87)
Staff recommended to the Commission that the item be
withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was made to withdraw
the request without prejudice. The motion passed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Charleston Heights Subdivision
LOCATION: South end of Wesley Drive
(Deer Park Subdivision)
DEVELOPER:
Rector Phillips Morse, Inc.
P.O. Box 7300
Little Rock, AR 72217
Telephone: 664 -7807
ENGINEER:
White - Daters and Associates, Inc.
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 374 -1666
AREA: 43.04 acres NO. OF LOTS: 107 FT. NEW STREET: 6,100
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a fringe area that is rapidly
developing as single family. It is south of Deer Park
Addition and abuts land owned by Deltic Farm and Timber
on the west and south.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 43.04 acres
into 107 lots and 6,100 feet of new street. The land
will be used for single family. Several variances are
requested: (1) five percent grade at two
intersections; (2) fifteen foot setback as shown on
steep lots only; (3) optional street across major
drainage core and, (4) 480 -foot right -of -way dedication
with 24 -foot asphalt pavement and 6 -foot paved
shoulders in -lieu of 49 -foot arterial pavement.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Stormwater detention calculations and location.
2. Sketch plan for grading for roadway and utilities.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
3. Ninety degree intersections on Wood Dale, Wesley,
optional road at both intersections.
D. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the use, but has several
suggestions for plat revision. They are: (1)
delineation of drainage easements for Creek on the
plat; (2) 35 -foot building lines on Chenal Valley
Drive, since it is an arterial street; (3) joint drives
between Lots 97, 98, and 94, 95; (4) 10 -foot
prohibition zone on lots facing Chenal Valley Drive,
and the public alley at the rear of Lots 62 -65 and
57 -60.
David Hathcock has indicated that Savannah Lane and
Wood Dale Court are duplicate street names and the
street between Wesley Drive and Chenal Valley Drive
needs a name.
A variance is needed on the pipe -stem to Lots 66 and
67. Staff finds no problem with the requested variances
numbered 2 and 3; provided drainage structure is
designed for 100 -year flow (3). Engineering has no
problem with the fourth request in areas of major
terrain difficulties. Staff was not certain at time of
this writing whether this would apply throughout.
Engineering needs to discuss the limits of beginnings
of areas of 24 -foot pavement. Lot 67 appears to have a
creek and slope across the front to Chenal valley.
Sidewalks are required per ordinance.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant discussed staff comments with the Committee.
He was asked to submit a preliminary sketch so that the
street pattern of the area could be determined and a grading
plan. Staff felt that a waiver should be requested on the
length of Mobile Court and that sidewalks should be provided
since Wesley Drive, which intersected with this street was
not a through street. The applicant felt that the
cul -de -sac should be measured from Wesley, instead of Forest
Dale, so a waiver and sidewalks were not needed. He agreed
with staff's request for sidewalks on the other streets as
required by Ordinance.
Another point of disagreement involved the joint drives and
rear public access recommended by the staff. Staff
explained that the ordinance discouraged lots fronting on
arterials. The developer agreed to work out an acceptable
means of limiting drive on to Chenal Valley.
The applicant explained that he desired approval of the
optional street in case Chenal Valley does not go through.
If it goes through in two years, then this street wouldn't
be needed.
Wastewater - Additional easements required for water main
extensions.
Water - Water extension plus on -site fire protection
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. In its recommendation, staff
expressed reservations about supporting the development of
Chenal Valley as a 36' street due to the amount of
development taking place in the area. A revised plan was
submitted in response to staff's previous comments. Most of
the discussion was on the sidewalk issue and a previous
agreement with the Commission on the improvement of Chenal
Valley Road to a lesser standard that arterial. The
developer agreed to provide sidewalks on Wesley Drive, but
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
felt that there would not be a need for Chenal Valley to be
built to arterial standards which are 10 or 15 years in the
future. He also felt that it placed an undue burden on a
residential development, and that a 48' street wouldn't be
needed until property to the south is built.
The Commissioners were concerned that the City would be
responsible for the improvements at a later date, and that a
later widening could create problems with residents since
such actions are common reasons for complaints and
opposition.
Staff was asked to research the record and report back to
the Commission regarding the specifics of the actual
agreement made on the development of Chenal Valley Road. A
motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Edward A. Culin Subdivision
LOCATION: North of intersection of Nash
Lane and Sibley Hole Road
DEVELOPER
Edward A. Culin
11209 I -30
Little Rock, AR 72209
Telephone: 455 -2515
ENGINEER:
Sam Davis
5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72106
Telephone: 644 -0324
AREA: 4.18 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None
ZONING: "I -2" (Applied for)
PROPOSED USES: Sale of fresh catfish (retail food store) in
connection'wzth catfish ponds on adjoining property
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of street improvements (1) and
gravel parking (2).
