HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8263 Application 1Carney, Dana
From:
Carpenter, Tom
Sent:
Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:22 PM
To:
Scott Jr., Frank; Director Wyrick; Director Hendrix; Richardson, Ken; Vice Mayor Webb;
Director Peck; Director Hines; Wright, Doris J.; Director Fortson; Director Kumpuris;
Director Adcock; Moore, Bruce; Jones, James E.
Cc:
Betton, Alex; Overton, Shawn; Wisdom, Debbie; Collins, Gilbert; Carney, Dana;
'AFields@nlr.ar.gov'; Williams, L. Lamor; Cox, Emily
Subject:
LITIGATION ALERT: Kimberly Mensie v. City of Little Rock, No. 17-1761, U.S. Court of
Appeals [8th]
Attachments:
Opinion Mensie v City of Little Rock.pdf
Dear Mayor Scott and Members of the Board of Directors,
The City was victorious today in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 81' Circuit. Ms. Kimberly Mensie
sued the City pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the City would not permit a rezoning of her property to allow a
business adjacent to a residential neighborhood. She claimed that the decision was based upon racial discrimination,
and that as a class of one she was denied Equal Protection of the Law guaranteed by the 14"' Amendment. The U.S.
District Court granted summary judgment to the City, and Ms. Mensie appeal. In the opinion issued today, the Court
of Appeals accepted the City's arguments and affirmed the actions of the Board of Directors. In doing so, it rejected
the claims of discrimination and noted there was no evidence to support the claim. It also pointed out, among other
things, that the administrative record and the record before the Board of Directors focused upon the land use issues
and this commercial use in a residential area. A copy of the opinion is attached for those who wish to read it.
The North Little Rock City Attorney — Amy Fields — worked in this office and handled this case while it was
pending before the U.S. District Court. After she left for North Little Rock, I inherited the case and handled the
appeal and the oral argument. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Tom
Thomas M. Carpenter
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
500 West Markham, Ste. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 371-6875 (0)
(501) 371-4675 (F)
(501) 993-1052 (M)
tcarp enter@ littlero�kov
No. 17-1761
Kimberly Mensie
Plaintiff - Appellant
V.
City of Little Rock
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Western Division
Submitted: September 27, 2018
Filed: February 28, 2019
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
GRASZ, Circuit Judge.
Kimberly Mensie sued the City of Little Rock (the "City") after it denied her
applications for rezoning to open a beauty salon in a residential neighborhood.
Mensie alleges the City discriminated against her on the basis of race and treated her
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development
Ring Fees
Date:
Annexation
Board of Adjustment
Cool a. Use Permit/T.U.P.
Final Plat
Planned Unit Dev.
Preliminary Plat
Special Use Permit
Rezoning
Site Plans
Street Name Change
Street Name Signs
Number at ea.
Public Hearin_ g Si ns
Num''ber ! at . ea.
Total
File No.
$ -, v
$ qs--6r) ---
Location
Applicant )(
r
By
differently from other salon operators in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The
district court' granted summary judgment to the City, and we affirm.
I. Background
In 2007, Mensie purchased a house at 310 North Van Buren Street in Little
Rock, Arkansas, intending to live there and also operate a beauty salon from the
premises. At the time, Mensie did not realize the property was designated only for
"Single Family" use under the City's Land Use Plan and zoning ordinance. The
house was located on the middle of the block between B Street to the south and C
Street to the north. Under the City's Land Use Plan, everything along North Van
Buren Street from B to G Streets was designated for Single Family use. There was
an area zoned for Single Family and Suburban Office just south of B Street and an
area zoned for Commercial and Office uses about two blocks south of Mensie's house
at the intersection of North Van Buren and West Markham Streets. However,
Mensie's house was surrounded by single-family homes.
The City's Planning Commission ("Commission") and Board of Directors
("Board") subsequently denied Mensie's applications to rezone her house for use as
a salon.' Mensie, who is African American, brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging the City denied her applications in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause and Due Process Clause by singling her out as a "class of one,"
'The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
2Mensie submitted two applications. One proposed reclassifying her property
under the City's Land Use Plan from "Single Family" to "Mixed Use." The other
proposed rezoning her property from R-3 Single Family to "Planned Development -
Commercial" ("PD-C"), a designation "intended to accominodate single use
commercial developments." Little Rock Rev. Code § 36-452(3)(a).
-2-
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
discriminating on the basis of
conditions."
Mensie first sued the City in Arkansas state court in 2008. The case was
dismissed without prejudice in May 2015 for failure to prosecute. Mensie filed her
current suit in the same state court in November 2015, and the City removed it to
federal district court.'
After discovery, the district court granted the City's motion for summary
judgment, concluding Mensie failed to show the City either treated her less favorably
than other similarly situated salon operators or denied her applications based on race.
Mensie appeals.
II. Standard of Review
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Barstad v. Murray Cty., 420 F.3d
880, 883 (8th Cir. 2005). "Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "The movant `bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,' and must
identify `those portions of [the record] ... which it believes demonstrate the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact."' Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031,
1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (alterations in original) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). "If the movant does so, the nonmovant must
'The parties do not dispute on appeal whether Mensie timely filed her current
suit under Arkansas's savings statute, see Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126, and we
decline to consider this issue sua sponte. See Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 466, 470,
473 (2012); see also Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2007) (applying
Arkansas's savings statute to § 1983 claims).
