01-20-04Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
January 20, 2004
6:00 PM
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:
Pugh, Vice Mayor Hinton, Keck, Stewart, Adcock, Hurst, Wyrick, Cazort, and Mayor Dailey.
Director Kumpuris was absent. Director Keck gave the invocation, which was followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATIONS:
J. J. Lewis — "Lil J. J." — Mayor Dailey Introduced James Lewis, of Little Rock, Arkansas, was
the winner of BET's National Comedy Completion, and a clip of one of his routines was shown
to the viewing audience.
Interviews: Children Youth & Families Commission
Candidates Interviewed were:
Cornelya Dorbin
Ronald Eddington
Patricia McMurray
Keith Strickland
Mayor Dailey asked the clerk to read the Consent agenda, adding Item M -1.
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 11,671 - To approve, pursuant to Act 1372 of 2003, the continued
employment of members of the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) for the Little Rock
Fire Pension and Relief Fund at the conclusion of the DROP period; and for other purposes.
Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The resolution allows firefighters in the DROP plan to continue
employment with the City of Little Rock after completion of the DROP period ends as authorized by ACT
1372 of 2003.
CONSENT AGENDA (1 -17)
1. MOTION - To approve minutes from the Regular Board of Directors Meeting held
December 2, 2003.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,655 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts for
generators for Police and Fire Stations; and for other purposes.
Synopsis: The work will be funded from Fire and Police Projects contained in the 2003 Bond Issue.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6PM
3. RESOLUTION NO. 11,656 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with W.
C. Looper Roofing Co., Inc. LLC to install new roofs on Central Fire, Fire Stations #4, #6, #9
and #18. Synopsis: The work will be funded from Fire Station renovation projects contained in the 2003
Bond.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 11,657 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with J.
A. Riggs Tractor Company for the purchase of one (1) Low Ground Pressure Waste Handling
Dozer in the amount of $294,000.00 Synopsis: Four bids were received for Bid # 02170. J.A. Riggs
Tractor Company is the lowest responsible bidder meeting minimum specifications.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 11,658 - Awarding a construction contract to Gene Summers
Construction, Inc. for improvements to 42nd Street from Holt Street to Elam Street. Synopsis:
Authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract with Gene Summers Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$62,136.90 for construction of improvements to 42 "d Street between Holt and Elam Street. Funding is
from CDBG CO3 G582.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 11,659 - Authorizes the City Manager to execute contracts with
engineering consultants to design Bond Projects for street, drainage and sidewalk projects.
Synopsis: The projects were previously selected by the Board and referred to the voters as the selected 2003
bond projects.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 11,660 - A resolution providing for the use of Infrastructure Bond
Contingency funds to improve Collins Street between 3rd Street and Clinton Avenue.
Synopsis: Authorizes the use of approximately $225,000 in 1998 bond contingency funds to improve Collins
Street.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 11,661 - To authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with
Diakon Molding for 2000, 90- gallon solid waste containers and to issue a one -year annual
purchase order for additional carts if needed. Synopsis: The amount for the carts is $66,500. Funds are
available in account number 603 - 220 - 2110 -2160.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 11,662 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a Governmental
Services Agreement with Pulaski County, Arkansas for the purpose of providing animal
services; and for other purposes.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 11,663 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the Woodson Hensley Fire
Department; and for other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid
between political subdivision in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster
or significant emergency.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 11,664 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the Wrightsville )lire Department;
and for other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid between political
subdivision in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster or significant
emergency.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 11,665 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the Highway 365 Fire Department;
K
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 PM
and for other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid between political
subdivision in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster or significant emergency.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 11,666 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the Sweet Home Fire Department;
and for other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid between political
subdivision in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster or significant
emergency.
14. RESOLUTION NO. 11,667 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the Arch Street Fire Department;
and for other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid between political
subdivision in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster or significant
emergency.
15. RESOLUTION NO. 11,668 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the Crystal Fire Department; and for
other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid between political subdivision
in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster or significant emergency.
16. RESOLUTION NO. 11,669 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the Quail Creek Fire Department;
and for other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid between political
subdivision in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster or significant
-- emergency.
17. RESOLUTION NO. 11,670 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and hazardous materials incident response with the West Pulaski Fire Department;
and for other purposes. Synopsis: Arkansas Statute 12 -75119 authorizes mutual aid between political
subdivision in order to assure and assist with adequate resources in the event of a disaster or significant emergency.
The Consent Agenda consisting of Items 1 -17, and Item M -1 was read. A motion was made by
Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort for the adoption of the Consent Agenda. By
unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the Consent Agenda was adopted.
The Grouped items consisted of Items 18 -29. Mayor Dailey stated there were two public
hearings listed at the end of the meeting agenda, Items 33 and 34. Mayor Dailey noted there was
no speaker cards turned in to address either of these items, and asked if anyone was present who
wished to speak in favor or opposition to either item. There were none present. Mayor Dailey
opened and closed the public hearings for Items 33 and 34. Mayor Dailey asked the Clerk to add
those items to the list of Grouped Items.
Mr. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, stated that at the last meeting, Director Wyrick had made a
notation regarding changing her vote to a recusal on items dealing with the Sewer Bond issues,
and that the minutes approved tonight would note and refer to the recusal.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6PM
18. ORDINANCE NO. 19,036 - Z-7529 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Industrial District titled Sol Alman Short -Form PD -I located at 1300
East 91h Street, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, amending the Official
Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0
no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to rezone the site from R -4 and I -2 to
PD -I to allow the development of the site with a 45,900 square foot industrial building. The applicant is also
proposing the abandonment of a portion of Hanger Street from East 8`h Street to East 9th Street; (see Item G-
23 -332)
19. ORDINANCE NO. 19,037 - S -1414 — Granting a variance 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 the creation of a lot without public street frontage for the
Malstrom Subdivision — Preliminary Plat at 11619 Kanis Road. (Planning Commission: 11
yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval). Synopsis: The applicant proposes to rezone the site from C -3
and MF -18 to PCD (See File No. Item 24712 -A), to allow the creation of a two -lot plat and allow the site to
develop with a mix of commercial uses. The development of Lot 2 will require a variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a lot without public street frontage.
20. ORDINANCE NO. 19,038 - Z- 4712 -A — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Development titled Malstrom Commercial Center Short -Form PCD
located at 11619 Kanis Road, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, amending
the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. Planning
Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to rezone the
site from C -3 and MF -18 to PCD to allow the creation of a two -lot plat and allow the site to develop with a mix of
commercial uses. The development of Lot 2 will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
creation of a lot without public street frontage, (See Item File No. S- 1414).
21. ORDINANCE NO. 19,039 - LU03 -19 -04 — To amend the Land Use Plan (16,222) in the
Chenal Planning District (Rahling Road at Champlin. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no.
Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Land Use Plan amendments in the Central Planning District from
Office to Mixed Use for future development.
22. ORDINANCE NO. 19,049 - Z -7550 — To reclassify property located on the north side of
Kanis Road, approximately 0.45 mile west of Chenal Parkway (at Edswood` Road) from R -2
and MF -24 to C -3; amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas and
for other purposes. Planning Commission: 6 yes, 3 no, 2 absent. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: The owner of approximately 8.17 acres of property located on the north side of Kanis Road at
Edswood Road is requesting to rezone the property from R -2 Single Family District and MF -24 Multi - family
District to C -3, General Commercial District.
23. ORDINANCE NO. 19,041 - To amend Little Rock Municipal Code Chapter 36.Section
344, modifying the boundaries of the Highway 10 Scenic Corridor Design Overlay District;
and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: Expansion of the Highway 10 Scenic Corridor Overlay District to the western planning boundary along
Highway 10.
24. ORDINANCE NO. 19,042 - LU03 -20 -02 — To amend the Land Use Plan (16,222) in the
Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family to Commercial; and for other purposes.
Planning Commission: I1 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Land Use amendments
in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family to Commercial for future development.
El
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
25. ORDINANCE NO. 19,043 - Z -7549 — To reclassify property located at 19420 Cantrell
Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of
Little Rock, and for other purposes. Planning Commission: I1 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: The owners of the 2.11 acre tract at 19420 Cantrell Road are requesting to rezone the
property from "R -2" Single Family District to "C -3" General Commercial District.
26. ORDINANCE NO. 19,044 - LU03 -10 -01 — To amend the Land Use Plan (16,222) in the
Boyle Park Planning District (Colonel Glenn Road at Elmwood Street) from Mixed Use to
Commercial; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: Land Use Plan amendments in the Boyle Park Planning District from Mixed Use to
Commercial for future development.
27. ORDINANCE NO. 19,045 - Z -7545 — To reclassify property located at 8225 Colonel
Glenn Road from R -2 to C -3; amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, and
for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis:
The owner of the 0.22 acre property at 8225 Colonel Glenn Road is requesting to rezone the east one -half of the
property from "R -2" Single Family District to "C -3" General Commercial District.
