pc_01 31 1984LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 31, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members present: John Schlereth
David Jones
Richard Massie
Betty Sipes
Ada Boles
William Ketcher
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rectors
James Summerlin
Dorothy Arnett
John Clayton (after 1:00 p.m.)
Members absent: None
City Attorney: Jim Sloan
January 31, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - File No. 120 -A
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Wally Green
AREA: 1.06 acres
Amber Oaks Planned Residential
District Short Form
West Side of Monroe Street at
"B" Street
ENGINEER:
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR
NO. OF LOTS: 1
ZONING: "R -2" Single Family
FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Request change to "PRD" Condominiums
12 units at 12 per acre
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
The 1.06 acres in this request are at present developed
as a five lot single family subdivision with a
cul -de -sac serving the lots off Monroe Street. Lots
are buildable as is for single family. The access to
this property at "B" Street is not the best, but the
only available and should not present serious problems
for the density proposed. The lot slopes down grade to
the north and west about 25' to a creek running across
the northwest corner. This creek drains a large area
into Coleman Creek. The adjacent neighborhood is all
zoned Single Family with 16 residences backing onto
this site. All utilities and public services are
available.
B. Development Proposal
1. To reclassify the site "PRD" for construction of
12 condominiums.
2. To develop the units in a Williamsburg
architecture.
January 31, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
C.
D.
3. Provide 20,168 square feet of living space in four
duplexes and one four unit building.
4. Provide 24 off - street parking spaces.
5. Provide 6 -foot opaque perimeter fence.
6. The site will be landscaped to City Ordinance
requirements.
7. Closure of the West 165 feet of the access street.
8. The project is proposed for construction beginning
March 1984 for Phase I which contains the three
buildings at the west end of the site. The
remaining units constructed later in Phase II.
Legal Considerations
None evidenced at this writing.
Engineering Considerations
Entrance street is closed. Request that public access
easement be established.
E. Analysis
The project proposed is somewhat similar to the
previous proposal on this site titled Avance Square.
That project was unsuccessful at all levels of review
except the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission approved the plan by a six vote majority.
Both the Subdivision Committee and staff recommended
approval of that plan with certain modifications. The
Board of Directors review resulted in denial on
June 17, 1980. That plan as proposed offered two town
house structures with six units east, four units
east /west with a total of 18 parking spaces. The plan
presented here is, in our estimation, an improvement
over the concept of Avance Square and should reduce
many of the objections offered prior. However, there
are several points in addition to the Engineer comment
we would like to offer.
(1) All rear yard area should be thoroughly
landscaped.
(2) The four unit building should be reduced to
thereby providing a total of 10 units on the site.
(3) All landscaping or development in the street
should be reviewed for franchise if retained as
public thoroughfare.
January 31, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(4) All drainage work effected by this project be
reviewed by the City Engineer
(5) Upon entering final plan and plat stage, provide
all details of elevations sectioned through the
site and landscape plans.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the comments made in the analysis.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
application. The applicant stated his feelings that this
project was an improvement over the previous one since it
involved some detached structures. He was advised to
prepare elevations and typicals for presentation at the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were approximately 17
persons present in opposition. Mr. George Wimberly,
spokesperson for the group, submitted a petition with 56
signatures opposing the development. The opposers claimed
that the proposal was too dense, did not include adequate
setbacks and buffering, was detrimental to the single family
neighborhood and was suspect since a court order pertaining
to the previous proposal described the property as
inadequate for PUD development. The Commission's general
reaction was that the project was too dense and that staff
should request a legal opinion from the City Attorney that
would determine if there are any restrictions against
considering this proposal, due to the previous court order.
A motion was made and passed to defer the item until
January 31 based on obtaining the legal opinion. The motion
passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 31 -84)
The applicant and his engineer were present. Persons from
the neighborhood were in attendance. Staff reported that a
revised plan had been submitted which reduced the units from
12 to 8, and that the City Attorney's Office had legally
interpreted that there were no restrictions prior to
consideration of this proposal: (1) since it constituted a
separate application than that previously proposed, and (2)
if the Zoning Ordinance is amended to "effectuate the
interpretation," that there is no minimum size for a short
form PUD.
January 31, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. He proposed
five amendments to the plan: (1) no opaque fence, (2) no
right -of -way abandonment, (3) the provision of buildable
areas instead of floor plans, (4) name change to Monroe
Manor and (5) no redesign of existing lot configuration.
Since the result was a lot with no structure on it, the
Commission raised questions about #5. Concerns expressed
involved the possibility of the applicant selling or
pursuing some other type of development on the property at a
later date. Staff pointed out that the land would still be
zoned PUD and any further attempt at development would
necessitate Planning Commission review. Still, the general
tone of the Commissioners was apprehensive.