-3-
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
respond by submitting eviaentiary materials tnat sec our specuic;
there is a genuine issue for trial."' Id. (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U. S. at 324). "The
nonmovant `must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt
as to the material facts."' Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)).
III. Discussion
Mensie argues the City violated her "substantive due process rights" by
denying her rezoning applications based at least partially on her race. She also argues
the City violated her equal protection rights by discriminating against her as a "class
of one" in comparison to other similarly situated salons throughout the City. Viewing
both of these arguments as equal protection claims,' we find them to be without merit
for the reasons discussed below.
A. Race -Discrimination
Mensie alleges the City's denial of her rezoning request constituted racial
discrimination in violation of her right to equal protection under the law. To establish
a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under this theory, Mensie is required to
show "proof that a [racially] discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in
the decision." Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S.
'We have recognized that "if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific
constitutional provision . . . the claim must be analyzed under the standard
appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due
process." Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 646 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (quoting Cty.
of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843 (1998)). Here, Mensie's claim of race
discrimination is covered by the Equal Protection Clause. See Village of Arlington
Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1977). While Mensie
also pled a substantive due process claim unrelated to race, she has abandoned that
claim on appeal.
in
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
252, 265-66 (1977). "[D]etermining the existence of a discriminatory purpose
`demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence as may be
available."' Clients' Council v. Pierce, 711 F.2d 1406,1409 (8th Cir. 1983) (quoting
Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 618 (1982)). This standard requires examining the
"totality of the relevant facts," id., including racially discriminatory impact, historical
background, the sequence of events leading up to the challenged decisions, and
legislative or administrative history, especially "contemporary statements by members
of the decisionmaking body, minutes of its meetings, or reports." Village ofArlington
Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-68.
Mensie argues the historical background and relevant sequence of events give
rise to an inference of racial discrimination here. She notes the City's Director of
Planning and Development opposed the idea "before the process had even begun."
She also observes that the Commission rejected her applications even after she
incorporated changes recommended by Commission staff in a preliminary meeting.
Specifically, Mensie submitted a revised plan clarifying that her property would not
contain a dumpster and would comply with the overlay standards of the surrounding
Hillcrest neighborhood. At a hearing before the Commission, Mensie proposed
several more changes on her own initiative, including reducing the number of
employees, operating on an appointment -only schedule, and cutting the number of
parking spaces in a parking lot she planned to pave in her backyard. The Commission
still did not approve.
We see no evidence of racial discrimination on these facts, particularly in light
of the Supreme Court's decision in Village of Arlington Heights. There, a Chicago
suburb (the "Village") denied an application to rezone a parcel of land from a single-
family to a multiple -family classification for building racially -integrated low- and
moderate -income housing. Village of Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 255-58. The
Supreme Court upheld the decision against a challenge under the Equal Protection
Clause, finding no inference of racial discrimination even where the developer
-5-
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
incorporated every change recommended by the Village's staff for compliance with
local regulations. Id. at 257, 269-71. The Supreme Court emphasized the property
had historically been zoned R-3, it was surrounded by single-family homes, and the
developer's application progressed according to usual procedures. Id. at 269-70
(noting the Village's Plan Commission even scheduled two additional hearings and
permitted the developer to supplement its earlier presentation).
Here Mensie's property was also zoned Single Family in a historically single-
family neighborhood.5 Furthermore, the record indicates her applications progressed
according to usual procedures. She met with several City staff members prior to
submitting her applications. See Little Rock Rev. Code § 36-454(b) (requiring a
"preapplication conference" between the applicant and City staff prior to submitting
a Planned Development application). Commission staff then conducted two written
analyses and recommended that the Commission deny Mensie's proposal. See id.
§ 3 6-454(c)(2) (requiring planning staff to review an applicant's preliminary plan and
forward a recommendation to the Commission). Mensie then had a timely public
hearing before the Commission and two timely public hearings on appeal before the
Board.b See id. (requiring a public hearing before the Commission on an applicant's
preliminary plan within sixty days after planning staff files its review and
recommendation); see also id. § 36-85(a) (authorizing rezoning applicants to appeal
5While there was an area of suburban office uses south of B Street, it is
undisputed this area served as a buffer between commercial uses to the south, at the
intersection of North Van Buren and West Markham Streets, and residential uses to
the north. Further, while Mensie disputes whether two nearby businesses to the north
of her house were nonconforming uses in operation prior to the effective date of the
current zoning ordinance, see Little Rock City Code §§ 36-151, 153 (authorizing
nonconforming uses), it is undisputed neither business was on her block.
6After the Commission denied Mensie's applications, the Board on appeal held
separate hearings for her proposed amendments to the City's Land Use Plan and her
property's zoning designation, respectively.
W
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 6 ®ate Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
Commission's denial to the Board for review). Additionally, the changes Mensie
incorporated at the Commission's request were merely, in its words, "technical
issues" to comply with local rules. Put simply, "there is little about the sequence of
events leading up to the decision that would spark suspicion." Village of Arlington
Heights, 429 U.S. at 269.
