Loading...
08-15-00• 601 Agenda August 15, 2000 Minutes Board of Directors Room City Hall — 500 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas August 15, 2000 The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, met in regular session with Mayor Jim Daily presiding. City Clerk, Nancy Wood called the roll with the following Directors present: Directors Pugh, Hinton, Lichty, Cazort, Keck, Stewart, Wyrick, Kumpuris, Kelly, and Adcock — total 10; Absent 0. With a quorum present, Mayor Daily declared the Board of Directors in session and the proceedings of the meetings are recorded as follows: By unanimous voice vote by all Board members present, three items were added to the agenda. M -1— RESOLUTION NO. 18,333 — Dispensing with the requirement of competitive bidding and authorizing the City manager to enter into a contract extension with Pulaski County, Arkansas for Alternative School Services; and for other purposes. M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 10,882 — Re- instatement to the McArthur Military History Commission (Joa Humphrey) M -3. RESOLTUION NO. 10,883 — To approve extension of sewer to 120 acres on the west side of South Katillus Road at Forrest Lane, outside the city limits. Director Keck had a couple of questions on regarding Item 18 on the regular agenda. Director Keck asked City Manager Cy Carney, where the source of the $113,000. Mr. Carney responded that the first source was existing dollars relating to Curran Hall, approximately $42,000 still available. The other source is from the general revenue sharing account. Mr. Keck made a motion to place the item to be placed on the consent agenda, Director Lichty seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of members present, Item 18 was added to the consent agenda. Mayor Dailey announced there would be no citizen input on Item 9, the proposed animal ordinance. It would be Board discussion only. Mayor Dailey at the request of a citizen there to speak in favor of Item 14, asked the group of citizens who were present that were in favor of Item 14 to stand. He then asked for those opposed to please stand. Director Keck asked if there were any reason Items 17 and 19 could not be placed on the consent agenda. There was no objection. Director Keck made a motion to place Items 17 and 19 on the consent agenda. Director Adcock seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of members present, the two items were added. The consent agenda consisted of the following: 1. MOTION - To approve minutes from the regular Board Meeting held July 18, 2000. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 10,872 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with CAM, LLC, for application of Asphalt Rejuvenating Product on designated City streets. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 10,873 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Tri -State Mack, Incorporated for the purchase of four (4) 28 cubic yard capacity automated side - loader refuse collection trucks. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 10,874 - To set the date of Public Hearing for September 5, 2000 on the petition to vacate and close the right -of -way at Strickland Cove Street between Butler Road and the end of Strickland Streets, in the Strickland Cove Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 10,875 - To set the date of Public Hearing for September 5, 2000, on the petition to vacate and close the right of way at Lorena Avenue located west of Atkins Road for 294 feet in Block 1, Gibraltar Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 10,876 - Authorizing the City Manager to award a contract to Gateway Computer Company for the purchase of 41 lap top computers for the Little Rock Police Department. Agenda August 15, 2000 7. RESOLUTION NO. 10,877 - Authorizing the City Manager to extend the contract for Third Party Administration services for the Workers' Compensation Program with Rick Management Resources for a two -year period. 17. RESOLUTION NO. 10,878 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Ameri -Kart Corporation for the purchase of 1500, 90 Gallon Solid Waste Containers for residential garbage collection. 18. RESOLUTION NO. 10,879 - Allocating $115,000.00 for the final construction phase of the Little Rock Visitors Information Center project; and for other purposes. 19. RESOLUTION NO. 10,880 - To enter into a contract with the Little Rock Career Development Center, Inc. to operate a youth employment center at the Little Rock Career Center. Director Adcock made a motion to adopted the consent agenda, seconded by Director Cazort and by unanimous voice vote of members present the consent agenda was adopted. Director Kumpuris recused on Items 8 and 9. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development followed up on the meeting the Board had asked the Planning staff to have with the neighborhood representatives. Mr. Lawson reported as a result of that meeting, he understood the Hillcrest group was in support of the project. Director Adcock asked Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, about the conditions of B and C Street and asked where the discussion was now on these streets and if anything was planned to upgrade them Mr. Turner said there were no funds available from the City to upgrade those streets. Mr. Turner stated, as shown on the developer's plat, to realign, was to create a signalized intersection at University Avenue, and includes the transition from a commercial or 36 foot street at the intersection, down to a residential street so that it does not encourage anyone to go into the neighborhood. The purpose of the realignment is to give assess to the signal, and the developer has agreed to that and the developer will pay for the signal. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Turner and Mr. Lawson, how would he answer as a planner, making this step across University, which he has concern about doing to a commercial development and ending up with that just continuing to be something there is a pressure to move farther and farther to the east. Where do you draw the line, and when you do draw the line, is there some remedy for a transition that maybe is acceptable, as opposed to something that might set a precedent for more of the same. Mr. Lawson responded that that was always a concern, especially on major arterial roadways. He said what he thought was unique and what swayed the planning staff was the fact that there is the mall across the street and a traffic signal is already there. If you go back to the noted concept that has been used on Hwy 10 and many other areas, this piece of property lines up with the traffic signal which the street with a mall across the street. No other property up and down the rest of University Avenue does that, so even though there is some commercial, towards Markham, I -HOP and others, this is a very unique piece of property that does tie in and across the street as you go to the north there are doctors offices and other offices already there. This corner and this corner only as a commercial corner, and if the property to the south came in, it would not be the same issue at all. Mr. Lawson stated as Mr. Turner had mentioned earlier, the issue has always been for Planning staff; that this is a clear plan, where people would come in off University, in that C Street dead ends, and the other streets are very narrow. Mr. Lawson said as staff looked at this, and