28. ORDINANCE NO. 19,046 - Z- 6973 -A — To reclassify property located along the east side
of Lawson Road, south of Colonel Glenn Road, from R -2 to 0-3 and C -3, amending the
Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, and for other purposes.
Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The owners of
approximately 2.7 acres of property located along the east side of Lawson Road, south of Colonel Glenn
Road, request to rezone the property from "R -2" Single Family District to 110-3" General Office District
(approximately 1.7 acres) and "C -3" General Commercial District (approximately 1 acre).
29. ORDINANCE 19,047 - Z- 5097 -E — Reclassifying property located at the southeast corner
-- of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway from C -3 (with conditions) to C -3; amending the
Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes. Planning
Commission: Ilyes, 0 no, 0 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The owner of the
undeveloped 2.256 acre tract located at the southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway is
requesting that the zoning be reclassified from C -3 (with conditions) to C -3. (Deferred from 1 -6 -04)
The ordinances were read the first time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members
present, being two thirds in number, the rules were suspended to provide for the second and third
readings of the ordinances (Items 18 -29 and Items 33 and 34). The ordinances were read the
second and third times. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two -
thirds in number, the ordinances and emergency clause passed.
Director Adcock asked the Board to consider Item 35 as the next item on the agenda. (See Item
35 for discussion).
SEPARATE ITEMS:
ITEMS: 30 - 38
30. PUBLIC HEARING &RESOLUTION - To appeal the Planning Commission's action
denying the request of Sobel Inc. to extend the amortization period for the operation of a
sexually oriented business at 3820 West 65th Street. Planning Commission: 5 yes, 3 no, 2
absent, 1 abstention. Staff recommends denial. Synopsis: Sobel, Inc. owner of an Adult Arcade located
- at 3820 West 65th Street, is appealing the Planning Commission's action in denying a time extension to allow
continued operation of the sexually oriented business located at 3820 West 65 `h Street.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 PM
Mayor Dailey read the resolution and opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Carpenter, City
Attorney, gave an overview of the item stating that the Board after some consideration amended
the sexually oriented business ordinance to include a provision that would require a 750 foot
setback between qualifying adult businesses and a day cares The applicant before the Board
tonight does not meet that requirement, in terms of setback form a daycare, and therefore a
provision of the ordinance amortized their operating an adult business over a ninety -day period.
He stated that he believed the expiration was August of 2003. He explained that the ordinance
provides that in order to avoid financial hardship, if there is no way the business can operate
otherwise, then the time frame can be extended for ninety days, to a period of two years, at a
maximum. The applicant has asked for that extension for a period of two years, had a hearing
before the Little Rock Planning Commission, where they asked to provide certain information,
and the Planning Commission voted not to grant the extension, and the applicant has appealed
the decision to the Board of Directors, so they are asking for an extension of time tonight for a
period of two years at a maximum, which would be until August, 2005. Director Adcock asked
Mr. Carpenter if he had received the information he had requested from the applicant. Mr.
Carpenter asked if this was concerning the Building Permit. Director Adcock stated her question
was concerning the lease and the information regarding the income for this business. Mr.
Carpenter stated he had not received the information concerning income, but had received a copy
of the entire lease just a few minutes ago. Director Adcock stated that when she first learned of t
his, she had spoken to Mr. Lawson (the previous Planning and Development Director and Mr.
Moore, City Manager, and asked why a Business Permit was not received by this business, and
was told it was because they had not done enough repairs or remodeling on the inside to
necessitate a Building Permit to be issued. She stated that in the papers the City Attorney had
sent the Board today's date, showed that they had extensively redone the inside of the building.
Mr. Carpenter stated he thought those were questions the Board may want to ask of the applicant,
as to when that work was done. The lease indicates it was entered into on October 17, 2001, but
another document indicates it was entered into on October 17, 2002. He stated he did not know
when the work was done. If the work was done in November, December, or January after that
then it could be that what Mr. Lawson said at the time was correct; that the amount of initial
work they were doing would not require a permit. Mr. Carpenter stated he was asked by
Director Adcock to track that down, but was unable to do so today. Director Hurst asked what
the basis of an extension might be granted? Mr. Carpenter answered that essentially the basis
would be financial hardship based upon the fact that the business really couldn't be used for
anything else, so that they are entitled to keep their investment. Mr. Carpenter re- stated that the
extension was ninety days as a matter of right, and then they can request an extension of up to
two years. Director Graves asked when the lease ends. Mr. Carpenter answered that the lease
term is four years, and ends on October 31, 2005, according to its current terms. Mayor Dailey
recognized Mr.. Stephen Giles, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Giles stated he was present on
behalf of Sobel, Inc., the operator of the adult arcade and video on 65th Street. Mr. Giles stated
Mr. Carpenter had requested information giving the Board reason to hear this ordinance at
tonight's meeting. Mr. Giles stated the ordinance states that if a sexually oriented business has
expended money and improvements such that to take that away from them would cause undue
financial hardship, and that is the test here. He said he believed they had provided Mr. Carpenter
with everything he and the Board are entitled to under the ordinance and, it clearly establishes
the client has suffered undue financial hardships. He stated he would go through those one at a
time. Mr. Giles provide a timeline saying on January 17, 1989, this Board of Directors passed —
Ordinance No. 15,629, which regulated the location of sexually, oriented businesses in Little
0
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
Rock. He said it was a very restrictive ordinance, and did its job, because it withstood a
constitutional challenge in Federal Court, "barely ". The Court said that under the facts of the
case, there were other alternative avenues of communication; otherwise there were other
locations in the City where these establishments could locate. For years the ordinance worked.
There was no problem with it that he was aware of. May 2002, Mr. Elman and Sobel, Inc., the
owner of the business started looking for locations. He stated Mr. Elman would explain in a
moment, how hard it was to find a location. Mr. Giles stated subsequent to that, Mr. Elman
found a location. The location was the current one, which was an abandoned bank at 651" Street
and Scott Hamilton Drive. Mr. Elman signed a letter of intent with the owner on September 17,
2002. On October 16, 2002, Sobel signed a lease with the option to purchase it. They
commenced to pay $1440 a month in lease payments. On October 28, 2002, Sobel and applied
for and received a business license from the City of Little Rock to operate at this location.
Subsequent to that, Sobel start a reconstruction of the building, and this may be where the
improvements mentioned tonight were started at that time. Mr. Giles stated it was a conforming
location under the ordinance. In December of 2002, a business called Tiny Tots Day Care
Center, received a business license form the City to operate at the location across the street from
Sobel, the adult video. He stated the Sobel had its business license first, and had the right to
operate at this location. December 3, 2002, the Little Rock Board of Directors passed the
ordinance that reduced the organization of non - conforming sexually oriented businesses form
three years to ninety days. The ordinance also redefined what a sexually oriented business was,
stating that it included, if a significant or substantial portion of the business, the it was deemed to
be a sexually oriented business. He stated his client was not out of compliance with the passage
of that ordinance. He had the proper location, his license, and his permits, and had also
expended tens of thousands of dollars on reliance of those permits and was operating his
business lawfully and legally. He was operating lawfully and legally and the is no evidence to
any unlawful activity going on at the location, nor anything outside the building that would
establish this particular business as having any adverse impact on the neighborhood. In early
January 2003, Sobel applied for a building permit to expand the business, in receiving the
business permit, in compliance with it, spending thousands. of dollars to expand the current
building to make it appropriate for the type of activities and sales of merchandise inside the
store. August 4, 2003, the Board passed the ordinance that required the business to move,
essentially, because the day care was established subsequent to his establishment moved in
across the street and the Board felt the need to add day cares to the list of protected uses under
the ordinance. Mr. Giles said what that has done is severely curtained the amount of the number
of locations that might be available if they are available for this business to relocate. That is the
substance of the argument tonight. He stated the City has made it so hard for this man to carry
on a lawful business that it takes time to do that. He said business people on this Board
understand that. If he is going to have to move, it is a commercial real estate transaction, and
those take a long time. Appraisals, surveys, environmental studies, and due diligence, all have to
be done; and that is after you have negotiated a purchase of the property. Mr. Giles stated it has
become even harder now because there has become a chilling effect on the community of people
who know or are selling to a sexually oriented business, knowing that the City might pass a
regulation that would regulate their property, and it is getting really hard to find a location. Mr.
Giles stated his client was doing everything he could to find one. He said he client had gotten a
copy of the map from the Planning Staff before the original ninety days, and has been looking at
those locations to see if he can find one. Mr. Giles stated he would let the owner address the
Board as to the current status of his efforts in trying to find a location, or any negotiations. Mr.
