boa_08 20 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 20, 1984
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being seven in number. The
Chairman being absent, Mr. B.L. Murphree performed the
duties of Chairman.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The Board approved the Minutes as mailed.
III. Members Present: Richard Yada
Joe C. Norcross
B.L. Murphree
Steve Smith
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Ronald Woods
Members Absent: Ellis Walton
George Wells
City Attorney: Carolyn Witherspoon
August 20, 1984
Item No. A - Z-4238
Owner: Jack Bennett
Address: 4724 Asher Avenue
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the front yard setback provisions
of Section 7-104.2/E.1 to permit a
canopy cover with a 15-foot setback.
JUSTIFICATION:
None supplied as of this writing.
Present Use
of the Property: Tire service
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with physical
improvement
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None received as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
A visit to this site reveals several issues which have
made conditions of this development approval may
produce a withdrawal of the request. This is not to
say that these issues are more significant than the
request at hand but that the owner may not be
financially committed to resolving the problems to be
introduced by staff. The first of these issues is a
lean-to type of structure adjacent to the building
which is, in our opinion, a danger to passersby. This
structure should be removed for safety. The second
item is the access to Asher Avenue. At present, this
is a 100-foot, plus or minus, opening with no traffic
access control to the pump islands. There should be a
maximum of two curb cuts with traffic safety islands
designed between and on each end. Three, there should
be an upgrading of the parking area within the lot. As
to the variance at hand, we do not find fault with the
proposal to cover the service area. The 15-foot
August 20, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
setback is about an average on Asher Avenue for such
canopies. This is a result of the prior City Zoning
Ordinance permitting canopies by right with a 15-foot
setback.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of the three items
noted in the Staff Analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
(5-21-84)
The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the
request to June 18, 1984, passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84)
The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the
request to July 16, 1984, passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent. The Board of Adjustment instructed the staff
to contact the applicant and determine if he wishes to
pursue the variance request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-16-84)
The applicant was not present when this item came before the
Board. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn from
the agenda because of the applicant's failure to notify the
property owners and lack of attendance at the hearings. A
motion was made to withdraw the request from the agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
After this action was taken, the applicant, Willie Byrd,
arrived and staff informed the Board of Mr. Byrd's presence.
The members decided to discuss Mr. Byrd's request at the end
of the meeting. After a brief discussion with Mr. Byrd, a
motion was made to void the previous action and defer the
item to the August 20 meeting. The motion passed by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. A - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-20-84)
The applicant, Mr. Willie Byrd, was present representing the
owner, Mr. Bennett. Mr. Byrd stated for the record that
this proposal is his inasmuch as Mr. Bennett is the owner
and not the operator of the facility now on the premises.
There were no objectors present. There was a brief
discussion of the proposal and the staff recommendation.
Staff identified for the Board the specific structure on the
site referenced as a lean-to which was recommended for
removal. The Board discussed briefly the time frame for
accomplishing the various on-site improvements such as the
upgrading of the parking lot and installation of some
curbing on Asher Avenue. A motion was then made to approve
the application for the addition of the canopy as requested
subject to the removal from the site of the lean-to
structure immediately east of the service station and that
curbing and access be provided along Asher Avenue as well as
upgrading of the parking lot. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-2130-A
Owner: Herman Binz and Sons Iron Works
By: Bob Crawford
Address: 1023 Rushing Circle
Description: Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Tice's Replat of
Tract 1, Rushing and Tice Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial District
Variance
Requested: 1. From the side yard setback
provisions of Section
43/7-104.2/E.2 of the Code of
Ordinances to permit a side yard of
six feet.
2. From the floodplain restrictions of
paragraph ( a ) of paragraph ( 4 ) of
Section B of Article V of Ordinance
No. 14534 of the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas, to permit a
finished floor elevation of 314
feet (required at 318 feet).
JUSTIFICATION:
1. The existing building was constructed under the old
zoning ordinance and was originally required 0 foot
side yard.
2. Construction of the addition in any other location on
the site would reduce parking by approximately 10
spaces.
3. Construction of the addition in any other location on
the site would reduce efficiency of material handling
and access to existing shop.
4. Request to construct the new building to existing
building elevation of 314 in lieu of 318 floodplain
level is to avoid creation of a hazard with material
handling. Additionally, compliance with the 318 level
would seriously reduce ability to enter and depart from
the building.