The administrative history here supports this conclusion. The Commission
staff s pre -hearing analyses "focused ... exclusively on the zoning aspects of
[Mensie's] petition." Id. at 270. For instance, Commission staff expressed concern
that Van Buren Street had been under pressure in recent years to change from a
residential to a commercial corridor. They noted Mensie's house was located within
an area covered by the "Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan," which included a goal
of "no net loss of residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses." See
Little Rock Rev. Code §§ 36-434.10 to 36-434.16 (adopting the Hillcrest overlay
district into City's zoning ordinance). They also observed that a suburban office area
located south of Mensie's property served primarily as a buffer zone. Additionally,
opposition voiced by several neighbors at three public hearings focused on the
possibility of increased traffic and a desire to maintain residential zoning in the area.
See Village of Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 258, 270 (noting that "the zoning
factors on which [Village decisionmakers] relied are not novel criteria in the Village's
rezoning decisions," including the reliance of neighbors on maintaining area single-
family zoning and the consistent application of a prior policy treating multi -family
housing primarily as a buffer zone).
We find no basis for Mensie's argument that the City relied on racist "code
words" by crediting neighbors' concerns about the possibility of decreased property
values and increased crime as a result of Mensie's salon. Mensie notes one Board
member who voted to deny Mensie's appeal later testified that she found the
neighbors' opposition persuasive. Mensie then notes the Board ultimately denied her
proposal by a 4-to-4 vote, snaking the neighbors' coded racism a dispositive factor in
-7-
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
its demise. However, "[f]acially race -neutral statements, without more, do not
demonstrate racial animus on the part of the speaker." Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
462 F.3d 925, 934 (8th Cir. 2006). Here, the record indicates her neighbors'
opposition was based not on Mensie's mere "presence," as Mensie argues, but rather
on the commercial nature of her proposal. See Nelson v. City of Selma, 881 F.2d 836,
839 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that "[t]he preservation of the character and integrity of
single-family neighborhoods, ... prevention of traffic congestion and maintenance
of property values are all legitimate purposes of planning and zoning" (citing Village
of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9 (1974))).
Even if concerns about increased crime in this context could be considered
racial code words, nothing indicates the City itself was improperly motivated by this
concern or by Mensie's race. The record indicates that only one opponent mentioned
increased crime as a concern at any of the hearings. Many others expressed
opposition based on preventing increased commercialization of the residential
neighborhood, consistent with the Commission staff s analysis. The testifying Board
member merely said she was persuaded by the "objections of the neighborhood" in
general as well as by the Commission staff s recommendation, without any indication
of discriminatory motive. See Village ofArlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 270 (finding
no inference of racial discrimination in part where "one member of the Village Board
[took] the stand at trial" and "[n]othing in her testimony support[ed] an inference of
invidious purpose"). We decline to impute any implied racism from the opposing
testimony to the City here. See Twymon, 462 F.3d at 934 ("While we are required to
make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party in considering
summary judgment, we do so without resort to speculation.").
We also reject any argument that we should infer racial opposition in the
overall comments of Mensie's neighbors to the City in light of their allegedly hostile
In
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
treatment toward her when she moved into the neighborhood' and from the fact City
officials allegedly voted against her applications mostly along racial lines. Unlike
these allegations, the City's interest in preserving the neighborhood's residential
character from increased commercialization is supported by the record, and this
precludes any inference that the City's decision was racially motivated. See
Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823, 833 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that city's race -
neutral explanation for inspecting rental properties disproportionately occupied by
racial minorities "ha[d] greater support in the record" than any alleged discriminatory
purpose); see also Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 527 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating that
"[m]ere allegations, unsupported by ... evidence beyond the nonmoving party's own
conclusions, are insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment").
Therefore, Mensie's race -discrimination claim under the Equal Protection
Clause must fail.
B. Class -of -One Discrimination
We next address Mensie's class -of -one discrimination claim. "The Equal
Protection Clause requires that the government treat all similarly situated people
alike." Barstad, 420 F.3d at 884. Where a plaintiff has not shown discrimination
based on membership in a class or group, the Supreme Court's "cases have
recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a `class of one,' where the
plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others
similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment."
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). We have clarified that
in class -of -one challenges to local zoning decisions, "courts are not entitled to review
'Mensie alleges that after she purchased her house, the neighbors refused to
make eye contact or speak with her and also made threatening, anonymous phone
calls to her.
In
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
the evidence and reverse the commission merely because a contrary result may be
permissible." Burns v. City of Des Peres, 534 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1976). Indeed,
"[c]ourts are not to assume the role of a `super zoning board. "' Id. (quoting Steel Hill
Dev., Inc. v. Town ofSanbornton, 469 F.2d 956, 960 (1st Cir. 1972)).
Instead, we are authorized only "to ascertain whether there has been a
transgression upon the property owner's constitutional rights." Id. For this reason,
"[i]dentifying the disparity in treatment is especially important in class -of -one cases."