Giles stated that Mr. Carpenter had requested financial information to be brought to the Board
7
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
and disclosed. Mr. Giles said this is a situation where the City has tried to force this owner with
a ordinance he cannot comply with, because he can't find a location, and now the City wants him
to disclose and give his confidential business and financial information to the Board in a public
meeting, on television, and stated his client was not willing to do this. He stated they have
provided a copy of the lease, the current lease that shows clearly he is liable under this lease until
2005. The question is has he suffered an undue financial hardship. The ordinance does not say
he as to suffer a business loss, but for someone to spend and walk away from almost eighty -eight
thousand dollars of improvements he has made on the structure within just a few minutes, ahs to
be an undue financial hardship. All he is asking for is the opportunity to have a little more time
to try complying with this new restrictive unfair ordinance. But he said his client is willing to
try. Director Cazort stated he had quickly scanned the lease a few moments ago, and had a few
questions. Director Cazort said in the lese the only permitted use for this property was for an
adult book store and video, and later there is a section that requires permission of the landlord to
use it for something else, and the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold that permission.
Director asked Mr. Giles if they had sought permission from the landlord to use the building for
other purposes. Mr. Giles stated the owner would have to answer that question. Director Cazort
stated in the lease it states that all the improvements to this property, whether the lease is
terminated prior to its completion or at the end of its term, all the improvements and investments
would belong to the landlord. Mr. Giles answered that a substantial portion of the expenses
noted, are deemed to be fixtures under the lease and are to stay with the property. Director
Cazort stated, then those expenses would no be recovered even if the owner were staying in
business under this scenario. Mr. Giles answered that was correct. Director Cazort stated, and
then when his client entered into this lease, they knew these expenses would. not be recoverable
costs. Mr. Giles stated he was not representing his client at the time, and did not handle the
negotiations. Director Cazort asked when the lease was entered into October 16 or 17 of 2002,
but the improvements were not made until considerable later, and asked Mr. Giles if he knew
when the improvements were started. Mr. Giles, stated he did not, Mr. Elman, owner stated it
was in January 2003. Director Cazort asked if when those improvements were done, if they were
aware the City was considering changes in the ordinance that would conceivably put this
business in a location that would not be permitted. Mr. Giles stated he was not sure what is
client was aware of at that item; he said he thought there had been some discussion about adding
day cares to the list of protected uses. Director Cazort stated if he was aware that this was being
considered, and there is one across the street that that would be a red flag his business would be
in violation of this ordinance. Mr. Giles answered that was possible. Director Cazort asked Mr.
Giles if his client was involved in studying an adaptation for this building or any use other than
an adult bookstore. Mr. Giles stated his client could address that, but could say that of the
improvements of a technical nature that he has made were specifically for the arcade and video
uses. There are four by four rooms with split- screen monitors, digital, cable, and various
electronic equipment. Mr. Giles stated he had thought very hard about this, and could not think
of another use. Director Cazort stated this ordinance would not put the owner out of business. It
would not prohibit him from operating another retail or other business at this location, but would
prohibit him from operating this business at this location. Mr. Giles stated that is the same as
saying "this ordinance doesn't prevent your from being a doctor, but you can't practice law ".
"This is an adult business, and that's what they do." Director Cazort stated as this ordinance
goes forward, if he wants to operate this type of business, this is an improper location. If he
wants to operate in this location, then he has to have a different type of business. Mr. Giles
stated, "or a conforming business with the ordinance ". He said they understand that, but the First —~
Amendment protects his right to express his speech in the form of operating an adult business.
N.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6PM
Mr. Giles stated if there is no other place for him to go, and he can't do it here, except change his
business, that is a problem. Director Cazort asked if the expenses report the Board has seen is it
the eighty eight thousand dollars that has been talked about tonight. Mr. Giles stated he roughly
estimated that amount, and that was probably a conservative amount. Mr. Giles stated the
expense was done with the intention of opening and operating his business as he negotiated the
lease with the owner. Director Cazort asked if the eighty eight thousand was pretty much for
rehabbing the building or his intended use. Mr. Giles stated if he has to close and move, then he
has lost that. Director Cazort stated, dealing with the creation of a financial hardship, that the
cost in the renovation of the building are not by themselves sufficient, and wanted to know,
understanding the position Mr. Giles had taken, what income loss would be, what income loss is
being discussed here? Mr. Giles stated he was not at liberty to release those figures. Mr. Giles
stated his client was going "to lose a whole lot of money, he already has." Director Cazort stated
he was willing to listen to the argument about a financial hardship, but did not see an investment
that would constitute fixtures, that the client will not continue to own as a hardship. Mr. Giles
stated the whole fact of this thing is, that the owner was in compliance and then the City made
him out of compliance. Mr. Giles stated it was not like his client did not already have a sexually
oriented business in the first place. A lot of it's case is that cities that they have looked at, cities
that adopt regulations because they have to many of them, they are scattered everywhere, or they
are too close together, and have passed these ordinances to say the business have to be located,
here, here and here, and those businesses that are already there have filed these law suits and
contest it. He said his client found a location, after looking diligently and for a very long time,
that just happened to comply with the City's most restrictive ordinance, and now the City has
made it more restrictive. Director Cazort stated, following that hypothetical, what if, forgetting
the daycare, what if after some point, a church or another institution or school, that was
previously, because day cares were not listed in the original ordinance, some institution that was
in the original ordinance ended up locating within two hundred feet. Mr. Giles stated the
ordinance exempts them form being a non - conforming status because they were there first.
Director Cazort asked Mr. Giles if he were under the opinion that no place exists in the City of
Little Rock, that his client can legally operate his business. Mr. Giles stated his client has not
been able to find a location. Mr. Giles stated they may have to come back to the City to request
rezoning of property if he meets spacing requirements, or a conditional use permit from the
Planning Commission, and they may have to do that, but everyone knows, zoning is never
assured. Director Cazort asked Mr. Giles if they had other evidence of financial hardship. Mr.
Giles deferred the question to Mr. Elman, the owner of the business. Mr. Spencer Elman, owner
of Adult Arcade and Video, stated he works a hundred hours a week in his business to build his
business. He stated from the beginning of this whole process, starting with the idea to open the
business to the actual opening, they have complied with every single law, crossed every t and
dotted every I to comply with the laws and regulations of this city. He said it has not been an
easy process because when the building inspectors would come out they would say "you know
you are being watched very carefully, you have to do everything by the book ". He said they did
everything by the book. He said they paid their taxes, have gotten required permits to open as
well as to expand, the proper licensing, and have spend a substantial amount of money to first,
get in the business, and then do the eighteen hundred square foot addition. He said they obtained
a map form the City to see what other locations would be available, and stated he found it
unbelievable to actually be standing here today because if this were a gun store or liquor store, he
would not be here tonight. He stated his business sells merchandise that enhances people's
married or single life. He said they did not create evil at their location, they don't sell evil. He
said they sell marital aids that enhance people's lives. He said they have customers that come in
9
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
.January 20, 2004
6 P
the store, sometimes ten times a day that thank them for being there, and for providing a location
that is safe bright and cheery. He said they have taken the dirtiness (you could say) out of adult
novelties, (the term of the marital aids). He said people come in their store and feel comfortable
spending their money and their time with repeated business as well. He said his request for the
Board was simple. He said he has looked for a building, and continue to look for a building to
relocate, and all he was asking for was an extension to June 30, 2004. Director Cazort, to clarify,
stated then what the applicant was seeking was not a two year extension. Mr. Elman stated that
was correct, they were seeking a five -month deferral. Mr. Elman stated thirteen months of his
time would be left in this location, time that he ahs spent making people comfortable in coming
to that location, and building that customer base in incalculable. There was brief discussion
regarding the type of improvements made to the building. Director Hinton asked for Mr. Elman
to state what his definition of financial hardship. Mr. Elman stated it is when your financial
situation is a two -year lease left to pay on a building would cause a financial hardship for him if
he had to close his business or convert it to another use that perhaps would not be profitable.
Director Graves stated as point of clarification, that she heard Mr. Carpenter say that the
applicant was asking for ninety days to two years extension, but she just now heard they are
asking for a five month extension, to hopefully find another location, move what can be moved,
and have start up expenses involved in starting the business. Mr. Elman answered that was
correct. Mayor Dailey stated he want to clarify what the five -month extension alludes to. He
asked Mr. Elman if he intended find another location within that five -month period of time, and
assuming they did not, what Mr. Elman was saying is that he would be out of this facility within
that five month period of time regardless, and that location would no longer be used for that
purpose. Mr. Elman stated they would move or comply. Mr. Glen Schwarz spoke in favor of
allowing this business to operate at the current location. Mr. Schwarz stated'he was a journalist
for the Arkansas Free Press. He said he also delivered in the area of the adult business. He said
he started delivering last summer with approximately fifty copies of the newspaper and watched �.
them build this business from giving out fifty free copies a month to where they are delivering
over three hundred copies a month. He said they were their 6th or 7th largest distributor of this
local entertainment newspaper. He stated while they were building this business he saw the
owner with a hammer and saw, all the owners were out there building with their own tow hands,
putting their sweat and their money and their vision of what could be a successful business. He
stated he thought their vision had turned out to be correct, that they are a successful business. He
said this is serving not only people in southwest Little Rock, but all of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, and beyond Pulaski County. There are people that use this kind of business, and they
have rights too. He stated that he knew when this business was being built that the owners had
complied with all the zoning ordinances, and was legally doing this business, and was in good
faith following the rule of law. The Board of Directors has changed that, and that the Board was
the aggressor in this action. He cited rights that are being impinged such as free speech for the
business owner, his rights to property, and his rights to free enterprise. Mr. Schwartz stated that
the businesses clientele's right to privacy, to property to obtain and view this kind of material,
and he said his rights to privacy and right to buy their merchandise if he wished to, and his rights
as a writer to write, that maybe someday he would write something and sell to them. He said
overall and to the business owner, he state the Board was bringing the morals that they have,
form religion or something like that, and were using their positions as City Directors to force
thee morals upon all the people. He said obviously not all the people share the same morals
becseu they frequent this business, and the business is successful and this is a violation of all
those rights, free speech, property, privacy, free enterprise and separation of church and state.
