Loading...
04-03-01'5'7 Minutes Board of Directors Room City Hall — 500 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas April 3, 2001 6:00 P.M The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in regular session, with Vice Mayor Wyrick presiding. City Clerk, Nancy Wood called the roll with the following Directors present: Pugh, Lichty, Hinton, Cazort, Keck, Kumpuris, Graves, Adcock, Wyrick, Stewart and Mayor Dailey. With a quorum present, Mayor Dailey declared the Board of Directors in session. The invocation was given by Director Stewart, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The first item of business was a presentation to the National Merit Scholars, representing several high schools. There was a reception for the recipients held in the City Hall Rotunda at 5:30 P.M., just previous to the meeting presentations. The next presentation scheduled was Safe Schools, Healthy Students Initiative — Mary Poal, Little Rock School District. There was no representative present to make the presentation. Mayor Dailey asked the clerk to read the Consent Agenda, which consisted of the following: 1. MOTION - To approve minutes of regular meeting: March 6, 2001. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 11, 033 - To authorize a contract with John Wright Construction Company in the amount of $67,250 to build a home at 2301 Chester Street; and for other purposes. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 11,034 - To authorize a contract with G &S Builders in the amount of $67,760 to build a home at 1101 Dennison; and for other purposes. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 11,035 - To authorize a contract with G &S Builders in the amount of $68,270 to build a home at 1109 Dennison; and for other purposes. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 11,036 - To set the date of Public Hearing for May 1, 2001, on the petition to vacate, close and abandon the south portion of South Katilius Street, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 11,037 - 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. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 11,038 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a Governmental Services Agreement with Shannon Hills, Arkansas, for the purpose of providing animal services; and for other purposes. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 11,039 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations with Women and Children First: The Center Against Family Violence to provide domestic violence prevention, intervention and education programs for children in Little Rock. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 11,040 - To award a contract for advertising and marketing services to Stone & Ward, Inc.; to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract for such services in an amount not to exceed $100,000; declaring an emergency; and for other purposes. This concluded the Consent Agenda. Vice Mayor Cazort made the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda, with Director Keck sesgnding the motion. By unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the Consent Agenda (Items 1 -9) was adopted. yF The next item presented was Citizen Communications. Ms. Kathy Wells, reported that today the Senate Committee gave a due pass, on House Bill 1293, the Absentee property Owner's Bill. She stated the final hurdle would be a vote on the floor of the Senate, which was anticipated to be shortly. She stated there were no descending votes, on the committee, (The City /County Local Affairs Committee) of the Senate, that it has passed the House, there is no formal opposition, there are statements of support from the Municipal League, and no opposition from the Arkansas Realtors Association. She stated that Representative Jim Lyndall, has been the chief sponsor and has done wonderful work, resolving doubts, answering questions, and thanked City Attorney Tom Carpenter, and Odies Wilson for their lobbying on behalf of this Bill. She said so far so good, and may get it enacted. Mayor Dailey thanked Ms. Wells for her eleven years of hard work. Mayor Dailey closed Citizens Communications, as there were no other speakers and the opened the Public Hearing for Item 10. There were no cards from citizens wishing to speak for or against the item, and no one wished to address the board, there were no questions from board members. Mayor Dailey closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Dailey then opened the Public Hearing on Item 11. There were no cards from citizens wishing to speak for or against the item, and no one wished to address the board, there were no questions from board members. Mayor Dailey closed the Public Hearing. 10. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE NO. 18,454 - To vacate a public utility easement in Block 88 of Original City, (a 20' wide north -south strip of land which was formerly an alley), in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. 11. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDIANCE NO. 18,455 - To abandon the right of way of the alleys between Cedar and Elm Streets and between 5h and 6h in Block 2, Reyburn Wright Addition. The Ordinances were read the first time. The rules were suspended to provide for the second and third readings of the Ordinances by unanimous vote of the Board members present, being ten in number and two- thirds or more of the members of the Board of Directors. By a unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the ordinances were adopted. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 11,042 - To appoint the Rose Law Firm as bond counsel, and Stephens, Inc., as bond underwriter, for the issuance of refunding bonds for the 1995 Capital Improvement Bond issues; and for other purposes. The resolution was read. Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney provided the board with the following clarification. He stated the board has a resolution that generally states that any law firm that may be in a position of having a conflict will not be hired for city business. In the engagement letter from the Rose Law Firm they mentioned two items, one that there was representation of Bell's group representing the Peabody Hotel, and one deals with representing an interest that would be presented tonight on a zoning matter. Mr. Carpenter stated as to the zoning matter, it has consistently been the city's position, that until it actually votes on the zoning matter there is no position, and therefore no conflict. As to the Peabody situation, the lease has been entered into and agreed upon by the involved parties, and while there are some on going matters, there really is no conflict between the City and Rose Law Firm, and therefore consistent with the resolution, and therefore the board could waive it. Mr. Carney stated that this item comes to the board tonight as a series of two items. He said two weeks from tonight the board would actually consider the refunding of these bonds, but as suggested by Director Keck, the Mayor and others, staff has looked at all the City's outstanding debt and general obligation bonds, and general revenue bonds and have come to the conclusion that some of these bond issues could in fact be beneficial to the public benefited by a refunding package that in fact reduces the interest rate, and the length of these bonds, therefore -- reducing the payments, or the cost to the tax payers. Director Keck motioned for adoption of the resolution; Vice Mayor Cazort seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the resolution was adopted. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 11,043 - Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute deed for the transfer of City owned vacant lot (S % of Lot 10, Block 414, Duvall's Addition), to downtown Little Rock Community Development Corporation. The resolution was read. Vice Mayor Cazort motioned for adoption of the resolution; Director Hinton seconded the F) u4 motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the resolution was adopted. 14. REPORT - City Manager's Activity Report. Mr. Carney gave a report on the Ice Storm Debris Cleanup, stating that good progress was being made and the expectation was that April 23`d, 2001, would be the completion date. The next item for consideration was the Summit Mall development. Mayor Dailey recused, and Vice Mayor Cazort presided over the balance of the meeting. 15. ORDINANCE NO. 18,456 - Z- 4923 -A — To modify a Planned Commercial District and to provide for the establishment of a Planned Zoning Development entitled Summit Mall- Revised PCD, located at the southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Interstate — 430, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; to amend Little Rock Ordinance No. 15,385 (December 1, 1987); to amend Chapter 36 of the Little Rock, Arkansas, Revised Code; to establish certain conditions essential to this zoning modification; and for other purposes. Vice Mayor Cazort laid out the plans for how the meeting would proceed for the Summit Mall project. He stated, as agreed by the board, there would be thirty minutes allowed for citizens both for and against. Mr. Carpenter stated that there were some minor amendments to the ordinance pertaining to the Summit Mall that he would like to discuss with the board. Mr. Carpenter stated the changes deal on pages 3 and 6 of the ordinance, and on Exhibit D. He distributed the copies to the board that included the changed language. He stated on page 3 line 23, the word "unrelated" is added in front of commercial purposes. He said to explain that, the special conditions that deal with the adjacent property of Camp Aldersgate will exits as long as the property is used for social programs, however it was pointed out by some officials from Camp Aldersgate, that periodically they have events such as fish fries, or garage sales that are used to raise money for the camp which technically might be a commercial purpose, so the word unrelated has been added in front of commercial purposes to clarify that point. On page 6, at the request of one of the board members, it was asked that the phrase, currently on line 19, and as further shown on Exhibit E, to this ordinance, actually be moved up to line 11, which is the beginning of Subsection F so that it would be clear that is a modifier of both parts. He explained that what this does is note that the various infrastructure improvements that are discussed in Section 4 G, apply to both parts of Section F. The last change deals with Exhibit D, it again incorporates the language "unrelated" and then on the three parts that deal with auto sales and auto repairs there is a special landscaping provision, and the phrase should be "within the parking areas ", as opposed to "with the parking areas ". Director Lichty motioned to amend the ordinance as outlined by the City Attorney, Director Keck seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of board members present, the ordinance was amended. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Carpenter to review what the board is voting on, what the board's obligations are and what should and should not be considered. Mr. Carpenter stated the issue before the board is whether or not to modify an existing zoning ordinance, that granted a Planned Development in this area. This is essentially the only issue before the board. He said the zoning questions before the board are whether the board believes it appropriate to make this modification if there are changed circumstances such as traffic that leads the board to believe it is inappropriate to allow this modification, then that would certainly justify a negative vote. He said this is not about redevelopment plans for part of University Avenue, or about 3 -mile radius traffic plans and infrastructure improvements within the city. Those have not been required. He said the real focus is does the board believe this land use plan with these conditions in this location is appropriate for purposes for purposes of modification. Vice Mayor Cazort asked Mr. Carney, City Manager, if staff had any other presentations tonight on this project, and Mr. Carney answered that they did not. 3 SV Vice Mayor Cazort began the discussion with those opposed to the project. Mr. Jim Lynch stated he did not believe it appropriate to have the people for speak first, this