Loading...
09-07-04Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING City Hall — 500 W. Markham September 7, 2004 M6 111 The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in regular session with Mayor Dailey presiding. City Clerk, Nancy Wood called the roll with the following Directors Present: Directors Pugh, Keck, Adcock, Hurst, Wyrick, Cazort, Kumpuris, Vice Mayor Hinton and Mayor Dailey. Director Stewart was absent. Vice Mayor Hinton gave the invocation, which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Dailey asked the Board to consider the following modification to the agenda. Director Cazort made the motion to make the listed modifications, Director Pugh seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the agenda was modified. MODIFICATIONS: DEFERRAL: PRESENTATION: (Will be rescheduled for another date) Major General Melvin Thrash, Retired — Appreciation of support for City of Little Rock employees serving on active duty in the National Guard. DELETION 15. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION (Applicant did not send proper notices) - Z -7649 — To appeal the Little Rock Planning Commission's Action in denying a conditional use permit to allow the existing residential structure on the R -3 zoned property located at 3007 S. Cross to be converted into a day care center. Planning Commission: 5 yes, 5 no. I absent. Staff recommends denial. PRESENTATIONS: River Market — City Blocks - The presentation was deferred to September 21, 2004. Major General Melvin Thrash, Retired — Appreciation of support for City of Little Rock employees serving on active duty in the National Guard. The item is to be rescheduled. CONSENT AGENDA (1 -7) 1. MOTION - To approve minutes from the regular Board of Directors Meeting: June 1, 2004, June 15, 2004, July 13, 2004, Reconvened Meeting June 8, 2004 Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM 2. MOTION - Z -7672 — To set the date of public hearing for September 21, 2004 on a petition to rescind the Planning Commission's action in denying a Special Use permit for a day care family home located at 8701 Verbena Drive. Planning Commission: 4 yes, 6 no, I absent. Staff recommends denial of the Special Use Permit. Synopsis: Ms. Nikitia Britton is appealing the Planning Commission's decision in denying a Special Use Permit to allow a day care family home on the R -2 zoned property at 8701 Verbena. 3. RESOLUTION 11,818 - To set the date of public hearing for October 18, 2004 to consider an ordinance authorizing the issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds for the purpose of financing extensions, betterments and improvements to the City's sewer system. Synopsis: The resolution sets the date and time of October 18, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance authorizing up to $13,000,000 in principal amount of Sewer Revenue Bonds. 4. RESOLUTION 11,819 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Ward's Asbestos Removal, Inc. to remove asbestos from the Fire Training building; and for other purposes. (2004 Bond Project) Staff recommends approval. 5. RESOLUTION 11,820 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Geo- Energy Solutions to drill wells and perform related work; and for other purposes. (2004 Bond Project) Staff recommends approval. 6. RESOLUTION 11,821 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Stuck Associates Architects to provide architectural services for the construction of a new Animal Services; and for other purposes. (2004 Bond Project). Staff recommends approval 7. RESOLUTION 11,822 - G -25 -191— To change the name of that portion of Kavanaugh Blvd., located between McKinley Street and Kavanaugh Place to Richard B. Hardie Drive. Planning Commission: 10 yes, 0 No, I absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Westover Hills Presbyterian Church is requesting that the name of that portion of Kavanaugh be changed to Richard B. Hardie Drive in honor of the church's pastor emeritus. Mayor Dailey indicated he had received some speaker cards from several citizens to speak in favor of Item 7, but as it was listed on the Consent Agenda, unless the speakers wanted to speak, he would acknowledge by name the persons who filled out the cards. Those who filled out speaker cards were: Alison Nicholson, Debra Freeman, Jim Freeman, Fred Gray, Yael West, Fennel Purifoy. Mayor Dailey stated three citizens had presented cards to speak in opposition to Item 3. Mayor Dailey stated the only comment that would be in order tonight would be as to whether or not there should be a public hearing. He stated this was not about the issue of a solid waste treatment plant, or any issues dealing with rates, etc. The public hearing would be the appropriate place for discussion. Mayor Dailey asked if any of the speakers wished to speak regarding the public hearing. Natalie Willis, Brenda Norwood, did not wish to speak on setting the public hearing. Stan Nowicki, stated there were two dates indicated, and asked which date the Board would have the public hearing, and where the meeting would be held. Mr. Moore, City Manager, explained that because the Board had agreed to move the Board of Directors Meeting to October 18, 2004 so the meeting date would be October 18th, and it would take place at City Hall. 2 Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM The Consent Agenda was read. A motion was made by Director Adcock seconded by