saw university as a major arterial, and the mall across the street, and the traffic signal already in place, this appeared to be a perfect spot. Mr. Lawson said the other thing is that this is a PCD request. This is a very high -end type of design, and the tenants are not the typical strip center. This is the kind of infill as has been mentioned, we feel is very important to the area. This will be an opportunity to look at this area and a plan to see what kind of re- development is appropriate. Director Keck asked if there had been any modifications since the first reading of this issue two weeks ago. Mr. Lawson answered that as far as the sight design there have been some minor changes, but no major changes. He said in their meeting, the mood of the meeting, that infill is important, and infill is disruptive change because it is new, but many of the people in this particular meeting felt like this is positive for the community and even though there is not 100% support, this is something that would be of benefit to the Hillcrest community and not be a detriment. He said he left the meeting with the thought there was a lot more support for the development. The ordinances were read the second time. Director Keck made a motion to suspend the rules and put the ordinances on the third and final reading, then have public input and the vote. Director Lichty seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Directors Pugh, no, Hinton, no, Lichty, yes, Cazort, yes, AA 769 X770 Agenda August 15, 2000 Keck, yes, Stewart, no, Wyrick, no, Kelly, yes, Adcock, no, Mayor Dailey, yes. The motion failed to move to third reading. Mr. Bobby Roberts, Vice President of the Hillcrest Resident's Association. He passed out a resolution their Board passed on July 24th, 2000. He stated that Saturday, he read in the paper the Hillcrest Resident's Association was opposed to the project. He said that was not true. He said then today he read they were in favor of it and that was not true. He said the truth is they have not taken either position. He said they were asked approximately a month ago by Vice Mayor Wyrick to try and go back and have a meeting with all interested parties and at that time the Hillcrest Residents Association, had voted against this project. Approximately ten days after that board meeting, they held a meeting with all the interested parties that they could get there, including a lot of people who were opposed to it, and a city board and staff members were there. He said based on their conversations with the developers the board went back and met on July 24th and voted in favor of the amendment, but not supporting. He said the vote was a split decision. The board, all thirteen members, is very much concerned about the future of Hillcrest. He said they did with the vote take the position they are no longer opposed to the project, but again that is by a fair majority of the board, which he feels fairly reflects the sentiment of the community, which is pretty evenly divided. Mr. Roberts said he would like to see a legitimate plan as far as development and re- development for the area, which would include the developers and owners in development of the plan. Mr. Carney said that history indicated that four years ago, there was a planning effort attempted, and it fell apart and no consensus reached, and did not result in a plan. Mr. Carney said he was not very optimistic, that a consensus could be reached. Director Kelly asked Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney, how could a study be undertaken, and if the Board votes to support this it would be done so on the condition this study would be undertaken. Mr. Carpenter advised you would have to defer the ultimate vote on the ordinance and then direct staff to conduct the study that is desired within the time frame of the ultimate vote and the time of the vote tonight. Mr. Carney suggested if this is voted on, and there is a clear consensus by the Board that this is to be done, then he would propose to work with neighborhood associations to develop the scope of the study, come back at the next meeting on September 5th, have that information in front of the board and vote on it at that time, and if there is agreement then, to launch in to it. To outline the scope, establish the time parameters, reach a consensus of what the plan would look like, come back in three weeks and vote on it. Mr. Carpenter said there would be no reason to incorporate this wording into the ordinance. Mr. Carpenter said if you want to relate them, you don't need to vote on the ordinance until the study is done, and if you don't want to relate them, and you just want the study done, you vote up or down on the ordinance and then do the study independently. Director Cazort said he wasn't opposed to a study, but would like some idea of or estimates of the cost involved, but did not think it need to be tied to voting on this one project. Mayor Dailey asked the Board if they would like to see a study done on the area. The majority of the Board, by show of hands, indicted they would like to see the study done. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, was the next speaker. Ms. Bell said they had concerns about the effect of increased traffic on the inferior infrastructure in that particular area. Ms. Bell asked the Board, if the ordinance was approved, to take steps to lessen the traffic's impact. She felt a cul -de- sac might be possible solution, or dead end Street, speed bumps, etc. Mr. Hank Gatlin, 2510 W. 6th Street, spoke in opposition to the project, stated he felt this issue transcends dollar signs, and even the neighborhood feeling about the future of the city and precedence that these kinds of developments establish. He compared this kind of developments to what is now happening in Los Angeles, California. The developments are now areas where nobody wants to live anymore. The concept of community will be lost. Valerie Wingert, 5907 C Street, speaking in opposition to the project said, her property will be bordered on two sides by this development, that she was against it, offered a petition of residence with 30 signatures of residents in the immediate area who are against the development. She said this is the tenth meeting she has been to on this issue. She said they are worried about increased traffic, loss of homes in a historic neighborhood, loss of trees, loss of property value, and the size and hours of operation of this development. She said it is to large, and is not a fit for a neighborhood when you have to tear down nine houses to put something in, is not a good fit in the neighborhood. She said she thought a study was a good idea, but needed to be done before any development is done. Dee White, 215 S. Johnson, in opposition of the development, stated she grew up on Kavenaugh, lived on Pierce Street, where this neighborhood is, and Agenda August 15, 2000 it's a nice quiet area. She presented a petition called "fill -in" thousands of square feet all over town before any re- zoning of residential space, especially historic residential space is ever considered. The petition has over 50 signatures of people from Hillcrest and all over town and thought it important for people to realize that Director Kumpuris has recused himself to avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest because his office would benefit from this development, as it is adjacent to the parking lot. She stated that Mr. Roberts, who