Spokespersons from the neighborhood included:
(1) Mr. George Wimberly, (2) Mr. Gary Wimberly and
(3) Mr. Carl Enhauser, who represented his parents that
reside at 225 North Monroe. All speakers recognized that
this plan represented a sincere and genuine effort on the
part of the developer to reach a compromise with the
neighborhood, and that the PUD process was the appropriate
vehicle for developing this site. Mr. Gary Wimberly,
however, still felt that the plan was too dense, not
compatible with the area and lacking in proper setbacks. He
submitted an alternate proposal which, in his words,
"lessened the impact on the neighborhood" by providing a
25 -foot rear yard setback on the south. The Commission felt
that a 25 -foot rear yard setback was not necessary since the
area in question could be viewed as a side yard.
Mr. Enhauser modified his previous opposing stand to accept
the proposal, but expressed his preference for six units
(due to increased traffic) rather than the eight proposed.
He questioned plans for an unused portion'of right -of -way
adjacent to his parents' home. He was informed that the
right -of -way would remain public, leaving maintenance to the
City.
Finally, a motion was made and passed for approval of the
plan and the first four amendments, with instructions that
Lots 1, 2 and 3 be combined into one lot. The vote:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z- 2429 -A
Owner: Belmont Shopping Center, Inc.
Applicant: A.B. Speights
Location: 5824 Geyer Springs Road
Request: Rezone from "I -2" Light Industrial
to "C -3" General Commercial
Purpose: Commercial and Retail
Size: 3.83 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Single Family and Commercial,
Zoned "C -3" and "I -2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Commercial, Zoned "I -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop a small scale commercial
center at this location. The project will be done in
phases with the first phase being the construction of
an ice skating rink and secondary phases will include
various retail facilities. The site appears to be
suited for this type of activity and should create
minimal impacts on the surrounding area. The large
residential area to the east is separated from the
property by Geyer Springs Road and the west side of
Geyer Springs is primarily nonresidential. The western
boundary of the property is adjacent to the commercial
strip associated with University Avenue.
2. The site is vacant and flat. There are no unique
physical characteristics associated with this location.
3. Geyer Springs Road is classified as minor arterial on
the Master Street Plan. The required right -of -way is
80 feet so dedication of additional right -of -way will
be necessary. The existing right -of -way is 60 feet.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
5. There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6. The property was rezoned to "I -2" Light Industrial in
1973. The proposed use at that time was a warehouse.
There is no indication that the neighborhood opposed
the 1973 request.
7. Staff is in support of the rezoning in the proposed
project. Commercial development at this location is
more desirable than industrial because it should
provide needed retail services for the residents of the
area and be more compatible with the residential use.
In the future, the commercial zoning should be
restricted to the west side of Geyer Springs in this
general area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After
a brief discussion by the Commission, a motion was made to
recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion
passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z- 3025 -A
Owner: Jimmy D. and Elza McClanahan
Applicant: Same
Location: Mabelvale Pike at West 65th
(Blount Road)
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "C -4" Open Display
Purpose: Make Present Use Conform
Retail Sales
Size: 16,500 square feet +
Existing Use: Retail Sales - Motorcycles
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The existing use is a nonconforming motorcycle sales
operation. The proposal is to make the present use
conform. The property has been cited for a zoning
violation, and this request is an attempt to resolve
this issue.
2. The site is flat with three structures on it. There
are no other unique physical characteristics found on
this property.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request. Mabelvale
Pike is classified as a collector and the existing
right -of -way is adequate. West 65th Street has been
constructed to proper standards to a point just west of
this property.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. The only legal issue associated with this application
is the zoning violation.
6. In 1976 an attempt was made to rezone the property to
"C -3" (F) Commercial. The request was opposed by the
neighborhood. At that time, the existing use was
nonconforming, and the proposed use was to be a
January 31, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
convenience food store. The request was denied by both
the Planning Commission and on appeal, the Board of
Directors.
7. The proposed rezoning is in conflict with the adopted
Suburban Development Plan which recommends that
commercial land uses be restricted to the east side of
Mabelvale Pike as part of the University Avenue
commercial corridor. Mabelvale Pike should continue to
be the extent of commercial use west of University
Avenue. This rezoning, if approved, could create the
only commercially zoned piece of property on the west
side of Mabelvale Pike and could lead to the striping
out of Mabelvale Pike. Currently, there are no other
nonresidential uses, nonconforming or otherwise, on the
west side.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request..
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicants were present. Alston Jennings, Attorney,
spoke in support of the request. Mr. Jennings pointed out
that he was not representing the McClanahans, but was
speaking as a friend. He gave the Commission some
background and history on the McClanahan's situation.
Rick Wilson, a property owner, voiced his opposition to the
request. He was concerned with the possible noise
associated with the motorcycle dealership. The Commission
discussed the case at length. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for
lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes and
0 absent. The application was denied.