Director Cazort to adopt the Consent Agenda; by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the Consent Agenda was adopted. Citizens Communications was the next consideration. Speakers: Nancy Lot and Regina Norwood Topic: Wastewater Sewer Treatment Plant— Pinnacle Valley Road Area Speaker: Carlo Green Topic: Requesting a Sidewalk at Lancaster and 65th Street for safety reasons. Speaker: Marshall Peters and Helen Schaefer Topic: Problems with vagrants and safety issues in the downtown area Speaker: Pastor Lola Hensan, New Life Christian Outreach Topic: Saint City Project - Asked for a portion of Southwest Little Rock, that was referred to as "Sin City" several years ago, to be re -zoned for residential single family dwelling, along with a Family Life Center. Asked to be considered for any funds the City might have for non -profit organizations that they might qualify for. Mayor Dailey introduced Boy Scout Troop 99. The Grouped Items 8 -12, were considered. 8. ORDINANCE 19,173 - To call for the annexation of the area in Section 15, T -2, N, R -14- W, surrounded by the City limits (George Island). 9. ORDINANCE 19,174 - Z- 3292 -H - Repealing Ordinance No. 18,272 and revoking a portion of a Planned Zoning District titled Atkins Road Partnership — Short Form PCD located at the southwest corner of West Markham Street and Atkins Road (Lot 1, Park West Commons); and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 10 yes, 0 No, 1 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The property owner, Kathy J. McFarland (trustee for the M. J. Keech Trust) is requesting to revoke the PCD for Lot 1, Park West Commons, and have the zoning revert back to its original 0-3 General Office District classification. 10. ORDINANCE 19,175 - Z -7670 — To reclassify property from 0-3 General Office District to 0-1 Quiet Office District located at 4305 Barrow Road in the City of Little Rock; amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 10 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Glenroy and Adelle Charles, owners of the 0.15 acre property at 4305 Barrow Road, are requesting to rezone the property at 4305 Barrow Road from 0-3 General Office District, to 0-1 Quiet Office District. 11. ORDINANCE 19,176 - Correcting the Master Street Plan Map for the Little Rock Planning Area; and for other purposes. Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting_ September 7, 2004 6:00 PM 12. ORDINANCE - Held on 2od Reading - To amend Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code 2 -243 (1988) to recognize Development or Redevelopment Coordinator as a Professional Service for the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and for its various Boards and Commissions; and for other purposes. Requires 2 meetings. The ordinances were read the first time. A motion was made by Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort to suspend the rules and place the ordinances (Items 8 -12) on second reading. Director Cazort inquired as to whether Item 12 needed to be read only one time tonight. Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney, advised that the Item 12 could be read twice, but had to be voted on in separate meeting. The rules were suspended by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number. The Ordinances (Items 9 -12) were read the second time. Director Adcock made the motion to suspend the rules and place Items 8 — 11 on third and final reading. Director Cazort seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present being two - thirds in number suspended the rules to provide for the third reading. The ordinances (Items 8 -11) were read the third time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the ordinances (Items 8 -11) were passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE 19,177 - G -23 -338 — To abandon a public right - of -way located east of North University Avenue and west of Pierce Street for portions of "A" and `B" Streets. Planning Commission: 10 yes, 0 no, I absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant is requesting the abandonment of portions of "A" and "B" Streets as public right of way and utility easement located within a purposes Planned Commercial Development tiled University Plaza Long -form PCD. Mayor Dailey declared the public hearing open. There was no one to speak in favor or in opposition to the Ordinance. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing... The ordinance was read the first time. Director Hurst moved, seconded by Director Cazort, to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second read and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two thirds in number, the rules were suspend to provide for the second reading. The ordinance was read the second time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two thirds in number the rules were suspended to provide for the third and final reading. The ordinance was read the third time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the ordinance was passed. 14. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION 11,823 - To approve the uses of projected 2005 CDBG, HOME, and ADDI funds as part of the City's Annual Plan, and for other purposes. Gloria Smith, Hattie Daniels stated she would like to see more money was needed in loan counselors, and home buyer programs. Erma Hendrix, asked for restrictions on boarding homes that would not follow the request of the city and take passion of those home. She stated there was some legislation passed several years ago where these homes could be repaired and sold back into the community. Ms. Hendrix asked the Board to defer the item and look at the projects that had been funded before, that they were capable of getting outside funding, and give the money to the seniors who deserve it. Judy Green requested the Board to consider the Limited Home Repair Program which allows electricians and plumbers who are certified and 4 Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM bonded, and on the list of qualified people, allow them to bid directly on the work and cut out the middle person so they won't over bid, because the general contractors were building in their money. Mr. Bruce Moore, City Manager asked Lisa Spigner, the CDBG Manager to address the issues brought up. Ms. Spigner, in reference to the counseling contracts, stated that an RFP had just recently been issued for those, and there was money set aside to do three contracts for about $33,000 each. Historically these agencies have taken about eighteen months to twenty -four months to go through a contract of that size, so there will be housing counseling classes available over the next two years. In terms of the down payment assistance, there is $78,000 in the ADDI Program which is a new down payment program. She said in a week or two there would be an amendment to the 2004 Plan for additional ADDI money that they are receiving from HUD, that would total about $147,000, so there would be over $200,000 in assistance in 2005. Ms. Spigner stated that both of those issues come up when the Consolidated Planning Committee met. Director Adcock asked how much was in the Limited Home Repair Fund. Ms. Spigner answered that there was $400,000. She said those funds are used for senior citizens and the disabled. Ms. Spigner explained the process, saying they started this summer with public hearings announcing the availability of the funds and that proposals for those funds would be accepted. Two meetings in each of the City's Wards were held, electing a chairperson and vice chairperson form each ward. These people sit together to form the Consolidated Planning Committee. She said a direct mail is sent out to over a thousands persons who are on their mailing list, they advertised in large display advertisements in the paper, all the alert centers received advertisements, advising that the funds were available and asking for proposals for that funding. They received the proposals and the Consolidated Planning Committee met and reviewed everything that was submitted, and arrived at the slate of projects for the funding. Director Adcock asked if there was any money in the fund for the homeless. Ms. Spigner answered that there is $70,000 for a day resource center for the homeless. Mr. Moore, City Manager, stated that part of the Ten Year Plan to address chronic homelessness includes a day resource center. He stated he had asked staff to work with the Consolidated Planning Committee to try to identify, seed money to develop this concept. He said staff had requested $150,000 for the day resource center. He said the Planning Committee considered that request and recommended $70,000. This is just the first component of the development of a day resource center and by no means would complete it. He stated this has to be looked at on a regional level, but this appropriation is a good start. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing. The resolution was read. Director Cazort, seconded by Director Hurst moved to adopt the resolution. With a unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolution was adopted. 15. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION — DELETED - Failure to send notices - Z -7649 — To appeal the Little Rock Planning Commission's Action in denying a conditional use permit to allow the existing residential structure on the R -3 zoned property located at 3007 S. Cross to be converted into a day care center. Planning Commission: 5 yes, 5 no. I absent. Staff recommends denial. 16. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION - Deferred to reconvene on Sept 14 - To appeal the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a request for rezoning of the site located at 13504 Crystal Valley Road from R -2 Single- family to PD -C. Planning Commission: 5 yes, 6 no. Staff recommends approval of the requested PD -C zoning. Mayor E Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM Dailey opened the public hearing. He stated Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director, stated the issue before the Board is a public hearing and an ordinance whether to reclassify the property in question for the PCD to allow for the auto repair. He said there was a resolution two meetings prior to set the public hearing for tonight, but what is before the Board is an ordinance for reclassifying the property. Mr. Bozynski stated the action would be on the ordinance as to whether to reclassify the property or not. Director Keck asked for clarification. Mr. Bozynski stated the applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission in denying the rezoning. Director Keck stated the people who are her tonight that are against the ordinance are opposed to the appeal. Mr. Bozynski stated they are opposed to reclassifying the property for the use. Mayor Dailey stated if a Board member agrees