HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-05Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7. 2005
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
June 7, 2005
6:00 PM
The Board of Directors for 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, Keck Wyrick, Stewart, Hurst, Cazort, Hinton, Adcock, Vice Mayor Graves, and Mayor
Dailey. Director Kumpuris was absent at roll call but enrolled at 6:05 P.M. Director Pugh gave
the invocation, which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Dailey asked the Board to consider the listed modifications. Mayor Dailey noted
that the American Taekwondo Association demonstration was listed as a modification,
and the American Poultry Federation would be making a presentation. He asked for Item
29 to be moved to the presentation category rather than a report and that Item 3 is deleted
from the agenda tonight. He stated that there is a request from Ms. Hunter who asked for
a deferral. Mr. Carpenter stated that she has requested deferral, but that she had never
sent out her notices for the hearing and never perfected her appeal and advised that it
would be dismissed. Mayor Dailey asked if that were the reason for the request to defer.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he didn't know why she wanted it deferred, but while she sent
the letter saying she wanted to appeal, she never sent the required notices. Director
Cazort stated then that because she failed to follow the ordinance in perfecting her
appeal, her request for deferral is moot, and the item would go away because of her
failure to follow the ordinance. Mr. Carpenter stated, yes, on the notice provisions.
Mayor Dailey announced to the audience that this was Item 26, and would be dismissed,
and the action of the Planning Commission in denying the application would stand.
Director Hurst asked why Item 3 was deleted. Mr. Bob Turner, Interim Public Works
Director, addressed the Board saying that they have been pushing hard to get the Bond
Projects under contract, and were a little ahead of themselves on University Avenue. He
stated that they were not prepared to authorize condemnation at this time. There are a
couple more tracts on which work needs to be done. He hoped it could be negotiated out,
and then it would come back at a later time.
ADDITION:
PRESENTATION: American Taekwondo Association Demonstration
Poultry Federation — Merle Harriman
Mayor Dailey read the following proclamation:
Whereas the Poultry Industry is the largest private sector employer in the State of
Arkansas, Whereas the Poultry Federation is made of those actively involved in
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
.June 7. 2005
6:00 P.M.
supplying services or products to the Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma poultry industry,
Whereas after twenty -nine years the Poultry Federation is bringing the Forty -sixth
Annual Poultry Festival back to Little Rock, Whereas, the Poultry Festival will draw
more than four thousand attendees from across the region who will stay in city hotels,
shop in our stores, eat in our restaurants, spend dollars, whatever it may be, and
Whereas the Forty -sixth Annual Poultry Festival will provide economic benefits to the
City as well as introduce more people to our hospitality. Now therefore, 1, Jim Dailey,
Mayor of the City do hereby proclaim June 5 -11, 2005, as Poultry Federation Week in
the City of Little Rock.
Signed, Jim Dailey, Mayor of the City of Little Rock.
DELETE
3. RESOLUTION - Authorizing the use of eminent domain on the University Avenue
Street Reconstruction Project (19th to Park Plaza Drive) Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: Authorizes use of eminent domain for up to twenty -four (24) parcels of
land on the University Avenue (19th to Park Plaza Drive) street reconstruction
project.
DERERRAL REQUEST —
26. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION - Z -7801 — Rescinding the Little Rock
Planning Commission's action in denying a special use permit to allow a day care family
home on the R -3 zoned property located at 5 Apple Cove in the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas. Planning Commission: 5 ayes, 4 nays, 2 absent. Staff recommends approval
of the Resolution, approval of the special use permit. Synopsis: Annette Hunter is
appealing the Planning Commission's action in denying a special use permit to allow
a day care family home on the R -3 zoned property at 5 Apple Cove.
A motion was made by Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hinton, to make the
modifications as listed. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the
modifications were made.
Mayor Dailey announced that Boy Scout Troop 99 was present for their Citizenship in
the Community Merit Badges.
PRESENTATIONS:
City of Little Rock Slogan — David Bazzel (June 7, 2005)
David Bazzel and Tommy Smith petitioned the Board to initiate some type of movement to see if
there is a good slogan or moniker for the city. Mayor Dailey announced he would like to keep
the two of them involved and come forth with some sort of structure on how to move this forward
for this program, and thought their idea and the timing was perfect.
2
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
Policemen's Pension and Relief Board Recognition Award — Bob Biles (June 7, 2005) Mr. Biles,
on behalf of the Policemen's Pension Relief Board to recognize Dr. Marvin Liebovitch, who has
served on his Board for ten years, caring for the four hundred members. Dr. Liebovitch stated he
was also a police officer, working with the SWAT Team as well as a physician. He said he had
been honored and blessed to have an opportunity to work as a fiduciary with the officers on their
pension plan. He stated that he only wished there was more to distribute to the men and women
who go out every day and strap on leather, to protect the citizens of this great city. They do it at
their great personal cost and great personal risk and it has been an honor and a privilege to serve
on this Board.
Item 29 — New Futures Presentation — Ms. Dorothy Nayles, Director of Community
Programs, and New Futures, the contractor who handles the coordination of Youth
Initiative Programs, provided information and updates on how the Prevention
Intervention and Treatment Program effort is working, and the gains made, especially
those involving gangs and gang activity.
CONSENT AGENDA (Items 1 -18)
1. MOTION - To approve minutes from Board of Directors Regular Meeting of April 19, 2005.
2. MOTION - Z -7813 - To set the date of a public hearing for June 21, 2005, on a zoning
appeal for property located at 1720 North Grant Street, Little Rock, Arkansas.
3. RESOLUTION — Deleted (See above explanation) - Authorizing the use of eminent domain
on the University Avenue Street Reconstruction Project (19th to Park Plaza Drive) Staff
recommends approval. Synopsis: Authorizes use of eminent domain for up to twenty -four
(24) parcels of land on the University Avenue (19th to Park Plaza Drive) street
reconstruction project.
4. RESOLUTION 12,005 - Authorizing the use of eminent domain on the Stonewall Road
(Spruce to Country Club) Drainage Improvement Project. 2004 Bond Project. Staff
recommends approval. Synopsis: Authorizes use of eminent domain for up to six (6) parcels
of land on the Stonewall Road (Spruce to Country Club) Drainage Improvement Project.
5. RESOLUTION 12,006 - Authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between the
City of Little Rock, Arkansas and the City of Cabot, Arkansas, granting the Little Rock
Ambulance Authority ( "LRAA ") D /B /A Metropolitan Emergency Medical Services
( "MEMS ") an exclusive franchise to provide ambulance services to the City of Cabot,
Arkansas; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: MEMS was
awarded the bid to provide ambulance service to Cabot, Arkansas. This resolution
authorizes the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with Cabot for ambulance
service.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
6. RESOLUTION 12,008 - Awarding a contract to Lasiter Construction, Inc. for construction
of Caylor Lane (Chicot to Eva) Project. 2004 Bond Project. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: Authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Lasiter
Construction, Inc. for reconstruction of Caylor Lane (Chicot to Eva) Street Project. Bid
No. 05 -255.
7. RESOLUTION 12,007 - To award a contract to LEG Enterprise for the intersection
improvements on Chenal Parkway at Markham and Chenal Parkway at Autumn /Hermitage
Road Projects; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval. 2004 Bond Project.
Synopsis: Authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with LEG Enterprise for
intersection improvements Chenal Parkway at Markham and Chenal Parkway at
Autumn /Hermitage Road, Bid No.05 -247.
8. RESOLUTION 12,009 - To award a contract to LEG Enterprise for signal installations at
65th and I -30 project; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval. 2004 Bond Project.