January 31, 1984
- Vacant,
Item No. 3 - Z- 3269 -A
"MF -18"
Owner:
Napa Valley Apartments
Applicant:
Joe D. White
Location:
Napa Valley at Mara Lynn
Request:
Rezone from "MF -18"
West
to "OS" Open Space
Purpose:
Open Space
Size:
.5 acres +
Existing Use:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND
ZONING:
North
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -18"
South
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -12"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -18"
West
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -18"
nr.auMTMr_ rnN7CTnFDHTTr%W70
.
1. This request is being filed because of a requirement of
the plat, Napa Valley Addition. The proposal is to
maintain the tract as open space, and there are no
outstanding issues associated with the rezoning.
2. The site is vacant and wooded.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with the application.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. This parcel is Tract A of the Napa Valley Addition Plat
which was approved in 1983.
7. The staff recommended that the tract be down zoned to
"OS" as part of the plat approval and supports this
rezoning.
OrPRVV nV0nAAUVX71- %AMTr%X7.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission discussed the
case briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of
the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z- 3369 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Point West - Joint Venture
Same
Kanis Road west of Bowman Road
Rezone from "0-3" and "MF -24"
to "C -3"
Commercial - Small Retail Shops
4.44 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USE
AND ZONING:
North
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -18"
South
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -24"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned
"R -2"
West
- Vacant,
Zoned
"MF -24"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone approximately 4.5 acres to
"C -3" for small commercial shops. The three tracts
involved are part of the Point West Second Addition.
The proposed rezoning, if approved, would create a
commercial strip along Kanis Road for a distance of
approximately 1200 feet. The location does not appear
to be appropriate for intense commercial use. It is
more suitable for multifamily or office development.
If the immediate area is built out and demands are
created for commercial services, those needs should be
met by establishing a quality neighborhood commercial
center at the intersection of Bowman and Kanis Roads.
There is some commercial development currently at that
intersection.
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The site slopes
from north to south with the Kanis Road frontage being
the high point.
3. Kanis Road is classified as minor arterial which
requires 80 feet of right -of -way. The plat for Point
West Second Addition will provide the needed
right -of -way.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
5. There appears to be no legal issues associated with
this request.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on this
site. The previous rezoning action on these parcels
occurred in 1979. At that time, the request was for a
total of 23.8 acres for various classifications. The
rezoning changes were granted, including the "C -3"
tract east of the proposed zoning on the north side of
Kanis.
7. The request is not supported by the adopted Suburban
Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that
commercial uses should be concentrated at the
intersection of Bowman and Kanis with the existing
"C -3" parcel being the extent of commercial zoning west
of that intersection. That amount of land should meet
the demands for any needed commercial services for a
number of years. A commercial strip would be
established if this request is approved and that would
produce an undesirable land use pattern for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Dick Giddings of the
Danny Thomas Company. Forest Marlar, Engineer, was also
present. Mr. Giddings described the existing single family
development in the area and the future plans for residential
use which will create a need for commercial services in the
immediate vicinity. The population will be there to support
commercial activities at the location in question according
to Mr. Giddings. The Commission discussed the case at
length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent. The Planning Commission
supported the request because of improvements in the area,
approximately 84 acres of existing and proposed residential
development, and the request is reasonable because adjoining
properties to the east are identified for commercial use on
the Suburban Development Plan which is just a guide.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z -4137
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Helen McDonald
Same
Geyer Springs at Judy Lane -
Northwest Corner
Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "C -I" Neighborhood Commercial
Beauty Shop
8,900 square feet +
Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to permit the expansion of a
nonconforming use in an "R -2" district. Currently, the
property is occupied by single family residence with a
portion of the structure being utilized for a beauty
shop. The applicant would like to expand the beauty
shop operation, but because of its nonconformity
status, the property must first be rezoned to the
appropriate classification. The beauty shop must have
commercial zoning if more than one chair will be in
operation. This application is the result of the
Zoning Enforcement Office determining that the proposed
expansion cannot first occur without the proper zoning.
2. The site is a typical residential lot with one single
family structure on it. One unique feature of the lot
is that it has a curved driveway which takes access
both Geyer Springs and Judy Lane.
3. Additional dedication of right -of -way on Geyer Springs
Road will be necessary because it is classified as
principal arterial which requires a minimum of a
100 -foot right -of -way. The existing right -of -way is
deficient.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. The request appears to be spot zoning in nature. The
immediate vicinity is zoned "R -2" except for a "C -2"
tract at the intersection of Geyer Springs and
Mabelvale Cutoff, approximately 1 1/2 blocks to the
south.
6. There have been some neighborhood complaints about the
existing beauty shop. The property was part of a large
annexation that occurred in 1981. The beauty shop was
in operation at the time the property was annexed
according to the applicant. Some of the neighbors have
stated otherwise and this disagreement is becoming a
major issue.
