Loading...
boa_08 15 1983LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD AUGUST 15, 1983 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A roll call produced a Quorum of five members. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The Board voted to accept the minutes of the previous meeting as mailed. III. Attendance Record Present: George Wells, Vice -Chairman Steve Smith Joe Norcross B.L. Murphree Thomas McGowan Absent: Ellis Walton Richard Yada Herbert Rideout City Attorney Hugh Brown Present: At this meeting, the Board of Adjustment was short one position being that formerly held by Marcelline Giroir. August 15, 1983 Item No. 1 - Z-3913 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: variance Requested: Justification: John Berg 1201 E. 8th Street North 75 Feet of the West 150 Feet Of Block A, Gaines Subdivision of Hanger's Addition "I-l" Light Industrial District Front yard setback from provisions of Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing buildings were constructed under the prior Zoning Ordinance many years ago and conformed to all setbacks until adoption of the present ordinance. The new ordinance makes these structures completely nonconforming. The size of the lot dictates the location of the addition in front of the principle building. Present Use of the Property: Machine Shop Proposed Use of the Property: Same with new office space. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: The site is generally flat east to west with some fall in grade from south to north. The streets do not have curb and gutter on either frontage. All off-street parking is unpaved, unmarked and uncontrolled access. The streets west and south of the site have curb and gutter which tie at this intersection. B. Staff Analvsis: A visit to the site reveals that this use is located in a neighborhood which has suffered a decline from its former residential base use to one of a mixture of intense industrial activity. The block to the south of this corner is all residential extending to East 9th Street. The residential occupancy occurs on both sides of College Street. To the north of this site, College August 15, 1983 Item No. 1 - Continued Street is primarily weed lots and a couple of run-down houses. The properties lying to the east all the way to the railroad tracks are industrial. To the west of the site is a mixture of commercial, office, industrial and a small amount of residential. The staff sees little redevelopment potential in this area except for uses of this character. We feel this variance is justified for the reasons stated in the variance request. C. Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Board approve this variance as requested with the following conditions attached: 1. All off-street parking be paved to Ordinance standards with appropriate markings and landscaping. 2. Street improvements be provided along both boundary streets. 3. Curb cuts be reviewed by the City Engineer especially with respect to the overhead doors on the 8th Street side. BOARD ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Berg, was present and addressed the Board expressing concerns about the paving of off-street parking and the improvement of the abutting streets. There were no objectors present. A brief discussion of the proposal was held with the following result. A motion was made to approve the application for variance as filed with the modifications recommended by staff. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 Item No. 2 - Z-4054-A Owner: Troy B. and Kitty L. Braswell Address: 8302 Baseline Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial District Variance Requested: Side and rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-104.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Justification: The owner states that his justification is the requirement of ordinance which imposes the rear yard and side yard setbacks. Present Use of the Property: Commercial and Office Mixture Proposed Use of the Property: Remain the same with expanded floor area for offices of Eight Wheels Roller Rink Firm. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: The site is flat with common grade to adjacent properties. The Baseline frontage is unimproved with a requirement of one-half of a 100-foot right-of-way with one-half of a four lane paved facility, this being a median divided or left turn lane structure. A one lot final plat will be necessary to dedicate the additional 10 feet of right-of-way. B. Staff Analvsis: A visit to the site and a few minutes review of this proposal indicates to staff that the variance is not needed in order to build the proposed addition. If the owner turns the building 90°, he will find that he can provide more than sufficient setback on all sides of the lot. The only negative involved in this is a five-foot offset in the northeast corner of the building to accommodate the required 15-foot setback on the east. The area that remains behind the building could provide the parking that would be displaced along August 15, 1983 Item No. 2 - Continued the west line. Inasmuch as that parking appears to be employee or pawn vehicles, it would not be a hardship to place it behind the building. As to the parking requirement for the total activity, the office use as the larger occupancy would require plus or minus 12 spaces. The pawn shop being somewhat smaller in floor space would require approximately eight spaces. The 20 existing are sufficient to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement. C. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the request inasmuch as the location of the structure and the variance requested is purely site choice and not hardship. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present represented by Mr. Jack Ulmer. Mr. Ulmer offered comments in support of the request. He stated that his client had determined that he could settle for the 15-foot setback initially requested as opposed to the modified request which would have provided 5 feet +. There was considerable conversation dealing with the setbacks on the adjacent lots, relationships to those structures, the design of this site and its visibility from Baseline Road. The Board voted on a motion to deny the request as filed. That motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. The staff offered a comment dealing with the potential of making an addition to the north end of this structure. The suggestion would be that the 8.1-foot side yard be allowed along the east side for addition as proposed on the staff illustration. The Board discussed this proposal briefly followed by a motion to allow the side yard variance so as to permit continuity of the east alignment of the building, but adherence to all other ordinance requirements. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 Item No. 3 - Z-4057 Owner: Claude and Emily Arrington Address: 5814 Southwick Drive Description: Lot 9, Section A, Southgate Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District variance Requested: Rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Justification: The owner states five reasons for hardship. These are: (1) To Provide a workshop for leisure hours which are unconventional due to employment which is set at four 12-hour days followed by four days off. (2) To relocate noise generating activities within the household to provide for day sleeping when on night shift. (3) Alternate plans considered would require loss of the only two shade trees remaining. This plan would afford a yard use area shaded by either the trees or the house all day. (4) Mrs. Arrington has an orthopedic problem which makes steps and inclines difficult. She has had numerous falls, and this possibility would be reduced if an at grade relationship exists between the structures by way of the enclosed connecting passage. (5) The reconstruction and repair of several portions of the house would be accomplished at the same time, and it would be more economical to finance them all at the same time. Present Use of the Property: Residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same with additional floor space. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: There are none apparent as this lot is in a recently developed subdivision (20 years +). It is on a flat area with no drainage or street problems apparent. August 15, 1983 Item No. 3 - Continued B. Staff Analysis: The staff view of this request is that the use and structure intended for construction imposed no adverse relationships upon the block. The only reason this matter is before the Board is to deal with a closed connection between the house and proposed shop which could be constructed as an accessory building. The 24' x 30' shop is intruding into the rear yard less than the allowable 30 percent of area coverage for such buildings. As to the hardship stated, we feel that perhaps only one is truly a hardship and that is the physical impairment. This is sufficient in our view to allow the 12' x 30' connection. C. Staff Recommendation: We recommend approval of the request as filed but would include a caution within our recommendation that the structure as proposed is entirely appropriate for conversion to a dwelling unit at some future time. We would recommend that the Board's approval include a prohibition of such activity. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present and briefly addressed the Board. There were no objectors present. The Board, after a brief discussion, voted to approve the application as submitted by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 Item No. 4 - Z-4061 Owner: W.V.S., Inc. By: Richard Savage, AIA Address: 8100 Cantrell Road Description: Lot 1, Foxglen Subdivision Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: The height provisions of Section 7-103.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a building height of 43 feet. Justification: Site is triangular expanding as it moves north away from Cantrell Road. Deed restrictions exist which limit access to the site to two locations and require 40-foot rear setbacks including a 15-foot landscape buffer. Because of the existing setback requirements, easements and access problems, the placement and configuration of a building on the site were severely constrained. As originally conceived, the building was somewhat shorter in length and had a 40-foot setback perimeter by choice. Our interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance indicated that because of the additional setbacks provided, we could have increased the height commensurately. However, in the process of development and marketing, the building length was increased to reach the east setback line. When this occurred, we frankly failed to take into consideration the fact that the Code exception for increase no longer applied. The building still has a 40-foot rear yard and a front yard in excess of 100 feet. The rear yard is bounded on the north by a private street and landscape space before reaching other buildings. The west side is bounded by a side yard and an 80-foot parking lot before reaching the Golden China Restaurant, and the east side is bounded by a side yard setback and intervening private drive and a front yard setback before reaching an adjacent office building. We feel that it obvious that the large spaces around the building relieve any potential for detrimental effect of slightly increased height. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of The Property: New Office Building August 15, 1983 Item No. 4 - Continued STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: None evident at this writing. B. Staff Analysis: Staff view of this request is somewhat mixed in that a true hardship on this site is difficult to pen down with the site vacant. Normally, the Ordinance is a base for design, and the structure is designed to fit the lot. However, in this case, one of those circumstances developed which suggests a variance is sought to save extensive redesign costs or maintain a ground coverage preferred by the owner. In the absence of negative affect on the neighborhood and larger than normal setbacks, we feel the request has some merit. The height difference of eight feet will with the design employed be unnoticed by all but a few design persons. The view of the structure from Cantrell Road is 200 feet + from the near driving lane to the ridge line of the roof. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as filed. BOARD ACTION: The petitioner was represented by Mr. Richard Savage, the architect. Mr. Savage presented additional comments in support of the justification for the request. He further offered a letter of agreement from the Golden China Restaurant to answer questions concerning the off -site parking required for this use. He stated for the record that he and the Building Permits Office had miscounted the number of spaces on -site and that there were in fact enough parking stalls within the boundary to comply with the ordinance. There were no objectors present. The Board voted on a motion to approve the application as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 Item No. 5 - Z-3994-A Owner: Mapco Petroleum Company (Earth Resource Company) By: John Biola Address: 8818 New Benton Highway Description: Part of SW 1/4 of Section 35, T-1-N, R-13-W Zoned: "C-4" Open Display District Variance Requested: Rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 10-foot rear yard. Justification: The owner states that the existing building is 10 feet from the rear line and no other option exists for addition to the existing building. Present Use of the Property: Gasoline Sales and Food Store Proposed Use of The Property: Remain the same with additional floor space for food sales. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: None evident at this writing. B. Staff Analysis: The staff visit to the site revealed two points of discussion which dependent on the views of the reviewing party can make a case for or against the proposal. First, we would point out that significant interior rearrangement will occur in this building after the addition. This suggests that several design options are available to the builder. These would include elimination of the gasoline pumps at the front door and expanding the building toward the highway as well as eastward. Secondly, we would point out that a large generally vacant tract lies to the north which offers the possibility of acquiring 15 feet of land to provide the required rear yard. The development of a August 15, 1983 Item No. 5 - Continued hardship case is difficult given the existing circumstances and possibilities. The owner has not chosen to note that annexation is one of the bases for the problem. This use was constructed while in the County. C. Staff Recommendation: It can be shown that this application is not supported by the evidence and that other options are available. Therefore, in the absence of stronger justification, we recommend denial of the request. BOARD ACTION The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike Haasbrook. Mr. Haasbrook addressed the Board briefly. He offered comments in response to the staff recommendation which suggested they had pursued all of the remedies which the staff had offered. A brief discussion then followed involving all parties as to possible resolution of the problems. A motion was then made by the Board to approve the application as filed. The Board approved this motion by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe, 3 absent and 1 open position. The staff then pointed out to the Board that the bylaws required a minimum of five votes to provide approval on any action before the Board. A brief discussion followed in which the staff suggested that a motion of the Board to set the bylaw requirement aside in this case would be appropriate. A motion was then made to accomplish this. The motion was passed by 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 Item No. 6 - Z-4064 Owner: William R. Smith Address: #3 Longfellow Lane Description: Lot 1 of Block 2, Forbes Place Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District Variance Requested: Front, rear and side yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Justification: The owner offers four comments as justification for the request. They are: (1) The unusual shape of the lot 50' x 1401. (2) The planned addition will fit the house and lot from an appearance standpoint. (3) Additional space is required. (4) The present house is on the lot crooked so that the extension of rooflines and walls on the east side require a variance. Present Use of the Property: Residence Proposed Use of The Property: Remain the same with the expanded floor area for a garden dining room area, a studio and a bath exercise area on the east end of the structure. A carport is proposed for the west end of the structure. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: This lot is flat as are the abutting lots. The block contains an alley 10 feet in right-of-way along the east side of this lot. The street labeled as Longfellow Lane was platted as "W" Street and at that time only 25 feet of right-of-way. That required the street curb to be very close to the lot line, in fact, only four plus feet from the existing door of the structure to the back of the street curb. The setback along Beverly Place is uniform in this block and about 40 to 45 feet on all of the houses. The lot dimension as pointed out by the owner in the justification is not unusual. In fact, it is the standard pre -World War II lot plat size. August 15, 1983 Item No. 6 - Continued B. Staff Analysis: The staff review of this proposal suggests that the lot will be overbuilt if these additions are authorized. There are no physical constraints in support of the proposal and no apparent negative impact on the block except for the carport. The existing house, like most of its neighboring structures, was constructed with some 25 feet additional front yard than the present Ordinance requires. This accounts for the wide spacious streetscape along Beverly Place and the lack of building space in the rear yard. Staff view of this proposal is that a true hardship does not exists, only a desire to follow a trend in this neighborhood toward larger houses on small lots. Although the Ordinance would allow the carport if set back three feet toward the house, we feel that it is not appropriate in this block. C. Staff Recommendation: The staff feels that some of the justification can be accepted relative to the structural additions on the east end of this residence inasmuch as past practice in the neighborhood has allowed such. However, we feel that the carport proposal on the west end of the structure should be disallowed, and the existing structural setback along Beverly Place maintained. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present and made a brief presentation of his proposal and addressed comments made by the staff. Mr. Bob Lowry, representing himself and neighbors, made comments directed not to the request at hand, but to a wall and alley relationship on the east end of this lot. The discussion followed whereby the Board of Adjustment determined that the issue concerning the alley and the wall was not an issue for resolution by this body. After tentative agreement between the parties present that the issue could be resolved outside the Board meeting, the Board proceeded to consider the case at hand. Additional comments were offered both by the staff and other participants as to the relationships of livability space on the lot, the bulk of the structure and typical kinds of variances previously approved in this neighborhood. The result of this conversation was a motion made to approve the variances as requested. A motion was passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 Item No. 7 - Z-3192-A Owner: Mrs. Samuel Smith Address: 5409 "L" Street Description: The E 1/2 of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, Hollenberg Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District Variance Requested: Side yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Justification: At this writing, the staff has not received the required justification from the applicant. Present Use of the Property: Residence Proposed Use of The Property: Remain the same with additional floor space/ STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: The lot involved has little or no grade problem and no apparent drainage problem. The lot is a recombined lot out of two corner lots platted facing Tyler Street. Therefore, the lot has a better building to site relationship than that afforded a normal corner lot. The side street is unimproved and serves little traffic except local access. B. Staff Analysis: The review of this request has uncovered several items of significance. First, a review of our files indicates a variance request for side yard setback of zero feet was denied by the Board of Adjustment on May 22, 1978. Subsequent to that date, the Board of Adjustment denied a request for a reconsideration of that denial on August 25, 1978. The only change in the request from that application is a two -foot setback being offered. The staff pointed out in those hearings that the owner had several options to the rear of this August 15, 1983 Item No. 7 - Continued residence and that no hardship was evident. The lot being a reverse corner lot offered a setback relationship to Tyler somewhat different from that established by the existing dwellings to the south. An addition to this structure on the Tyler Street side will significantly intrude upon visibility and the established setback. C. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends that inasmuch as the applicant has not offered in writing a justification for this variance and the past record has not supported a variance of any kind that the Board withdraw this matter from the agenda and instruct the applicant to pursue this matter only after filing a proper application. The applicant may pursue other options and obtain a building permit. BOARD ACTION: The staff reported to the Board that this applicant had requested withdrawal of this matter from the agenda inasmuch as she did not desire to pursue the request. A motion was made to withdraw the matter. The motion was passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 Item No. 8 - Z-4067 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT Floyd Fulkerson By: City of Little Rock Property located at the SW Corner of Pebble Beach Drive and Hinson Road Lots 918 and 919, Longlea Addition 11R-2" Single Family District Construction within a designated floodway. The owner and circumstances neighborhood filing. Vacant Residences City staff offers the of development of this as the justification for Inasmuch as this item is somewhat involved in nature and a recent agreement between the City Engineer and the owner offers solutions, the City Engineer's Office will address this item at the public hearing. BOARD ACTION Mr. Mike Batie of the City Engineering Department was present representing the proposal. Mr. Batie made a presentation offering justification for the request as well as a history of these lots. He suggested that the proposal as drawn and agreed upon by the various parties was not what would normally be desired in the circumstances, but the best that could be achieved and be fair with all of the parties participating. The Board briefly discussed the presentation and reviewed materials Mr. Batie provided concerning the location of the floodway within the two lots at issue. Comments were made to the effect that the approval of this floodway alignment and the amount of fill remaining would permit no accessory structure within the floodway. It was also noted that floor elevations for structures within the floodplain will apply to both lots. The Chairman pointed out for the record that this action should not be construed to be setting a precedent for review of future circumstances of like kind. The Board then voted on a motion to approve the variance request as presented by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. ;ity of Little Rock )epartment of 701 West Markham 'Ubllc Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4800 August 8, 1983 TO: Board of Adjustment Members FROM: Mike Batie, Senior Civil Engineer W4' RE: Floodway Encroachment - Lots 918 and 919, Longlea Addition Background: The Public Works Department received a citizen's complaint in February 1983 expressing concern over filling on the above mentioned property. The engineering staff investigated the complaint and observed fill that had been placed in the Floodway. On February 18, 1983, the property owner, Mr. Floyd Fulkerson, was sent a letter requesting his assistance in removing the fill. Mr. Fulkerson replied that others had been illegally dumping on his property without his permission. Also, he wanted the Floodway boundary line changed because it was not in existence when he previously platted his property. This was not an acceptable reason to change the Floodway boundary line. The engineering staff began investigating the possibility of changing the Floodway Boundary by increasing the creek width; thereby decreasing the Floodway. After surveying the property and discussions with Conrad Battreal of the Flood Plain Management Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the decision was confirmed that the Floodway Boundary up- stream from the box culvert at Pebble Beach Drive could not be relocated at this time. Therefore, channel improve- ments alone would not decrease the Floodway Boundary. At this point, Mr. Fulkerson was notified that .fill material located in the Floodway was to be removed. Mr. Fulkerson advised the Public Works Department that he would not remove the entire fill in the floodway and that he would take the City to court to rectify the situation. At this point, the engineering staff tried to work out a compromise that was acceptable to the City's Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance and Mr. Fulkerson's position. The following action was recommended: 1) The present fill material located west of the ft -2- platted easement line should be removed. 