Synopsis: Authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with LEG Enterprise for
installation of a traffic signal at 65th at I -30, Bid No.05 -249
9. RESOLUTION 12,010 - To award a contract to Construction Management and
Maintenance for signal installation at Cedar Hill Road and Rebsamen Park Road Project;
and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval. 2004 Bond Project. Synopsis:
Authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Construction Management &
Maintenance for installation of a traffic signal Cedar Hill Road at Rebsamen Park Road,
Bid No.05 -248.
10. RESOLUTION 12,011 - To amend Resolution No. 11,650 establishing the 2004 Bond
Project List to authorize the City Manager to pursue the construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Rodney Parham and Treasure Hill Road. The Bond Project Progress
Committee recommended this alternate traffic signal project at their meeting on May 9, 2005.
Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Authorizes the City Manger to begin a project to
signalize the intersection of Rodney Parham and Treasure Hill with 2004 Bond Funds that
cannot be used at the intersection of Woodrow and I -630.
11. RESOLUTION 12,012 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts with
various vendors for the purchase of mineral aggregate for the Public Works Operations
Street Department. Staff recommends approval for purchase of the low bid meeting
specification. Synopsis: The purchase price will be at least $50,000. This is the annual bid
for mineral aggregate.
12. RESOLUTION 12,013 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into contracts with
various vendors for the purchase of asphaltic materials for the Public Works Operations
Street Department. Staff recommends approval for purchase of the low bid meeting
specification. Synopsis: The purchase price will be at least $50,000. This is the annual bid
for asphaltic materials.
11
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
13. RESOLUTION 12,014 - To authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to accept the offer
made by Mr. Robert Jerry to dedicate land to the City; and for other purposes. Staff
recommends approval. Synopsis: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to accept the
dedication of land located at the intersection of Pulaski Street and W. 32 "d Street, described
as Lot 7, Block 32, Braddocks Blvd. Addition.
14. RESOLUTION 12,015 - To support entry into an agreement for mutual aid in fire
protection and Hazardous materials incident response with the Northeast Saline County
Fire Department; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Resolution
to approve a Mutual Aid agreement between the Little Rock Fire Department and the NE
Saline County Fire Department.
15. RESOLUTION 12,016 - To award a contract to Jones Harley- Davidson for the purchase
of three (3) police pursuit motorcycles for the Little Rock Police Department; and for other
purposes. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Jones Harley- Davidson is the lowest
responsible bidder meeting the minimum specifications for Bid #5263 in the amount of
$51,180.
16. RESOLUTION 12,017 - To award a contract to Landers Ford for the purchase of one (1)
flat bed dump truck for the Little Rock Parks Department; and for other purposes. Staff
recommends approval. Synopsis: Landers Ford is the lowest responsible bidder meeting the
minimum specifications for Bid #5261 in the amount of $54,619.50.
17. RESOLUTION 12,018 - To authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute documents
needed to convey a certain unneeded right -of -way located along Kanis Road, in the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas, to Baptist Health; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: The resolution authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute documents
needed to convey certain property near Kanis Road to Baptist Health.
18. RESOLUTION 12,019 - To award a contract for Police uniforms, accessories, and
equipment to Cruse Uniforms and Equipment; and for other purposes. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: The Police Department is requesting to award a contract to Cruse
Uniforms and Equipment to provide various police uniforms, accessories and equipment
items.
The Consent Agenda was read. A motion was made by Director Adcock, seconded by Director
Cazort, to adopt the Consent Agenda. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present,
the Consent Agenda was adopted.
CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS
Speaker: Barbara Mizer
Topic: CDBG Funding for Tornado Disaster Area.
5
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
GROUPED ITEMS: Items 19 -24
19. ORDINANCE 19,325 - To accept the annexation (Rock Haven Annexation, No. 303) of
approximately 6 acres to the City of Little Rock located west of Kirby Road and North of
Kanis Road. Planning Commission: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis:
The site is within the City of Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction. It has two contiguous sides
(North and East).
20. ORDINANCE 19,326 - Z- 7665 -A — Approving a planned zoning development and
establishing a planned residential district titled Rock Haven Revised Short -Form PD -R,
located at 1000 Kirby Road, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; amending the Official Zoning
Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 10
ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes a
rezoning of the site from PD -R to revised PD -R to allow an RV to be used for temporary
sales, construction management and a security office. The applicant will reside in the RV
unit during the construction phase of the subdivision development.
21. ORDINANCE 19,327 - Z -7821 — Reclassifying property located at 10434 West 36th Street
from R -2 to MF -12 (with conditions), in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending the
Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes. Planning
Commission: 10 ayes, 0 nays, I absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The owner of
the 16.08 Acre property located at 10434 West 36th Street is requesting that the zoning be
reclassified from R -2 to MF -12 with the following condition: The only permitted use of the
property will be 144 multi - family housing units for the elderly and physically challenged,
with no changes to the property's existing site plan.
22. ORDINANCE 19,328 - Z -7819 — Reclassifying property located at 9401 Mabelvale Pike
from R -2 to C -3, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; amending the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 ayes, 0 nays.
Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The owner of the undeveloped 0.96 Acre property
located at 9401 Mabelvale Pike is requesting that the zoning be reclassified from R -2 to C-
3.
23. ORDINANCE 19,329 - Z -7787 — Approving a planned zoning development and
establishing a planned commercial district titled Skyhawk Circle Long -Form PD -C, located at
4500 Skyhawk Circle, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas' Extraterritorial Planning
Jurisdiction, Pulaski County, Arkansas; amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 6 ayes, 5 nays. Staff
recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes a rezoning of the site from R -2,
Single - family to PD -C to allow the use of a metal shop building as a cabinet shop limited to
a maximum of five sets of cabinets per year, no employees, the use of the site from 8:00 am
roll
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
.June 7. 2005
6:00 P.M.
to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday and the property is to revert to R -2, Single - family if
the owner sells the property.
Item 23 was read the first time. Representing the applicant was Mr. Tim Daters, Consulting
Engineer with White Daters and Associates, and also present were Mr. Bobby Miller, one of the
neighbors, and the applicant, Bryan Durell, and his wife Rebecca, who work in construction, and
homebuilding. He stated in 2002 they purchased an approximate seven acre tract just off
Ferndale Cutoff. This area is about four to five miles outside of the City of Little Rock, but
within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. He explained that after the Durell's moved into their
home, Mr. Durell constructed a 40 x 60 foot metal shop building to build cabinets in. What they
would like to do is allow Mr. Durell, to do a Planned Zoning Development for as long as they
live there. Mr. Durell wants to build about four or five sets of cabinets a year to be incorporated
in the homes his wife builds. He will not sell these cabinets retail. Mr. Bob Miller, a neighbor,
was present to speak in support of the PZD. Mr. Miller stated he lived south of the Durell's, and
had talked to other neighbors, and no one seems to have a problem with anything. Mr. Miller
explained that if you lived by the Durell's, you would represent them too. They are a young
couple, who are great neighbors and no problems. There would be no hindrance to the
neighborhood at all. Mr. Ken Horton stated he was fine with the language with the synopsis that
was offered by the Planning Commission Staff, and he was here to night to make sure that is
what is being looked at, and there are no other changes. He stated that he was fine with the no
additional employee rule, but wanted to make sure that this was what would be voted on tonight.
Mayor Dailey asked the clerk to read the ordinance the first time. The ordinance was read the
first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on the second reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members
present, being two - thirds in number, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was read the
second time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort, made a motion to suspend the
rules and place the ordinance on third reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members
present, being tow - thirds in number, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was read the
third time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number
the ordinance passed.
24. ORDINANCE 19,330 - To authorize the City Manager to waive the consultant selection
procedure and enter into a contract with Ecological Conservation Organization (ECO). Staff
recommends approval. Synopsis: The contract shall not exceed $99,750.00 for design, labor,
equipment, materials, and monitoring in the restoration of Swaggerty Creek. Funds
available through an Urban Parks and Recovery Program Grant.