A. Staff Report
This is a request to subdivide 4.18 acres into two
lots. Lot 1 will be used with adjoining property for
the sale of dressed catfish (food store) and to provide
a catfish pond for the public to catch fish that they
can purchase for consumption off the premises.
The site is flat, in the floodplain, and tree - covered.
To the west is an industrial use, the north -
interstate 30, the south - a church and single family,
and to the east, the land is vacant, commercial /single
family.
Waivers are requested for a gravel parking lot and the
required street improvements to the driveway from
Sibley Hole Road. The applicant feels that "the
project necessitates a rustic atmosphere because the
idea is to project a country "away from - it all"
atmosphere."
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
A street improvement waiver is requested because there
will be no entrance to Lot 1 from Sibley Hole Road. The
sole access will be from adjoining property off the
I -30 access road. The driveway is currently used by
Terry's Auto, which has been in this location since
before the area was annexed to the City.
B. Analysis
The applicant is asked to improve the parking lot and
drive and provide a vehicle prohibition zone on Lot 1.
The pipe -stem is in access of 200', and a 6' fence and
25 -foot buffer is required adjacent to residential
areas.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to orient access toward the interstate
.instead of Sibley Hole Road. There would also be no access
into Terry's Auto, so improvements on the entire street
would not be required until it is used for access. The
applicant also agreed to provide floodway dedication and
present plans for lighting, screening, and planting.
Wastewater - Additional easement required for extensions.
Water - On -site fire protection required. Acreage charge of
$150 per acre will apply.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Several persons from the
neighborhood were in attendance. The objections raised
related to the rezoning of the property (see No. 9 and 9a).
The applicant clarified the fact that Terry's Auto could
take access, but persons utilizing the Catfish Park could
not. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 4 noes, and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Westchester Subdivision, Phase V
LOCATION: West of Taylor Loop Road and
south of Highway 10
DEVELOPER
Ridgeley Development Corp.
10510 I -30, No. 5
Little Rock, AR 72209
Telephone: 562 -7215
ENGINEER:
Robert C. Lowe. Jr., . & Assoc.
10510 I -30, No. 5
Little Rock, AR 72209
Telephone: 562 -7215
AREA: 5.5 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 725
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single family
A. Existing Conditions
This site is in a developing area of single family
homes. Taylor Loop Creek is located to the west of the
project.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to develop 5.5 acres into 12
lots and 725' of new street. No variances are
requested.
C. EngineeringyComments
(1) Streets need to be at 90° angles at intersection.
(2) Ten -foot vehicle prohibition zone on Highway 10 -
needs to be in bill of assurance, as well as shown
on plat.
D. Analysis
Engineering has stated that this proposal involves the
rechanneling of Taylor Loop Creek. Staff asked that
sidewalks be constructed on Cantrell Road. Please
rearrange angle of south lot lines on Lot 67 and 68
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
and provide a 50 -foot building line on Cantrell.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to provide a 50' setback as required by
the Highway 10 Plan, and a 10' vehicle prohibition. He
explained that Lot 63 was a reserved tract and a part of
Lot 75 is in a previous phase of the subdivision.
It was determined that notices were not needed since the
City was the abutting owner.
Wastewater - Additional easements required.
Water - Extensions required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
J. B. Vanhook Realty, Inc.
1100 North Hughes Street
Little Rock, AR 72207
Telephone: 664 -7554
ENGINEER:
Shackleford Place "Long- Form"
PRD (Z -4824)
Southwest quadrant of
Shackleford and I -430
nWXYLIT nnVn .
C. & A. Investors, Ltd.
1275 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30367
Telephone: (404) 888 -3000
Contact: James W. Bealle
Charles Kober Associates
4514 Travis Street, Suite 350 LB7
D allas, TX 75205 -4127
Telephone: (214) 520 -3500
AREA: 30 acres N0. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 110 -2"
PROPOSED USES: Mixed Use Shopping Center
A. Develo2ment Proposal
1. To construct 30 acres as a mixed use development
containing commercial, retail, office, and hotel
uses.
B. Quantitative Data
1)
Major A . . . . . . .
. . . . . 41,600
sq.
ft.
2)
Major B . . . . . . .
. . . . . 28,000
sq.
ft.
3)
Retail C . . . .
. . . . . 67,695
sq.
ft.
4)
Cinema (D)1,900 . .
. . . . . 25,600
sq.
ft.
5)
Office E . . . . . .
. . . . . 105,500
sq.
ft.
6)
Hotel F (250 rooms) .
. . . . . 108,000
sq.
ft.
7 )
Bank G . . . . . . .
. . . . . 5,000
sq.
ft.
8)
Restaurant H . . .
. . . . . — _6,000
sq.
ft.
Total
432,390
sq.
ft.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
(9) Parking . . . . . . . . . . 1,922 spaces
- handicapped parking will be provided per Code.