Present Use
of the Property: Metals Fabrication
August 20, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain same with added floor area
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Specific information has not been received at this
writing from the Engineering staff relative to the
floodplain issue. The subject site does lie within the
100-year floodplain of Rock Creek and partially within
the floodway. Building in place was constructed prior
to the establishment of the present flood elevation
numbers, a consequence being that the new buildings
adjacent are on fills several feet higher. The
situation here prevents adding fill in order to comply
with the ordinance, as well as creating problems for
building usage.
At the meeting, it was reported that the Engineering
Department requests that all permits and other
documents involved in this construction proposal be
stamped with floodplain variance and that the owner be
informed that flood insurance costs for this site will
be higher than normal. Further, it was requested that
all electrical, plumbing and shop motors shall be
located aboved or floodproofed to an elevation of 318.0
feet.
B. Staff Analysis
The Planning staff views this applicant's request as
entirely appropriate. The setback circumstances were
not of the owner's creation but a product of adoption
of the new zoning ordinance in 1980. The former "I"
zoning classification required no setback from any of
the four property lines. The proposal at hand should
clean up the site by placing all material storage and
handling within the structure. There do not appear to
be any adverse relationships created by this proposal.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the request as filed, subject to specific
comment by the City Engineer.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Herman Benz was present representing the proposal. He
made a brief comment relative to the staff and Engineering
recommendation. There were no objectors present. A brief
discussion of the floodplain and its effects on the
immediate environs was held. A motion was then made to
approve the application as filed subject to those comments
introduced by the City Engineer. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-3982-A
Owner: Larry Nafe
Address: 2900 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Description: Part of Block 53, Pulaski Heights
Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District
Variance
Requested: 1. From the side yard setback
provisions of Sec. 43./7-103.3/D.2
of the Little Rock Code of
Ordinances to permit an addition
with a 1-foot side yard.
2. From the rear yard setback
provisions of Sec. 43./7-103.3/D.3
of the Little Rock Code of
Ordinances to permit an addition
with a 9-foot rear yard.
JUSTIFICATION:
1. The addition will serve to soundproof this use from the
neighboring property to the north which is an apartment
house.
2. This addition will serve to upgrade the physical
appearance from the rear of the structure.
Present Use
of the Property: Animal Clinic
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with additional floor
space
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
This request is the second by the present owner in an
attempt to make the former service station building
more functional and soundproof the animal ward area.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
Notices to adjacent owners have been mailed as
required. However, we have not received comments at
this writing. Although the owner states that the
addition will improve the appearanace of the structure
and clean up the site, we feel there should be a
landscape plan prepared to provide assurance of content
and design. We feel that this plan should contain some
type of opaque barrier fence or plantings along the
east and north property lines. Our last thought would
be that the site will be built up after this addition,
and further expansion should be discouraged on this
site. We feel this is especially important due to the
proximity of the two -story apartment house immediately
to the north.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made in our analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mrs. Nafe was present and briefly outlined her proposal for
the Board. There were no objectors present. A brief
discussion of the screening and curb cut requirements was
held. The discussion resulted in an understanding that the
staff recommendation along Palm Street was for maintenance
of that screening in place as well as the creation of an
opaque screening along the north property line. The
discussion concerning curb cuts resulted in an understanding
that a full physical closure of the curb and apron would not
necessarily be required. A motion was then made to approve
the application with the requirement that an opaque
barrier /screening remain along Palm Street and that
plantings along the north line be provided. Further, that
the curb cut be closed along Kavanaugh with interior curbing
or wheel stops of a permanent nature. The vote to approve -
7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-4300
Owner: James and Marjorie Levander
Address: 1001 Cumberland Street
Description: Part of Block 45, Original City
Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential District
Request: Request approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for use of the subject site as a
professional office activity.
Present Use
of the Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of the Property: Office Use /Professional Real Estate
Office
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none reported at this writing. However, the
Planning staff noted upon visiting the site that there
are alley improvements and street curb cut closures to
be resolved.
B. Staff Analysis
The staff would first like to point out that the
subject property is within the area which will require
a review of this plan and occupancy by the Historic
District Commission. A scheduled hearing has been
established. The request before the Board of
Adjustment raises two questions for resolution:
1. Does the real estate office, as proposed, qualify
as a professional office as intended by the
Central Little Rock Zoning Ordinance?