Items 19 — 22, and Item 24 were read the first time. Item 23 was held separately due to there
being persons to speak in opposition to the item. A motion was made by Director Keck,
seconded by Director Adcock, to suspend the rules and place the ordinances on second reading.
By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number, the rules
were suspended and the ordinances were read the second time. A motion was made by Director
Adcock, seconded by Director Pugh, to suspend the rules and place the ordinances on third
reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number,
the rules were suspended and the ordinances were read the third time. By unanimous voice vote
7
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number, the ordinances passed. A motion
was made by Director Keck, seconded by Director Cazort, to adopt the emergency clause
contained in Item 24. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the emergency
clause was passed.
SEPARATE ITEMS: Items: 25 — 30
PUBLIC HEARINGS
25. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION — Failed - Z- 6096 -C — Rescinding the Little
Rock Planning Commission's action in approving a revised conditional use permit for Chenal
Valley Montessori School located on the R -2 Zoned property at 15717 Taylor Loop Road.
Planning Commission: 6 ayes, 2 nays, 2 absent, I abstention. Staff recommends approval of the
Conditional Use Permit, Denial of the Resolution. Synopsis: A record objector is appealing
the Planning Commission's action in approving a revised conditional use permit for Chenal
Valley Montessori School located at 15717 Taylor Loop Road.
Mayor Dailey declared the public hearing open at 7:15 P.M. Director Adcock asked staff to
present findings prepared by Mr. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer, City of Little Rock. Mr. Moore
asked Mr. Bob Turner, Interim Public Works Director, to make the presentation. Mr. Turner
stated that he spoke to Mr. Henry this afternoon, and stated that Mr. Henry did not go out and
look at this particular location. He had looked at it some time ago. This has been a long-
standing site that has had various issues surrounding it, and then was moved to another site, and
then back to this site again. He said Mr. Henry's only concern, if there is a concern, was about
left turn traffic into the site; it is something that can be addressed by striping of the street. The
applicant is required to widen Taylor Loop to one half of a thirty -six foot wide collector. This
would be adequate to do a left turn if necessary. Staff does not think it is necessary. The other
issue is a site on Montgomery Road. He stated at the time the building permit and the grading
plan comes in, staff would be very cognitive of any concerns of site distance at that location and
did not see a problem there. Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director, gave a brief overview,
saying this property has history that dates back to 1996, when the first conditional use permit
was approved for the current building that is on the site. Since that time there have been
attempts to add another building, which is the issue before the Board tonight. In 1998 there was
a revision to the conditional use permit that was approved in 1996 to increase the enrollment to
forty -eight students, and then to finish out the second floor of the existing building. In 2002
there was an attempt to revise the CUP by adding a fairly large building and increase the
enrollment to ninety -eight children. The Planning Commission denied that request. It was
appealed to the Board, but prior to the Board taking action on that appeal, it was sent back to the
Planning Commission due to modifications made to the request. That subsequent modification
was approved by the Planning Commission, and again it was appealed to the Board, and for what
ever the reason, at the applicants request, the Board rescinded the Planning Commission's
approval. In 2002 there was a conditional use permit filed for another site on Forest Lane. It
was a five acre site, again it was initially denied by the Planning Commission, appealed to the
Board, and changes were made. It was sent back to the Planning Commission and approved by
E
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
the Planning Commission, with no appeal made. That particular location has never been
developed. This is a request to revise the existing CUP to add a new building, an additional
building on the property approximately 3000 square feet, which would be one story, in order to
cap the enrollment at eighty students with the maximum age of 12 years old. Jim and Shirley
Nettles spoke in opposition to the project. Hal Kemp stated he was an attorney representing
Montessori School, and asked that Mr. Nettles be allow to go first, and he would try to respond.
Jim Nettles, speaking in opposition, stated that he and his wife live at 15808 Taylor Loop Road,
directly across the street from this proposed site. He presented petitions from one - hundred and
seventy -six single family homeowners as well as three letters from three neighborhood
associations, all of which are within easy walking distance of this project. Mr. Nettles stated the
last and currently active CUP. for this applicant was issued in 1998. Clearly the applicant is
approved with conditions to conduct its commercial business at 15717 Taylor Loop Road. One
of the conditions is an absolute maximum limit of 48 students. There are no other documents on
file, allowing the Montessori School to conduct its business at any other address in the City of
Little Rock. They have in fact, conducted their business at another location. He said they are
relying on Mr. Carney's memory to be the year 2000 when this applicant chose to circumvent
our city's laws. The various neighborhoods were appalled when they discovered the school's
enrollment had been allowed to grow to seventy- eight. This was far beyond the maximum limit
set at forty- eight. The applicant became aware of a dormant, never before used conditional use
permit, issued to a different address back in 1993. That address was 15601 Taylor Loop Road,
almost two blocks from the existing school. 15601 is the address of the Central Baptist Church.
Staff has told you this applicant currently has an enrollment of eighty children and no increase of
the total enrollment will result if you approve this business expansion. He stated the applicant
had not been truthful with the neighborhood or the City. He said they do not have a beef with
the church, they have been excellent neighbors. As the applicant today operates their business at
15717 Taylor Loop Road, it has less than four - tenths of an acre. Should this expansion be
approved, an additional twenty -three and one hundredths of an acre would be added,making a
total of six - tenths of one acre. This would be eighty students, fourteen teachers, one or two
administrators all on about six tenths of an acre. It has certainly not been compatible with their
neighborhood. He said they have tried unsuccessfully to get the trash can dumpster out of the
front yard away from the sight of in and out of town visitors. Twice over recent years they have
had to ask the City for help in cleaning up this mosquito infested lot. Each time the city posted
warning signs on the lot, the applicant cut the weeds. Apply to the city to ask for approval, and
the neighbors get a vacant lot cleaned, and the city gets the promise the dumpster will be moved
if this is approved. He said traffic on occasion has been a big problem traveling both east and
west. He stated that only twenty -five feet from this site, the width of Montgomery Road, an
eighty -three home subdivision is well under construction. Heavy equipment and many workers
turn in at the corner where the applicant is asking the Board to approve a dangerous
development. Two other sizable subdivisions, only a couple of blocks away, are well under
development. The same heavy construction transgresses Taylor Loop going to those sites, which
are very close to the location of the proposed development. He said they think it is a bit reaching
that the school has students from Pakistan, Nigeria, China, and India as if they were exchange
students. Our Little Rock public schools have hundreds of children of many nationalities. The
difference here is that for each student in our public school, we receive five or six thousand
dollars to help with their education, while this commercial business operating in their single-
I
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
family neighborhood receives a sizable profit. If the expansion of this school is approved to
eighty, you may well establish for the City a precedent of renting conditional use permits that
will live longer than any of us, our children or our grand- children. Mr. Nettles asked the Board
to deny the expansion. Issues addressed by the Board were adequate parking, leeway for fire
trucks, traffic congestion, and dumpster locations. Director Keck asked Mr. Bozynski to address
how this business went from forty -eight to eighty students, because staff keeps pretty good tabs
on things like that. Mr. Bozynski stated staff does keep good tabs on conditionals, etc. On this
site the maximum enrollment is forty- eight. Currently there are forty -five. The church, when it
had its CUP approved, it was approved for a church and a private school with an enrollment of
thirty -five students. Montessori School is located there with the thirty -five students, so the
school, not the site, has the maximum enrollment of eighty. This revised conditional use permit
would increase the enrollment cap on the site to eighty. Director Keck stated that it is two
different entities. Director Cazort stated that for clarification, the Board is being asked to expand
the limit of the forty -eight students to eighty students, but this still will allow a site with thirty -
five students. It will still be in existence with the approval for thirty -five. Mayor Dailey asked
Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney to explain what is legally before the Board tonight. Mr. Carpenter
stated that what he understands is before the Board, is to allow the additional students at this site,
and was not sure the merger of the school is intending before the Board. Mayor Dailey stated at
this point, the intent is to increase this one site from forty -eight to eighty, the other site is still out
there for thirty -five, even though the intent of the applicant may be to do away with that thirty -
five. Mr. Carpenter stated he thought what has happened is they had the forty -five approved.