C. Developmental Time -Frame
Site work will commence in the spring of 1988 with
development of the entire project taking five years.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Pay for signals at off ramp and the proposed one
into shopping center.
(2) Shackleford will be five -lane section, plus extra
decel lane at each of two intersections. Traffic
study did not indicate this.
(3) Dual lefts at intersection onto Shackleford.
100 -foot right -of -way on Shackleford required.
Additional right turn lane on I -430 on -ramp.
(4) Problem with interior lay -out. Traffic Engineer
needs to approve internal parking lay -out at
entrances.
(5) Show how interior collector ties into property to
the south.
(6) Provide public collector for frontage access road
instead of interior type collector.
(7) It appears that traffic study does not address
Master Street Plan requirements; however, its a
good starting point.
(8) Grading plan is deficient (contact Mike Batie at
Engineering). Deficiencies include:
(A) No provision for undisturbed buffer strip
adjacent to I -430 and Shackleford adjacent to
Aldersgate.
(B) Cut and fill shown will totally strip all
existing tree cover. Plan should provide for
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
terracing which retains existing tree cover
within.
(C) Not shown on plan - cut and fill by hatching,
stages of grading, top and toes of cut and
fill, erosion and sediment control, seal of
registered engineer. Please see Mike Batie.
E. Analysis
Staff has serious concerns about the proposed
development. Problems with traffic, site plan, and the
grading plan have been indicated. Of foremost concern
is the applications proposed use, which represents a
radical departure from the I -430 Land Use Plan, which
designates the area as a scenic office corridor. Staff
feels any change in this document as a major shift in
policy; and is very reluctant to support such a change
at this time.
There are several reasons for this position. As
designed, the site plan appears to encourage strip
commercial development along Shackleford with the food
establishments in their proposed locations. Staff is
very concerned about stripping out this area since it
could adversely affect Sandpiper Subdivision, create
traffic problems, and place pressure on the Aldersgate
property to the east. There are also other vacant
parcels available that are currently zoned for
commercial at Kanis and Shackleford, Markham and Kanis,
and the Colonel Glenn interchange. Furthermore, the
area has begun to develop as an office corridor as
recommended in the I -430 Land Use Plan. Examples
include the Farm Bureau and Koger Office Park, which
has bought additional land for an extension of their
current use.
Engineering has pointed out that the traffic study does
not address City requirements and was not very thorough
since it did not recognize Shackleford as a five lane
arterial and the future 36th Street interchange in the
traffic considerations.
It is felt that the site plan is overbuilt with parking
and buildings, which results in the proposed amount of
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
grading. If approved, staff suggests scaling down the
project, and leaving natural vegetation. A 50 -foot
undisturbed buffer is recommended all around the site.
F. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that a letter had been received requesting
deferral until next month's meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.:
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
DEVELOPER:
Sexton Company
9001 North Meridan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46260
Telephone: (317) 846 -4444
AREA: 31.624 acres NO.
Rock Creek Court
13500 Rock Creek Parkway
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson,
and Associates
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 375 -5331
OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "MF -18"
PROPOSED USES: Additional covered parking at existing
apartment complex.
A. Staff Report
The applicant is asking to add three areas of enclosed
parking and extra parking spaces in an apartment
project that is already built. The enclosed parking
will number 14. The applicant is asked to indicate how
many parking spaces will be in the open parking area.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that four parking spaces were
proposed in the open parking area.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Otter Creek Parkway Conditional
Use Permit (Z- 4384 -A)
LOCATION: The northwest corner of State
Highway No. 5 and Otter Creek
Parkway (13420 Otter Creek
Parkway)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Circle K Corporation /Dr. John C.
Miller
PROPOSAL
To lease and use 1,000 square feet of an existing commercial
strip center for an animal clinic enclosed (12 capacity) on
1.34 acres of land that is zoned "C -1" /Conditional Use
Permit.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
The intersection of an arterial street (Stagecoach
Road) and a collector street (Otter Creek Parkway).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This proposal is part of an existing strip commercial
center that has already received a conditional use
permit for a gas station. The site is abutted by an
industrial use to the south, an office use to the
north, and vacant land to the east and west. The
proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains three access drives (two on Otter
Creek Parkway and one on Stagecoach Road) as well as 44
paved parking spaces.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicants apparently met landscape requirements
with their initial construction.