2. Is the use appropriate to this location?
The staff feels that the use proposed is proper, even
though the owner calls this activity a general office.
The Zoning Ordinance disallows general office
occupancy, and past practice has been to strictly
adhere to the conventional guidance as to what
constitutes a professional office. As to Item No. 2
above, the block in question is the only remaining
August 20, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
residential block between the river and Interstate 630
which does not contain significant office or
nonresidential activity. We do not feel that an office
use in this structure will adversely affect the
neighborhood but may, in fact, provide stability that a
rooming house cannot. The owner proposes to contruct
eight new parking spaces entering from the alley on the
east which will probably serve the building's parking
needs.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request, subject to
resolution of the following:
1. All signage should be reviewed by the Historic
District Commission.
2. The parking lot should be paved and redesigned to
provide protection for the large tree adjacent to
the alley.
3. The alley should be paved to a standard approved
by the City Engineer.
4. Existing curb cuts along the border streets should
be closed and repairs performed on sidewalks, or
in those instances where sidewalks are absent,
they should be provided.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. James Levander was present. There were no objectors
present. A brief discussion was held concerning the parking
layout and the Ordinance requirement for the number of
stalls. The owner stated that the entire structure would be
utilized for the real estate office. Staff reported that
full utilization of the two -story structure would require
eight parking spaces. A brief comment was made concerning
the additional review by the Historic District Commission
with respect to their review of landscaping and parking. A
motion was then made to approve the conditional use permit
as requested subject to the comments offered by the Planning
and Engineering staffs. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
The above action does not represent a variance of parking
spaces. The proposal as approved will carry a requirement
for installation of the eight parking stalls on the site or
within 300 feet thereof.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-4301-A
Owner: C.E. Frost
Address: 6700 Cantrell Road
Description: Lot 1 of Block 1, White City Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District
Variance
Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7- 103.3/D.2 of the Code of
Ordinances to permit a relocated
commercial building on the same lot to
produce a side yard of 1 foot (Ordinance
requires 25 feet).
JUSTIFICATION
1. Make store more accessible.
2. Remove a blind corner relationship.
3. Create additional conforming parking.
Present Use
of the Property: Retail store
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with relocation of the
existing building
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The Hughes Street right-of-way adjacent on the east is
deficient and may be as narrow as 40 feet total.
Improvements are also substandard in some respects.
Improvement of the street may not be encouraged for its
entire length; however, certain improvements may be
required in the southern most 50 to 60 feet accessing
Cantrell Road. The Traffic Engineer requires a site
plan review for parking and access to this site.
B. Staff Analysis
This application is one where no hardship exists.
However, that is unimportant in our view when measured
against the removal of a dangerous access on to
Cantrell Road. The issues to resolve in this case are:
August 20, 1984
Item No. 4 - Continued
1. Parking improvements.
2. Driveway access and prohibition of cross flow
traffic along the north property line to the Pizza
Inn and other businesses to the west.
3. Improvement of Hughes Street to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
4. A landscape plan for the new parking layout.
5. Approval of moving the building by the Codes
Officials.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the variance, subject to resolution of the
points raised in the staff analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. C.E. Frost was present and made brief comments
concerning the proposal and requested clarification of
several points in the staff recommendation. There were no
objectors present. A discussion was held concerning the
staff requirement for abandonment of the cross flow of
traffic along the north property line to the businesses
lying westward along Cantrell Road. It was determined that
this requirement is offered by the staff as a controlling
mechanism to regulate the flow of traffic from the
residential area on the north to businesses on Cantrell.
This request for abandonment is produced as a result of past
actions in this area whereby strong comments from the
neighborhood were offered relative to increased traffic
flows on Hughes Street to and from Cantrell. A motion was
then made for approval of the variance subject to comment #2
and comment #4 in the staff recommendation as well as the
comment offered by the Traffic Engineer. The motion was
approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 5 - Z-4303-A
Owner: Charles D. Davidson
Address: 900 West 4th Street
Description: Part of Block 253, Original City of
Little Rock
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display District
(On application for "C-3"
reclassification)
Variance
Requested: From the front and side yard setback
provisions of Section 43/7-103.4/E.1.2
of the Code of Ordinances to permit an
addition on the 4th Street side of the
structure with 0.9 feet setback.
(Ordinance requires 25 feet in the "C-3"
zone.)