They are essentially doing the thirty -five that could have been done by the church. The church
does not intend to do anymore, so they are going to put all eighty students in one place, but the
point Director Cazort is making is that if the church turned around tomorrow and wanted to do
thirty -five additional students then they could do so. Mr. Hal Kemp, attorney for the applicant,
stated that was accurate, there wasn't any indication the church was absolving its rights to enjoy
thirty -five students, should they elect to conduct school at that church site. Mr. Kemp stated they
(his client) had no right to speak for the church; they got a conditional use permit in 1993. Mr.
Kemp stated his client leased the school from the church and is authorized to operate under their
conditional use permit as a tenant. If the issue of increasing or expanding had to do with the
proposition of his client going to be putting more traffic on the street than that is there today, and
the answer is no. Director Adcock asked what would prohibit the applicant from, after she gets
eighty approved for this site, decide to have a second site at the church again. Director Adcock
stated she wanted Mr. Carpenter to tell her what would stop it. Mr. Carpenter answered that he
did not believe anything would, except that after a period of one -year, the conditional use is
abandoned so the church would have to start the new school within a period of one year, or it
would abandon the conditional use. Director Adcock stated for six years it was not used as a
school. Mr. Bozynski stated he believed Mr. Carpenter was referring to a non - conforming
situation. That is not the case with a conditional use permit. Mayor Dailey stated what is being
discussed to night in essence has nothing to do with the church. J. A. Penny, showed a drawing
of the area and highlighted those who would be most effected by the expansion. He said he
would like to see the applicant get the building so the children can cross the street in only one
area. He said he had spoken to each property owner that abuts the property, and they are for it.
Dave Williams stated he lives on Montgomery Road. The school now backs up to his back yard.
The new building if approved, will back up to his side yard. He said he would have school on
10
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7. 2005
6:00 P.M.
two sides. He said he moved into his home about eight and a half years ago which is about a half
year after the school moved to that location. He stated he had never met Mr. Nettles, but met the
folks at the Montessori School. They have been great neighbors, despite anything that might be
in writing saying otherwise. He thought there may have been misinterpretation at the Planning
Meeting; he was one hundred percent for the school. He said their meetings have never been a
problem. He has never been stopped by traffic pulling in and out of the school. The thing that
worries him is the fact that there are eighty three homes being built and Mr. Nettles is exactly
right in saying there is every kind of truck imaginable going through there. The kids at the
church are being walked over to the school for various meetings which is enormously dangerous
compared to what it can be if they can get the right kind of building. Cynthia Poole stated she
has two children that go to school there and they have been very happy. She stated that Dorothy
Moffat, the applicant, is her mother, and has dedicated her life to helping kids. She explained
that her mother does not draw a salary; she pays a lot out of pocket and is in her seventies. She
is not going to rent more from the church. Cherise McKay, told the Board that her son attends
Chenal Valley Montessori School. She stated that when there are after school events or PTA
meetings, the appointments are staggered. There is a sign up sheet, and they are not there as a
group of eighty. There may be a group of five for one parent per class. If there is a huge
function, such as a graduation, then the church is rented out and the event is held at the church.
She said that they truly wanted to move the thirty five students to the second location; they did
not want a second site or the thirty -five students. She believed it was not Mrs. Moffat's intent to
build this site and continue renting out the church. Vicki Jones, said that her son attends the
school, and is one of the children over at the church building. She stated they would like to have
the extra building so that all the children who are at the church will be near the other students.
There will be no children at the church once the new building is built. As a mom she would
prefer her child be near the other students, so they are right next door for their functions. She
said she was not thrilled with her son walking back and forth. She said the school is wonderful,
the traffic would not increase, and the number of students is not going to increase.
Mr. Hal Kemp presented another petition with fifty -five signatures of those in favor and
reviewed that staff and Planning Commission have approved this application. What the Board is
being asked to do is rescind the action of staff and the Planning Commission and hoped the
Board would not. Director Cazort asked Mr. Kemp to explain, in regards to the paved parking
and the dumpster, what is going to happen. Mr. Kemp stated that sometimes his clients do not
do everything they are supposed to do and thought Ms. Moffat has failed in the fact that she has
not properly screened the dumpster. He said that problem would be solved whether it is a
condition of this application, or whether it is her going back on Monday and hiring a contractor
to properly screen the dumpster. This should have been done, and he said he apologized for this.
Addressing the parking issue, he said he had not heard any indication from the teachers, staff or
the engineer's office that the parking was inadequate. Right now it is a grassy /gravel area, and
once the building is constructed it would be paved. It probably should not be used for parking
right now, and that would be solved when the application has been approved. Director Cazort
stated his concern was that the permit of this applicant was for forty -eight students, and the
concern of the neighbors is that she has eighty students and is trying to put them in one area for
safety concerns. There is still the opportunity hanging out there for Ms. Moffat to continue to
11
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
have thirty five more students at the church and now you are talking about one hundred and
twenty students. Mr. Kemp indicated he could amend the application by stating that Ms. Moffat
would forgo the right to make further use of the church site as an education facility. Mr.
Carpenter explained that this is a problem because what the board has before them is an appeal
of what has been granted. Mr. Kemp stated that independent of the conditional use permit, his
client was willing to make that a contractual pledge to the extent that Mr. Carpenter requires that
he produce a contact, of which she will sign, and the City will enforce. Mayor Dailey stated that
will be incorporated as part of the record tonight. Director Cazort asked Mr. Carpenter if that
were acceptable. Mr. Carpenter stated that he did not think it was binding on a land use. Mayor
Dailey stated they understood that and each Board member would have to deal with that in their
own conscience as they vote based on the legal aspect of it. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Nettles if
he had closing comments. Mr. Nettles stated that documents are in the city records with her
salary along with all the other teachers' salaries, but you've heard she pays out of her pocket, she
doesn't earn anything. He stated they have spent months looking at these things. He cited a
serious accident that occurred in front of the school in December, and that parking is an issue.
There are documents in the files from the applicant that state that they use the vacant lot for
parking because two teachers like to use the side door which is closer to their classroom. For
fifteen days (school days), the last being March 7t ", the date of the Planning Commission, they
assigned an individual in their group to monitor. Not one day in fifteen days, did any of those
two teachers who parked there, use any door except the front door. Director Hurst asked Mr.
Turner if traffic would be a concern even if both school locations and the residential traffic from
the new sub - divisions were active. Mr. Turner answered that Taylor Loop Road could handle
the traffic. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing. Mayor Dailey entertained a motion to
rescind the Planning Commission's action, and explained, if there is no motion stand. Director
Adcock asked if a motion is made to rescind the item, that would mean you are for the school or
not. Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney, explained that a motion to rescind means that you are against
the CUP. Director Adcock moved for the adoption of the resolution. Director Stewart seconded
the motion. A roll call vote was recorded as follows: Director Pugh, yes, Keck, no, Wyrick, yes,
Stewart, yes, Hurst, no, Cazort, no, Hinton, yes, Adcock, yes, Kumpuris, no, Vice Mayor Graves,
no, Mayor Dailey no. The resolution failed, the expansion was allowed.
The Board went into executive session at 8:10 P.M. (See Item 29).
26. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION - Deleted /Dismissed - Z -7801— Rescinding the
Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a special use permit to allow a day care
family home on the R -3 zoned property located at 5 Apple Cove in the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas. Planning Commission: 5 ayes, 4 nays, 2 absent. Staff recommends approval of the
Resolution, approval of the special use permit. Synopsis: Annette Hunter is appealing the
Planning Commission's action in denying a special use permit to allow a day care family
home on the R -3 zoned property at 5 Apple Cove. The item was deleted from the agenda due
to improper notification process, the notices were not sent as specified by ordinance.
27. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE — Failed - Z -7810 — Approving a Planned Zoning
Development and establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Harvey Short -Form PCD,
located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; amending the Official
12
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7. 2005
6:00 P.M.
Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other purposes. Planning Commission:
5 ayes, 4 nays, 2 absent. Staff recommends approval of the requested PCD zoning. Synopsis:
The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site from R -2, Single Family to PCD to allow
the site to be utilized as warehousing for an internet computer sales business and C -1,
Neighborhood Commercial uses as alternative uses for the site. The applicant is appealing
the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of the re- zoning request.
Mayor Dailey opened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. Mr. David Jones, Marlar Engineering,
representing Mr. Paul Harvey, owner, gave a brief history on the project stating that the building
to his knowledge, is at least twenty to twenty -five years old, maybe older than that. The history
of the building, in all of that time, has been commercial use. Several years ago, the area was
annexed by the City, and changed the zoning to R -2 and gave a non - conforming use to this
property to allow for commercial C -4 usage for a non - conforming use. For many years the
property was like that, and then the owner who has it now, Mr. Harvey, purchased the property
with the understanding, and the City showed that there was commercial use allowed there for C-
4, non - conforming, and has had several businesses there. The main business was Arkansas
Limousine Service, which is the one where he had his privilege license, up until a few years ago,
when he decided to change his business use, and did not renew his privilege license. Little did
he know in non - renewal of his privilege license, the staff considered that abandonment of the
property. Mr. Jones stated that they did have proof that over all the years Mr. Harvey had
owned this property, when he was using it for Arkansas Limousine Service or when he was
converting the building for another business afterward, that he had paid his commercial taxes. He
has always had utilities on, n that building from the first day that he moved into it with his
business until present. The definition of abandonment is "complete" and he did not feel the
ordinances that are written for the public record, show that not only does the usage have to
remain, or a similar usage remain, but it also states that abandonment has to be proven. He
stated he feels that staff, in using the privilege license as a check for business continuation, is
not written in the statute and feel they should not have to be before the Board, but wanted to go
through all the process to make sure all this can be straightened out. They have worked with
staff through this issue for many months. They have come down to what is before the Board
tonight, a request for a PCD Zoning with a C -1 usage without the use of restaurants which has
been eliminated and no outside storage. The owner has agreed that when the right -of -way is
widened, Mabelvale Pike is widened, that he would build a parking lot in the back as staff has
asked for. At that time, he would move his parking from the front to the back. Staff has told
them that Mr. Harvey would still be able to use his parking as it is now until such time. Director
Keck asked if this would be used only as a computer sales warehouse. Mr. Jones answered that
it would be for any C -1 usages that are allowed for C -1 zoning with the exception of a restaurant.
The owner is intending to use it right now as an internet sales base for sales, auctions on line
such as E -Bay, Yahoo, etc. but does reserve the right, if that does not work out, to use any of the
commercial uses in the C -1 zoning, because that building has been commercial since it was
constructed. Mr. Jones stated that this building has always been commercial, and Mr. Harvey
has done amazing things to make the building look better than it was when he took it over. Mr.
Jones distributed some pictures compiled, taken from a circle all the way around Mabelvale Pike
from the I -30 Interchange to back around to where the Home Depot store is located by the
Highway Department Overpass. Director Adcock asked if there were plans for mini- warehouses.
13
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 200
6:00 P.M.
Mr. Jones stated he was not aware of any application for mini - warehouses in this area. Director
Adcock asked what would be the difference in the Harvey's intended use and a pawn shop. Mr.
Jones stated he didn't know what the uses were in the zoning ordinance. Director Adcock stated
in a pawn shop, you take something in and leave it with them, and money is given for the item.
Mr. Jones stated he thinks the difference would be that if someone brought something for Mr.
Harvey to sell, he would sell it on line and the money would be sent directly to an account. When
he ships the item to wherever it goes, the people that brought the item in would receive their
money. Mr. Harvey would receive a slight commission from the sale. Director Adcock asked
Mr. Carpenter if this business would be regulated like a pawn shop, and what would keep people
from fencing items. Mr. Carpenter stated that essentially it is against the law to do that, and
enforcement personnel would be checking it, but he understood what they are suggesting is sort
of like E -Bay, except not exactly like E -Bay. People basically have an on -line garage sale by
which he arranges to be the go- between, in order to make the sale for the individuals. If he was
correct, as he understands it, Mr. Harvey would make a commission off the sale, like a
consignment person does, and get the two parties together. Mr. Carpenter stated that he
understood if the City started getting indications that things might be stolen, the local police
would check it out. Mayor Dailey stated there are several shops in Little Rock that take
products on consignment and sell them. Director Adcock stated that all the property back behind
this development is residential, and stated that there is a node of commercial business, but they
are all together, like in the Hwy 10 Plan. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Carpenter to comment on
Mr. Jones interpretation of abandonment. Mr. Carpenter stated that this was discussed internally
and staff believes the definition is that the non - conforming use was abandoned and was not used
for a period of a year, that there was no privilege license for that period of time. He stated that
he thought the aspect of the definition of the ordinances that are going on is that there is a phrase,
and had no indication of, and didn't remember, if the word was occupancy or use therein. But,
there is one reference to, no indication that a person is around, and they are taking that very
literally because there had been some improvement made to the property. During this period of
time, the property wasn't abandoned. The City's position in terms of it being a
non - conforming use is that it wasn't being used as a business. It was an area that had to be
maintained as a business. Because it was non - conforming, it came into the City in a residential
zoning pattern, even though it was a commercial use. The types of things that staff would look at
to see whether it was conforming or non - conforming use are not there. Director Wyrick stated
this is a PCD, and in the event Mr. Harvey decides he wants to sell this, what would happen to
the status of the PCD. Mr. Carpenter answered; if Mr. Harvey wishes to sell it, he would sell it
as a PCD, and the limitation he is placing on use is any use under C -1. It could essentially be
used as C -1. The footprint that you have on the preliminary plan could really be the footprint for
the property itself so there could not be any change without further action from this Board.
Director Adcock asked to have the C -1 uses list read. Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director,
gave a general listing which consisted o£ antique shops without repair, bakery or confectionery
shop, barber or beauty shop, camera shop, church, clothing store, day nursery or day care, drug
store or pharmacy, fire station, florist shop, food store, furniture store, hobby shop, jewelry store,
key shop, fraternal or lodge, multi - family as per the R -5 district, which is 36 units per acre,
office, pet shop, photography studio, shoe repair, and travel bureau, are permitted uses. Those
speaking in opposition were: Janet Berry, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, who was
supporting the Mavis Circle Mabelvale Neighborhood Association. Ms. Berry stated there was a
14
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
large contingency representing this group at the Planning Commission Meeting, but due to
conflicts there were not as many present tonight. She said the neighborhood is very opposed to
this because this person has not been a good neighbor over the years that he has owned this
business. When the limousine service went away, it appeared this was a residence, and it still
appears to be a residence. She stated she had not seen any improving on the outside of that
building in six or seven years. She said this business of internet drop off shops is something the
Board needs to begin to look at. There is a recent New York Times article that says essentially
these things are becoming an unregulated pawn shop. Currently, pawn shops receiving
merchandise that has serial numbers, are reported to the police. These businesses do not have
any obligation to do any reporting to the police. Someone can bring something in and say they
want it sold in two days, and it can likely be shipped out of state before the police ever have a
clue. This business has a lot of potential for abuse. It is true there are others in the city, but that
doesn't mean a look does not need to be taken. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Moore to put this item
on the radar screen for staff to look at where this new industry needs any kind of regulation. Ms.