5. Analysis
The proposal for an animal clinic enclosed is
compatible with the surrounding area. The staff has no
problems with this proposal.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes and 0 noes to approve the
application as recommended by the staff.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No . 7
NAME: Potter Street Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4808)
LOCATION: The east side of Potter Street
just north of 38th Street
(3715 Potter Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Carl Steven Woolbright
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing one story garage to a 640 square feet
dwelling unit on one lot that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Potter Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by single family uses on three
sides with a municipal park located to the west. The
garage is an existing building. The garage is only 1.3
feet off the north property line, but the house located
to the north has a substantial side yard. The proposed
use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant has proposed using the existing gravel
drive as both access and parking.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubbery to meet landscape requirements.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
5. Analysis
The existing accessory building does not meet setback
requirements (3' required in side yards, 1.3' existing
and 6' from the main structure, 2' existing). The
applicant, however, has not proposed any additions to
the nonconforming structure and the use is not
detrimental to the surrounding area. The single family
structure located to the north has a more than adequate
side yard setback. The staff does feel, however, that
the applicant should double the width of the existing
drive and pave it for a length of 301. The widening of
the drive would allow unobstructed access to both
dwelling units. Finally, the applicant must live in
one of the units on-site.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to double the
width of and pave the access drive for a length of 30'.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes and 0 noes to approve the
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: West 12th Street Conditional
Use Permit (Z -4814)
LOCATION: The northwest corner of
Appainway and West 12th Street
(2810 West 12th Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Carl Lynn Vines
PROPOSAL:
To construct an 884 square feet addition (two service bays)
to an existing 642 square feet service station building
which would allow for limited motor vehicle repair. A side
yard variance is also requested (3' 2" is requested, 15' is
required).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial street (West 12th Street) and a
residential street ( Appainway).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The Stephens School Plan calls for a commercial use on
this site and projects light industrial and industrial
uses to the north and the east. The existing land use
includes duplex to the north, duplex and commercial
located to the south, church and single family to the
east, and industrial to the west. It is obvious that
the neighborhood includes mixed uses and according to
the "plan" will be in transition to more intense uses
in the future. Given these considerations, the staff
feels that this proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The site contains three access points ( one 50' access
on Appainway and two 40' access drives on West 12th
Street). The entire property is paved and could be
used for parking.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
4. Screening and Bufffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that this proposal will not have a
negative impact on the surrounding area (see number
2). Ordinarily, a 15' side yard is required between
commercial and residentially zoned property. This
site, however, already has a building constructed 5' 4"
from the property line. The proposed addition (3' 2"
setback) will be further removed from the duplex
located to the north and also enclose an existing
outside grease rack. The location of an existing
concrete wall and the grease rack further necessitates
constrution 3' 2" from the side yard setback. The
applicant will be required to meet City Landscape
requirements and will not be allowed any outside
storage or display as per "C -3" zoning district
requirements. Finally, the applicant needs to paint
the rear of the building to match the existing
structure.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed provided the applicants agrees to:
(1) comply with City Landscape Ordinance requirements;
(2) no outside display or storage on -site; and (3) to
paint the structure to match the existing building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes and 0 noes to approve the
application as recommended by the staff.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Catfish Park Conditional Use
Permit (Z- 4822 -B)
LOCATION: Just north of the intersection
of Nash Lane and Sibley Hole
Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: Terry R. and Carolyn S. Jones,
Noel W. and Dianne Gattis, and
Edward A. Culin /Terry R. Jones
and Peggy O'Neal
PROPOSAL:
To rezone ( "I -2 "), obtain a floodplain variance, to replat,
and to obtain a conditional use permit on 12.17 + acres of
land currently zoned "R -2" and "I -2" which would allow the
removal of two existing buildings, the construction of two
catfish ponds (5 + acres and 1.74 acres), the retention of
one 2,000 square feet building which will be used for retail
fish sales and the regulation of on- premise fishing by the
public.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an interstate service road (I -30 to the
north) and a collector street (Sibley Hole road to the
south) .
2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood
This site lies within the floodplain /way of Nash Creek
and I -30 corridor. The interstate lies to the north, a
church and single family lie south of Sibley Hole Road,
vacant, commercial, and single family lie to the east,
and vacant land and industrial uses lie to the west.
The property to the east and west of this site is
already zoned "I -2." The proposed use can be
compatible provided the necessary buffers and
restrictions are observed.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains a 25'
the I -30 service road and 45
access from Sibley Hole Road
gravel access drive from
gravel parking spaces. No
is proposed.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicants are proposing a 50' green area or buffer
along Sibley Hole Road and north up to the proposed
sales building. The applicants further propose a 30'
green area or buffer along the south line and south of
the proposed sales building.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use can be compatible
under certain conditions (see number 2). The staff
feels that all the proposed buffer areas should remain
undisturbed and that no access be allowed via Sibley
Hole Road. The staff also feels that a 6' privacy
fence should be constructed along the south and east
line adjacent to the proposed sales building. Finally,
the applicant needs to provide more details about the
hours of operation and the dressing or cleaning of the
fish on -site.