with the applicant their vote would be yes. Mr. Bozynski stated the Planning Commission did deny the request; staff is in support of it. Mr. Bozynski said there has been auto repair taking place on the property, but more as a hobby, not as a business, and that was what created the need to do the reclassification. The applicant wants to operate a business and have other people coming to the shop. He has agreed to no signage for the property. Mr. John Webster, attorney, on behalf of Mr. John From, the applicant, asked the Board to allow Mr. From's request to have his property rezoned from R -2 residential to Planned Development Commercial. Mr. Webster explained that Mr. From wanted to operate a small business, himself as the only employee, in an existing structure, which he has used in a hobby, which is repairing automobiles. He wants to evolve his hobby into a situation where he can have a limited number of customers, at any given time to come in for engine work, oil changes, ect., no body work. The work would be contained in a metal structure with the most noise coming perhaps form a hydraulic airlift. It is unlikely any noise generated would be heard outside of the building, or on the adjoining property. The neighbor's adjoining his property has voiced approval of this particular change, and have asked when the business may open to take advantage. He will be specializing in Japanese automobiles, which would fill a specialized need. There will be restricted hours, and number of customers, no outside storage, and work all contained in the building. Mr. John From, applicant, stated he has been in the automotive industry for twenty five years, he said he built the building as a hobby, just to work on cars. He said he has had several people request automotive services, and this was a way to enjoy his hobby, and to make money as well. He said he was shocked that this was such a problem with some of the neighbors. He said he does not live in the city limits, so was shocked that he would need to come to the Board for the requested zoning. Oley Rooker, David Zakrezki, Troy Laha, Frank Vorster, Rodman Ritchie, Tom Brock, Lynn Jenkins, L. W. Brook, representing the Crystal Valley Neighborhood Association, the Otter Creek Neighborhood Association, Plantation Acres Neighborhood Associations, spoke in opposition to the rezoning, saying that this was not in keeping with their Neighborhood Plans. He said this is a bedroom community, and there is a new subdivision going in, and west of Mr. From, there is another development going in across the street, approximately 40 new homes, and on the corner, there is another new residential community going in the neighborhood in their planned bedroom community and wanted the neighborhood to progress with all the neighborhood community and keep it residential. They did want their neighborhood plan interrupted. There was mention of increased traffic. They did not want commercial zoning in their neighborhood. Mr. From handed out pictures of the building and of commercial signage in the area, and said a lot of the neighbors have no objections. He said he is not in the city and does not receive any city benefits. He said some of the neighborhood people were asking him to help them oppose the homes that they had just mentioned. He said he would not have signage, and thought this was a unique business, and Me Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM that he would try to blend into the neighborhood. Director Cazort stated what they were being asked to approve tonight is a PCD that is for the applicant's use only, that will revert to residential zoning once he no longer owns the property, that this was a very limited PCD. Director Wyrick stated she supported Mr. Rooker and the Neighborhood action plan, and the new residential that is expected in the area, and were working hard to keep South West Little Rock up, and this is a new area that has remained fairly pristine, and making Stagecoach Road a Scenic Corridor, ad support Mr. Rooker and the neighborhoods in this effort. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Bozynski if this were, as seen on a number of occasions, a private residence, and someone wanted to put a one or two chair beauty salon on the property, and routinely heard form staff, not to do that, then what is the difference in this application than in those types of situations where they live on the property, and how that differs from what is being discussed. Mr. Bozynski stated that what they looked at is that Mr. From is proposing is to formalize it through this application, with something that was taking place on the property already. The buildings have a non - residential character to them. With the applicant agreeing to these restrictions, staff felt that this would have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. He stated staff would like to work with the applicant because he has agreed that the application is for his use only and any change to that would require revision if this PCD is approved. He said staff would like for him to take it to the next step of him, should he sell the property or discontinue the use, revoking the PCD, and reverting it back to R -2 single family. Mr. Bozynski stated the applicant could amend the application to include the revocation. Mr. Walker, on behalf of Mr. From, that he would be willing to amend his request to have it be considered a conditional use with only him, and not with the land such that if he were to sell or otherwise divide the property, the use would cease and the property would revert back to R -2. Director Cazort asked if that amendment could be included. Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney advised that if the Board wishes to go forward with that, the ordinance would need to be rewritten to reflect that clearly between now and the next meeting. Mr. Moore stated he would recommend the additional time. Mr. From stated he would like to keep the commercial look away, and would not hire additional employees. Director Cazort stated if this item were to be deferred, he would like to make the motion to amend the ordinance to include a provision that the conditional use on this property would revert back to R- 2. Mr. Carpenter stated if the ordinance, if brought back in two weeks, if this does not go to second reading, would be to import all conditions that have been set forth here tonight, including the reversion to R -2, would be helpful. Director Cazort stated he was moving to add a reversion to R -2 for future non - ownership. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing, Director Pugh seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Hinton asked if this would not have to go back to the Planning Commission with these changes. Mayor Dailey stated he felt that this may be an action that would be taken, as the discussions take place in the next two weeks. Mr. Moore stated he did not see anything that had been raised to this point that would make him believe this would need to go back to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken on Director Cazort's motion. The vote was as follows: Director Pugh, no, Director Hurst, yes, Director Cazort, yes, Director Keck, yes, Director Wyrick, yes, Director Kumpuris, yes, Director Graves, yes, Director Adcock, no, Vice Mayor Hinton, no, Mayor Dailey yes. The vote was recorded as 7 in favor, 3 opposed, 1 absent (Director Stewart). The motion was approved. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing. Director Wyrick motioned to defer the item to a reconvened meeting on Tuesday; Director Kumpuris seconded the motion, by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present the motion carried. Mr. Carpenter advised that the motion should be to 7 Little Rock Board of Dricctors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM reconvene the meeting next week. The Board members agreed that this is what they understood the motion to be. 17. ORDINANCE — FAILED - S- 1100 -B — Granting variances from various lot development standards of Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; providing for a variance to allow a reduced front lot width on selected lots. A variance to allow a reduced lot depth on selected lots, a variance to allow reduced minimum lot square footage on selected lots, a variance to allow a reduced front yard building line on selected lots for the Capital Lakes Estates Tract A - Governors Manor — Preliminary Plat located north of Capitol Hills Boulevard at Rushmore Avenue. Planning Commission: 7 yes, 3 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant is requesting the following variances from the Subdivision Ordinance in developing 9.12 acres with 45 single- family lots: • variance to allow a reduced front lot width on selected lots. • variance to allow a reduced lot depth on selected lots. • variance to allow a reduced minimum lot square footage on selected lots. • variance to allow a reduced front yard building line on selected lots. The ordinance was read the first time. Director Keck asked Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director, why it was not a planned development rather than a request for so many variances, that most applications such as this do come to the Board as planned developments. Mr. Bozynski stated at staff level they are discussing how to hand these in the future. He said a majority of these types of developments have come through as planned developments. Director Adcock asked if Mr. Bozynski or staff had spoken to Mr. DeHaven, the applicant, about a PRD, and asked about the illegal dumping on the road. Mr. Bozynski stated Ms. Donna James from his staff had had several conversations with Mr. Andy Francis, who is here tonight, on behalf of Mr. DeHaven. Mr. Bozynski sated that the final comment form them was that they feel the plat does a lot of things you would get through a planned development and wanted to proceed with the application which is before the Board, to grant the variances for the development. Mr. Andy Francis, attorney for the applicant, in reference to the illegal dumping, stated that an abandonment application has not been filed yet with the city. The road has been closed but the right of way has not formally been abaondoned. Mr. Francis stated he would be speaking on behalf of the applicant, and was asking for approval of the newest phase of the Capital Lakes Estates Neighborhood, The Governor's Manor Subdivision. Mr. Francis requested that the opposition be heard first so that he might be able to answer any questions that might come up. Mayor Dailey asked if there were any objection from the Board. There was no objection. Mayor Dailey recognized Ross Phillips, resident of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, stated he was at the Planning Commission, in opposition to the approval at the Planning Commission level. He