Barstad, 420 F.3d at 884. "A class -of -one plaintiff must therefore provide a specific
and detailed account of the nature of the preferred treatment of the favored class,
especially when the state actors exercise broad discretion to balance a number of
legitimate considerations." Nolan v. Thompson, 521 F.3d 983, 990 (8th Cir. 2008)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have said this is a "demanding
standard," particularly given that the "persons alleged to have been treated more
favorably must be identical or directly comparable to the plaintiff in all material
respects." Robbins v. Becker, 794 F.3d 988, 996 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Reget v.
City of La Crosse, 595 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2010)).
Mensie fails to meet this standard. She merely asserts on appeal that a number
of manicurists and beauty salons operated from their homes across the City.
Although Mensie underlined dozens of purported comparators in a roster of local
salons that she placed in the record, we agree with the district court that she failed to
identify how any were similarly situated in all material respects, including in time,
location, the zoning amendment process, and the City's Land Use Plan. See id.
(stating that plaintiffs "fail[ed] to allege and prove facts showing they were similarly
situated to other towing and wrecker services, or that those companies were treated
more favorably under similar circumstances").
Mensie also asserts that a number of local salons were located in residential
and other non -conforming zoning areas or had previously been granted similar
-10-
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
Planned Development applications. But in a separate list Mensie offered to support
this assertion (showing the zoning classifications of ninety-three area salons), she
again fails to explain how any were similarly situated to her proposed salon in all
material respects. See Nolan, 521 F.3d at 990 (concluding plaintiff's spreadsheet of
twenty other inmates with corresponding details about their offenses, sentences, and
time served failed to show similarity in all material respects in determining whether
they received more favorable treatment in obtaining parole). While Mensie provides
a more detailed zoning history for ten of these businesses, only four appear to have
previously been zoned for residential use. Among these four, each was a
nonconforming use (or in a nonconforming commercial area) in operation (or
existence) prior to being annexed into the City. We thus reject Mensie's argument
that other salons in the City were by nature "necessarily similarly situated."
Having failed to establish disparate treatment, Mensie's class -of -one
discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause must also fail.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's grant of summary
judgment to the City.
-11-
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
United States Court of Appeals
For The Eighth Circuit
Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse
111 South IOth Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
February 28, 2019
West Publishing
Opinions Clerk
610 Opperman Drive
Building D D4-40
Eagan, MN 55123-0000
RE: 17-1761 Kimberly Mensie v. City of Little Rock
Dear Sirs:
A published opinion was filed today in the above case.
VOICE (314) 244-2400
FAX (314) 244-2780
www.ca8.uscourts.gov
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Maximillan Sprinkle, of
Little Rock, AR.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was
Thomas Milton Carpenter, of Little Rock, AR.
The judge who heard the case in the district court was Honorable James M. Moody, Jr..
The judgment of the district court was entered on March 8, 2017.
If you have any questions concerning this case, please call this office.
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
MDS
Enclosure(s)
cc: MO Lawyers Weekly
District Court/Agency Case Number(s): 4:15-cv-00755-JM
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
United States Court of Appeals
For The Eighth Circuit
Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse
111 South 1 Oth Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
February 28, 2019
Mr. Maximillan Sprinkle
SPRINKLE FIRM
Suite 604
300 S. Fourth Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: 17-1761 Kimberly Mensie v. City of Little Rock
Dear Counsel:
VOICE (314) 244-2400
FAX (314) 244-2780
www.ca8.uscourts.gov
The court has issued an opinion in this case. Judgment has been entered in accordance
with the opinion. The opinion will be released to the public at 10:00 a.m. today. Please hold the
opinion in confidence until that time.
Please review Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Eighth Circuit Rules on post -
submission procedure to ensure that any contemplated filing is timely and in compliance with the
rules. Note particularly that petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc must be
received in the clerk's office within 14 days of the date of the entry of judgment. Counsel -filed
petitions must be filed electronically in CM/ECF. Paper copies are not required. No grace period
for mailing is allowed, and the date of the postmark is irrelevant for pro -se -filed petitions. Any
petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc which is not received within the 14 day
period for filing permitted by FRAP 40 may be denied as untimely.
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
MDS
Enclosure(s)
cc: Mr. Thomas Milton Carpenter
Ms. Amy Beckman Fields
Mr. Jim McCormack
District Court/Agency Case Number(s): 4:15-cv-00755-JM
Appellate Case: 17-1761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2019 Entry ID: 4760998
Case 4:15-cv-00755-JM Document 3 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
KIMBERLY MENSIE PLAINTIFF
VS. CASE NO.4:15-CV-755 JM
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK DEFENDANT
ANSWER
Comes Defendant, City of Little Rock ("City"), by and through its attorneys, Thomas M.
Carpenter, City Attorney, and Amy Beckman Fields, Deputy City Attorney, and for its Answer to
Plaintiff's Complaint, states:
1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, the City is without information
sufficient to form a belief as to Plaintiff's residency and can neither admit nor deny the same. The
City admits the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
2. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint contains no allegations against the City that can be
admitted or denied. To the extent that any factual allegations are contained in Paragraph 3, the
City denies the same.