He stated that there are two word descriptions of the kind of government we have, it is a
10
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6PM
democratic republic, and officials are elected by majority, but do not rule by majority. The
republic means that every individual has certain rights, and they are not supposed to be violated.
He stated we all swore to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the constitution giving
the Board of Directors the right to pass these laws, but the Bill of Rights should be holding them
back so that they are not impinging on this business owner. He asked the Board to at least grant
an extension so the owner could get some of his money back, and grandfather him in
permanently.
Mayor Dailey announced that it was time for the Board to break for a few minutes. Director
Cazort made the motion, that while taking the Break that the Board go into Executive Session to
consider appointments to the Commission Children Youth and Families Commission, Director
Adcock seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the
meeting was recessed at 8:00 PM.
The meeting reconvened at 8:30 PM. Mayor Dailey called the meeting back in session. Mr.
Bruce Moore, City Manager, announced that Mr. Keith Strickland had been nominated to fill
the position on the Children Youth and Families Commission. Director Adcock made a motion,
seconded by Vice Mayor Hinton to make the appointment. By unanimous voice vote of the
Board members present, the resolution to make the appointment was adopted.
Mayor Dailey stated the Board would now hear the opposition to the extension of time for the
sexually oriented business. Ms. Pat Gee, stated during the break she had met with
representatives of the neighborhood, and businesses that were here tonight, and they had agreed
if the business would be closed by June 30, 2004, (And they wanted that in writing), that they
have to be closed by July 1, 2004. She said they would not oppose them staying open until that
date. Ms. Gee asked Mayor Dailey to read the names of the citizens who filled out cards to
speak in opposition of the item. Mayor Dailey read the following names: Carol Haskins, Betty
Snyder, Janet Berry, Michael Deerman, Mattie Watson, Phyllis Day, Nan Howard, Sherry Smith.
Mayor Dailey asked them all to stand to acknowledge their presence in asking that this site be no
longer an adult video business. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney, to restate
what the Board was legally agreeing to and how it would be apart of the record. Mr. Carpenter
stated he felt a need to have a resolution to simply note that there would be an extension of the
amortization period until July 1, 2004. Mayor Dailey asked the applicant to come forward to be
sure that everyone was in agreement. Mr. Giles stated they concurred, to extend the amortization
period to June 30, 2004. Director Cazort moved to extend to June 30, 2004, the amortization
period for this business. Mr. Giles asked for a clarification. He asked if the intent of the motion
was to close the business on June 30, 2004? Director Cazort answered that was his motion. Mr.
Giles stated that Mr. Elman does not want to totally move out of the building, and would like to
conform at this location so that he could make some of his money back on the lease. Mr. Giles
stated he would either totally move or conform. Mayor Dailey stated that what he heard Mr.
Elman say is that he would be out of the building by June 30, 2004. He said if they are talking
about something different, it needed to be clarified. Mr. Elman stated what he meant was be out
of the building as Adult Arcade and Video. Director Cazort stated perhaps it,would help if her
clarified his motion. He said he would move to amend this resolution, to the pint, that the Board
grants an extension for the time for the close of the business to June 30, 2004 for the operation of
a sexually oriented business at this location. Vice mayor Hinton seconded the motion. Mayor
Dailey called for a voice vote. Directors Pugh, Stewart, Adcock, Cazort, Hurst, Wyrick, Mayor
Dailey voted in favor of the amendment, Director Keck voted no, Director Kumpuris was absent.
11
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 PM
The motion was successful. The resolution was read as amended. Director Keck asked before
the vote moved forward, if their counsel was considering to confer, and their client was writing
notes, he felt there was "Jello" wiggling, and he did not want there to be any question, or any
doubt that the resolution before the Board is clearly defined on both the applicants part as well as
the Boards. Mayor Dailey recognized Mr. Giles. Mr. Giles asked if his client conforms with the
sexually oriented business ordinance by June 30th, that is all he has been asked to do, is move or
conform to the ordinance. Mayor Dailey stated his understanding based upon the intent of what
he heard earlier from the applicant, as well as the motion, is that this will no longer be a sexually
oriented business operation after June 30, 2004. Director Wyrick asked Mr. Carpenter if the
there could still be sexually oriented material there, but if only a certain amount of that material
that could occupy the business. Mr. Carpenter stated that was correct. The ordinance defines a
sexually oriented as a business that is sexually oriented material is substantially significant part
of the business. He stated that typically magazines that you could get at supermarkets would
qualify in certain businesses as sexually oriented materials, but that is not the nature of the super
market, so it is not a sexually oriented business. They may sell some things there and not be a
sexually oriented business. Mr. Carpenter stated what he thought Mr. Giles was referring to is,
that if something should happen, and the other use should go away that makes them non-
conforming, and though that was what was not being said. He stated what makes this a non-
conforming use is the presence of the day care. If the day care should leave between now and
June 30th, then they are no longer a non - conforming sexually oriented business. Mr. Carpenter
stated the assurances that he has are that the day care will be there and this is sort of mute issue,
being that they have just got re- licensed by the state. Mayor Dailey stated what he was basing
the conversation on, and allows him to support the extension that this would no longer be an
operating a sexually oriented business location by the end of June, and if that is not the case then
he might be voting against any extension. Mayor Dailey recognized Ms. Pat Gee. Ms. Gee _
stated she had brought pictures of the business, which was called Adult Arcade and Video with
Triple X. She said the kids refer to it as the "sex shop ", Triple X. She said it would help the
community if those signs were removed. The purple neon signs. She said the people in the day
care and the people in the business look at this on a daily basis. Mr. Carpenter stated that the
Board couldn't stop a business being located within the city because it sells these types of
products. The Board does not have that power; you cannot stop the signage because it is
conforming signage. He said what the Board can do is set up various spacing requirements in
order to meet secondary effects, which is what the Board has done. This business does not meet
that spacing requirement, and there is no reason to believe it is going to meet that spacing
requirement between now and June 30th is because of the presence of the day care center. That
being the case, on June 30th, they will have to relocate, or they will have to drastically change the
nature of the business, so a significant of substantial portion of the business is not a sexually
oriented business. He sated that Director Wyrick has just asked a question about the signage,
and his comment was "if they leave the signage there on July 1, it is going to be very hard, even
though they have substantially reduced inventory of their floor space, of the adult business
aspect, is going to be very hard to say, that hat is not the significant porting of their business, but
this is one of those "what if's ", and thought would have to be crossed at the time. If the day care,
which is what makes it non - conforming, moves out between now and then, it is no longer a non-
conforming business. What the Board is dealing with is amortization of a non - conforming
business and that is about all the Board can deal with. Mayor Dailey recognized Vice Mayor
Hinton asked Ms. Phyllis Day, owner of the day care, if she had any intention of relocating. Ms.
Day stated she had no intention of moving. Director Hurst asked if the day care were persuaded - to move, then they could operate their business. Mr. Carpenter stated the amortization deals with
12
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
the non - conforming use, and if the day care leaves it is not a non - conforming use any more.
Director Hurst asked Ms. Day what the size of her business was, and how long she had been in
business at this location, and if she was financially sound. Mr. Day answered that they open July
2002, and have approximately one hundred and forty five to one hundred and fifty kids. Director
Adcock asked ms. Day if she had any offers lately to purchase her business. Ms. Day stated that
she had an offer to be relocated. Director Adcock asked her who made the offer. Ms. Day said
the owner of the "Sex shop ". Director Adcock stated she had a "what if' question. She stated
right now there is a piece of property across the street from his business that a school is
interested in purchasing and making it into a large campus. She asked what if that school started
to build their facility before July 1, 2004. Mr. Carpenter stated that assuming the day care stays
there it would not make any difference. If the day care should move, and the school opens up
there in light of where the business is, in terms of the ordinance, the business gets to remain
there. Director Adcock stated, but the school is purchasing the property thinking the business
would be going out of business on July 1, 2004. She stated the school was here tonight. Mr.