had spoken earlier, had a conflict of interest and did not think he should have spoken on the issue. Mayor Dailey asked Ms. White not to get in to personalizations and characterizations. Carl Evans, 5907 C Street, in opposition, said he has been here three times to address this issue. He said the traffic situation has never been properly presented. He said people cut through there all the time, looking for a short cut to Park Plaza. He said if C Street is line up with the signal light and Park Plaza's entry you will have a caravan of people taking one light to Park Plaza instead of two. He asked the Board to stop and think about this, he said a study is needed, but not after a development occurs. Claire Burch, 5817 C Street, said she had lived on C Street since 1961, and this was really going to impact them. She said she did not want all the publicity, she said she is fighting for her property. She is fighting for what she believes should stay a residential area. She said she would not mind a quiet business there, but not a shopping center. Ron Tabor, 1701 Centerview Ct., spoke in favor of the development, stating if we become complacent in what our duties are to bring back and bring new life to neighborhoods, then we have missed the point. He said he sees this in his industry all over the country. He said if you hop, skip and jump neighborhoods and let them die on the vine, we are all in trouble. He said he did not view this as a horrible development. He said he was not the developer; he represents the owner, Mr. Sullivan. He said there have been unprecedented concessions made in trying to work with the residents of the neighborhoods, and had gone way past what is typically seen in an infill development. He said in his mind, University Avenue was at a real turning point, the things occurring, and the rumors that Dillards will leave Park Plaza, but viewed this project as something that would encourage Dillards to stay there. He said they have struggled to keep this project in tact. He said they don't feel like they are even welcome to Little Rock. He said they have done everything they said they would do; they have made the commitments to this City, working with staff, public works, etc. Mr. Tabor said they have worked with staff and there is strong support in the neighborhood. He said they are sensitive to saving some of the trees, and sensitive to the issues. He said we have got to focus on the mid -town neighborhoods, and this is that opportunity. Mr. A. M. Sullivan, 301 N. University, spoke in favor of the development, as the owner of the property, said they have lived there most of their lives, he said he hears the negatives about the property, and thinks this project will be good for the neighborhood and the area. He asked the Board to let this improvement go in. He said it would improve the neighborhood, which is on the down -cline right now. He said at least 75 % of the people are renters, who come and go and that houses are up for sale, and asked the Board to vote yes on the development. Craig Berry, 480 Ridgeway, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, said there were no unresolved planning issues that he was aware of. He said the official Land Use Plan identifies this property as mixed use, so it is not exclusively residential. He said he was concerned with drawing the line in the sand at University, east of which is like a reverse urban growth boundary. He said he thought intelligent planning requires a dynamic, which is less artificial and arbitrary than that. He said he would recommend looking at University as central city urban growth boundary. He said he thought that would not be an appropriate way to look at any potential changes in the central city. He said change is painful, and neighborhoods are fearful of this, but this particular development is not a "big box" development. Mr. Tabor spoke again saying he was a firm believer of infill development, and had shown that in the past with The Dillard's deal, the Cathedral Middle School, which they are applying for a national award, which he hoped the city receives on a transitional from an industrial area. He said he had never had a developer willing to do the things he has committed to and cut back and scale down and try to make it blend into the neighborhood, and said he did not think they could find anything better to go in this area. He said the city has got to be more progressive and pronounced in these in fills. Mayor Dailey said he believed what was causing people to be nervous right now, including himself was that when we begin to step across a line that has been a line, even if imaginary, like University, is that he wants to see it done with a plan. He said he was wresting with this one on whether he could vote yes tonight when in fact it is something he would kike to see happen, but wants it to 4 771 772 Agenda August 15, 2000 happen in a way where he could see how we are looking at that area and how it fits in as part of a plan. Director Lichty asked Mr. Bobby Roberts if it was fair to assume that plan was going somehow designate something other than single - family residence for that. Particular area. Mr. Roberts said that Director Lichty was asking him to comment on what a group of citizens and developers and realtors might say, and he wasn't prepared to do that. He said he saw no harm in going through the process. Director Lichty said he saw a lot of harm in going through the process if the process is nothing more than consuming time that validates what many people think is a good development right now, particularly if we lose in this process something that could be very helpful to the City of Little Rock in that particular area. Mr. Roberts told Director Lichty that the range of interest in the neighborhood would run from people on their board that would favor nothing, to those who would favor some commercial or office development. If there is no consensus among the board members, about what needs to happen there, there is the risk of polarizing the neighborhood, the city and defeating good projects. Mr. Roberts said he would like to see more citizens participate, but generally it didn't happen. He said they only represent about 650 members out of approximately four thousand dwellings, but it is a large group, that is participating in what is going on. Director Lichty said he would like to see this issue move forward tonight. Director Adcock made a motion to reconsider the previous motion of suspending the rules and going to the third reading, seconded by Director Lichty. By unanimous voice vote, the motion was made to reconsider suspending the rules. A motion by Director Keck, seconded by Director Lichty. The rules were suspended to provide for the 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. 8. ORDINANCE NO. - Z- 6629 -A - Amending Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, providing for a waiver of Master Street Plan Street Improvements for Commercial Development Associates located east of University between "B" and "C" Streets in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas and for other purposes. 9. ORDINANCE NO. - Z- 6629 -A — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and Establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Commercial Development Associates — Short Form — PCD located on the east side of University Avenue, between "B" and "C" Streets in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Amending Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. There was a roll call vote after the third reading which was recorded as follows: Director Pugh, no, Hinton, yes, Lichty, yes, Cazort, yes, Keck, yes, Stewart, no, Wyrick, no, Kelly, yes, Adcock, no, Mayor Dailey, no. Director Kumpuris recused. 