6. City Engineering Comments
(1) Pave the proposed parking area; (2) construct the
proposed access drive to industrial street standards;
and (3) dedicate the necessary right -of -way on Sibley
Hole Road to meet City Collector Street Standards.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the applicant receiving approval
by the Planning Commission with regard to zoning,
replatting, and the floodplain variance, and the
applicant agreeing to (1) preclude access to Sibley
Hole Road; (2) construct a 6' privacy fence along the
south and east property line adjacent to the proposed
sales building; (3) leave the 50' and 30' buffer areas
undisturbed; (4) provide additional information with
regard to the proposed hours of operation and the
dressing or cleaning of the fish on -site; and (5)
comply with City Engineering Comments 1 -3.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations with the exception of the paving of the
access drive and parking. The staff stated that no access
should be allowed from the existing gravel road located to
the south. The staff also asked whether or not the
applicant intended to use outside lighting. The applicant
stated that they did intend to use outside lighting. The
staff had reservations about the use of outside lighting.
The applicant did not speak to the issue of the proposed
hours of operation. With regard to the dressing or cleaning
of fish, the applicant stated that the fish would be cleaned
on -site but that the remnants would be removed from the site
daily. The Water Works stated that an acreage charge of
$150 per acre would apply and that the Water Works would
need a 15' easement across this lot and adjacent to I -30 for
a future main extension.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicants were present and stated that they were
officially amending their application to a planned
commercial development from the original proposal of "I -2"
and that the small parcel that is currently zoned "I -2"
would continue to be considered as a conditional use permit
and would be valid only with the approval of the planned
commercial development by the Little Rock Board of
Directors. The staff recommended approval of the
conditional use permit provided the applicant agreed to:
(1) limit access to the site by only the I -30 service road;
(2) limit the hours of operations from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.;
(3) pave the parking area; and (4) construct a 6' privacy
fence along the east and south property lines nearest the
metal building. The applicant agreed to comply with all
staff recommendations. There were a number of objectors
present as well as three supporters of the proposal.
Mr. Crow, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kostin stated that they did not
live in the area, but that they felt the proposal would he
beneficial to the community. Mr. Dale Grady, an attorney
representing the Hassles, spoke in objection to the proposal
and delivered a petition in opposition. His opposition
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
centered around the inappropriateness of the land use, and
the fact that his client's property values would be
negatively impacted. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Dreher also spoke
in opposition to the proposal. Their arguments were
generally the same as Mr. Grady's. A lengthy discussion
then ensued. The applicant further agreed to: (1) no
alcohol sales or consumption on the premises; (2) no odor,
in that the cleaning of the fish would be accomplished
entirely inside the buildinq and the remnants taken away
each day, or refrigerated if they weren't removed from the
property; and (3) a limit of 200 pounds live weight cleaned
fish sold per customer per day. The Commission then voted
7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent to approve the conditional use
permit subject to the staff's comments numbered 1 -4, and the
applicants comments numbered 1 -3, with the contingency that
the conditional use permit is valid only by the Board of
Directors approval of the associated planned commercial
development.
May 19, 1987
Item No. 9A - Z -4822
Owner: Various Owners
Applicant: Terry Jones
Location: Sibley Hole Road (At Nash Lane)
Request: Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2"
Purpose: Catfish Fishing Pond and Sale of
Catfish
Size: 11.96 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - I -30 Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2"
South - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R -2"
East - Single Family and Industrial, Zoned "R -2"
and "I -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop the property under
consideration for a public catfish fishing facility.
In addition to the fishing pond, there will be retail
sale of catfish. To accomplish this, a rezoning change
is necessary along with a conditional use permit, a
floodplain variance and a subdivision plat. (Staff
recommended "I -2" to the applicant because of the
location and the existing zoning.) The property is
approximately 12 acres in size and is situated between
I -30 and Sibley Hole Road. The land use in the area is
mixed and includes residential, commercial and
industrial. Some of the land is still vacant and the
most recent development or land use change is a church
under construction at the southwest corner of Sibley
Hole Road and Nash Lane. There are also some new
single family units being built to the east, south of
Sibley Hole Road. Based on the existing development
pattern, it appears that Sibley Hole Road is a line
between residential and nonresidential uses.
2. The site is vacant and wooded with a large portion of
it located in the Nash Creek Floodway.
3. Sibley Hole Road is classified as a collector so
dedication of additional right -of -way will be required.
May 19, 1987
Item No. 9A - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. Staff has received several calls and letters in
opposition to the proposed rezoning. There is no
documented history on the site.
7. This area is part of the Otter Creek District Plan
which does not identify the location for industrial
uses. After reviewing the request, staff feels that an
"I -2" rezoning is appropriate and suggest that a
planned amendment should be initiated if the
reclassification is granted. The Otter Creek District
Plan shows the area for mixed residential and staff
believes that is somewhat unrealistic, especially for
the land between I -30 and Sibley Hole Road. North of
Sibley Hole Road the land use is more fragmented and
the area has been impacted by the existing "I -2"
zoning. Maintaining the residential character south of
Sibley Hole Road is important and must be taken into
consideration when addressing a rezoning change in the
neighborhood. If the plan amendment is recommended as
mentioned by the staff, it should only be for the area
north of Sibley Hole Road and include some type of open
space buffer on the north side of Sibley Hole Road.