2) Mr. Fulkerson should request a hardship variance from the Board of Adjustment for permission to construct within the shaded area (Floodway between the Flood - way Boundary and the platted easement line). The hardship variance is based upon his past understanding that he would be able to use his property from the property line on Hinson Road west to the platted easement line. Also, construction would be restricted to the area between the 25 foot building set- back line and the Floodway Boundary, which would leave approximately 50 feet for construction. Mr. Fulkerson advised the Public Works Department that he would not take this matter to the Board of Adjustment. However, as an act of compromise, Mr. Fulkerson has re- moved fill material located from the creek bank east to the platted easement line. (See the attached map). The Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance is clear in its requirements. Either the fill in the Floodway is to be removed or a variance must be granted by the Board of Adjustment. Recommended Action: MB/bw • A variance should be granted for the above mentioned lots in order that construction be allowed within the area from the Flood - way boundary to the platted easement line. The structures should be sited as far east on the site as possible. ■ Any further filling from the platted ease- ment line to the creek would revoke the variance. August 15, 1983 Item No. 9 - Z-3827 Owner: Hendrix College By: George Anderson Address: NW Corner of West 12th Street at Fair Park Boulevard Description: Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 1, Peay and Worthen Addition Zoned: "C-4" Open Display District Variance Requested: Reconsideration of variance conditions imposed by the Board on October 18, 1982, relative to curb cuts. Present Use of the Property: Texaco Service Station Proposed Use of the Property: Remain the same. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues: No new information has been developed. B. Staff Analvsis: In this analysis, the staff will first offer commentary from the applicant as to his justification for this variance and the reason for a third review by the Board on this project. The applicant states that changed circumstances relative to pump island locations and traffic patterns are the stronger argument. The owner feels compliance with the closure demand of the Board will impact his business significantly. He feels that automobile traffic within, to and from his site will be seriously impacted to the extent that he will lose customers due to the inability to return to Fair Park Boulevard for southbound travel. Staff would offer to the Board from the record of the last Board of Adjustment meeting on October 18, 1982, the following excerpt: "Staff Recommendation: On April 19, 1982, the Board of Adjustment approved a 21.7-foot setback on the east side and a 22.5-foot setback on the south side with the provision that two existing curb cuts near the intersection be closed. Upon August 15, 1983 Item No. 9 - Continued further planning for reopening of this service station, the applicant has found it necessary to revert to the original pump island locations except that the islands will be moved back from the street. This arrangement requires two canopies rather than the one proposed in the previous application. The size of the canopies have been reduced to 20' x 241. In addition, the applicant finds it desirable and necessary to keep the second curb cut on 12th Street open in order to adequately handle traffic. What is now being proposed is a 22-foot setback from Fair Park Boulevard for the canopy and a 15-foot setback from West 12th Street. In addition, the applicant is proposing to reduce the existing 40-foot curb cut on 12th Street nearest the intersection to 25 feet and to close the other curb cut on Fair Park nearest the intersection. Staff recommends approval of this new proposal. Board Action: Staff stated that this was a rehearing on an earlier case owing to some revisions in the proposal that had to be made for technical reasons. After some discussion, the Board moved to approve the new design as recommended by the staff. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent." The staff maintains the same position as reflected in the record. We feel that circumstances have not changed, only the personal preference of the owner. The record does not reflect strong owner objection to the curb cut closures on either occasion, and the building permit results show he was willing to take all of the positive advantages offered. He has completed all construction work except these closures. At this time, the curb cuts are blocked by wheel stops and not in use for access. We maintain that better control of cuts on this busy corner is required to assure a reduction in conflict on street. C. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the request. August 15, 1983 Item No. 9 - Continued BOARD ACTION: There were no objectors present. Mr. George Anderson, the applicant, was present and addressed the Board. He offered comments in support of his request. The staff and applicant discussed at length the pros and cons of the curb cuts with the following result: the Board unanimously approved a motion to allow the owner to temporarily open the curb cuts for a period of six months in order to study the traffic impact on Fair Park Blvd. The staff was directed to place this matter on the February 1984 agenda for consideration of a study of the effects observed by staff. Monitoring of the site was directed in order to obtain first hand information on accessibility, conflicts, movement and travel desire of the pump island users. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. August 15, 1983 There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m. Date 9 • /) - 93 5ecr tar airman