was in error. Vice Mayor Cazort stated the meeting would proceed with the opposition going first. Anna Swaim, 36 Rosemont, Stephanie Duree, 5 Gregory Lane, Beverly Nelson, 40 Westmont, Ruth Bell, 7511 Brownwood, Nell O'Neal, 6513 Cantrell, Jim Lynch, 16 Lenon Drive, Luke Kramer, 321 Ash Street, Sam Heard, 4520 Austin, Jean Gordon, 2510 Hidden Valley, Samantha Mayo, 707 N. Jackson Street, Rod Bryan, 2802 W. 7th Street. The issues were about westward sprawl, the quality of air, protection of the existing trees, the redevelopment of exiting area issues, the traffic problems that would be created, the quality of life, and property values. Ann Zahner, representing the First Union Group introduced Dan Wright from Arden, Hadden and Cleveland, First Unions attorney, and she Dr. Charles Venus, and Dr. Larry Brown and Mr. Rosenthal, attorney from Rose Law Firm. She gave a brief presentation over viewing the facts they had presently previously. Dr. Charles Venus spoke next saying he had been an economist in Little Rock for the past thirty-nine years. He stated that right now there are very few malls being built, the few that are being built downtown to try and revitalize the downtown areas. He stated the trend is that the American aging of malls coming to an end. He told the board they were looking a pure assumption that he Summit mall is going to work. He said it might not work at all. He suggested, that this board might be the board that voted on the last "sprawl mall" to be built in the United States. He said it amazed him that there had been no discussion on the changes of the way Americans are buying things, the death of some malls, and the assumption that this mall will go forward and succeed. He said he could not image this taking place. Dr. Larry Brown, stated they had been asked to look at issues from a new light. From a legal light, and some of the issues that will face the board if the vote is yes. He stated the ordinance before the board tonight states you are modifying another ordinance. He stated that the Supreme Court has only on one occasion, has looked at a Planned Commercial District. He said in that case, they said you can go forward with the Planned Commercial District, but you have to stick to the rules, and follow what you have adopted. He said in 1987 the board adopted a Mixed use Planned Commercial District. He said a substantial part of that ordinance was for office use. The ordinance that you are modification requires Mixed Use. He asked, "where is the mixed use ?" in this current proposal. Can you convert a Mixed use Commercial District into a Single Use Commercial District? He said you are modifying this, you are revising this. He said what you said you were going to do is require mixed use, and when you looked at it in 1987 you said it was appropriate for the esthetics of the area, for the review of zoning in that area to allow this Mixed Use. He said this is no longer Mixed Use, it's no longer clustering of office and commercial, office and residential, these various uses, it is purly commercial. It is a mall. He asked the board, and asked the City Attorney to look at whether you can convert a Mixed Used approval into a Single use approval. He said in 1994, the code was changed to allow a single use approval. He said that is not what that is, this is a revision of a Mixed Use Approval. He stated you do not have the authority to' convert a Mixed Use ordinance, in their view, to a Single Use ordinance. He said the other legal issues are that no one disputes the fact that this ordinance has expired, that it expired in February of 2000. he said their position was that the ordinances of this board can't be waived orally. He asked if this was a new precedence to allow ordinances to be waived orally. He said the last thing they wanted to say was that there is wide public opinion about this issue. He said he had looked at tapes where people have come before the board and talked about the issues for over eleven hours, this is a watershed. He said our laws provide for just that circumstance, and they provide in state law that in certain controversial matters, the city can refer the issue to the people. He stated that your people care about this issue, they have spoken out in incredible numbers, he said you have the authority under this statute that the City Council or any governing body of a municipality, by a majority vote of it's members may refer any proposed ordinance to the people for adoption or rejection. He said vote for something less than no, vote for something and let the people decide. Vice Mayor Cazort y - asked Mr. Carpenter to address the issues just presented. The modification of the ordinance, the expiration of the ordinance, and the laws on referendum on zoning issues. Mr. Carpenter stated he really did not understand their argument, he said in the first place there are several out parcels here which would probably make this a multiple use matter anyway, but that in any event, the case to which he refers, is Pfeiffer vs. the City of Little Rock, which was decided at time when the city did not have a definition of Single Use Planned Developments, and has in fact has defined it in that fashion since that time, and did not think that is a problem. Mr. Carpenter stated in reference to the expiration date, the 4 si code says there is a three year time frame, but the applicant can make a request in writing to the planning Commission for extensions, and as notes show, at least two extensions were granted for six month periods of time by the Planning Commission, the ordinance shows they shall not exceed three years, and did not think this was a problem, and as to the referendum issue, the board has been provided a copy of the State Supreme Court case, and stated that he tended to agree with Justice Ember, but it was six to one vote, and she was the one. They have clearly said that zoning matters are administrative matters that are not subject to the referendum. The state that cited to you, does say exactly what is written on the board (used as one of Dr. Brown's visual aids), but it also points out in the preamble that the reason for the statute is because the only way you could have any type of initiative