4. In response to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the City admits that this Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Rule 57 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Ark. R. Civ. P. 57.
5. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
4 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
Case 4:15-cv-00755-JM Document 3 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 6
6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the City admits that Plaintiff is
African -American. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 6 and therefore denies the same.
7. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.
8. In response to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, the City admits that the property
located at 310 North Van Buren is zoned R-3, meaning that it is zoned for residential but not
commercial use. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 and therefore denies the same. The City
affirmatively states that the zoning classification of the subject property is a matter of public record
and that Plaintiff had constructive notice of the zoning classification prior to her purchase of the
property.
9. In response to Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, the City admits that Plaintiff applied
to have her property re -zoned as set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 9. The City is without
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the second and
third sentences of Paragraph 9 and therefore denies the same. The City admits that Plaintiff desired
to live and perform nail art in her home as alleged in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 9. According
to information Plaintiff provided to the City, she also desired to operate a full service beauty salon
from her home. The City denies the allegations contained in the last sentence of Paragraph 9 and
affirmatively states that, apart from living at the residence, the other uses that Plaintiff proposed
for the property are forbidden by the City's zoning ordinances on property that is zoned R-3.
10. In response to Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, the City admits that Plaintiff placed
signage on the structure located on the property at 310 North Van Buren indicating that her PD-C
2
application was going to be considered by the Planning Commission as alleged in Paragraph 10.
The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and therefore denies the same.
11. The City admits the allegations contained in the first and last sentences of Paragraph
11 of the Complaint. The City denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph
11.
12. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13. In response to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the City admits that a hearing was
conducted before the City of Little Rock Planning Commission in September 2007. The City
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13.
14. In response to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the City admits that some individuals
living in the neighborhood of 310 North Van Buren appeared and spoke at the Planning
Commission hearing. The City admits that the Planning Commission denied Plaintiff's
application. The City denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 14.
15. In response to Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the City admits the allegations
contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 and admits that the Planning Department staff
opposed the application as asserted in Paragraph 15. The City denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 15.
16. The City admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 16 of
the Complaint. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and therefore denies the same.
17. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
3
19. In response to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the City admits that fewer than 30
days passed between the December 4 vote and Plaintiff's notice of administrative appeal to Circuit
Court and fewer than 30 days passed between the January 15 vote and the filing of her first
amended notice of appeal. The City affirmatively states that the decision of the Board was not an
administrative matter and was therefore not appealable to Circuit Court, which resulted in
dismissal by the Court of her attempted appeal. The City affirmatively states that subsequent to
the Circuit Court's oral ruling granting the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's administrative
appeal, but prior to entry of a written dismissal order, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Circuit Court
on May 16, 2008, under the same case number as her administrative appeal. The Complaint filed
on May 16, 2008, was substantially identical to the complaint filed in this case. In further response
to Paragraph 19, the City denies that Plaintiff's case was non -suited as alleged by Plaintiff. The
City affirmatively states that the City filed a motion seeking dismissal with prejudice of the
Plaintiff's case in circuit court, and on July 13, 2015, the Circuit Court entered an order of dismissal
without prejudice. The City admits that this case was filed within one year of the order of dismissal
without prejudice
20. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
19 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint does not contain allegations against the City that
can be admitted or denied. The City affirmatively states that the statements made in Paragraph 21
are not a correct statement of the law.
22. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
21
23 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
25. Paragraph 25 of the Complaint does not contain allegations against the City that
can be admitted or denied. The City affirmatively states that the statements made in Paragraph 25
are not a complete and accurate statement of the law.
26. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
27. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
28. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
27 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 28.
29. Paragraph 29 of the Complaint does not contain allegations against the City that
can be admitted or denied. The City affirmatively states that the statements made in Paragraph 29
are not a correct statement of the law.
30. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
31. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
32. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
31 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 32.
33. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
34. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
35. The City acknowledges and joins in Plaintiff's request for trial by jury.
36. The City affirmatively pleads laches and failure to state a claim for which relief can
be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
37. The City denies each and every material factual allegation contained in the
Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
5
WHEREFORE, Defendant, City of Little Rock, prays that Plaintiff's Complaint be
dismissed; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
By: /s/ Amy Beckman Fields
Amy Beckman Fields, #89058
Attorney for Defendant
Office of the City Attorney
500 West Markham, Suite 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 371-4527
aftel d s @little roc k. ors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 11, 2015, 1 electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to Stephen
B. Niswanger at sieve@niswangerlawfirm.com.
/s/Amy Beckman Fields
M
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
June 21, 2010
Kimberly Mensie
310 N. Van Buren Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Re: zoning code enforcement activity at 310 N. Van Buren Street
Dear Ms. Mensie:
In response to your letter received by our office today, I reviewed the zoning code
enforcement file for your property located at 310 N. Van Buren Street.
A code enforcement officer from the Department of Planning and Development made an
inspection of that property on September 7, 2007. He was directed to go to the site by
Monte Moore, Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator, after Mr. Moore had been
made aware of a possible zoning violation. On that date, a notice was issued to you,
directing you to cease operating the business at that address which was found to be in
violation of the City of Little Rock Code of Ordinances. A copy of that notice is attached.