Berry stated that it probably needs to get on the state radar screen because the police can't just go
in and start looking for things. Ms. Berry asked the Board to turn this application down, because
this is not a good fit for this nice residential area. Elizabeth Peel stated that she lived next door
to Mr. Harvey, and asked if Mr. Carpenter could explain the differences in a consignment store
and a pawn shop. Director Cazort stated that a pawn shop has legal definitions, and there are
state statues that deal with that and were not aware if there was a stated legal definition of a
consignment shop. Mayor Dailey stated that the basic concept of a pawn shop is where people
bring things in and receive money immediately, even though they may be able to retrieve it later,
where in consignment shops you take it there, you have an agreement of how much you get for it
and what percentage the merchant gets to keep, and they leave it there for a period of time. Ms.
Peel stated Mr. Harvey has tried many times to do a business in this area and all of them have
defunct. He has failed to renew his license, and that would be one of the first things you would
get if you are going to have a business. She stated that Mr. Harvey just recently cut his grass,
and it looks nice now, but he left all his debris. Ms. Peel stated that these sites could be
considered for the purpose of stealing. A person could take stolen goods there for the purpose of
selling them. She said he used poor judgment in not renewing his license and she did not want
the business in the residential neighborhood. Gerald Peel stated that he resides next door to the
property that is being discussed. He said he received a notice that an application was for a C -4
zoning, and attended the Planning Commission meeting. He said he has lived next door to this
property for nineteen years. There were five different businesses in the location before Mr.
Harvey moved in. All that were there, with the exception of the cap shop, did damage to the
property. They left it in a mess. He said Mr. Harvey has been there about three years and during
that period of time was in the limousine business, and had told him at one time he was going to
put in storage units. Mr. Peel stated the neighbors told him at that time they did not think the
neighborhood would accept that type of project. Mr. Harvey then decided he was going to have
people who were not citizens come in and deal with attorneys at the location to assist them in
getting their green cards. He said Mr. Harvey sold mattresses at the location in the last year, so
you never know from one day to the next what is going in and out the door. At the Planning
Meeting in April, the big consideration at that time was the area that it is in and the
transportation factors between five and six o'clock in the evening is heavily congested. It is a
bad area as far as the traffic factor. There was also the problem that Mr. Harvey was going to be
15
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
bringing motorcycles and boats, etc into the back of his property. Under R -2 regulations, they
only had the ability to go thirty to thirty five feet behind the building. Mr. Harvey wanted to
erect an eight foot fence at that time and would hold the items a maximum period of thirty days.
Staff has granted him the ability to build a six foot fence with no outside storage. Mr. Peel stated
that his only condition at this point is that it is a bad area for traffic, there is no parking space,
and he does not have the ability to bring in cars, motorcycle, boats, etc., because of what was
voted on previously. He said he did not want to take away from the man's business, but thought
it should go back prior to the time that he lost his permit, and was not functioning in there. He
has been a resident there ever since he moved in. It is an R -2 type neighborhood, with homes
valued up to $350,000. Troy Laha was opposed saying that he was supportive of what the
neighborhood people were saying about this business and asked the Board to oppose it. He said
he was familiar with a privilege license in the City of Little Rock since he has two businesses;
one of which is inactive. He stated he felt sure Mr. Harvey had been notified that he was
delinquent because they want "their pound of flesh ", and knows he was sent a notice. He fell
down on his business in that he should have been paying attention. Mr. Laha stated this appears
to be kind of like a spot zoning. Mr. Laha said if he gets the PCD and C -1, it allows him to
change it over to something else. He said the applicant should make up his mind, and asked the
Board to deny his application. Director Cazort asked if this application were denied, what the
zoning classification of this property would be. Mr. Bozynski stated it is R -2 Single - family.
Mr. Bozynski stated staff has determined it has lost its non - conforming status. It was annexed in
1979 and has had a history of uses with C -4 non - conforming, but that is lost. Director Cazort
asked Mr. Bozynski to explain the procedural history of this application that got it to this point
tonight. Mr. Bozynski explained that it is a PCD application. Originally there were several
elements of it that staff had a lot of concerns. One being the outside storage, which they felt was
not appropriate for this location, and he asked for an eight foot fence, which staff felt was not in
keeping with the area. He stated that Mr. Jones, the engineer for the project, at the Planning
Commission meeting, amended the request to remove the outside storage and the eight foot fence
would be six feet. The application before the Board tonight does not allow any outside storage.
Director Cazort asked when the application became one for C -1 other than restaurant use. Mr.
Bozynski answered that a PCD can either be for a particular use or a use listing, which is the case
here. It is the storage of the items for the internet business, but the alternate use is C -1, with the
exception of the eating place. Director Cazort asked what the different was in the application
before the Board and the one filed in their office. Mr. Bozynski stated it is quite a bit different,
as originally there was outside storage, and an eight foot fence and C -1 uses were included. Mr.
Jones stated the negotiation at the Planning Commission meeting was that the outside storage
was a sticking issue on both staff and Planning Commission, so they amended the C -4 usage that
was allowed in the non - conforming use, and reduced it to C -1, to drastically limit the amount of
different entities and commercial use. They eliminated the outdoor storage capability and
reduced the fence from eight foot to six foot. That was done at the Planning Commission as a
bargaining back and forth between the applicant and the Planning Commission and staff.
Director Adcock asked about the notice Mr. Peel stated he received regarding C -4 use, and that if
someone showed up to hear about the PCD, would they know about the C -4. Mr. Bozynski
explained that when an application is appealed, the applicant is required to notify all record
objectors. It appears the notice that went out to those objectors, has on the form R -2 to C -4.
They were given notice; it just had the wrong requested classification. The notice that went out
16
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 200
6:00 P.M.
for the Planning Commission Meeting had R -2 to PCD. C -4 is not the issue before the Board
tonight. Mr. Carpenter explained that the PCD is limited to C -1 uses. Mr. Carpenter stated the
question Director Adcock asked was confusing to him; that if a person showed up to talk about
the PCD they would have heard that the PCD was limited to C -1 uses on the property. Director
Stewart asked how many parking spaces were required for this business. Mr. Bozynski answered
eleven or twelve spaces would be required. The plan is to utilize the front area that is currently
being used for parking, if this is approved, and once Mabelvale Pike is widened, there will be a
rear parking area added to the back of the building. Director Stewart asked what would be the
hours of operation. Mr. Bozynski stated that they were not specified as part of the application.
Director Adcock asked Mr. Bozynski to address the fact that the property is currently being used
as a residence. Mr. Bozynski stated that it is currently zoned R -2 single family, which is what is
allowed. Director Adcock asked if it could continue to be a residence, if the zoning is changed.
Mr. Bozynski stated that in commercial districts, residential use is permitted and Mr. Harvey can
continue to live in the building. Director Cazort stated he would like to state what he thinks is
the issue and would like the rest of the speakers to address this. He said what he has heard
tonight about the applicants' business acumen and business skills were terribly relevant to this
issue. What type of C -1 use he is proposing is not necessarily terribly relevant, because it could
be any one of them. He requested that all of those who are here in favor of it to address why this
lot in the middle of a residential area should be allowed to have any commercial use of any kind.
Director Kumpuris stated he agreed with Director Cazort and the other issue that he needed
addressed is Tom's feeling that legally the owner lost his right by not filling in the permit to have
this done. Mr. Jones answered Director Cazort's question regarding why a commercial use
should be allowed to be there. He stated that commercial use has been there since the building
was built over twenty -five years ago. It has been used for multiple businesses in that area. The
houses have been there as long as the building has. He did not think that changes the fact that it
is a commercial building. It does not look anything like a house. The questions as to why a
commercial use should be allowed to be there, is that it has been there ever since it was built.