stated that no one at staff could ever tell him that they have allowed anything like this application, with this many variances, approved as a non- PRD. He said no one could find any record of that, or recall any like that. He said they were not in opposition of the plat the way it is, with the smaller lot sizes, and all the variances, as long as it was a PRD, and would like some guidance as to what the applicant is going to do with these lots as all but two lots have multiple variances. Anita Spence, said they did not expect this type of development and wanted reassurances of what type homes were going to be developed that this was originally reserved as E Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM a church site and had concerns about this being a gated community, with a wooden fence around it. Wayne Elkins, stated they were afraid of this development, and keep coming back to the Planning Commission and City Board, because the developer keeps coming back saying they want to do things differently, and everything they want to do differently seems to be a little cheaper, smaller, a little more worrisome and presenting a little more traffic to the area. He stated this was treating their serenity, security and property values and would like very precaution to be taken, and if that could be done by the neighborhood residents having more information up front, that would be helpful. He said he hated the way their road has been changed. He stated Cooper Orbit Road has been made into an usher lane into these apartments, and they now have stop signs and right hand turns where they used to have a straight road. Mr. Francis, representing the applicant stated this application was submitted as a straight subdivision, and that is what is proper for this type of development. He said the neighbors have asked what kind of assurances they will have as to what will happen on this property. He said it would be the same sort of thing that would happen or the other R -2 single family zoned property. As in the R -2 ordinance, the subdivision plat provides the guidelines and sets out the side, front and rear yard setbacks. There is a maximum buildable area set forth on the plat. He said what could be expected to be seen is single family housing. He stated they expected to market the property as a patio home, concentrated toward "empty nesters ", retired couples, possibly singles, to own the housing. He said this would be very similar as the Phase I B of Capital Lakes Estates, which was recently approved and the final plat has been filed. That is single family residential housing. He said he was concerned that going with a planned residential development was that they may be causing more problems than they are solving. He said he was concerned that they would be setting themselves up for forty -five individual disputes over what happens on these lots. He said there would be a minimum of 1600 Square Foot of heated and cooled living space in Governors Manor. He said it would be similar to the existing single family residential in the area, and said his client, who has 118 single family residential lots to sell is not going to do anything that would impair property values. He said one of the reasons for the smaller lot size on this development is that over the entire 9.5 acre tract, this allows them to concentrate some of the space that might be dedicated for each lot, to create an open space that shown as the area around the detention pond and the retention pond itself. The purpose is to try to create a community space. Mr. Francis handed out a rendering of what a concept for this area might look like. Director Keck asked Mr. Carpenter if this was submitted as a Planned Residential Development, if it was true that each unit would have to come in as forty -five different cases, as Mr. Francis stated earlier. Mr. Carpenter stated he did not think so, that as he understood it, a Planned Residential Development would produce a preliminary plan and there could be some modifications on there that over a period of time, a year, that would come forward as a final plan that would have to be approved by staff. Staff has some discretion to make modifications to that plan, consistent with the preliminary plan. Once that is in place that would be what would come forward. The brick and other things mentioned earlier would not be a part of that planned residential development. These would be the general size and shape of the lots, and move from that standpoint. Mr. Carpenter stated that using the example given, if this was to be a planned development, and then they decided they wished to remove the retention pond which is also a decorative pond, then that would be something that would have to come forward again for Board approval. There were questions from the Board regarding whether the bill of assurance and the home owners association had been filed with the county. Mr. Francis said one had been filed for Phase I B, the 118 lots. He stated one would be drafted for this property that would be filed if 0 Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM approved. There were questions on the contents of the bill of assurance. Mr. Francis said the types of restrictions would be that it established architectural control committee, where the developer retains the power to approve and deny plans for housing submitted. The developer can dedicate that power to a committee. The location, and