7. Staff views the request as spot zoning and as
inappropriate for the area. The lot is part of a well
established single family area with good housing. The
"C -1" district does permit other uses which may have a
negative impact on the stable single family area. A
spot zoning, such as this one, may cause disruption of
a good neighborhood. The request is also in conflict
with the Suburban Development Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Helen McDonald, was present. Mrs. McDonald
requested for a deferral because her attorney had not had
proper time to prepare for the hearing. The request was not
granted. Mrs. McDonald then spoke in support of her
request. There were 13 persons in attendance objecting to
the application. Mr. C.L. Griff and Mr. Robert Burns spoke
for the residents present and the entire neighborhood. A
petition with 213 signatures opposing the request was
presented to the Commission. Ken Scott of the City's Zoning
Enforcement Office gave the Commission a history of the
various issues and violations associated with the
application. The case was discussed at length by the
Commission. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
request as filed. The motion failed for lack of an
affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent.
The application was denied.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z -4147
Owner: L.D. Stone Company
Applicant: William C. Hamilton
Location: 11,127 New Benton Highway
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "C -4" Open Display
Purpose: Retail Building Material Sales
Size: 2.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Interstate, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Commercial, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop an open building material
sales lot. The site is part of the I -30 strip which
has a number of different commercial uses all oriented
toward the interstate. This location is suitable for
"C -4" zoning and use.
2. The site is vacant and flat. Some dirt work and fill
has already taken place on the property.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with the request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The property was part of a large annexation that
occurred in 1979. The property was annexed to the City
as "R -2." Some properties in the immediate area have
already been rezoned to the appropriate
classifications.
7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies this area for
commercial development. Staff supports the proposed
use for the site and views the request as being
compatible with the surrounding area.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, William C. Hamilton, was present. The staff
recommended that the application be amended to only rezone
the land that is outside the floodway. This would exclude
approximately the southern one - fourth of the property.
Mr. Hamilton questioned whether the floodway could be used
for storage of the building materials. Mike Batie of the
City's Engineering Division addressed the floodway issues
and stated that the area in the floodway could not be used
for storage. The applicant agreed to the amended request.
The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was
made to recommend approval of the amended application zoning
only the land out of the floodway. The motion passed by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 7 - Z -4149
Owner: Steve B. Lehoczky
Applicant: Same
Location: West 36th Street at Malloy St.
Northwest Corner
Request: Rezone from "R -3" Single Family
to "I -2" Light Industrial
Purpose: Auto Repair Garage - Expansion
of a Nonconforming Use
Size: 13,110 square feet +
Existing Use: Auto Repair Garage
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The property is occupied by an auto repair garage which
is a nonconforming use. The proposal is to expand the
existing building which requires proper zoning;
expansion of a nonconforming use is not permitted. A
portion of the building was destroyed when a tornado
went through the area in December 1982. The property
has had a number of different uses on it and has been
nonconforming for years.
2. The site is flat and occupied by a single building. A
portion of the property is used for storage of
vehicles.
3. West 36th Street is classified as a minor arterial on
the Master Street Plan so dedication will be required
because the existing right -of -way is only 40 feet. The
minor arterial requires 80 feet of right -of -way.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
5. The request appears to be spot zoning. There is no
other industrial zoning within a half mile of the
location in question.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The property has had a nonconforming use on it
since the area was annexed approximately 25 years ago.
The uses have varied.
7. The staff views the site as inappropriate for
industrial or any nonresidential zoning, and the
request is not supported by the adopted Boyle Park
Plan. The property is surrounded by single family use,
and that land use pattern will continue. Creating an
industrial zone at this location could produce some
undesirable impacts in the future because of some of
the "I -2" permitted uses. The industrial zoning would
not have any relationship to the adjacent properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Steve Lehoczky, was present and spoke in
support of the request. Mr. Chuck Rhodes, representing the
John Barrow CDBG Committee, was also in attendance.
Mr. Rhodes stated that the CDBG Committee had voted 12 to 1
against the rezoning. He also reminded the Commission that
the request was not supported by the adopted Boyle Park
Plan. Ken Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office addressed
the question of a possible illegal storage of vehicles on
the property. The Commission held a lengthy discussion on
the case. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote.
The vote: 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. The application
was denied.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 8 - Z -4150
Owner: Van Larr, Inc.
Applicant: Same
Location: 9508 Geyer Springs Road
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
and "R -4" Two Family to "C -3"
General Commercial
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 1.1 acres +
Existing Use: Commercial (Nonconforming Use)
SURROUNDTNn T.ANT) T1SR ANT) 70NTNr
North - Vacant, Zoned "C -1"
South - Office and School, Zoned "O -1"
East - High School, Zoned "R -2"
West - School, Zoned "O -1"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The property is currently occupied by a commercial
structure which is a nonconforming use. The rezoning
request was initiated because of the expansion to the
building which is a violation. The Zoning Enforcement
Office has given the property owners notice of the
violation. The proposed uses will remain the same.