There have been no other enforcement actions or inspections made of that property, by
code enforcement officers of the Department of Planning and Development.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 371-6817.
Sincerely,
Dana Carney, Zoning and Subdivision Manager
Cc: Amy Fields, Deputy City Attorney
file
�1
Z o
W N
W
J c ZII) u
LU
QLU
0
aS U �
c0
,• Z W
J LU
6L :�i z
o<
W Q 0 F--
> F-- crn
CL cam,
.: W CAI
rK zk
r
i
ci
�4
m
o
1.. Z
Cr"...
Ca
f
w
cn
c
O
O
C)
LU
z
z
o
o
Qoc
o
r~,
5 .,r
W
O
(Doo
O
U
+-
=
c
+' W
—
J
U O.
'..
L
°offL
O
C
O
D
cn O
O >
cn
Q
0
�.
O 1
U
>
00
CY•1
o
0
Q�
Q O
_3 Q Q
0
Q � L
Q�
O a o
c O
C) U Q)
�C
cn > _O
� O N
C
_ O
O j
O C)
a O
Q C w-
m
w
Q
0
15 June 2010
To Whom It May Concern,
During the years of 2007 & 2008, the Little Rockig�ditCoe
Enforcement division harassed me by sending investigators to my property on _
four 4 different occasions. The property in reference is in Little Rock's 72205
at 310 North Van Buren Street. My question is twofold, I would like to
know the reason(s) Code Enforcement was sent to my property and who
mandated the order. I am requesting a copy of each report.
Thank you,
t,4 It
Uri lu. el -I
Kimberly Mensie
JUN Q 12010
Page 1 of 1
Carney, Dana
From: Fields, Amy
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Bozynski, Tony; Carney, Dana; James, Donna
Subject: Mensie v. City of Little Rock (Nails by Kimmie) (PCD case)
Tony, Dana & Donna:
I have attached interrogatories that I received from the plaintiffs attorney that we're going to have to answer in
this case. This is the case where Kimmie tried to appeal the denial of her PCD, then when the judge dismissed
her appeal she filed a new lawsuit saying the denial was arbitrary & capricious and denied her civil rights because
it was racially discriminatory. I have previously sent you copies of the complaint and answer that have been filed
in this case. Our responses are due on September 19. At least a week or two before then, I need to get with one
of you all so we can get answers drafted. Be looking over these & we'll get something set up in a couple of
weeks.
Amy
Amy Beckman Fields
Deputy City Attorney
(501) 371-6892
8/22/2008
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS,
3RD DIVISION
KIMBERLY MENSIE PETITIONER
VS. CV-2008-243
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK RESPONDENT
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND RE VESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
Plaintiff, Kimberly Mensie ("Mensie"), by and through her attorneys, the
Niswanger Law Firm, PLC, requests that Defendant City of Little Rock ("Defendant"),
answer the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents,
separately and under oath, within thirty (30) days pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the
Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant is to read, interpret, and answer these
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents in accordance with the
following definitions:
DEFINITIONS
(a) "You" or "Your"
Defendant; any Person or Persons acting on behalf of Defendant; or any
combination thereof.
(b) "Person"
Any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, association,
proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, bureau, or other entity;
(c) "Document"
Each original, non -identical copy, and draft, whether printed, typewritten,
recorded, handwritten, or whether contained in any computer or word processing system
or any disk or other means of information storage (with a written description of the steps
to follow to retrieve the stored information), of the following items: files,
correspondence, memoranda, records, summaries of records, summaries of Personal
conversations or interviews, minutes or records of Meetings or conferences, opinions,
reports of consultants, projections, statistical statements, drafts, contracts, agreements,
mortgages, deeds of trust, applications for loans, promissory notes, guarantees, telegrams,
telexes, books, notes, reports, logs, diaries, tape recordings, charts, photographs, films,
videotapes, notebooks, drawings, plans, inter -office Communications, checks, deposit or
withdrawal slips, financial entries, legal pleadings or exhibits, or any other records of any
kind;
(d) "Identify"
(i) as to a Person: name, business and residence addresses, business and
residence telephone numbers, occupation, job title, and dates so employed; and, if not an
individual, state the type of entity, the address and telephone number of its principal place
of business, and the names of its officers and directors;
(ii) as to a Document: the type of Document (letter, memo, etc.), the identity of
the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each Person to
whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such Person known
or reasonably believed by You to have present possession, custody, or control thereof,
and a brief description of the subject matter thereof, all with sufficient particularity to
request its production under Rule 34, Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure;
(e) "Pertaining to"
Arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioning, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing,
affecting, concerning, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object,
conference, report, or activity identified;
M "or"
Shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these
requests any information that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope;
(g) Unless the context otherwise requires, masculine pronouns refer both to
males and females.
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
n TERROGATORY NO. ] : Identify each Person who assisted in the
preparation of the answers to these Interrogatories and Requests for Production.
INTERROGATORY NO.2: Identify each Person who you believe has
knowledge or provided information Pertaining to the allegations in Your Answer to the
Complaint.