JUSTIFICATION
1. Size of the lot.
2. Zoning existing is inappropriate.
3. Area is built up under the former ordinances which
required little or no setbacks.
Present Use
of the Property: Offices
Proposed Use
of the Property: Offices with additional floor space
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The Engineering Department reports no adverse comments.
5. Staff Analysis
Upon completion of our first review of this proposal,
we felt this request was perhaps justified. After a
visit to the site and a review of the parking
requirements, it became apparent that only the patio
addition should be allowed. The determining factors
are the limited parking which at this time consists of
eight or nine stalls which do not comply with
August 20, 1984
Item No. 5 - Continued
ordinance. The existing building requires seven plus
parking spaces with proper spaces at this time of six
plus. The new building addition would require three
spaces This means that eleven total would be required
for this site after construction. Additional parking
could be provided off-site within 300 feet, as
permitted by ordinance. However, at this writing, we
have not received evidence that such parking can be
provided. The established setbacks along 4th Street is
the second factor which suggest to us the proposal is
inappropriate. Existing buildings both to the east and
west are either in line with the present structure or
provide more setback. Further, we would point out that
the "C-3" rezoning being sought will offer no relief as
to the setbacks but simply reduce the requirement from
45 to 25 feet on both streets.
C. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the front yard intrusion and approval of the
patio addition if additional parking can be provided
off-site nearby.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Charles Davidson, was present and offered
a lengthy presentation of his proposal, offering additional
justification for the intrusion into the front yard. There
were no objectors present. Mr. Davidson offered information
to the effect that the adjacent owner to the west supported
his proposal. A brief discussion of the issues followed,
the issues being principally restricted to the parking
requirements for a building addition of the size proposed.
Additional comments were made concerning the alignment of
various structures in this neighborhood and their proximity
to 4th Street. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was
made to approve the application as filed. However, a
seconding motion was not made. The motion died. A second
motion was then made to approve only the patio area portion
of the application with an attached requirement that the
proposal comply with the parking requirements of Ordinance.
This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 6 - Z-4304
Owner: Rush Engine Rebuilders
By: Robert Richardson
Address: 2905 South Cedar
Description: All of Block 2, Dickenson Mill Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial District
Variance
Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-104.2/E.2 of the Code of
Ordinances to permit expansion of an
existing nonconforming industrial
structure.
JUSTIFICATION
1. The proposed location is the only suitable site for an
addition.
2. Other locations on the lot will occupy existing
parking.
3. Original building construction occurred under the
former ordinance when "I" zone did not require a
setback.
Present Use
of the Property: Engine rebuilding shop
Proposed Use
of the Property: Remain the same with additional floor
space
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The Traffic Engineer has concerns about access to the
site as well as questions about resolution of an
erosion problem along the south side of the property in
a street right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis
This request, as we view it, is appropriate for the
circumstances. This owner has few options for
expansion which will not affect the existing
operation. The circumstances that prevail are a
creation of the changes which occurred with adoption of
the present zoning ordinance. The only issue we would
August 20, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
raise is the parking.
some landscaping.
C. Staff Recommendation
As presently utilized, could use
Approval of the variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Robert Richardson representing the applicant was
present and made a brief statement. A discussion of the
proposal then followed that centered on an excavation issue
along the south property line which is causing an erosion
problem in a public right -of -way. Further discussion of the
matter between the Board and Mr. Richardson resulted in a
determination that some review of that matter is appropriate
but not necessarily a fixed item for resolution by this
owner. There were no significant issues raised as concerned
with the application at hand. A motion was then made to
approve the requested variance subject to the owner entering
into discussions with the City Engineer concerning the
erosion problem and possible resolution The motion passed
by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 7 - Z-4302
Owner: Arkansas State Highway Department
By: Karen Muldrow
Address: 1101 West 8th Street
Description: Part of Block 288, Original City of
Little Rock
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial District
Variance
Requested: From the front and side yard setback
provisions of Section 43/7-104.2/E.1 &2
to permit construction of a new building
with 0 foot setback on the West 8th
Street side and approximately 5 feet
setback on the east property line.
JUSTIFICATION
1. Accessibility to Central Fire Communications.
2. Technical feasibility.
3. Central location for crew changes.
4. Unique size and shape and relationship to Interstate
630.