Carpenter stated they would be betting that the day care stayed, and would be aware of that, and
the law and the constitution would uphold the sexually oriented business at that point. Director
Keck stated he wanted to make certain that all parties were certain on what is being voted on.
Mr. Giles stated based upon the discussion just hear, and Mr. Carpenter's explanation, that was
their understanding of what is happening and his client is willing to accept the extension until
June 30, 2004. Mr. Giles stated his client does not want to give up any opportunity that may
come up for him to become conforming of the ordinance due to circumstances out of everyone's
control. Director Cazort, stated his motion, which was passed and the resolution amended, was
that the sexually oriented business would terminate and close the business on June 30, 2004. He
said he understood and agreed with what Mr. Carpenter stated, that if the business does come in
conformance with the code, there is nothing the Board could do to prohibit its continued
operation. Director Cazort stated to further clarify, and perhaps needed to make a motion for
another amendment, that the operation of a sexually oriented business under the current business
license would cease, and therefore if sometime between now and June 30th, they come into
compliance, they would have to c come back and get another business license. Mr. Carpenter
stated this is a vote on the non - conforming use. If the use becomes conforming, within the time
frame, the license has nothing to do with it. Director Cazort asked Mr. Carpenter if he was okay
with the way he had phrased the amendment. Mr. Carpenter stated what he understands it means
is that they cannot be a sexually oriented business after June 30, 2004. Mayor Dailey recognized
Mr. Michael Deerman, Pastor of Southwest Community Church, in Wakefield, stated he was in
agreement with the neighborhood and with Pat Gee with the idea that was brought, but after this
discussion, stated he had changed his mind and stated he was against it for a few reasons, but the
main one is that after thinking about it, he did not want to put Ms. Day in a place to where the
owner could give her an offer she could not refuse, to be able to come into conformity and be
able to operate their business as a sexually oriented business. Director Cazort stated the
resolution before the Board would be to grant the extension to a non - conforming business at this
location until it can no longer be a non - conforming sexually oriented business at this location as
of close of business June 30, 2004. Mayor Dailey asked for a roll call vote which was recorded
as follows: Directors; Pugh, yes Hurst, no, Cazort, yes, Keck no, Stewart, yes, Wyrick no,
Graves, yes, Adcock, no, Vice mayor Hinton, no, mayor Dailey yes. The vote was five in favor
and five opposed. The resolution failed, the extension denied.
Mr. Carpenter stated he was assuming the vote was based upon the comment that Director Cazort
made earlier, and one or two others had made, that in determining this question of financial
13
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
hardship, with the lack of information as to income with the ability to change the use of the
business to something else under the lease that the landlord couldn't unreasonably withhold
permission for, and with nothing to really counterbalance expense versus assets. Director Cazort
stated his vote in favor was based upon a perceived agreement between the parties and did not
consider the fact that information was not provided, information in his mind, that proved any
financial hardship, and was not voting on the issue based on demonstrated financial hardship
because he did not think it was there, but was voting on what he thought was an agreement
between all parties involved.
31. ORDINANCE - LU03- 20 -01— To amend the Land Use Plan (16,222) in the Pinnacle
Planning District (Chenal Parkway north of Cantrell Road) from Single Family, Office and
Multifamily to Commercial, Office, Park/Open Space and Multifamily; and for other purposes.
Planning Commission: 7 yes, 3 no, 1 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Land Use
Plan amendments in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family, Office and Multi - family to
Commercial, Office, Park/Open Space and Multi- Family for future development. Held on First Reading,
deferred to February 3, 2004,
32. ORDINANCE - Z- 5099 -B — To reclassify property located within land surrounding the Northwest
Territory Subdivision located near the intersection of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway from R -2,
MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, 0-3 and C -3. Planning Commission: 10 yes, ,0 no, I absent. Staff
recommends approval. Synopsis: The owner of approximately 127 acres of undeveloped property located
within and surrounding the Northwest Territory Subdivision near the intersection of Cantrell Road and
Chenal Parkway is requesting to rezone the property from R -2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3, to MF -6 MF -12, 0-3
and C -3. Held on First Reading, deferred to February 3, 2004.
Mr. Steve Beck, Interim Planning and Development Director, overviewed Items 31 and 32
stating that Pheifer Development owns about one - hundred and twenty seven acres around the
intersection of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway. He stated the request was to rezone the
property from R -2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, 0-3 and C -3. The rezoning is
proposed for future development of the property. The applicant has also filed the Land Use Plan
Amendment for this rezoning (Item 31). The property is undeveloped and mostly tree - covered.
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. He stated there are a convenience store,
a mini - warehouse development, apartment complex and Easter Seals residential facility located
along Chenal Parkway. To the north and northwest, there are single - family residences on large
tracts, and the other section to the north is zoned R -2, and also belongs to the applicant, but not
part of this rezoning. He stated that to the south, across Cantrell Road there are single family
homes on lots and tracts, and also where the new Wal -Mart is being put in. To the east along the
north side of Cantrell Road, there is a church and a private school. Mr. Beck overviewed each
tract of the proposed zoning. Mr. Beck stated staff does support the application, and that the
Planning Commission voted to approve the Land Use Amendment and the zoning change.
Mayor Dailey asked why all the rezoning was being done in one bite, and it sort of a speculative
type of rezoning with a specific plan, and not knowing what is going to be built or developed
there. Mr. Beck deferred the question to Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning Manager, stated that one of
the issues considered was that if this rezoning is taken simply on the surface, that is one hundred
and twenty seen acres of property being rezoned, and a substantial portion of that being zoned
multi - family, and taken out of context certainly begins to raise a red flag. Mr. Carney asked the
Board to recognize that the 127 acres being proposed for re- zoning is in fact a portion of the
larger ownership that the applicant has, which includes not only his developed properties that
front on to Chenal Parkway, but also the remaining single - family property that he owns adjacent
14
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
easily be built between the commercial nodes from Chenal to six miles into Interstate 430. Mr.
Pheifer stated when he brought this property into the City, the predecessor Board had asked
several thing of him. He said they asked for a fire station site, bicycle trails and that the north
part of their land that drained into the Little Maumelle Basin be held back from development
until the Little Maumelle Sewer Plant was developed, and that land will be held back, and the
other requests have been granted. Mr. Pheifer stated that several Board members had asked that
they have a diversity of housing types for West Little Rock, that there was a feeling even then,
when this property was annexed that this property, that West Little Rock was becoming a place
for the elite, the super wealthy, the privileged, leaving the rest of Little Rock far behind. Mr.
Pheifer stated one of the commitments he gave the Board was to provide some alternate housing
types. This proposal is pursuant to that. Mr. Pheifer stated this layout places all the apartments
on a street that no one else need use, except those living at that apartment. Mayor Dailey asked
if this area would ultimately be like Walton Heights, of if there would be other access. Mr.
Pheifer stated there would be two ways into the subdivision, one would be the road he would
build that goes from Chenal all the way around to Hwy 10, which is a two way road. The ridge
is similar to Walton Heights, and it is only possible to build one street with houses on either side
of it, and it would be similar to the Walton Heights access. He stated 100 percent of this
property is in the interior of his property. He said he is the neighbor to the multifamily land
almost on every bit of its parameter except one stretch. All the rest of the parameter he stated he
was the neighbor or it was lands zoned Office or Commercial or other Multifamily land. Vice
Mayor Hinton stated he was having problems with fire and police protection for the area, and
traffic. Mr. Pheifer stated when the traffic volume reaches or exceeds the level the city has
designated for the area, and then stated he has to widen that street, and wad prepared to do so.
Mr. Pheifer stated that regarding police protection, that the Wal -Mart parking lot would probably
be a permanent station for at least one squad car. He said they would be closer to police
protection than most places in town. Mr. Pheifer stated he had given land for a fire station, and
when they have it, the response times would be at the lower end of the scale because they are in
the middle. Director Hurst stated she wanted to clarify what Mr. Pheifer stated about Portland
Oregon. She stated he had suggested that in Portland, Oregon that Portland would encourage
multi- family use, and she thought that they would encourage it if it were inter -city or mid -town
but on the very edge of their city, but she had not gotten the impression that they would
encourage serious intense multifamily. She asked Mr. Pheifer if that was his understanding. Mr.
Pheifer answered it was. Director Hurst stated she was concerned about the loss of green space
and the sort of density this development would bring to this area and asked Mr. Pheifer why he
was motivated to change what has been in place, the single - family use. Mr. Pheifer stated the
topography of this land is very difficult to develop and when you start altering the topography to
make flat places to build houses every seventy to seventy five feet, and then transition from that
flat place to the next flat place, none of the trees in the flat places can sustain existing trees and
none of the transition area between those flat places, so if there is a series of flat places for
houses, with the transition between them, generally, most of the trees would be lost. He stated
that had been his experience in development of steep land, whereas, if a multi - family project is
done, the buildings can be clustered and there are larger areas of transition between the
buildings, which are large enough to sustain native trees. Director Adcock stated she had
worked with Mr. Pheifer with various neighborhood associations over the last ten years, and
asked Mr. Pheifer how he had worked with this neighborhood, how many rpeetings he has held
with them. Mr. Pheifer stated that Mr. Ed Willis, his partner, has worked with the neighbors.