This should help protect the neighborhood to the south
and minimize any potential impacts from future
rezonings. With this particular request, staff
recommends the south 50 feet be rezoned to "OS." The
proposed site plan shows the south 50 feet as a green
area so the "OS" zoning is compatible with that. Also,
the "OS" will restrict access to Sibley Hole Road and
direct it all to the I -30 frontage road which should
help the residential neighborhood. This 50 foot "OS"
strip is in addition to the floodway area which also
needs to be rezoned "OS" and dedicated to the City.
The proposed use will still need other approvals to
permit it even if this rezoning request is granted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of "I -2" except for the designated
floodway and a 50 -foot strip adjacent to Sibley Hole Road.
The recommended rezoning for those areas is "OS" open space.
May 19, 1987
Item No. 9A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5 -5 -87)
The applicant, Terry Jones, was present and represented by
Peggy O'Neal, an attorney. Donald Crowe, the proposed
developer, was also present. There were 12 to 15 objectors
in attendance. Ms. O'Neal spoke and described the proposal
which she said was very similar to an existing fishing pond
development in Dallas. She went on to say that in addition
to the fishing ponds, retail sale of catfish was also being
planned for the site. This would involve allowing the
customer to select a fish from a tank, and then it would be
cleaned if the person so desired. Ms. O'Neal sald that
there would be no processing plant on the site and all the
necessary measures would be taken to eliminate odors. She
then described a meeting that was held with several of the
residents in the neighborhood and indicated that the owners
had no objections to the "OS" as recommended by the staff.
Terry Jones then described the site work which he said
involved just clearing out underbrush. Mike Batie of the
Engineering Office said that it was reported to him that the
land been totally cleared. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff
then addressed the plan issue and suggested that the "I -2"
request be delayed because there were too many problems or
uncertainities associated with the rezoning. There was a
long discussion about the plan and other items. Mrs. James
Cottey said that she was opposed to the rezoning but had no
objections to a deferral. Sue Cooper spoke in opposition to
the proposed use and deferring the rezoning request. She
said that the neighborhood was family oriented and the
catfish operation would cause too many problems. She also
reminded the Commission of the letters and petitions in
opposition to the rezoning. Dale Grady, an attorney, spoke
and said he was represnting the Hassells, adjacent property
owners. Mr. Grady described the Sibley Hole Road
neighborhood and said that the Hassells were opposed to the
rezoning request. He asked that the Planning Commission
maintain the residential character of the area by not
approving the proposed commercial development. Mr. Grady
also said that the site work had been started about two
weeks ago. Ray Parker then asked why the request was not
being heard through one application. There was some
discussion concerning this matter. Ms. O'Neal then said
that the owners were willing to convert to a PUD and defer
the issue. Lem Dreher, a Sibley Hole Road resident,
requested the Commission to vote on the "I -2" rezoning as
filed. There were additional comments made by the various
parties. A motion was then offered to defer the rezoning
request to the May 19, 1987, meeting. The motion was
approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. A
second motion was made to waive the legal ad requirement and
the filing fee for the PUD. The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. (The applicant agreed to
renotifying the property owners and posting the sign for a
PUD.)
May 19, 1987
Item No. 9A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 19 -87)
The applicant was represented by Attorney Peggy O'Neal.
There were a number of objectors in attendance. Ms. O'Neal
addressed the Commission and amended the "I -2" rezoning
request to "PCD" and "OS" Open Space for the floodway with a
conditional use permit for the one acre tract to the east.
(See the minute record for Z- 4822 -B, May 19, 1987, for
complete record and the vote.)
Several persons spoke in favor of the proposal, Mr. Tommy
Taylor, owner of tractor sales company that abuts this
property on the west, felt that the proposal would improve
the area if done properly, especially since the existing
state of the site was described as being "trashy." Mr. Tim
Costin thought that this was a good idea for elderly persons
and tourists. Mr. Crow was also favorable to the community.
Mr. Dale Grady, an Attorney for the Hassle family, offered
objections and submitted a petition. He first objected to
the notice and then asked that the Commission not allow the
applicants to devastate the neighborhood by negatively
impacting property values. He felt that the tactics of the
Developer bordered on the unethical, since he was risking
thousands of dollars and the life savings of the
out -of -state investors if this was not approved and
devastating a neighborhood if it was approved. It was
pointed out that the persons speaking in favor of the
proposed project were not owners of single family homes in
the area.