5 no, 5 yes, 1 recused. The ordinances failed. Grouped Items 10 & 11 was read. Ordinance 18,329 was read the second time. Ordinance No. 18,330 was 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. The ordinances were read the second and third times and by unanimous voice vote by members present, the ordinances were adopted unanimously. 10. ORDINANCE NO. 18,329 - To declare the evaluation of the City's Animal Control Services a Professional Service; and for other purposes. (Second Reading) 11. ORDINANCE NO. 18,330 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a (Sole Source) contract with Network Associates to provide updates and technical support for the City's computer virus software. Mr. Carpenter notified the Board there was an emergency clause in Item #11, the board needed to vote on. Mayor Dailey asked for a vote to adopt the emergency clause. By unanimous voice vote of members present the emergency clause was adopted. 13. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE - To approve the Tornado Disaster Area Targeted Neighborhood Enhancement Plan, and for other purposes. Mayor Dailey opened the public hearing, recognized Ms. Kathy Wells, 2121 Gaines, said she was a victim of the January 21' tornado and she and many others had appealed to the Board to bring the benefits of the TNEP program to tornado victims, particularly the single family dwellers who had no there recourse and struggling to rebuild. The plan is prepared and before the Board for adoption, and urged the Board to approve. Reverend Matthews, Chairman of the Disaster Area Rebuild Council said they were making slow but Agenda August 15, 2000 Wal deliberate progress of person affected by the tornado and are counting on the Board to help with TNEP funds to continue to settle this need for 85 to 90 families who have just fallen through the cracks, but needed help. The catastrophic funds were about to be expended. Director Keck made a motion to recess to executive session, Director Adcock seconded the motion, and the meeting was recessed. The meeting reconvened and Mr. Carney announced the appointments and re- appointments: M -3. RESOLUTION NO. 10,882 — Re- instatement to the McArthur Military History Commission (Joa Humphrey). 21. RESOLUTION NO. 10,881 - Appointment to the Vision Little Rock Team. - Director Adcock made a motion to adopt the resolutions to reinstate Ms. Joa Humphrey to the McArthur Military History Commission, and appoint Ms. Joa Humphrey as Co -Chair of the Education Youth and Senior Strategies Work Group of Vision Little Rock, Mr. Sammy Mills as Co -Chair of the Vision Team Housing Work Group, and Ms. Charlotte Allsion to the Vision Team Racial Cultural Diversity Work Group. Director Pugh seconded the motion, by unanimous voice vote of members present, the appointments were accepted and the resolutions adopted. 14. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION - To rescind the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a Conditional Use Permit for an expansion of the existing Montessori School located at 15717 Taylor Loop Road. (Planning Commission: 3 yes, 4 no, 3 absent, 1 abstention.) Staff recommends approval with conditions. (Item was sent back to the Planning Commission). Mayor Dailey declared the public hearing open. Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning and Development Director, gave a briefing of the issue. Mr. Lawson said there have been some mis- understandings on this particular case. He gave a brief history of the issue. He said his first understanding was that the school wanted to build a gymnasium, but what they were asking to build was really a play area for the kids. They have redesigned the building to fit into the residential area. Mr. Lawson said the people directly affected, are not opposed to the school. The ones opposed are further down Taylor Loop Road. Director Adcock said there are five affidavits from five homeowners who live directly across the street, that they were never notified. Director Adcock stated these do not even show up on the map. Mr. Lawson stated the map they are using was the map before the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Lawson said the abstract company would have notified them if they lived within fifty feet. Director Adcock asked for this map to be left up, and when the homeowners came up, they could point out where they live. Mr. Lawson agreed to do this. He said there were several things said in the Planning Commission Meeting that was incorrect. Mr. Lawson stated he was not allowed to speak at the Planning Commission meeting, and he was saying that the Planning Commission did not get all the information. Mr. Lawson said he felt if this went back to the Planning Commission there would be a different vote. Director Kumpuris said it was somewhat troubling that what was happening here was the Board of Directors was being asked to do the Planning Commissions job and to also do the jobs they are required to do and it seems that if this is the case, is it better to send this back to the Planning Commission and let them look at it. Director Kumpuris made a motion to send the item back to the Planning Commission, Director Adcock seconded the motion, Mr. Jim Nettles, in opposition, spoke as representative of several persons (Shirley Dyer, 15808 Taylor Loop Road, Wilmar Harding, 15710 Taylor Loop Road, Karen Rambin, 15801 Taylor Loop Road, Robert Rossi, 4314 Wesley Drive, William Bruton, Jr. 15708 Taylor Loop Road, Monica Mayo 15706 Taylor Loop Road) who were present at the meeting. Mr. Randy Frazier, representing the applicant, stated that they would be willing to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nettles said they were prepared, and did not want this to go back to the Planning Commission. Director Lichty said he would like a comment from Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney, regarding sending this back. Mr. Carpenter's comments were, he thought the question for the broad right now is along the following: you have had an issued raised as to notice, which is always defeating to any type of land use application. Five people did not actually get notice prior to the hearing before the Planning Commission. That's one problem this action would give you the chance to clear up. The second issue that a question has been raised both by the Planning Director and by a Planning Commissioner that the full scope of the hearing was not what they felt was appropriate. Mr. Carpenter said the question that is ultimately going to happen to the Board in whether you grant for deny the appeal, and if there is challenge to that was your action arbitrary and capricious. You are given two fundamental issues, one as to notice and one as to the full scope of the hearing before and if you wish to send it back, he . thought that was totally appropriate and if you did not want to send it back that was also totally appropriate. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to send the item back to the Planning Commission and was recorded as follows: Director Pugh, yes, Hinton, no, Lichty, yes, Cazort, yes, Keck, no, Stewart, no, Wyrick, no, Kumpuris, yes, Kelly, no, 0 F 774 Agenda August 15, 2000 Adcock, no. Mayor Dailey, yes. Total: 6 no, 5 yes. The item remained on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Carpenter stated, in light of the comment about the five residences that were not given notice, it seems only appropriate that if they should speak tonight they should be asked to waive that since so that the board does not get caught in a "trick- bag ". Vice Mayor Wyrick asked what if they don't? Mr. Carpenter said if they don't the board would go forward with the risk that there was improper notice. Director Keck said he didn't know how to describe this, but this whole thing is "jabber - walkie." He said we have people here, who were not properly notified, and we are asking them to waive their legal rights in their presentation to us, and even if they say that they could then comeback and still take legal action if they chose to. He said he was not sure what should be done other than go forward with it and let the chips fall where they may. Mr. Lawson in finishing his presentation said the Montessori school has been there of a while and was designed as a residential looking house. What they plan to do on the proposed building is do the same kind of design, to look like a house in a residential area. Mr. Lawson said there was a couple of things that impressed staff as they were doing the review and that was that the school has asked to increase the number of kids, and since they have staggered hours, from a traffic standpoint, they did not see this as having that much impact from a traffic standpoint. The other issue is the tract of ground going to the corner of the existing school and does not anticipate there being a home there. This particular tract would be difficult to build a house, because of the shape and because it would have to be filled. Mr. Lawson said when this application first came in there was some misunderstanding that there was going to be a huge gym built and when the first application came in it did not have the residential look that the first building did. Director Lichty asked if the Planning Commission had seen this. Mr. Lawson said he did not believe the Planning Commission has seen the new drawings. Mr. Lawson said he would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawson said he felt this would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Director Adcock said there are five homes that were not given proper notice. Director Kelly said he was getting more and more uncomfortable with this, and moved to reconsider the earlier vote to keep the issue before the board. He said he thought this should be moved to the Planning Commission it was getting messier and messier. Director Lichty seconded the motion. Mayor Dailey asked for a roll call vote which was recorded as follows: Director Pugh, yes, Hinton, no, Lichty, yes, Cazort, yes, Keck, no, Stewart, no, Wyrick no, Kumpuris, yes, Kelly yes, Adcock, no. Mayor Dailey, yes. The vote was 6 no, 5 yes. The vote to reconsider passed. The original motion to send back to the Planning Commission comes back before the Board. Director Lichty moved to send the item back to the Planning Commission, with a second by Director Pugh. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Director Pugh, yes, Hinton, no, Lichty, yes, Cazort, yes, Keck, no, Stewart, no, Wyrick no, Kumpuris, yes, Kelly, yes, Adcock, no, Mayor Dailey, yes. The vote was 6 yes, 5 no. Mr. Lawson asked if the board would suggest a meeting before it goes back to the Planning Commission, between the people who object and the school and staff. Mayor Dailey said he thought that was a good idea. Director Adcock asked Mr. Turner to loll at a document dated March 14, 1996, where this was brought before the Planning Commission at an earlier date, and some of the requirements from the city engineers, and see if these things have been complied with. Director Hinton requested a traffic count on Taylor Loop Road, leading into the school. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Nettles if he would like to speak. Mr. Carpenter interrupted and said he wanted to suggest that wasn't appropriate, that the issue has been set back, virtually to novo, there is a challenge there are people who have not been there, a record is being made, should there ever be challenged to this, and he thought when the record comes before the Board, it should be essentially the final record. Mr. Carpenter stated he would encourage the Mayor to move on to the next item. Mr. Nettles said he did not think they had been respected in the process. Mayor Dailey advised that in the light of the City Attorneys input, there would be no more discussion on the item, and he respected the City Attorney's legal suggestion. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing. 15. ORDINANCE NO. 18,331 - Amending Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, providing for a waiver of Master Street Plan Improvements Requirements for Community Fellowship Church, located at 14100 Lawson Road. Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, stated the reason staff was in opposition to the waiver, goes back to the point that waivers are forever. In July 1994, a deferral was given at that time on street improvements, and that time is up, and it is time for them to construct the street improvements they were asked to do. They have come forward and asked for a waiver of those requirements made in 1994. Mr. Turner said they were not in support of a waiver but would support a continued deferral. He said they were supportive of another five -year deferral, unless an adjacent development or additional development on this property occurs. Director Kelly said not long ago another church on Lawson Road had asked for a waiver, which got very long and drawn out, and asked Mr. Turner to refresh his memory on that item. Mr. Turner answered there had 7 Agenda 775 August 15, 2000 been several churches, basically outside the city that have wanted waivers, but were granted deferrals. Some were granted waivers, and some were not. One church on Colonel Glenn, Martindale Baptist Church, was granted a waiver. Other cases, such as this, deferrals were approved. Mr. Terry Bryant, 4118 Rocky Lane, the applicant said their church was very small and could not afford the improvements, and was asking for a waiver. Director Kelly asked Mr. Lawson or Mr. Turner if the waiver is not granted, are they obligated to pay the $45,000? Mr. Turner said no, the $45,000 was furnished by Public Works to give a reasonable estimate of what it would cost if the City had to do it. It's one half the cost of a principal arterial roadway. It cost essentially $600 a linear foot to build a road like Lawson Road to a full Master Street Standards. The Boundary Street ordinance requires developers regardless of what they are, it makes no distinction, it just states development, and the obligation is to construct half of that roadbed. Mr. Lawson stated they used $300 a foot times 160 feet which came to the $48,000. Director. Kelly asked if the Board denies they waiver if the applicant has t pay this fee at that time. Mr. Turner said there is no money to change hands, if the waiver is granted; any obligation to do any construction is gone. If a deferral is granted, there is no need for money too change hand up until such times as additional development occurs, adjacent development occurs, or five years, and they would be obligated to construct at their cost, whatever the