plat plans showing location of structure on the lot, exterior elevation drawings of sides of the building, a detailed floor plan that includes the total square footage of heated and cooled space, the exterior type of materials and the color scheme, the description of the roof treatment and location plans for the garage and driveway. If the builder wants to change the plan after this submission has been approved, then it has to go back to the developer for approval. Director Kumpuris stated he did not see the down side of a planned residential development. Mr. Francis stated he did not want to get into a situation where the features were dictated, which might discourage a potential buyer, and to have the flexibility to do what the market demands, with regard to the individual houses. Director Hurst asked who would comprise the committee for architectural control. Mr. Francis stated that was contemplated to be members of the home owners association. Mr. Francis stated he thought it was a good plan, and didn't see that there would be a gain in going with a PRD, but did see potential for further conflict with a planned residential development, and asked for the Boards support. Director Kumpuris asked for a motion to delay the application for two weeks, Director Cazort seconded the motion. Director Keck stated that he felt if this was dealt with this evening, and was not approved, that there would be a time frame before this could come back to the Board, and was not sure how long it would take for a planned development to be filed or it would have to wait. He stated as a matter of policy, the Board had never granted four variances on a residential development, and was concerned that the Board would be setting a policy were this approved, that may not be in the best interest of the City to do that. Mr. Francis asked for a response of staff's timing as to filing a PRD. Mr. Carpenter stated he thought Director Keck was referring to the fact that if a zoning were denied, then an additional zoning request could not be filed of a similar nature for a one year period of time, but seeking of a variance are different, so this application could come pack as a PDR. Mr. Carpenter, stated in reference to the motion on the floor, stated that the Board has decided to recess to next week, and that Mr. Francis stated his instructions are to have this moved forward at this meeting, which will continue into next week. Director Keck stated he assumed that Mr. Francis client had not assumed that this meeting was going to be reconvened a week from now, and wanted to make sure Mr. Francis was clear. Mr. Francis stated if they did that, would it result in a position where they could not amend without going back for a rezoning at the Planning Commission? Mr. Carpenter stated that is generally the situation. Mr. Carpenter explained that generally, to amend an application, it would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Director Hurst asked if the Board voted this proposal down, and the developer wants to come back with a PRD, how long is it before he can come back and basically request the same proposal, but under a PRD? Mr. Carpenter stated he could file it immediately with the Planning staff as a PRD, and it would then go back to the through the Planning process, with notices issued, etc. Mr. Bruce Moore, City Manager stated it would be about two months before it could come back to the Board. Mr. Francis asked Mr. Carpenter if the applicant lacked the authority to amend the application as it stands, to a PRD? Mr. Carpenter stated that generally, yes, and felt it would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Francis asked to move forward with the zoning, with variances as applied. Mayor Dailey stated the motion before the Board is to defer this two weeks, but stated he did not feel there was any advantage do deferring in light of what the applicant has just stated. Director Kumpuris withdrew the motion, with Director Cazort withdrawing the second. Mr. Elkins, neighborhood 10 Little Rock Board of Driectors Meeting September 7, 2004 6:00 PM resident, stated they are not giving any assurances; they were unknown and conceptual, that everything the applicant is saying is after the fact. Mr. Phillips, neighborhood resident, stated that to submit this without a PRD made no sense. He said it there is a subdivision created that would have variances on the font, back and both sides, why is there even criteria for planned developments. Director Keck, seconded by Director Cazort, made the motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number, the rules were suspended to provide for the second reading. The ordinance was read the second time. Director Keck, seconded by Director Adcock, made the motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number, the rules were suspended to provide for the third and final reading. The ordinance was read the third time. The roll was called and recorded as follows: Directors Pugh, no, Hurst, no, Cazort, no, Keck, no, Wyrick, no, Kumpuris, no, Graves, no, Adcock, no, Vice Mayor Hinton, no, Mayor Dailey, no. Director Stewart was absent. The ordinance failed. Director Keck made a motion to recess the meeting until September 14, 2004, Director Cazort seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of Board members present, the meeting was recessed at 8:45 PM. ATTEST: Nan Wood City Clerk APPROVED: — 4"M gotq May r Dailey, Mayor