2. The site is flat with one building situated on the
front of the property. The remainder of the property
is vacant. Parking areas are not adequately paved.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The site has been in the City for a number of years.
The property is part of the Roper School Addition. The
preliminary plat has been approved, but only one lot
has been finaled. The plat provided the necessary
right -of -way dedication.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 8 - Continued
7. The request is not supported by the Suburban
Development Plan and the staff. The staff's primary
concern is that granting of this rezoning could lead to
the potential striping out of Geyer Springs south of
Baseline Road. Suburban Development Policy No. 65
states: "Prevent the occurrence of uncontrolled strip
commercial development with its attendant traffic, land
use and visual conflict through ongoing planning and
careful administration of City land use controls."
Commercial uses should be restricted to the locations
identified on the Suburban Development Plan, the major
intersections with Geyer Springs Road. The development
pattern found along Geyer Springs north of Baseline
Road should be avoided. The "C -1" zoning directly to
the north was a conversion adjustment accomplished in
1981.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Chris Barrier, Attorney.
Mr. Barrier offered many comments in support of commercial
zoning on the property in question and then amended the
application to "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial. There were
approximately 10 persons present in opposition to the
rezoning. Mr. Robert Burns spoke for the group. He pointed
out to the Commission that the residents were opposed to any
strip commercial zoning along this section of Geyer Springs
and that the request was not compatible with the Suburban
Development Plan. Mr. Gus Albright also spoke against the
request. He stated that commercial zoning should be kept
north of Baseline Road. The Commission discussed the case
at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
request as amended. The motion failed for lack of an
affirmative vote. The vote: 3 ayes, 7 noes, 0 absent and
1 abstention (John Schlereth). The request was denied.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 9 - Z -4151
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Mrs. C.E. Childres
Same
6500 and 6504 Baseline Road
East of Bowman Road
Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "0-3" General Office
Office
1.14 acres +
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Church, Zoned
"R -2"
South
- Vacant, Zoned
"R -2"
East
-- Multifamily,
Zoned "R -5"
West
- Office, Zoned
"0-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone approximately 1.15 acres for
general office use. No specific development plans have
been submitted for the property. The request is just
east of an existing office zoning and use. Also, it is
part of a section of Baseline Road that has a
concentration of office use so the site appears to be
appropriate for office rezoning.
2. The site is flat and occupied by two single family
structures.
3. Baseline Road is classified as a principal arterial
which requires a 100 -foot right -of -way. The existing
right -of -way is deficient so dedication of additional
right -of -way will be required.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented history on this site.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 9 - Continued
7. Staff views this location as being suitable for office
use and supports the request. Both the Suburban
Development Plan and a land use study of the Baseline
Road Corridor identified the site for office
development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A deferral was requested by
the staff because proper documentation of notification to
the property owners had not been submitted prior to the
hearing. A motion to defer the item to February 28, 1984,
passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 10 - Z -4152
Owner: B.G. Coney
Applicant: Same
Location: Valley Club at Pebble Beach
Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family
to "R -2" Single Family
Purpose: Single Family
Size: 1.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4"
East - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4"
West - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to construct three single family
structures on three lots. A preliminary plat has been
approved.
2. The site is vacant and relatively flat.
3. There are no right -of -way issues.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are legal issues attendant to the request.
6. The property is currently part of the Pleasant Valley
Golf Course which is zoned "R -4."
7. Staff is in support of the application and did request
at the time of the preliminary plat approval that the
lots be down zoned to "R -2."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reommends approval of the request.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 10 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission held a brief
discussion. A motion was made to recommend approval of the
request. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 11 - Z -4153
Owner: Joe E. Hawkins
Applicant: Same
Location: Valley Club at Buff Lane
Request: Rezone from "R -4" Two Family
to "R -2" Single Family
Purpose: Single Family
Size: 1.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
South - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4"
East - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Golf Course, Zoned "R -4"
DT AMMTMO 0nW70TT'%VnA ITnW70 .
1. The proposal is to build two single family units on two
lots. A preliminary plat has been filed and approved.
2. The site is vacant and flat.
3. There are no right -of -way issues or Master Street Plan
requirements.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no history on this site.
7. Staff is in support of the request. As with Z -4152,
down zoning to "R -2" is a requirement of the plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the application.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 11 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission discussed the
case briefly. A motion was made to recommend approval of
the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 12 - Z -4157
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Mrs. Charles B. Linzy, Jr.
Same
West 26th Street at Howard St.
Northeast Corner
Rezone from "R-3" to
to "C -3" General Commercial
Craft Shop and Residence
13,200 square feet +
Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "C -3"
South - Fairgrounds, Zoned "R -3"
East - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "C -3"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to permit a craft shop on the property.