Mr. Harvey bought the property with the understanding and the fact that he could use it for a
commercial use. Now this is taken away and it's only a residential use. That decreases the
value of that property dramatically. In answer to Director Kumpuris' question, Mr. Jones read
Article III; non - conformities under the Little Rock Municipal Code, Section 36 -53, Item B,
changing use, says if no structural alterations are made to a non - conforming use of a building,
may be changed to another non - conforming use of the same or less intensity. In no case
however, shall a building revert to a more intensive non - conforming use. Mr. Jones said that
Mr. Harvey has abided by that regulation. He stated that Item C under that same section,
abandonment and discontinuance; when a non - conforming use has been discontinued or
abandoned, and the appearance of which such use does not depict the identity of an ongoing use,
and further if said situation exists for a period of one year, such use shall not therefore be
reestablished. He said they agree that is in there. Nowhere in this article in the Little Rock
Code does it say that non - conformity loss or continuance is based on the privilege license. Mr.
Harvey never received notice that his privilege license had been revoked. When he finally
started his business back up and remodeled, he found out it had been turned into R -2. That is
why they are here. Director Kumpuris stated that the issue really comes down for him, to how
you follow the rules that we play by, and that is why the Board relies on Mr. Carpenter. Mr.
Carpenter stated that he thinks the concern is the non - conformity was an on -going commercial
17
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
use, and that has not been the case. Mr. Jones stated, it says he can change that usage, and in any
change of a business you have any length of time necessary to concert that building. Mr.
Carpenter stated that if you want to say he changed it to a residential use, then it was not non-
conforming, but the commercial non - conforming use has expired. If you want to say he was a
non - conforming commercial use and continue as a non - conforming commercial use, he would
have had to have a commercial enterprise there in operation, and by what was heard tonight, for
five years at least, he hasn't and there has been no privilege license. By those criteria he has lost
the non - conforming use status. He does not have the right to be commercial. The fact that it
was commercial before it came into the City is allowed to continue as commercial sort as a
"grandfather" provision. That is what a non - conforming use is. It is not intended to be that way
forever, so that the City can appropriately plan for development. In this circumstance it was not
maintained as a commercial use, therefore its ability to be a commercial use without rezoning has
expired. Mayor Dailey stated he might agree with Mr. Carpenter and Director Kumpuris on the
technicality of the law, but did find something in this, that quite frankly, was an equity issue
that relates to an individual property owner who comes into the City under non - conforming use.
Even if those rules are in place, and at some point the building still stands, and is a building that
has been used for commercial, stands vacant for a while, that we are saying now, because you do
not pay a privilege license, you have abandoned it. Mr. Carpenter stated that it is not just the
privilege license. The privilege license is another indication, that it has been used for
commercial purpose. Mayor Dailey stated it is still a commercial purpose building. Mr.
Carpenter used the example of somebody who has outdoor displays of an automobile shop in a
residential neighborhood, because that is what he was doing when he came into the City. He
can't be in a posture where he doesn't conduct the business as the car dealership or repair shop in
a commercial neighborhood. Mayor Dailey stated he understands the technicality of it, but was
merely stating there is a certain issue of equity, and he was having a bit of a problem with that.
Mr. Jones said that earlier in this meeting an ordinance was approved (Item 23) allowing a
commercial use in a residential area that was not of commercial use to start. He said he sees that
as a true conflict in the fact that they have a business that has been there for more than twenty -
five years and now it could possibly be taken away, when one has just been approved in a
residential subdivision. Director Wyrick asked why they have chosen to not restrict the hours of
operation and days of the week. Mr. Jones stated he had spoken with Mr. Harvey a few minutes
ago, and he had told him the hours of operation are 8 AM. to 6 PM., Monday through Saturday.
Director Wyrick stated over the years the businesses at this location were businesses the
residents could use; a flower shop, a hardware store, etc. It was a neighborhood friendly type of
use. She asked how this business brings something to the neighborhood that they can enjoy and
appreciate being next door. She stated most of the locations around there are residential homes.
Mr. Jones answered that in addition to the flower shop, there has been a construction company
and auto mechanic store. Director Wyrick stated the neighbors weren't for the construction
company and the telephone company because they had huge reels, large trucks, and they were
not neighborhood friendly. Mr. Jones stated that anyone in the neighborhood could bring their
items for sale into that establishment and have Mr. Harvey sell them for them. Not everyone has
computer internet access, and there is a lot of demand. Director Wyrick stated; then you will not
only have internet usage, you will have people walking into the business to purchase property.
Mr. Jones stated that under a C -1 use, it would be allowed. Director Wyrick asked what the real
plans for the building are; that it appears it is not just internet business. Mr. Jones answered that
18
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7. 2005
6:00 RM.
the building has been remodeled inside with shelving and storage capability to hold all the items
in storage while they are being advertised online. Every item that is put on line has a picture
taken of it and the people who would bring it in, have a photocopy of their driver's license made
so that they can keep track of all the different transactions. The warehousing part of it is the
actual storage on site, so that he can ship the item once the auction is complete. Mr. Jones said
that if someone brings something in, and they want to buy something that is there, that is not
listed on the internet yet, he did not see why they could not be able to buy an item. Director
Wyrick said when you talk about someone coming in and shopping that utilizes more parking
space than someone coming in and dropping things off. Mr. Jones stated the intention is not for
shopping as in a retail store. If someone came in and saw an item and Mr. Harvey tells them he
can't sell it to them because the City said he can't, even though he has a C -1 usage that would be
a hindrance on his commercial ability of that property. Director Wyrick asked what kind of
signage is planned. Mr. Jones stated Mr. Harvey will have an awning that will have the sign on
the awning itself and there is also a sign post out front, but did not know if he was going to re-
use that. Mr. Paul Harvey, the owner, stated he did not get any notice, and did not know
anything about this zoning change. He said he goes by the laws, and the only thing he had to go
by to read was very unambiguous. It says he can change the use, and if he didn't abandon it, it
was okay. He said he had only gone by what he thought was okay. He said he did not come to
get new permits because he has been remodeling, doing some investigative things, writing
programs, and getting programs written to set this business up. He said it has taken five years
and about $165,000 moving toward this. He said he has had an ongoing business in there, and it
was correct that he let something go by him. He said he should have gone down and paid those
extra hundreds of dollars every year to get a license. He said there have never been any
problems at this place; he has cleaned up as much as he can. He considers himself a decorated
combat veteran, and 100% disabled, and feels he has the right to rehabilitate the best way he can.
He said he has had C -4 usage all these years. He said he does not want to be controversial, and
wants to be a good neighbor. The company he proposes to set up will have its own web site and
if a person wants their merchandise on e -bay, he will have that capability. His business would
not be a pawn shop or flea - market. He said he was simply going to put the items on the internet.
He told the Board there is a certain amount of traffic that comes through, and everyone uses his
parking, including city vehicles, and utility companies. He said he is a good citizen and was
trying to do what is right. He stated that he was trying to rebuild his life and was doing the best
he could. Director Adcock asked where he would store motorcycles and vehicles, etc. while
they were waiting to be sold. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Bozynski if the way the ordinance is
constructed, would Mr. Harvey be allowed to have outside storage. Mr. Bozynski stated that no,
the application was amended and there is no outside storage allowed. He indicated that staff
would not support the application if he is proposing outside storage. Mayor Dailey asked Mr.