RE VE ST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: Produce each non -privileged
Document used by You, Your attorney, or any Person identified in Your response to
Interrogatory No. 2 to which You referred or upon which You relied to formulate Your
Answer to the Complaint.
INTERROGATORY NO.3: Identify each fact witness whom You intend
to call at the trial of this lawsuit, and for each such witness state the subject matter of his
or her testimony.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: Produce each Document that
will be introduced at trial or relied upon by each fact witness identified in Your response
to Interrogatory No. 3.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify each expert witness whom You will
call to testify in the trial of this matter, and for each such expert state the subject matter
on which he or she is expected to testify; state the substance of the facts and opinions to
which he or she is expected to testify; and summarize the grounds for each opinion.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: Produce a curriculum vitae
for each expert witness identified in Your response to Interrogatory No. 4.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce each Document that
will be introduced at trial or relied upon by each expert witness identified in Your
response to Interrogatory No. 4.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state with particularity and specificity
the alleged facts that You believe support the denial in Your Answer of paragraph 12 of
Plaintiff s Complaint, which stated:
The City's bases for denial included fears that she would operate a "beauty
shop" and employ more than four workers, that traffic would increase, and
that the City did not want any business north of B Street.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5: Produce each and every Document
identified in or that You believe supports or Pertains to Your response to Interrogatory
No. 5.
0TERROGATORY NO, G: Please state with particularity and specificity the
alleged facts that You believe support the denial in Your Answer of the portion of
paragraph 13 of Plaintiff s Complaint that stated:
4
Mensie pointed out that there were already several businesses north of B
Street, and that an actual beauty salon was just a block or two away from
310 North Van Buren.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce each and every
Document identified in or that You believe supports or Pertains to Your response
to Interrogatory No. 6.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state with particularity and specificity the
alleged facts that You believe support the denial in Your Answer of paragraph 18 of
Plaintiff s Complaint, which stated:
The City has recently approved over neighbor's objections at least one
other nearby PD-C application that is similar to Mensie's application, and
the other applicant is white. In addition, the City has not enforced the
residential zoning ordinances against the other business north of Mensie's
property on Van Buren Street. Upon information and belief, those
business owners are white.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7: Produce each and every Document
identified in or that You believe supports or Pertains to Your response to Interrogatory
No.7.
Pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, consider these Interrogatories
and Requests for Production of Documents continuing ones and supplement Your
answers in the event new or additional information comes to the attention of You or Your
attorney in order to avoid any possibility of surprise at the trial of this case.
NiSWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
45 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72211
(501) 223-2888
cale@niswangerlawfirm.com
By:
, f14�
Stephen B. Niswanger, #9 012
Alexander Cale Block, #2007149
Attorneys for Kimberly Mensie
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ft%
I hereby certify that on the `Z day of August, 2008, a copy of the forgoing was
sent by facsimile and regular mail to Amy Beckman Fields, Deputy City Attorney, City
Hall —Suite 310, 500 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201.
Alexander Cale Block
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Subdivision
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
MEMORANDUM
TO: AMY BECKMAN FIELDS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: KENNY SCOTT, CODE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: NAILS BY KIMMIE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
Per your request this comes as our reply for the additional information requested in
reference to the above subject.
45 — Andover Place Salon — is this an assisted living place?
Yes, the Little Rock Retirement Facility (PRD Z-4786) is an assisting living place
and is allowed a beauty shop.
918 — Bonnie 's Hair Gallery (Aldersgate Road) — same as above?
Yes, this is an assisted living place (PRD Z-3626) and is allowed a beauty shop.
419 — Brandy and Jami's Salon (Napa Valley Drive) — same as above?
Yes, Pleasant Hill Retirement is an assisted living place (PRD Z-3168) and is allowed
a beauty shop.
441 — Hall 's Beauty Shop, 12501 Hall Lane —printout says beauty shop only — does this
mean it's not a home occupation?
Yes, the beauty shop is in a separate building than the residence; however, it is on
the same lot. The property is zoned "R-2"; however, the beauty shop has a
nonconforming "C-1" use and was annexed to the City of Little Rock in 1980.
#47 — Jean's Beauty Shop (Aldersgate Road) — assisted living?
Yes, this is an assisted living facility for retirement (PRD Z-3626) and is allowed a
beauty shop.
#55 — Martha's Beauty Salon (10607 Lionel Drive) —printout says beauty shop is gone,
so I assume it is.
Yes, the beauty shop is gone and now it is only single family.
September 3, 2008
Response for Nails by Kimmie
Page Two
#82 — Tammy's Hail- Care (3 Shephard Cove) — assisted living?
Yes, this is a retirement center (PRD Z-3626).
#87 — Top Notch Barber —76 Westminister. Printout says it's a nonconforming, but can
we tell if it's a home occupation?
The property is a Strip Mall with Nonconforming status. It is zoned "R-2"
with "C-3" Nonconforming status annexed in the City of Little Rock on
September 22, 1959.
#90 — Vance Hair Salon (4617 S. Katillus) — R-2 nonconforming, same question as
above.