The site is situated in an area that has been heavily
impacted by the State Fairgrounds to the south and west
and Roosevelt Road just one block to the north. The
majority of the immediate vicinity is zoned "C -3," and
that appears to be developing pattern for the remaining
properties that are zoned "R -3." The residential
environment of the two -block area is being affected by
the surrounding nonresidential uses.
2. The site consists of two standard residential lots.
One lot has two structures on it, and the other lot is
vacant.
3. There are no right -of -way issues or Master Street Plan
requirements associated with the request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 12 - Continued
7. The staff supports the rezoning. It is anticipated
that an entire area from Roosevelt to the Fairgrounds
and from the Fairgrounds to Schiller will be zoned for
commercial uses. Some "C -3" is already in place and
with the Fairgrounds being the dominating use,
commercialization of the area appears to be the trend.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
The Commission discussed the case briefly. A motion was
made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 13 - Z -4158
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Don Hughes
G.P. Thomas
1102 Woodrow Street
Rezone from "R -4" Two Family
to "C -3" General Commercial
Beauty Shop
7100 square feet +
Duplex
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Duplex,
Zoned
"R -4"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "0 -3"
East
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -3"
West
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R -3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The site is presently occupied by a duplex, and the
proposal is to convert the structure into a beauty
shop. The property is located in an area with mixed
uses in zoning. Because of the existing uses, it is
difficult to determine what the predominant development
pattern or trend is. The existing "C -3" zoning has
been restricted to properties with West 12th Street
frontage except for the southwest corner at Woodrow and
West 13th Street.
2. The site is a flat, standard, residential lot with a
duplex on it.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no apparent legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site. The property has been zoned "R -4" for a number
of years.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 13 - Continued
7. The staff does not support this request. Commercial
uses and zoning should be limited to West 12th and
Woodrow as recommended in the proposed Stephens School
Plan. The Plan shows the commercial use to be just
one -half block north of West 12th and recommends low
density use north to I -630. Allowing commercial zoning
beyond this point would result in the striping out of
Woodrow from West 12th to I -630. The current
commercial zoning pattern should be reinforced by
denying this request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, G.P. Thomas, and the owner, Don Hughes, were
present. Both offered comments in support of commercial
zoning for the location in question. Mr. Thomas then
amended the application to "C -1" Neighborhood Commercial.
There were no objectors present. After a lengthy
discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the
application as amended. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. The Planning Commission
supported the "C -1" request because of existing uses in the
immediate area, there were no objectors present, and Woodrow
having immediate access to I -630.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 14 - Z -4159
Owner: Various Owners
Applicant: W.L. Thomas
Location: 8100 New Benton Highway
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "C -4" Open Display
Purpose: Manufactured Home Sales Lot
Size: 2.5 acres +
Existing Use: Used Car Sales Lot (Nonconforming
Use)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R -2"
East - Interstate Right -of -Way and Vacant,
Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
and "I -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to rezone the property to allow a
manufactured housing sales lot. The site is currently
occupied by a used car lot, a nonconforming use. The
property is located on the I -30 Frontage Road which has
high visibility and is an appropriate location for a
"C -4" zoning and use. There is some "C -4" zoning to
the east, and the parcel is adjacent to an "I -2" tract
to the west.
2. The site is flat and vacant with the exception of a
trailer which functions as the sales office. There are
some trees along the west side of the property.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues relative to this application.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 14 - Continued
6. The site was annexed to the City in 1979, and was
brought in as "R -2." There is no documented
neighborhood position on the site.
7. Staff supports the request and views the site as a
suitable location for a "C -4" use. Because the
property is adjacent to a single family neighborhood,
some adequate buffering or open space strip may be
needed to minimize any potential impacts on the
neighborhood. A screen fence is required between the
properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that two letters were
submitted objecting to the rezoning request. The Commission
discussed the case briefly. A motion was made to recommend
approval of the application as filed. The motion passed by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 15 - Z- 3954 -A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
R. E. Jones
City of Little Rock
West 65th at Wakefield Drive
Southwest Corner
Rezone from "1-2"
to 11C -4" Open Display
Motorcycle Dealership
22,500 square feet +
Existing Use: Service Station
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Industrial, Zoned "I -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "C -3"
East - Industrial, Zoned "C -3"
West - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This down zoning, initiated by the City of Little Rock, is
the result of an appeal of a Planning Commission zoning
denial on the tract directly to the south (Z -4112 from "C -3"
to "I -2 "). The request was opposed by the staff and the
residents of the Wakefield neighborhood. The Board of
Directors at its public hearing on the appeal suggested that
"C -4" zoning on both tracts would be more desirable and
still allow the applicant to develop the property for a
motorcycle dealership. The Ordinance was left on the first
reading to allow the Planning Commission time to review and
act on this suggestion.