Mrs. Susie Cooper of 313 Sibley Hole Road felt that the
project would reduce property values in a "working-class,
family oriented" community, whose greatest asset is their
home. She felt that it was unfair for business speculators
from the outside to consolidate with businesses in the area
in favor of this project. Ms. Dreher of 219 Sibley Hole
Road stated similar objections.
Attorney O'Neal addressed questions from the Commission and
concerns of the residents. She stated that if the planned
method of waste removal did not work, a refrigerator would
be used to store waste and it may not be hauled off as
frequently. She explained that she did send notices to
property owners.
May 19, 1987
Item No. 9A - Continued
After discussion by the Commission, a motion was made for
approval, subject to: (1) hours of operation 6 a.m. to
10 p.m., (2) shielded lighting no more than 2' in height,
(3) replanting of 50' buffer or a fence according to staff
specifications, (4) paving of drive and parking to
commercial standards with no curb and gutter - 24' width,
(5) dedication of floodway, (6) rezoning of floodway to
"OS", (7) the sale of no more than 200 pounds of fish a day,
(8) all cleaning of fish inside metal building with daily
disposal or refrigerated method as requested by Ms. O'Neal,
(9) no alcoholic beverages, (10) no Sibley Hole access, (11)
fish moved live, (12) shading structures if necessary (will
show on revised site plan), and (13) drain lakes if
applicant goes out of business. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 4 noes, and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. ,10 - Right-of-Way Abandonment
NAME: South Cedar Street
LOCATION: Running south off West 31st
Street to the north
right -of -way line of the
Missouri Pacific Railroad
spur
OWNER /APPLICANT: Betty Prousnitzer and
Hastings Realty Company
By: Samuel Davis
REQUEST; To abandon this 40' x 290' ±
platted street for purposes
of combining with the
adjacent lots.
STAFF REVIEW
1. Public Need for this Riqht-of-Way
None evident from our review.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no issues associated with this request.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None required.
4. Characteristics of Riqht -of -Way Terrain
This 40' right -of -way contains a narrow foot path along
the rear of an industrial building and an open drainage
ditch draining to the south.
5. Development Potential
None except as yard space for the adjoining lots or as
a drainaqe way.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
6. Neiqhborhood Land Use and Effect
On the north, the land is vacant and partially
developed as industrial. On the east lies a vacant
tract. On the south is vacant land, and on the west is
the petitioner's industrial use. This abandonment
should have no adverse effect on adjacent land uses or
vacant properties.
7. Neiqhborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The retention of this right -of -way as an easement is
required by utilities in their response. In addition,
the Fire Department has taken a firm position against
the abandonment of this right-of-way. The petitioner
has been instructed to follow up on the requirements of
the Fire Department in order to gain abandonment.
9. Reversionary Riqhts
One -half of the alley to each of the two abutting
owners.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this right -of -way as a public street
will return to the private sector a land area that will
be productive for the tax base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff_ recommendation in this instance would be
approval of the petition subject to retention of the
right -of -way as utility and /or drainage easement. However,
the Fire Department position suggests to us that it would be
appropriate to defer action on this matter until such time
as the Fire Department determines a new position on the
matter or their position becomes absolute. In the event of
the latter, the Planning Department would suggest denial of
the petition.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 19 -87)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation on the
abandonment of this right -of -way and included comments from
the Little Rock Fire Department as to their hesitancy to
support the abandonment. The petitioner, Mr. Sam Davis,
representing the owners was in attendance. A discussion of
the matter followed. The Commission offered a motion to
defer the matter until June 30 in order to resolve the issue
with the Little Rock Fire Department. The petitioner,
Mr. Davis, offered that the Commission could instead approve
the abandonment and attach a requirement for a 20 -foot Fire
Department easement over the former street right -of -way.
This would be discussed and resolved with the Fire
Department prior to forwarding the Board of Directors for
ordinance. The Commission briefly discussed the second
option. A motion was then made to recommend approval to the
City Board of the abandonment subject to the retention of
the Fire Department easement, the matter to be forwarded to
the City Board after agreement by the Fire Department. The
vote on the motion: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Street Name Change Request
NAME: North Parkway Place Drive
APPLICANT: Joseph W. Gelzine representing
property owners and the Bailey
Corporation, developer
LOCATION:_ The existing collector street
lying between the Rock Creek
Parkway on the south and
St. Charles Boulevard on the
north
REQUEST: To change the name to Royal
Way from the current Royal Way
segment to the Parkway so as to
eliminate the current three
name relationship on this
alignment and establish two
dissimilar names.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This request was filed at the urging of the Bailey
Corporation and several property owners. During 1986, a
phase of the Bailey Corporation's plat of St. Charles and
St. Thomas was recorded with an entry for a street name that
had not been approved by the Planning Commission. This
occurred through an oversight of Planning staff when
reviewing the subdivision final plat. No mention was made
of the street name change when submitting the plat for our
review. These actions created a second street name on a
pavement alignment that is continuous for over a mile. The
break in names occurs at St. Charles intersection in a curve
where confusion exists as to where one street name ends and
the other begins. This can and often does cause conflict
for emergency services when street names are improperly
applied. In this instance, there will be houses side by
side with consecutive numbers in the 800 block north but
with different street names. The several points of concern
which we feel should be discussed by the Planning Commission
are: (1) discontinuity of street name on an important
collector street serving several neighborhoods, (2) direct
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
conflict of street name with a street existing one mile more
or less east of the Parkway Place Drive area. If the
segment of Royal Way now in place had been requested for
name change in the usual fashion, the various departments
and agencies probably would have recommended against such a
change utilizing the points stated above as basis. Since
the 1960's, the various City departments and agencies have
made a coordinated effort to avoid name conflicts and
applying several names on a continuous street alignment. If
we are to maintain that effort, it appears that a new name
for all of the North Parkway Place Drive is in order and the
elimination of Royal Way altogether. This is the
appropriate time to accomplish such a task inasmuch as the
several owners have indicated their willingness to accept a
name change. At this time, there are approximately eight
houses occupied and no more than two under construction.