Mr. Willis stated they had met one time. Director Adcock, asked that because in past experience
in working with neighborhoods, if he would be willing to defer this application for two weeks, in
17
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
order to put a meeting together with the neighborhood, and see what could be worked out. Mr.
Pheifer stated he would be happy to do that, but pointed out, that there was a petition presented
to the Planning Commission and over half the people who signed that petition lived in Natural
Steps and north. Natural Steps, Roland, Monte Springs, Bigelo and North Little Rock listed on
that petition. Some of the citizens who were opposed stated that was where they received their
mail; it was not their address. Director Adcock stated this meeting would be with just the
neighborhood people in the neighborhood subdivision that has been heard from at tonight's
meeting. Mr. Pheifer stated the neighborhood that Director Adcock was describing, there is only
one house within five hundred feet of his border and it is located on the same side of the ridge.
He said that everyone else in this room lives north of this ridge and over a quarter mile away. He
said he was proving his own buffer in the residential property he was going to develop some day
in the distance future under the Board's auspices. He stated the people of this neighborhood
drive out onto Hwy 300 and have the alternate opportunity to go to town. He said he would be
happy to meet with them, but the message he had gotten tonight was that they are opposed to
multi - family housing, period. Director Adcock, stated she respected Mr. Willis, but thought it
would be good if Mr. Pheifer personally met with this neighborhood, so they could better
understand the other developments he had done in this area, and how concerned he has been
about Hwy 10 the Scenic Corridor, and see if there was not some benefit in meeting with them.
Mr. Pheifer stated he would be happy to do so. Mayor Dailey asked for the, first reading on the
ordinances. The ordinances (Items 31 and 32) were read the first time. Director Keck asked if it
was possible to move forward the portions of the application that did not involve multi - family
rezoning. Mayor Dailey stated if the Board moved in that direction the applicant would have to
at least consent to be willing to consider that. Mr. Pheifer stated that since no one had spoken
against the other zoning, and there have been no questions, do any of the Board members have
problems with the other zoning. Director Cazort stated in his mind this was a legal action in how
to split this ordinance in half to deal with everything that is not multi - family. He said that he felt
it was in Mr. Pheifer best interest to keep it together as a package. Director Keck asked Mr.
Carpenter, City Attorney, his opinion. Mr. Carpenter answered that the appl }cation is before the
Board as one application. Director Keck asked if the neighborhood saw any benefit to meeting
with Mr. Pheifer. Ms. Dornhoffer asked how the meeting would be handled. Mr. Bruce Moore,
City Manager, answered that if the direction of the Board is to coordinate a meeting with the
applicant and the neighborhood, he stated it is done in a very formal process, working to set a
viable timeframe, usually before the next time it comes before this Board and would be open to
the public, Board members, and staff. Mayor Dailey stated the other option would be to see if
there is a smaller working group that might sit down with Mr. Pheifer and his partners, or
associates, and see if there are some sticking points that could be worked *'through at all. Mr.
Pheifer asked when this would come back before the Board. Director Keck answered that
meeting would be February 3, 2004. Mr. Pheifer stated he had personal commitments on
February 3rd. Mayor Dailey stated there was noting to say this could not be delayed for four
weeks instead of two. Mr. Pheifer stated he would just as soon meet with all them, as opposed to
a few representatives. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Moore to have his staff coordinate a meeting.
Mr. Moore stated that since the Board would be in a reconvened meeting ,on February 10th to
deal with the City Attorney's evaluation, and that might be an option since Mr. Pheifer could not
be here on February 3rd. Director Cazort suggested putting the items on for February 3rd, and if
that did not work out, then it could be heard on the February 10th Agenda. Mayor Dailey stated
the item would be held on first reading, scheduled to come back up February 3, 2004, and if
something comes up it could be delayed at that meeting.
V.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6PM
Mayor Dailey recessed the meeting for a short break. The meeting reconvened and Mayor
Dailey called the meeting back in session. The next item for consideration was Item 36. (See
below).
33. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE NO. 19,048 - G -23 -333 — To abandon right -of -way
within the Heifer International Property for Shall Street and Industrial Drive located in
Wiggin's and Yonley Addition; declaring an emergency. Planning Commission: 10 yes, 0 no, I
absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant is requesting a portion of Industrial Drive
and Shall Street located in Blocks 2, 5 and 6 of the Wiggins and Yonley Addition to the City of Little Rock be
abandoned as a public right -of -way. The resolution was read. Mayor Dailey opened and closed the
public hearing. There were no citizens present to speak in favor or in opposition to the item.
The Item was added t the list of Grouped Items.
34. PUBLIC HEARING &ORDINANCE —NO. 19,049 - G -23 -332 - To abandon the
undeveloped Hanger Street right of way adjacent to Lots 7 -12, Block 2 Hanger's addition north
of East 9t Street. Planning Commission: I1 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis:
The applicant is requesting to abandon the undeveloped Hanger Street right -of -way adjacent to Lots 7
through 12 Hanger Addition, north of East 9th Street but be retained as a utility and drainage easement.
The resolution was read. Mayor Dailey opened and closed the public hearing. There were no
citizens present to speak in favor or in opposition to the item. The Item was added to the list of
Grouped Items.
35. RESOLUTION - To authorize the Mayor to issue a Letter of Support to the Arkansas
Development Finance Authority for a seventy -one unit affordable elderly and disabled apartment
complex to be constructed at 8901 LaBette Drive; and for other purposes. (Deferred from
December 2, 2003) Denied. Mr. Bruce Moore, City Manger announced that staff did not have
any additional information to add. He stated that staff had requested that the applicant be at the
meeting tonight, so that he could present the overall plan. He said at a Board members request,
staff had checked with Dr. Roberts, Central Arkansas Library System, and that Dr. Roberts did
not have objections at this point. Mr. Ralph Moore, applicant stated they were basically
affordable homebuilders, and had scheduled a project at 8901 LABette Drive.: He said they are
using income tax credits, and they require a letter of support from the Mayor of the City.
Director Adcock asked Mr. Monroe to define disabled, as relating to the type of tenants that
would occupy this facility. Mr. Monroe stated according to HUD disabled is a person with
reduced motor functions. Someone who is not 100% disabled, but just needs a little help in day -
to -day functions. Director Adcock stated that over the years, she thought that disable has also
included people with drug and alcohol problems, and knew there is one complex in southwest
Little Rock, that has specified exactly what their definition of disabled is, which is spinal
injuries, to that facility. Mr. Monroe stated he believed their definition would be governed under
Medicaid and Medicare, and whatever that definition is, is what they would use. He said this
was not a drug abuse clinic, and is actually a senior citizen, elderly facility. Director Adcock
asked if this was then, going to be an assisted living facility, and what type it would be, and who
would be served. Mr. Monroe stated basically it would be a personal care type of assisted living.
It would be to help someone with their medicine, help in getting in and out of the bathroom, after
medical procedures, etc. Director Adcock asked if there would be nursing staff on site. He said
CNA's would probably be the type of professional care that would be providyd. Director
Adcock asked if this would be affiliated with any of the hospitals. Mr. Monroe said "probably ".
He said that has not been worked out because they were still in the early stages. Director
Adcock asked if transportation would also be provided. Mr. Monroe said it would be provided,
19
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 PM
and also they had talked to other agencies that provide transportation and they have agreed to
provide transportation. He said they would have van on site, and meals would be optional. He
stated each facility would be an independent apartment unit, with its own kitchen and bathroom,
but there would be a cafeteria available for those who were unable to prepare their meals.
Director Adcock asked if this was going to be high -rise apartments. Mr. Monroe stated they
would have two stories at the most. Director Adcock asked Mr. Monroe if he had met with the
neighborhood about this project. Mr. Monroe stated they planned this project about four years
ago, and thought that they had met with the neighborhood during that time. He said they had met
with some of the churches in the area. Director Adcock asked if he had met with the John
Barrow Neighborhood Association, since this project sits in the middle of their neighborhood.
He said, no; not certain; that someone may have met with them some years ago. Ms. Mollie
Irvin, Ms. Rose Cook, and Ms. Doris Wright, spoke in opposition to the project citing the
following reasons: The project did not fit with the Neighborhood Plan, that they already have
facilities such as this proposed one in the neighborhood, there are an abundancge of apartments in
the area that are empty or have vacancies, and no more are needed. They contended that Mr.