Harvey if he understood this would not allow outside storage. Mr. Jones asked if he could confer
with Mr. Harvey for five minutes. Mayor Dailey granted the request. Speaking in favor of the
business, Don Forrester stated he had known Mr. Harvey since 1999. He worked at Fire Station
11 on University in the capacity of a firefighter, and that Mr. Harvey was needing someone to
clear a lot on Baseline and stated he used to do bush - hogging, and still does when he gets a
chance, and that was how he met Mr. Harvey. He said Mr. Harvey was very business -like and
had been very professional with him, and had never had any problems. He said he has been in
Mabelvale 21 years, and the business Mr. Harvey owns has been many things. He said he had
19
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
driven a limousine for Mr. Harvey, being a firefighter working on duty twenty four hours and off
duty forty eight hours works out well for that type of business. He said Mr. Harvey has
improved that building; it was an eyesore. He has put new glass in the front, a new fagade,
which has improved the neighborhood. As a business person and a veteran, he has done that.
He asked for a positive vote for the ordinance. Mr. Harvey said Mr. Jones explained the point
that he could not have outside storage, and he was clear on that. Director Kumpuris said he was
getting more unclear on this, and waiting until the last minute to clarify the parking situation
thought the item should be tabled. Mr. Harvey stated if he has to store the things for sale inside
his building, he has shelves. That will eliminate motorcycles and cars, but he would work
around that. If that is the only thing it takes to work, he would do that. Mayor Dailey stated,
then the answer to the question is that Mr. Harvey would have no outside storage. Mr. Harvey
agreed that was correct. Mr. Byron House, III speaking in favor of the business stated that Mr.
Harvey had worked hard with the building and had invested all the extra money he has had over
the past few years working to build his internet business. He said there would most likely be
more than one person coming before the Board to ask for rezoning on Mabelvale Pike. Starting
at the hospital, there are forty businesses in a row, a couple of houses, Mr. Harvey's business,
another ten houses, and then a vacant lot with a sign that indicates it is the future home of a
church. They will also ask for re- zoning. There is another vacant lot that will ask for rezoning.
Home Depot anchors one end, and the Southwest Hospital is on the other end. It's inevitable
that they will connect. While this is a non - conforming use, as time goes by it will be commercial
all the way around. It is the main street through there. The main street has gone from 5000 to
50,000 traffic count. He asked the Board to support Mr. Harvey and his endeavors with his
internet business. Mr. Charles Hall turned in a card, but did not wish to speak. Ms. Elizabeth
Peel, stated Mr. Harvey indicated that his business value would drop a significant amount if this
were not approved. Ms. Peel asked what about the other residents in the area. There are homes
to the east and south and then there are all the friendly businesses available to the neighborhood.
There are also more homes to the north. Those homes are $140,000 and over. Mr. Jones
rebutted Ms. Peel's statement by saying that the building has been there twelve to twenty -five
years. Their property values have not changed in that time. They are not doing anything
different. The building is not changing; it is not being added to and the use is very quiet. He
said he did not see it devaluing their property. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing. The
ordinance was read the first time. Director Keck asked if the ordinance did not pass, how long
the applicant would have to wait to re- apply. Mr. Carpenter answered that if it is an application
for the same type zoning, they would have to wait one year. If its application for a different use
they could move forward immediately. Director Cazort asked if every conceivable use was
under C -1, and that technically is what it is before the Board, other than restaurant, and that it
would seem to him another PCD that was for a specific use and no others. It would almost have
to be a different application. Director Keck made the 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, the rules were suspended and the ordinance was read the second
time. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Bozynski to state once again why the Board should
approve this application. Mr. Bozynski stated that because of amendments made to the
application to narrow down the focus of the use, making it inside warehousing for the internet
company in C -1 type uses, feels it is appropriate, and eliminating the eight foot fence, which they
felt could have a big impact on the neighborhood. He said it is the staff s position that with those
20
i
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting [Minutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
changes, it is an appropriate use. A motion was made by Director Keck, seconded by Director
Adcock, to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third reading. Director Wyrick asked
Mr. Harvey what this business brings to the neighborhood. He said he could not make people
come to him to do business, but thought he was in a wonderful spot and would have a good
neighborhood business, because a lot of people have just one item, and have thought about
selling it on E -Bay but don't know how, or don't want to get involved, or some people may want
to start a little business and this would give them a way to test that before they spent money on
computers, etc. He said he thought it was good for everybody. He said he would have a
computer there, and if a person came in and wanted to buy something, he would have them sit
down and bid on the item. Sixty -five percent of the plan is internet. He said he was not trying to
build a business where a lot of people would be stopping, shopping and looking around. By
unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the rules were suspended and the ordinance
was read the third time. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Directors: Pugh,
yes, Keck, no, Wyrick, no, Stewart, yes, Hurst, no, Cazort, no, Hinton, no, Adcock, no,
Kumpuris, no, Vice Mayor Graves, yes, Mayor Dailey, yes. The ordinance failed.
OTHER BUSINESS
28. ORDINANCE 19,331 - To repeal Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code Chapter 3, Article II,
Section 3 -11 through 3 -23; to replace it with a new False Alarm Ordinance to strive to
improve public safety by further reducing emergency responses to false alarms, to encourage
alarm users and alarm companies to properly use and maintain the operational effectiveness of
alarm systems in order to improve the reliability of alarm systems and reduce or eliminate false
alarms; and for other purposes. (First reading was held on April 26, 2005) (Second reading
was held on May 3, 2005) (Third reading to be held June 7, 2005). The ordinance was read
the third time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the ordinance was
passed.
29. REPORT - Youth Intervention and Prevention Program Update (June 7, 2005) The report
was moved to be presented at the first part of the meeting. (See presentations).
30. EXECUTIVE SESSION & RESOLUTION 12,020 - Appointments to various Boards and
Commissions of the City of Little Rock. (June 7, 2005) Synopsis: Re- appointment of James
R. Pender to the Little Rock Sanitary Sewer Committee. Americans with Disabilities Act
Citizens Grievance Committee (1 position), Animal Services Advisory Board (1 position),
Construction Board of Adjustment & Appeals (1 position), Historic District Commission (3
positions), Racial Cultural Diversity Commission (1 position).
Director Adcock, seconded by Director Graves, made a motion to recess the executive session.
By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting was recessed at 8:10 P.M.
At 8:30 P.M. Mayor Dailey called the meeting back in session. Mr. Bruce Moore, City Manager,
read the recommendations for appointments. These included: Animal Services Advisory Board:
appointment, Gene McNeil, Arts and Cultural Commission: appointments, Andrew C. Irving,
Diane LaVaught, and Joshua Tate, Historic District Commission: re- appointment of Marshall
Peters and Wesley Walls, and appointment of Kay Tatum, Little Rock Sanitary Sewer
21
Little Rock Board of Directors Meetint .,flutes
June 7, 2005
6:00 P.M.
c
Committee: re- appointment of James Pender. A motion was made by Director Hinton, seconded
by Director Cazort to adopt the resolution making the listed appointments. By unanimous voice
vote of the Board members present, the resolution was adopted.
Director Cazort stated that since next week, the Board will be taking up the lengthy process of
interviewing for the new airport commissioners, and did not see any reason to do the interviews
and then wait until the next meeting to make the appointments. He moved to recess this meeting
to reconvene on June 14, 2005 for the purpose of making the selections to the airport
commission. Director Adcock seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board
members present the meeting was recessed. Director Adcock reminded the Mayor that Director
Hurst would not be able to attend the meeting. Mayor Dailey stated they have that arranged so
that Director Hurst will be able to come to the meeting when the Board gets ready to go into
executive session and vote. The meeting recessed at 9:50 P.M.
ATTEST:
Nan (y Wood CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Ji ailey
Mayor
N MCTCN: Itan 28 states that Ordinanoe 19,331 was read the B r st time cn April 26, 2005. The nmting date
was April 19, 2005, which is the date the ordmianoe was read the first time.
22