5. Time required to negotiate a new site is prohibitive.
6. Communication system needs.
Present Use
of the Property: Vacant remnant from the Interstate 630
Highway project
Proposed Use
of the Property: Ambulance facility/emergency medical
services
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
The Traffic Engineer has requested that he be permitted
to review the site plan for determining appropriateness
of access especially onto West 8th Street.
B. Staff Analysis
This request is somewhat unique in that the subject
August 20, 1984
Item No. 7 - Continued
site is a portion of land acquired for the Interstate
630 project and the zoning is assumed from the Base Map
to be "I-2" Light Industrial. A portion of this site
is a street right-of-way formerly titled "Ringo" which
will require closure or abandonment or some legal
action to assure the use of that right-of-way for this
project. The setbacks proposed are of little
consequence, inasmuch as this area of the City was
developed under the former zoning ordinance which
required no setbacks. Further, the site location is
unique in that the Interstate right-of-way will bound
the site on three sides and only 8th Street will be a
conventional lot line. There will be no further
structural involvement east or west along 8th Street.
The only caution we would offer is the occasion of
vehicles accessing 8th Street through overhead doors
immediately behind the sidewalk line.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed, subject to resolution of the street
issue and the Traffic Engineer approval of the access
onto 8th Street.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Karen Muldrow and Bob Snelson representing this proposal
were present. Ms. Muldrow made a brief statement concerning
the proposal. There were no objectors present. A brief
discussion was held concerned primarily with identifying
neighborhood traffic circulation and the future expected
usage of West 8th Street. Mr. Snelson identified for the
Board the accessing plan for the ambulances to the
Interstate 630 interchange at Chester Street. He identified
that 8th Street will teriminate both to the east and west of
this building site. A motion was then made to approve the
requested variances with the condition that the Traffic
Engineer's Office review the access onto West 8th Street.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
August 20, 1984
Item No. 8 - Z-1937-B - Extension of time requested on
parking
Owner: Greater Paradise Baptist Church
By: Rev. Jerry Black
Address: Northwest corner of West 13th Street at
Johnson Street
Zoned: "R-3" Single Family District
Variance
Requested: In 1981 a request for relief from
Section 8-101 of the Ordinance to waive
all required off-street parking.
Present Use
of the Property: Church parking lot in an unimproved
state. Some gravel in place and
substandard access.
Proposed Use
of the Property: Church parking, future improvements.
STAFF REPORT:
This application is a continuation of an earlier variance
issue filed by the church in 1981. The original issue dealt
with the construction of a large addition in conjunction
with existing church facilities. That request for parking
involved a total waiver of new requirements. The parking
for the church, as now located, is primarily off-site and
less than the required for the present seating capacity.
The church has apparently acquired a couple of lots at the
subject location and is using them unimproved. This
circumstance was revealed by City staff enforcement
proceedings earlier this year. In 1981, the Board of
Adjustment reviewed this case in the conventional public
hearing process. During the course of that hearing, it was
determined by the Board that the parking variance was
inappropriate and that the issue of developing the required
parking should be deferred to a committee of two Board
members and church members. At an unknown time after the
creation of that committee, the church acquired a site
across Johnson Street, being the northeast corner of 13th at
Johnson containing two lots which were to provide the needed
parking. The church was directed to proceed with
constructing the facility. As stated above, the staff noted
earlier this year that improvements had not been placed on
the site some three years after the first review. The
August 20, 1984
Item No. 8 - Continued
church was offered its options for compliance with the
ordinance. However, for financial reasons, the church
cannot or will not improve the lot at this time. The
requested term of extension is six years, which the Planning
staff feels is excessive in light of the three years plus or
minus, already passed. We feel that the Board should
establish a time no greater than one and one-half years with
the church filing a report with the Board on its progress at
the end of that time or, in fact, providing evidence of
completion and compliance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Steve Rogers was present representing the church. He
stated that the church is willing to accept the 18-month
recommendation of staff and feels that they can comply. He
stated that the addition to the church previously approved
has not been finished at this time. He stated that funds
are slow in developing, but they are working toward
completion of the building project and the parking. There
were no objectors present. A brief discussion was held
concerning the time extension. A motion was then made that
the extension be granted for a period of 18 months with the
applicant to report back to the Board at the end of that
time. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2
absent.
August 20, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman adjourned
the meeting at 3:15 P.M.
Date
Secretary Chairman