Monroe has not met with the John Barrow Neighborhood Association or any of the
neighborhood associations, and that his uses for the facility were very vague, and that some of
the things he had mentioned as uses, would require a Nursing Home license, which are difficult
to obtain. They stated that you often have elderly people who live in the same facilities as those
who now fit under the disabled, handicapped definition, that often are drug abusers, or violent,
who terrorize the elderly tenants; using the example of that exact thing happening in the Quapaw
around the high -rise apartments. They asked the Board not to issue the letter bf support, and
vote against the resolution. They stated they were disappointed that Mr. Monroe did not meet
with the neighbors, and that something appropriate, in an appropriate area, could have been
discussed. Mr. Monroe stated he would like to meet with the neighbors to discuss this. Director
Keck stated there is a tremendous need to serve the disabled with housing opportunities in this
city, and thought there needed to be opportunities for this type of facility, but thought what has
been proposed, contained so much vagueness, so many generalities, and inconsistencies in the
answers he had heard, would like to see the Board move forward and see sorr -Wthing clear,
definite, and exactas to what is being proposed, and then bring it back to the Board at that point
and time, but, that what is being proposed is very unclear and not anything he could endorse.
Director Stewart asked Mr. Monroe if his company had built other facilities such as this. Mr.
Monroe answered that they have one in Memphis Tennessee, Greenville, Mississippi, and one
proposed to go in Houston, Texas. Director Stewart asked him if he were aware there is a
facility for Independent Living a few blocks of where this is proposed. Mr. Monroe stated he
was aware of that. He said according to their market study, there was a need.'. Director Cazort
stated, to clarify the passage /failure of this item, that the Board could end this issue by not voting
on it, and felt the applicant was entitled to an identifiable vote of the Board a5 to their position,
so in light ofthat, and to cause a vote on the item, moved for the adoption of the resolution.
Director Keck seconded the motion. Mayor Dailey read the resolution, asked if there were
further questions relative to the motion; being none, Mayor Dailey asked for a roll call vote. The
vote was recorded as follows: Directors: Pugh, no, Hurst, no, Cazort, no, Stewart, no, Wyrick,
no, Graves, no, Adcock, no, Vice Mayor Hinton, no, Mayor Dailey no. The vote was 10 no.
Director Kumpuris was absent. The resolution failed.
Item 30 was the next item considered. (See above).
20
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6PM
36. ORDINANCE NO. 19,051 - To repeal Chapter 34 of Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas, and add a new Chapter 34 entitled "Transportation Code "; to declare an
emergency; and for other purposes. Mayor Dailey stated that Director Cazort and Director
Wyrick represented the Board of Directors in the meetings that have been taking place between
the City and the transportation carriers. Director Cazort announced that there were two changes
in the ordinance before the Board tonight that did not get included in this draft. He stated one
was under the definitions of limousines, which has changed. The previous draft had an upper
age limit of twelve years, and at the last meeting it was agreed there would be' no upper age limit
on limousine ages, and there was an upper age limit in the current code that stated 6 years, and
agreed in the last meeting it would be 8 years. Director Cazort made the motion to amend the
ordinance to change the upper age limits of taxicabs from six to eight years, and limousines from
twelve years to no limit. Vice Mayor Hinton seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote
of the Board members present, the motion carried and the ordinance amended. Mr. Wendell
Jones, Fleet Manager, stated that after several meeting with the providers and the provision that
have been made with the transportation code, staff feels this is a reasonable level of protection
for both the providers and to where the city can enforce the code that is being presented tonight.
Director Adcock disclosed that she has a relative employed at the shuttle service, but that Mr.
Carpenter has advised that she could vote on the item. The ordinance was `read the first time.
Ms. Jerri Cheatham, Co -owner of Southern Limousine, stated she wanted too thank Director
Cazort and Wyrick for their hard work on this ordinance. Ms. Cheatham stated that after reading
the many versions of this ordinance, which have been proposed, stated she was of the opinion
that the ordinance being presented tonight should not be passed. She stated that over the last few
months, several local operators have attended the meetings arranged by the Board to voice
concerns about the proposed changes. She stated that some of these concerns have been
addressed and appropriate modifications were made to the ordinance. She: stated she felt the
main issue had been overlooked throughout the process. This issue is the right of the citizens of
Little Rock to free enterprise and supply and demand access to services provided by the local
transportation companies. She stated that when businesses have the freedom to compete against
each other, it can only benefit the people in this city in areas of options, price and convenience.
She stated the proposal before the Board is tying the hands of operators to accommodate several
different types of clients on all socioeconomic levels. Namely through the restrictions on rates,
age of vehicles and approval of expansion on fleets and types of drivers, the Board is forcing
them to pass additional costs on to the consumer, and taking away the power of the business
owner to make appropriate decisions for his particular situations. She stated they are involved in
their businesses every day. The Board does not see the broad spectrum of services they are
asked to provide for different types of people everyday. She stated that passing this ordinance
would severely limit their ability to cost effective, quality service to the citizens of this city and
all the visitors who may wish to sample the wonderful things the City has to offer. She stated
passing this ordinance would be a severe blow to those who have struggled to build a business
they could be proud of and would effectively put a sector of the limousine service out of
business, and an extreme blow to the principles of free enterprise founded in this country. She
urged the Board not to pass the ordinance. Director Cazort stated that one of the things
addressed was the age of the limousines, and assumed that had been resolved. Ms. Cheatham
stated the "end" age limit had been resolved but not the beginning age limit which provides in
the ordinance that the vehicles must be five model years or newer to be ph(ced in service. She
stated that they would not be in business today if this had been in place ten years earlier. She
stated they started their business with a vehicle that was eight years old, *nd built it into the
business it is today. Director Cazort addressed the issue of the types of drivers. He stated the
21
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 PM
J
ordinance was fairly comprehensive about the city's involvement in drivers for taxicabs, but
practically non - existent as written for drivers for limousines, based on the fact it is understood
that in her industry, with the insurance companies they deal with, that the city is confident they
would be putting qualified licensed operators behind the wheel, and therefore the numerous parts
of this ordinances that deals with driver regulations, and hiring for taxicabs do not apply to the
limousine business. Ms. Cheatham stated she appreciated the clarification of that because the
way it is written in the ordinance, it is not abundantly clear whether Jhat applies to all
transportation providers or if only to taxis. Director Cazort stated it only applied to the cab
company drivers. Ms. Cheatham stated she feels some regulations are needed but the type that
are proposing on her industry are detrimental to what the consumer needs. She said in the
ordinance there is a specific rate limit, or rate minimum of what limousines can charge which is
fifty dollars and hour, at a two -hour minimum. She stated that they have an older car, which is a
1984 Lincoln Town Car, sixty -inch stretch limousine, which is out of line for that car. She stated
there are people in smaller rural communities who rent that care routinely for proms, and
services such as that, but stated she could not charge them fifty dollars an Dour, and to tell her
she has to, completely cuts out their ability to afford a limousine for whatever occasion they
need. Mayor Dailey stated that part of the dilemma is to create a balanced ordinance in order to
encourage free enterprise but at the same time to make sure that the City has a viable cab system.
Director Adcock asked Director Cazort what his justification was for the city to tell a limousine
service they have to charge fifty dollars an hour for two hours. Director Cazort stated there were
a number of justifications; one being that this ordinance attempts to preserve, the public's access
to all forms, and to assure that one type of ground transportation is not competing unfairly with
another type of ground transportation. He stated there are expectations of certain types of
vehicles that the public would anticipate that they are gong to pay more for than they would in a
cab service. Director Cazort stated he believed that the issue of older cars and the ability to _
charge a different rate in the ordinance, because it had been discussed. Ms. Cheatham stated it
was addressed by a provision for antique vehicles, but that would not include according to the
city, and how an antique car is registered, does not include any vehicle that Is less than twenty -
five years of age. Director Cazort stated that was a state definition for license plate purposes.
Ms. Cheatham asked what would be the definition of an antique car for this "ordinance. Director
Cazort stated his recollection was that in the meetings the parties had dealt with an ability to
charge modified prices for older vehicles, and part of the justification is that ensuring that one
form of ground transportation service is not competing unfairly with another. He used the
example that if you had someone offering a luxury van or stretch limousine at the same rate as a
cab, clearly at the same rate, everyone is going to take the rate using the f limousine in an on
demand type service and the intent is to distinguish between what constitutes on demand service
in this city and what constitutes not on demand service in this city, and to ,allow those forms to
operate fairly freely against everyone else in that classification but not against each other. He
stated he would not say this ordinance is perfectly drawn, but thought there was validity to the
numbers being looked at to this point, that until tonight, everyone else that has participated in the
process have agreed is correct. Directory Adcock asked why a two -hour minimum? She stated
even at one hour, the fifty dollars would make the rate higher than a taxicab so why not take the
second hour out. Ms. Cheatham stated that a large portion of this ordinance, has originated from
one operator., that she knows of, and perhaps two, operators of limousines, operating their
limousines under the premise of a taxi service. They park, they solicit business, they will drive
frrom one destination to another on demand, and that is not the type of service they do. She
stated they do not do on demand response service. She stated there is a provision in the --
ordinance that states response time for chauffeured vehicles must be a minimum of one hour.