There are probably nine of these houses with working street
addresses at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff will not offer a specific recommendation except to
encourage the Planning Commission to maintain past policy
and procedure relative to assignment of street names.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 19 -87)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation and history on
this proposal. The principal problem identified by the
staff was the potential for the creation of three street
names on a single street center line alignment. This would
be caused by the retention of one block of North Parkway
Place between West Markham and the Parkway. Mr. Joe White
was present representing St. Charles developers. He
offered comments in support of the request as well as
introducing a new street name which would eliminate the
conflict potential with an existing street. The street name
offered was Loyola Drive. The street name to be applied
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
from the Parkway north to the terminus of the current Royal
Way. Henk Koornstra of the Traffic Engineer's Office
offered comments on the proposed street name change to the
effect that the third name between Markham and the Parkway
has a separate street numbering system. He suggested time
to review this proposal in light of the new name and the
conflict with the current streets. The Commission accepted
this suggestion. A motion was made to defer the petition
until June 30, 1987, at which time staff would report on a
study on the street numbering system and resolution of the
problem.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Fire Station No. 20 Conditional
Use Permit (Z -4831)
LOCATION: The south side of Oak Meadow
Drive just southeast of Parkside
Drive (300 Oak Meadow Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: The City of Little Rock /Wendell
Jones
PROPOSAL
To construct a 6,287 + square feet one story fire station
(normal complement four fire persons) on .874 acres of land
that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Oak Meadow Drive).
2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood
The land surrounding this site is vacant on three sides
with neighborhood recreational facilities (two tennis
courts and a swimming pool) and single family located
to the south. The proposed structure sits on almost
one acre of land and will be oriented away from the
single family area towards what will be future office
uses. The propsoed use is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains two access drives on Oak Meadow
Drive and 13 paved parking spaces.
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
shrubs and will meet existing landscape requirements.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed fire station will be
compatible with the surrounding area. The staff has no
problems with this proposal.
6. City Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The representative from the
Wastewater Utility stated that the proposed building was
located over an existing sewer main and that the main should
be relocated and all corresponding easements be provided.
The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted 11 ayes and 0 noes to approve the
application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the
Subdivision Committee, and agreed to by the applicant.
DATE� /z' ff�
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING ·SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
W.Riddick, III---
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
W.Rector
W.!<etcher
D.Arnett
O. J. Jones
R.Collins
F.Perkins
,4
,/ ✓
✓
,/
/
/
V
,/ I
✓
/
I � / •
/ ✓
/ •
/ ✓
✓ y"'
✓v
/ ✓
/ ✓
✓ , .
� •
,/ ✓
3 � , h 1 v ,/ V' ,/ v
✓ ✓ . ./ ✓ ✓
/ ✓ ✓ ✓ /
✓./ ✓✓ ✓
✓ ✓✓ ,/ ✓
✓ ✓✓ ✓ �
/ ✓ ✓ ,/ /
✓,/ ✓✓ y
✓✓ ✓✓ /
,/ ,,/ ,,/ ✓ ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓AYE � NAYE A ADS ENT �ABSTAIN
I( 9 I� II /,fl., v • ✓ / i/
I✓ ✓ / ,,r ,/
_/ • ✓ / /
,/ ✓ / ,/ /
/ �/ ,/ ,/ ✓
✓ ✓/ ✓ ,/
✓v ✓ ,/ /
✓✓ / / ./
,/ • / v /
,/ • / ✓ /
/ ✓ ✓ v ✓
.,.
.-..
q'II q5 I I •
t/ � •v
� ✓
✓ , .,..,
✓ ✓
V ',/
✓,/.-••••
✓
May 19, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Date Secretary
Chairman