The site is occupied by a service station with some storage
of vehicles. One primary concern of the neighborhood has
been this existing use and what happens to it if the "C -3"
tract zoning is changed. The applicant has stated he does
not plan to occupy the property for four or five years. The
neighborhood is concerned that the service station and its
use will move closer to the residential area if the southern
tract is rezoned from "C -3."
It is the staff's impression that the neighborhood is in
support of the down zoning to "C -4" but would like to see
the "C -3" tract remain as such. They view the "C -3" parcel
as protecting them from any undesirable uses located on
West 65th Street, which is a valid argument. They have also
expressed some reservations about the proposed use, the
motorcycle dealership.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 15 - Continued
The owner's attorney has indicated that they are in
agreement with the down zoning to "C -4" only if the "C -3"
tract is rezoned to "C -4" to permit the dealership. They
want the zoning changes to be considered as a total package
only and not separate. The resolution of the "C -3" tract
appears to be the overriding issue. (The 11I -2" Rezoning
Ordinance can be amended to "C -4" at the Board of Directors
level.)
Staff supports the down zoning to "C -4." At Wakefield
Drive, the industrial zoning should be located north of West
65th Street to protect the entrance to the subdivision. The
location would be ideal for a neighborhood commercial
center. Staff can support "C -4" reclassification on the
"C -3" tract if the two tracts are combined and are used for
the motorcycle dealership. This will provide the dealership
West 65th frontage and allow an adequate planted buffer
strip on the south. A separate 11C -4" tract on Wakefield
Drive is not appropriate. There are some concerns with the
motorcycle dealership and its potential impacts on the
residential neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the down zoning from "I -2" to
Of C-4. "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The owner of the property in question was represented by
William Crow, Attorney. There were no objectors present.
Both Mr. Crow and the staff explained to the Commission how
the down zoning of this tract came about. Mr. Crow stated
that the owner, Mr. E. Jones, had agreed to the down zoning
if the "C -3" tract and the "I -2" parcel were considered as a
package and a "C -4" reclassification is approved for both
tracts. The Commission was informed that the neighborhood
is still opposed to the "C -3" property being rezoned. After
a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend
approval of the down zoning request as filed. The motion
passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
e n
January 31, 1984
Item No. 16 - Alley Closure
Name: Coleman Block 33, Original City of
Little Rock
Location: The entire length of the east and
west alley between Scott and
Cumberland
Applicant: Jim Moses
Request: Closure of the described
right -of -way
STAFF REPORT
No adverse comments from any of the reviewing agencies have
been received as of yet. The property is currently used as
open space for the Arkansas Territorial Restoration
Commission and a parking lot. The proposed use of the land
obtained will be in conjunction with adjoining office
buildings. Both ends of the alley will remain open for
emergency access. Staff would not like to take a definite
position on this until full development plans relative to
curb cuts, parking and drives are submitted by both
parties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Deferral until submission of more information.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Jim Moses presented a site plan for review. Mr. Bill
Worthen of the abutting property stated that they were aware
of the alley closure and had no objections; also that they
were unprepared at this time to present site plans for
future development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Both Mr. Jim Moses, the applicant, and Mr. Bill Worthen of
the Territorial Restoration, were present. No objections
were raised. A motion for approval was made and passed by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 17 - Suburban Plan Amendment, I -30 at Chicot Road
Area
This Suburban Development Plan amendment was proposed due to
the recent rezoning activity by the property owner. The
rezoning activity involved a change from "R -2" and "MF -18"
to "C -4" and "MF -12."
The Suburban Development Plan currently shows this property
area as "LI" Light Industry.
The staff recommends that the Suburban Development Plan be
amended to show "SD" Strip Development along the I -30
frontage, "MF" Multifamily to the north with a "SF" Single
Family buffer along the northern end and a portion of the
eastern boundary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Jim Lawson explained that this proposed Suburban Plan
amendment is in support of a previous rezoning action by the
Commission. There was no discussion of the item and it was
approved: 11 ayes and 0 noes.
r-.
January 31, 1984
Item No. 18 - Suburban Plan Amendment, NE Corner, Vimy Ridge
and County Line Roa
A recent rezoning at the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge Road
and County Road prompted this amendment. The "C -1" rezoning
was approved by the Planning Commission on
December 13, 1983.
At the time of the rezoning, the staff recommended that the
Suburban Plan be amended. The Suburban Development Plan
presently shows this property as single family.
The staff recommends that the Suburban Development Plan be
amended to show neighborhood convenience commercial at the
northeast corner of Vimy Ridge and County Line Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Jim Lawson reminded the Planning Commission that this
proposed amendment is a result of a recent rezoning request
by the applicant. There was no discussion by the Planning
,-� Commission and it was approved: 11 ayes and 0 noes.