22
i
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
She stated that effectively eliminates their competition with the taxicabs because they cannot
respond in a time less than one -hour. She stated as far as the rate issue goes, this had already
been differentiated the response time by adding that provision. Director Graves asked if the limo
rates were compared with other cities? Are the other limo services agreeable to the fifty dollars
and the two -hour limit? Director Cazort stated in the meetings they have had, the other limo
services have been at a point of agreement. Director Wyrick stated they had talked about this
issue with the antique limo and thought it just got left out of the information that was compiled.
She stated she knew there was discussion and talked about thirty or thirty five dollars as a
minimum, but thought that from notes to transcription, it had been left out. She stated if that was
not an issue with anyone, didn't know why that could not be added in, or make some kind of
language fitting the antique description. Ms. Cheatham stated there had been some discussion
regarding a sliding scale for the older vehicles and would not be opposed to that, but did not
want to deregulate and have a free for all. One of the limousine service operators, who did not
identify himself, stated he runs a limo service, and airport shuttle service. He said he was
concerned about citizens, and people that visit the City. He stated that airport shuttle service is
the only service that originates out of the airport and terminates to a point, and then originates at
that point and terminates at the airport. He said taxi and other services pick up at the airport and
to Park Plaza and go to any place they choose to. He stated if a citizen calls ftom their house, he
couldn't bring a shuttle. It is airport transportation. He wanted to know why shuttle could not go
from the airport, pick a person up at their house, and bring them back to the airport, based on
customer request. Mayor Dailey stated he needed a motion to extend the meeting until 11:30
because under Board Rules. Director Cazort made the motion to extend the time from 11 PM to
11:30 PM. Director Adcock seconded the motion, and by majority voice vote of the Board
members present, the rules were suspended and the time extended. Director Cazort stated that
under the current ordinance a shuttle service is required too run a route systeip, originating at the
airport, and going to hotels and some businesses, and back to the airport, and' nothing in the new
ordinance changes anything in the description or operation of an airport shuttle. Director Cazort
clarified to the speaker, "what you want to be able to do, is provide service on demand, for
anybody from anywhere, to the airport or form the airport for anybody to anywhere they want to
go, is that correct ?" Mr. Answered that was correct. Director Cazort stated that is what a taxicab
does, and if he wanted to operate as such, he would need to be licensed as a taxicab, if you want
to operate a shuttle, which you are licensed for and permitted to do that, but the ordinance does
not permit you to get a less restrictive type of permit and compete with a mote restrictive type of
service. Director Cazort explained that even if this ordinance failed, he would not be able to run
the shuttle service on demand. Mr. John Hanson, Little Rock Limousine Service, stated he
thought the ordinance was a pretty good ordinance, that it was impossible to please everybody.
He stated he spoke with Ms. Cheatham and thought that maybe if something like forty dollars an
hour with a two -hour minimum could be added. He stated the only objection he had was that it
does limit the fleet size where he would have to come before the Board of Directors to add a
limousine, and has never had to do that, but might have to add one tomorrow$ and it would put an
extra strain on the business owner, and would like to get that worked out. Director Cazort stated
he did not have any problem with changing the rate from fifty to forty dollars. Director Keck
seconded the motion. Mr. Wendell Jones stated he believed this was something that had been
discussed. That if they want to increase their fleet they just come to Fleet Services and staff
makes or disapproves that recommendation. Mr. Wendell Jones, Director of Fleet Services,
stated they wouldn't keep a person from increasing their fleet. Director Keck made a motion to
amend the ordinance to a forty - dollar minimum. Director Graves, as a point of reference asked
Mr. Hanson when the limo is rented, if she called and stated she wanted to rent it for three hours,
23
d
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6 P
but wanted at thirty -five dollars an hour, would they currently do something like that, for a non -
busy time. Mr. Hanson stated he would not do it for that rate. He said they have an eight -hour
minimum that they would do deals, someone else may have a five hour minimum, but none can
go below the forty dollars with a two -hour minimum. Director Graves asked if the general
consensus was that this rate would be agreeable. Most of the limousine service representatives
agreed with the rate. Director Adcock stated if this was going to be amended to the forty dollars,
then she would like to see the sliding scale added that had been discussed. Mr. Henry Hodges,
representing the cab companies, stated with the increased traffic that this city Js going to sustain
in the six to ten months, the results of efforts for the Presidential Library,`.. if there is not an
ordinance in place that has clear designations for what you can and cannot do within specific,
whether it be sedans, limousines, then there is gong to be a mishmash/hodgepodge, regulatory
situation in Little Rock that is going to result in essence with no regulation at all, and then you
will have folks, when this business picks up, trying to get into this business and if a grid system
is not in place for somebody to be able to tell them, this is what you can and cannot do, there will
be a lot of people not aiding by the ordinance. Mr. Hodge stated the fifty - dollar and applies to is
stretch limousine, and luxury or sedans is thirty dollars for the first hour in Little Rock. He said
if you keep going down, and keep blurring these segments in these issues then there would be a
serious problem in Little Rock. Mr. Hodges stated if there were good regulation, the City would
see some good transportation businesses come into Little Rock. Director Cazort stated that he
now remembered the discussion regarding the fifty- dollar minimum. He said there had been
discussions to lower the rate to forty dollars, and that Wally Allen who oyvns the luxury car
business is set at thirty dollars, stated then he would need to go to twenty dollars, and realized
this was a slippery slope at this point, and went back and agreed it would be kept where it was,
with stretch limos at fifty dollars and the luxury sedans at thirty dollars otherwise it would mean
back - tracking all the way down, and that is why it was kept at the fifty dollar rate. Mr. Hodges
stated that there are many people who are not here tonight who have signed off of this, and if the
hourly rate is changed now, might not be supportive. Director Keck withdrew his motion. Mr.
Charles Oliver stated that Southern Limousine had said about everything he had concerns about,
but stated he had read through the sixty -three -page ordinance and stated the two -hour minimum
was a problem for him, the fifty dollars was no problem. He cited a clause in the ordinance
regarding new licenses for taxicabs and it say "no new license shall be issued to any taxicabs if
they were not issued before 1983 ". Director Cazort stated there is one independent cab company
that has one cab and this ordinance has grand- fathered him in, and this operator had been around
that long. Mr. Oliver asked if another person came into Little Rock, and applied for a license for
a cab would he be able to get one. Director Cazort stated the process would be to file the
application with the Fleet Department, and the application is made to the Board. Mr. Oliver
stated he noticed there are taxicab zones, and there are no limousine zones. He stated sometimes
if you are in the River Market and drop people off, the police officer :would give tickets.
Director Cazort stated he agreed that there needed to be limousine zones, but this ordinance is
not designed for that; that it is a separate issue. Mr. Oliver stated other than these few issues
thought that overall it was a good ordinance. Mr. Wendell Jones stated he would review the
zoning question, and thought it was unusual for them to get a ticket while unloading someone.
Mr. Mike Shoptaw, Arkansas Limousine, asked if the vehicles they have now are currently
grand- fathered in. Director Cazort answered that they were. Mr. ShoptAw stated he had a
situation where he purchased another limousine about four months ago, but it has not been
permitted but would fall out from under that five your criteria. Director Cazort stated he thought
that if someone is in process of obtaining a vehicle during the process of amending the ordinance
that his recommendation would be that the grand- fathering provisions would apply to those
24
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2004
6PM
vehicles that are in the permitting process as well. The Board members were all in agreement to
this. Director Keck made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second
reading; Director Cazort seconded the motion, and 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 Cazort
made a 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 reading. The ordinance was read the third time. By majority
voice vote of the Board members present, being two- thirds in number the ordinance and
emergency passed. Directors Pugh, Vice Mayor Hinton, Keck, Stewart, Hurst, Wyrick, Cazort ,
Kumpuris, and Mayor Dailey voted in favor; Director Adcock voted in opposition to the passage
of the ordinance and the emergency clause. Director Cazort commended Mr. Wendell Jones and
his staff.
37. REPORT - Little Rock Board of Directors Report:
Director Pugh — National League of Cities. Report deferred to February 3, 2004.
38. RESOLUTION NO. 11,654 - Appointments to the Children Youth & Families
Commission. (See above)
There were no citizens present who wished to speak during Citizens Communications.
Director Adcock made a motion, seconded by Director Keck to recess the meeting to reconvene
on January 27, 2004 for the purpose of City Manager Annual Evaluation. By unanimous voice
vote of the Board members present, the meeting was recessed at 11:25 PM.
ATTEST:
1110cy Wog , City Clerk
APPROVE:
47 Dailey, Mayor
25
0.
i
A