of referendum on certain issues was for the board to vote and then if they did vote, it might be two years before you could have the initiative or referendum election. All of those terms refer to Amendment 7. Amendment 7 in the community development case before the board does not apply to zoning matters and that what the judge held a the trial level, and that's what the Supreme Court very succinctly affirmed, and went out of their way to say, every other case that is indicated to the contrary, does not apply, and stated he did not believe this was a referendum matter. The speakers in favor of the project were, Thomas. Schneider, 115 W. Washington, 15`h Floor, Indianapolis, In., representing the Simon Properties Group, saying he wanted to address some of the inflammatory and somewhat misleading ads that had been placed in the paper recently. He said particularly one implying that the taxpayers would be paying the bill of $68 million for improvements necessitated by the Summit Mall, when in fact the studies show that approximately $10.3 dollars were necessitated, by Summit Mall, which was very close to their estimates. The other add referred to Why doesn't Simon Group try to save University Mall. He stated that in 1988 they poured millions of dollars into University Mall, double decking and adding tenancy. He said the fact of the matter is that the University Mall is not serving the purpose of a mall, and have been working on that situation with Ward's bankruptcy, and that is now getting resolved, and reported that they have significant offers and interest in that building for a significant national retailer. He stated that one more point was the revitalization of established shopping areas, such as University. He stated that is exactly what they are doing with University. He stated that University is finally in position to do something. He said they have been able to regain control of space with the Ward's closure and bankruptcy. He said they are trying to revitalize and would continue to revitalize. He said it would not be boarded up as the ads suggest, and it will continue to operate. He believed that the mall would be successful and bring additional business, and dollars here. The speakers in favor of the project were, Jimmy Moses, 3114 Edgerstoune, Betty Snyder, 4002 Walker, Gary Smith, 2525 N. Fillmore, Haskell Dickinson, 6 W. Palisades, George Brown, 2823 Lehigh Dr., Wes Cherry, 1600 Cantrell Road (Dillard's). Some of the reasons cited for favoring the development were free enterprise and competition, tax revenues, regionalism opportunities, neighborhood revitalization, the economic impact the increased revenues would have on the city as a whole, and the creation of additional jobs, both during construction of the project and once the project was completed. There were brief comments by board members, as to their thoughts and feelings on the project and the process. Director Wyrick asked someone to explain in the ordinance on page 6, line 16 through 19, where it says the City has established within it's budget the funds and appropriations that will assure the completion of any particular item listed, and then Director Lichty has proposed a resolution to further state the intentions of the board. City Attorney, Tom Carpenter answered that cities in Arkansas are not permitted to do what is known as Contract Zoning , and when staff got into the infrastructure improvements, he became concerned that when the city started making financial payments for off site improvements to roads that this would come very close to this becoming contract zoning. He said that Section F limits the ability to get a building permit to the development plan being approved and the development plan can't be approved until it is known the improvements are going to be made. He stated that it did not seem to be appropriate for the city to write a "Gotcha" into it's ordinance, where for whatever reason the board should decide to do certain of these improvements and then turn around and say they can't develop the project because they did not fund it, the city funded it. It is essentially in there just to make sure of that fact, that the legality of the ordinance would not be challenged as contract zoning and the that the developer won't be denied should the city ever decide to pay for something. Director Wyrick stated this confused her, as it was decided as a board or would decide as a board that the city would not fund any of these streets. Mr. Carpenter stated that was correct. Director Wyrick asked Director Lichty what prompted him to 5 propose the resolution, presented at tonight's meeting? Director Lichty stated what prompted him was to strengthen the intent of the board, in terms of payment of infrastructure costs. Vice Mayor Cazort asked for the final reading of the ordinance. The ordinance was read, and a roll call vote was taken which was recorded as follows; Director Pugh, no, Director Hinton, yes, Director Lichty no, Director Keck, yes, Director Stewart, no, Director Wyrick yes, Director Kumpuris, yes, Director Graves, yes, Director Adcock, yes, and Vice mayor Cazort, yes. The vote was recorded as 7 yes, 3 no, the ordinance was passed. 16. RESOLUTION NO. 11,045 — To state the intent of the Board of Directors not to finance any infrastructure improvements set forth in an ordinance to modify a Planned Commercial Development for a project known as the Summit Mall; and for other purposes. Director Lichty made the motion to approve the resolution. Director Wyrick seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present. The resolution was adopted. 16. RESOLUTION 11,044- To make appointments to Vision Little Rock. Mr. Carney announced that Mr. Wyckliff Nesbit had been recommended to fill the Public Safety Position on the Little Rock Vision Team. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Cazort to approve the recommendation; the motion was seconded by Director Keck, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the appointment as approved. A motion was made by Director Keck to adjourn. Director Lichty seconded the motion and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M. ATTEST: --- Nan W ity Clerk Z Jim ey Mayor