1
January 31, 1984
Item No. 19 - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Minimum Size PUD
The intent of the short form Planned Unit Development was
for infill type development on small parcels of land. The
staff and Planning Commission's intent was to not have a
minimum size requirement for the short form PUD.
A short form PUD development was reviewed at the Planning
Commission's meeting on January 10, 1984, which raised the
question of the minimum size requirement. The sentiment of
the Planning Commission and staff was that Section 9 -101 C3
dealing with the minimum size was unclear in its wording.
This proposed amendment is an attempt to clarify the
ordinance by simply stating: "There is no minimum size for
the short form Planned Unit Development applications."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Item No. 19 was taken out of order and was acted on by the
Planning Commission first to clarify a later PUD
application.
The Chairman identified this ordinance amendment as a
clarification to the minimum size requirement for the short
form PUD.
There was no discussion of the item by the Planning
Commission. The vote was: 11 ayes and 0 noes.
� t t
January 31, 1984
Item No. 20 - Discussion Matter
Request for review of boundary street improvements along
State Highway No. 10 and staff report on appropriateness of
such requirements in light of the eminent state project.
Memo on Above Subject From the City Engineer
TO: Nathaniel Griffin
Director of Comprehensive Planning
FROM: Don McChesney, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Boundary Street Improvements on Highway 10
(Cantrell Road)
The Planning Commission at its last meeting raised several
policy questions concerning the waiving of boundary
improvements where a roadway improvement project is underway
with specific concern being focused on a development project
on Highway 10. As requested, this memorandum attempts to
answer both the general policy issues and the specifics of
this particular case.
City Policy
Long- standing City policy concerning boundary improvements
where roadway improvements are planned is embodied in the
recently adopted boundary improvement ordinance. Section 6,
Article (e) stipulates: where a public project is planned,
construction of improvements or in lieu cash contributions
shall be required until the day of bid opening for public
improvement.
This policy has proven to be both fair and practical. In a
practical sense, the amount of money available for funding
arterial improvements in Little Rock is relatively fixed.
If boundary improvements are waived for any reason, the net
effect is to reduce the amount of public funds available for
needed roadway improvements at other locations in the City.
Also, there is never any assurance that a roadway
improvement project will not be delayed or dropped
altogether until the construction contract is awarded.
Status of Highway 10 Project
The Highway Department has considered the improvement of
Highway 10 west of Interstate 430 as a high priority for
several years, but it was not until last year that such a
project was given official status. This was accomplished in
response to a direct appeal from area residents to the
Highway Commission on March 30, 1983, at which time the
Commission passed Minute Order 8,393 which directed the
department to "proceed with surveys, plans and construction
as funds become available."
January 31, 1984
Item No. 20 - Continued
This action by the Highway Commission makes the project an
"active" project, but does not provide any funds for the
work to take place. At this time, however, no detailed work
has been initiated due to a lack of available funds and a
long backlog of committed projects.
Reduction in Highway Revenues
The Highway Department is hard pressed to provide matching
funds to accommodate federal projects which have been
designed "on the shelf" for several years. An example is
the University Avenue rehabilitation project which has been
delayed the last three years.
Summary
Even if there was no shortage of public funds available for
the Highway 10 project, it would still take several years to
go through the necessary phases of engineering design,
environmental review and right -of -way acquisition and
utility relocation, all of which must be accomplished prior
to construction. If right -of -way acquisition and utility
relocation is delayed until after development occurs, the
ultimate cost would become prohibitive.
The truth is that there is a critical shortage of public
funds at federal, state and local levels for constructing
the needed improvements on Highway 10. It is essential,
therefore, that the City make maximum utilization of
developer contributed boundary street improvements and to
control land development in such a way as to protect the
capacity of the existing facility.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
DATE JA s J' , 178+
ZONING. SUBDIVTSTnN
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
MEMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
r
1 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
J• S m li
✓
✓
!
✓
✓
0
✓
0
0
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
J. Schlereth
✓
✓
0
!✓
✓
0
✓
0
✓
we
✓
✓
✓
we
✓
✓
✓
✓
R. Massie
✓
✓
•
✓
A
A
✓
0
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
w/
B. Sipes
✓
✓0✓••
✓•
we
we
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
J. Nicholson
✓
✓
✓
0
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
or
�✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
w
W. Rector
✓;
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
�%
✓
✓
✓
✓
Vol
✓
✓
✓
✓
1•
W. Ketcher
✓
✓
0
✓
✓
0
wee
0
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
0
D. Arnett
✓
✓
✓
✓
.
.o-,
✓
✓
✓
we
✓
we
✓
✓
/
✓
,
D. J . Jones
✓
✓
0
✓
v;
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/✓
✓
r/
I. Boles
✓
✓
0
✓
✓
✓
S/
we
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
v/
ee
✓
Q
J: Clayton
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓..
✓
400-
&o#--
P000-
A
1
AYE ®NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
r
January 31, 1984
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Date