figure is at the end of the five year period. Mr. Turner said if the Board takes no action, they are under an obligation to proceed to do construction on that at this time. One of the other options, is to look at a 15% hardship and they could pay that to the city, and it would be held In the coffers until the City got to the point where they could widen Lawson Road. Director Lichty said that would still be several thousands of dollars and Mr. Bryant had just stated the church's coffers were thin right now. Director Lichty told the applicant that it seemed to him it would be in his best interest to amend this to a deferral, to buy himself five more years, and if the situation is the same in another five years, then in all probability, there could be another deferral granted. Mayor Dailey stated he thought a deferral would be an easy choice for the Board to make, as they did not want to impose some unfair burden on the church at this time. On the other hand, to be consistent, if the Board starts doing waivers on all the out of city requests, and then they do come into the city, the City has given up the various opportunities to be able to utilize some of the development costs as a way of funding streets as the improvements are ultimately made. Mayor Dailey stated he thought if the City gives up all of that, and then felt a real "Pandora's Box" would be opened for the City. Mr. Bryant said they were willing to accept the consequences, that they wanted the waiver, and would not accept a deferral. Director Kelly asked if it would be appropriate to make a motion contrary to the applicant's wishes. Mr. Carpenter said it was appropriate. Director Kelly made a motion to amend the request to a five -year deferral. Director Lichty seconded the motion. Director Keck said he thought the deferral places a cloud over the church they do not want to have, and felt the Church had met the requirement as laid out five years before. Director Keck said he would support a waiver, and would not support a five -year deferral. By voice vote, Directors Keck, Pugh, Stewart voted no, on the deferral, Directors Hinton, Lichty, Kumpuris, Wyrick, Adcock, Cazort and Kelly and Mayor Dailey voted yes. The motion for the five -year deferral as amended, was approved. The Ordinance was read the first time. The rules were suspended to provide for the second and third readings of the Ordinance as amended 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. (Director Keck and Director Stewart, voted no.) A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Director Pugh, no, Hinton yes, Lichty, yes, Cazort, yes, Keck, Abstain, Stewart, no, Wyrick, yes, Kumpuris, yes, Kelly, yes, Adcock, yes, Mayor Dailey, yes. 8 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention. 16. ORDINANCE NO. 18,332 - To grant Cricket Communications a waiver of the requirement to come into compliance at this time with the landscape provisions of Little Rock, Arkansas, Ordinance No. 18,173 (December 20, 1999) for five wireless communications towers in existence on the date of the ordinance; to set certain conditions for these five sites; and for other purposes. (The sites are: Cricket's Cantrell Road Reservoir Park, Cricket's Trigon Place, Cricket's Mabelvale Pike, Cricket's a Street Snyder Building, Cricket's Chester Street. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, presented photographs of each site and gave an overview of each of the locations and stated staff is encouraging co- locations for these sites. Norm Floyd spoke in opposition to the wavier. Mr. Floyd said the area listed under findings is to "gray ". The 776 Agenda August 15, 2000 thing he did not want to see happen is there to be no review by anyone besides the one city staff person. He said with only one person doing this there was too much possibility for influence. He said he did not have a problem with the person doing this now, but who knows about the future. He said to paraphrase something Dr. Kumpuris has said, is there is safety in two sets of reviews. Director Adcock asked Mr. Carney why the ability to check and balance was being taken away from the City Board. Mr. Carpenter answered that the language on findings is also the language that was before the Board in the Nextel situation, and is drafted in light of the telecommunications act which among other things has made it clear that the government's even at the local level are not free to discriminate between one provider and another provider, and the ground rules were more or less set when it was decided how to deal with this with Nextel. There had been serious concerns raised by the telecommunications industry for those towers that were in place with conditional use permits prior to the landscape ordinance. At one point some members of the industry, made the concerted suggestion that there was absolutely nothing the city could do in terms of having any landscaping or any type of screening activities because the conditional use permits had already been granted. Mr. Carpenter said that although there have been some successes in local governments in the New Jersey courts, for the most part, the telecommunications industry has "Slam- dunked' every city in the country who has tried to do anything with landscaping matters. Mr. Carpenter said what staff has done is try to set forth the situation that permits the city to require a company some sort of screening or landscaping on a tower that is essentially in the middle of nowhere. There are some exceptions to that, and those have been discussed. If at some point in the future, it does become a residential type area, to be able to come back and say now you have to do something that requires screening and or landscaping Mr. Carpenter said the findings section of this was identical to the findings section in the Nextel ordinance. Mr. Carpenter said the purpose of this section is to state that the Board has indicated after the fact, they think it's important to have landscaping and screening provisions, particularly in residential areas, in which it was known some areas would either be granted waivers or deferrals, that if a waiver is granted, they stay in place as long is there is not a major change in circumstances, and then define what constitutes a major change in circumstances so that if that event occurs in the future, the Board can take action. Director Lichty moved for the adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Dailey said it needed to be read first. The ordinance was read the first time. Vice Mayor Wyrick recused. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Carpenter as new telecommunications industry come to the city, does the city assure that franchise fees are collected. Mr. Carpenter said he did not know the answer to that. It is usually handled by the Finance Department. Director Kumpuris asked for a report on this. Director Kelly said the tower in the Cantrell Road area really detracts from the park. He said that the property is zoned R -2 single family residential. He said he didn't understand why a barrier couldn't be put around the tower. Mr. Frazier, representing Cricket Communications said that from any view other than the south, he did not think it was that visible; it was way down inside the park. Mr. Frazier said they have agreed to do a privacy fence, the landscaping across the front wouldn't, work because that is the entry way to the site off of the access easement from the road, and the gate is necessary for routine maintenance, and that is the reason they can't landscape on the south side, which is the view being discussed. Mr. Frazier said they would put a privacy fence, which would cover all four sides of the site, but landscaping over the gravel over the entry way, is the access easement to get to that site, there is no practical way to landscape the south side. Mr. Lawson said regarding the zoning that they were working with the City Attorney's office and the Parks Department and will be coming in with an ordinance that would rezone all parkland. He said they wanted to create a new district in the zoning ordinance jut for park and open space. Mr. Frazier said Cricket is the 6th wireless carrier in this market. He said the city policy, the city ordinance encourages co- location and he stated they had eight sites in June, all co- locations; the five sites being discussed at this meeting are co- locations. He said the industry is working hard to co- locate. He said on the five sites tonight, he said three are zoned, industrial 2, which is the most favorable sites, 3 are zoned 1 -2, one is in the park, the fifth one is planned commercial development with concrete all around it, and they are co- locating on it. From the industry, Cricket will have 29 sites, and only two will probably require new towers, and they will try and locate where the ordinance encourages these sites. Mr. Frazier said the Snyder Building site could use some landscaping and would be a nice gesture for the residents making the site less obtrusive to the residents. Mr. Frazier said the only place the landscaping could go is in the parking lot. Director Cazort made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Director Kumpuris seconded the motion. By voice vote, 10 in favor, 1 opposed (Director Kelly voted no.) The ordinance was read the second time. Director Cazort made a motion to place the ordinance on third and final reading, seconded by Director Lichty, all in favor, none opposed the third reading. The ordinance was read the third time. By voice vote, 10 Board of Directors members were in favor, 1 opposed, (Director Kelly.) A vote was taken to adopt the emergency clause. By voice vote, 10 in favor, 1 opposed, (Director Kelly). Ordinance and emergency clause were adopted. E Agenda August 15, 2000 20. REPORT - City Manager's Activity Report M -1— ORDINANCE NO. 18,333 — Dispensing with the requirement of competitive bidding and authorizing the City manager to enter into a contract extension with Pulaski County, Arkansas for Alternative School Services; and for other purposes. The ordinance was read the first time. The Ordinance was read the first time. The rules were suspended to provide for the second and third readings of the Ordinance 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 voice vote of the Board Members present the ordinance was adopted unanimously. M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 10,882 — Re- instatement to the McArthur Military History Commission (Joa Humphrey) M -4. RESOLTUION NO. 10,883 — To approve extension of sewer to 120 acres on the west side of South Katillus Road at Forrest Lane, outside the City limits. Director Cazort gave a brief explanation of the item saying this was a resolution to extend sewer services into an area that has been annexed, when the muli -island annexation took place, that annexation ordinance was challenged in court, which technically means it has not been annexed into the city. The developer and the resident has tried to get sewer service, they have contacted the attorney for the plaintiff who has filed a lawsuit challenging the action, and none has any objection to this. Director Cazort said is already water service in this area and made a motion to adopt the resolution. Director Keck seconded the motion. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Carpenter if there were any legal issues in this having to do with precedence. Mr. Carpenter said there were provisions for that in the resolution. By unanimous voice vote of Board members present, the resolution was adopted. 12. ORDINANCE - To repeal Little Rock, Arkansas, Rev. Code 6 -1 to 52 (1988); to provide for the membership of the Animal Services Advisory Board; to establish the effective date for the various sections of the new Animal Services Code; to declare an emergency; and for other purposes. (Board Discussion Only) Mr. Carney announced that since the last meeting staff has convened two separate meetings with two groups. He said there was no consensus related to various issues in the proposed ordinance. He said there are some alternative language, and an alternative ordinance in total. There is some belief by the majority that finishing the ordinance is close in language, but some do not believe that. Mr. Carney said what was distributed to the Board earlier was an alternative idea that the staff would recommend. It is entitled a resolution to establish a new Animal Services Advisory Board to request review of the proposed amendments to the City Animal Services Code, and for other purposes. The choices are to review and act on the ordinances before the Board, and didn't thin the final language was ready on the total ordinances. Mr. Carney said the ordinance establishes a twelve member advisory board. Members would be appointed to that board, with specific representation from the TAG group, the Pulaski County Humane Society, Central Arkansas Rescue effort, one from each war, a total of twelve, and charge named members until the first meeting in December to examine again the language in the proposed ordnance, to look at other issues, see if consensus could be reached and upon a two thirds consensus of that new group, come back to the Board with specific recommendations, changes, if any, with specific modifications. This would delay action on the ordinance. The alternative to this would be to continue to work on the language and to simply bring the board the best staff shot at this, given the input of the two meetings, and come back at the next meeting with more revisions and not go separately with an action to name the advisory group. Director Adcock said this upset her, she stated Mr. Carney knew how long and hard she had worked on this, and for this to be brought up tonight and she not have to been made aware of this. She stated this has gone on for three years. She said she was upset at the thought of postponing this further. She stated she did not want this issue delayed, and asked the Board not to delay, to go ahead with it. Director Keck stated he would like to see a possible three tiered system that would have the two categories mentioned previously and a third category which was mentioned in the last meeting for breeders. He wanted to make certain there was a provision for animals that were older where if the soapy or neuter were jeopardy to their health would be addressed. Director Keck said he would like to move forward with the ordinance. He said he though some of what Mr. Carney could be accomplished by having this advisory group that will be monitoring this on an on going basis. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Carpenter on the process he had been going through, if this is moved forward, what information would he need from the Board or what structure or process would he need, what would be the timeframe, and in light of the other things that he was working on, how realistic is it to think this can be accomplished in order for him to put an ordinance structure in place the way Director Adcock would like to see it done. Mr. Carpenter said if he had Director Adcock's 10 777 1 778 Agenda August 15, 2000 energy, then there could be a draft by five o'clock in the morning and it would be perfect, but, that there were a number of issues that have not been addressed in the draft that is before the Board tonight, and needed some guidance. He said there is a great deal of debate about some of the provisions and how to deal with them. He said he made a list, and photocopied his notes, at the request of Director Adcock. He asked the Board for some direction on several of the issues, such as input on the differential licensing fees, how the money would be distributed, etc., the issue of who is a responsible breeder, several issues regarding companion dogs, and seeing eye dogs being exempt, questions on seizure of animals not being cared for, the provision for the immediate payments, and retrieval of payment from owners, the trapping provision, the livestock issue, etc. Director Kumpuris suggested if this was going to be resolved, the questions and concerns needed to be given to the Board in writing and in two weeks; the board makes those decisions along with any input from citizens and then be prepared the next meeting to vote it up and down. Mr. Carpenter asked if it would make more sense to pull out the two tiered approach to give the Board the two or three options that are there and let the Board vote those options up or down. A limited ordinance in that way, and let the rest be available as the evaluation process takes place. Director Adcock said her answer is no, that this had been brought to the board by a citizens group and since the landscape ordinance will be coming before the board in a short time, the board will be bogged down the remainder of the year, with animals and landscaping. She asked to go ahead and pass what has been presented. She said two groups are being discussed, a citizens group and a veterinarians group, and the things the Board can't decide on, give to those two groups t bring back to the Board, but to go ahead and pass the ordinance. The vegetarians have said they will sell the service, but want a guaranteed the money will be turned back in to animal services. They want an ordinance in the beginning and they will serve. They are willing to help, and she thought it was time to pass the ordinance. Mr. Carpenter said he did not discount he tremendous effort that has gone in to this process, but thought there were a number of issues in the ordinance redraft that have become polarized, and didn't think it would go away in two weeks, and that no ordinance is good unless it can be enforced. Mr. Carpenter said his suggestions are to beef up the enforcement order and citation authority in place now, and the licensing fee, and leave for discussion before a final order is in place, the other issues about the debate as to whether it's animal rights or animal welfare or this group or that group, and rather than put on ordinance out there and expect Animal Control to try and enforce it for a month or two, and then turn around and change it and be in a posture where they are testifying in court one day because someone has a chain hat's to short and the turn around the next day and saying, that is okay, and thought that creates a potential for confusion in enforcement which doesn't serve the Board's overall aim. Director Lichty said one of the tings he has been troubled about is that most ordinances are designed for the negligent and irresponsible, and how do you enforce these new rules and regulations and how effective is it going to be. Director Lichty said as much as he hates to defer and put things off, this has become a real "bear', and as he has read through the ordinance there is so much about dogs and what you do about misbehavior of dogs but not much about the misbehavior of cats. He said cats are a huge problem. He said they might be a bigger problem than dogs. If there is a task force, a group, a consultant or whatever, that can sort through this, and bring a clean ordinance that is logical, responsible, and enforceable and is effective it might be time well served. He stated he also would like a list of the issues. Director Kelly said he agreed with Dr. Lichty on the issue of cats, and also thought some immediate steps needed to be done as a result of all the work, and breaking this down in smaller segments and passing those things or act on things that are the most important that can be agreed upon and working on the smaller details of those. Director Adcock asked that the questions be given to the Board and move on from there. Mr. Carpenter said he would put forward the questions and issues he addressed. He said his recommendation is the one he made in May. Do the differential licensing as an element, do tweaking on some of those things, now, there is a framework form what the task force has done, and move forward with that, not at this time, but at a different time. Director Adcock stated maybe staff could look at drafting a smaller ordinance, but with an ultimate goal of having the complete ordinance done in a certain time frame, and phasing in some of the things the board may want to incorporate. Director Pugh said in June she had brought up the issue of the overgrown lot at 619 E. 22nd Street, and reported that code enforcement had gone out and they had issues a lot of citations in the area, but she went back by yesterday, and the lot was just like it was before. The cars and other things were gone, but the lot had not been touched. She said she got two letters from parents who had gone to the Pfeiffer Camp, and they were very happy with the camp. She also wanted to recognize the police officers who were there, who do this on their own time, and to say thank you to these people who participated in the camp program. Mayor Dailey said it was the Ferndale program, rather than the Pfeiffer Camp, and also wanted to thank the officers and the children for their participation. Mr. Carney announced that Tuesday, September 5`", everyone would be present, and if everyone would come approximately ten to six, the Board group photo 11 Agenda August 15, 2000 would be taken at that place. Director Keck asked Mr. Carpenter about the home use, conditional use permits, and where his office was in the revocation of some of these permits. Mr. Carney stated the Planning Commission was examining the whole home - based business package. Mr. Keck asked for an update from Mr. Carpenter's office. Mr. Carney said a preliminary look has been taken at a building north of City Hall to accommodate a board meeting room. Mr. Carney asked the board to take a look at the packet prepared for the retreat meeting being held on August 22, 2000. Director Stewart asked for an update on Asher Avenue. There were no participants in Citizens Communication. A motion was made by Director Adcock to adjourn, seconded by Director Kelly, by unanimous vote of members present the meeting was adjourned at - To grant Cricket Communications a waiver of the requirement to come into compliance at this time with the landscape provisions of Little Rock, Arkansas, Ordinance No. 18,173 (December 20, 1999) for five wireless communications towers in existence on the date of the ordinance; to set certain conditions for these five sites; and for other purposes. ATTEST: CrtycY 12 APPROVE: 1 -�o� � ayor Jim Dailey 779 k. F