The property is zoned "R-2"/Nonconforming "C-1" not a home occupation, and
when property was annexed in the City of Little Rock in 1990 the beauty shop was
already existing.
If you need additional information concerning these responses, please contact my office
at 371-4844.
KS:aa
Page 1 of 1
Bozynski, Tony
From: Fields, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:08 AM
To: Bozynski, Tony
Subject: Nails by Kimmie
Tony -
From the list you sent to Steve Niswanger that we just looked over, could you find more information on:
#5 - Andover Place Salon - is this an assisted living place?
#18 - Bonnie's Hair Gallery (Aldersgate Rd) - same as above?
#19 - Brandy & Jami's Salon (Napa Valley Drive) - same as above
#41 - Hall's Beauty Shop, 12501 Hall Lane - printout says beauty shop only - does this mean it's not a home
occupation?
#47 - Jean's Beauty Shop (Aldersgate Rd) - assisted living?
#55 - Martha's Beauty Salone (10607 Lionel Drive) - printout says beauty shop is gone, so I assume it is.
#82 - Tammy's Hair Care (3 Shepard Cove) - assisted living?
#87 - Top Notch Barber - 76 Westminister. Printout says its a nonconforming, but can we tell if it's a home
occupation?
#90 - Vance Hair Salone (4617 S. Katillus) - R-2 nonconforming, same question as above.
Thanks for your help.
Amy
Amy Beckman Fields
Deputy City Attorney
(501) 371-6892
9/2/2008
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
THIRD DIVISION
KIMBERLY MENSIE
VS.
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
CASE NO. CV-2008-243
ANSWER
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
Comes Defendant, City of Little Rock ("City"), by and through its attorneys, Thomas M.
Carpenter, City Attorney, and Amy Beckman Fields, Deputy City Attorney, and for its Answer
to Plaintiff's Complaint, states:
1. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
2. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
3. Paragraph 3 contains no factual allegations that can be admitted or denied. To the
extent that any factual allegations are contained in Paragraph 3, the City denies the same.
4. The City admits that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Rule 57 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the City affirmatively states that
Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Ark. R. Civ. P. 57.
5. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
4 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 5.
6. The City admits that Plaintiff is African -American as alleged in Paragraph 6. The
City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 6 and therefore denies the same.
7. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 7 and therefore denies the same.
-1-
8. The City admits that the property located at 319 North Van Buren is zoned R-3,
meaning that it is zoned for residential but not commercial use. The City is without information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8
and therefore denies the same. The City affirmatively states that the zoning classification of the
subject property is a matter of public record and that Plaintiff had constructive notice of the
zoning classification of the property.
9. The City admits that Plaintiff applied to have her property re -zoned as set forth in
the first sentence of Paragraph 9. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 9 and
therefore denies the same. The City admits that Plaintiff desired to live and perform nail art in
her home as alleged in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 9. According to information Plaintiff
provided to the City, she also desired to operate a full service beauty salon from her home. The
City denies the allegations contained in the last sentence of Paragraph 9 and affirmatively states
that, apart from living at the residence, the other uses that Plaintiff proposed for the property are
forbidden by the City's zoning ordinances on property that is zoned R-3.
10. The City admits that Plaintiff placed signage on the structure located on the
property at 310 North Van Buren indicating that her PD-C application was going to be
considered by the Planning Commission as alleged in Paragraph 10. The City is without
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 10 and therefore denies the same.
11. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.
12. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
-2-
13. The City admits that a hearing was conducted before the City of Little Rock
Planning Commission in September 2007. The City denies the remaining allegations contained
in Paragraph 13.
14. The City admits that some individuals living in the neighborhood of 310 North
Van Buren appeared and spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. The City admits that the
Planning Commission denied Plaintiffs application. The City denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 14.
15. The City admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 15.
The City admits that the Planning Department staff opposed the application as asserted in
Paragraph 15. The City denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
16. The City admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 16.
The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and therefore denies the same.
17. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.
18. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
19. The City admits that fewer than 30 days passed between the December 4 vote and
Plaintiffs notice of administrative appeal to Circuit Court and fewer than 30 days passed
between the January 15 vote and the filing of her first amended notice of appeal. The City
affirmatively states that appeal of the decision of the Board was not an administrative matter that
was appealable to Circuit Court, which resulted in dismissal by the Court of her attempted
appeal.
20. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
19 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 20.
21. Paragraph 21 does not contain factual allegations that can be admitted or denied.
-3-
22. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22.
23. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.
24. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
23 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 24.
25. Paragraph 25 does not contain factual allegations that can be admitted or denied.
26. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
27. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27.
28. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
27 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 28.
29. Paragraph 29 does not contain factual allegations that can be admitted or denied.
30. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30.
31. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.
32. The City reaffirms and reiterates each and every response to Paragraphs 1 through
31 of the Complaint in response to Paragraph 32.
33. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33.
34. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34.
35. Pleading affirmatively, the City states that Plaintiff has improperly filed her
Complaint in this action. Plaintiff originally attempted to file an appeal of the decision of the
City Board of Directors under this case number on January 3, 2008. Plaintiff filed her First
Amended Record of the Proceedings and Notice of Administrative Appeal on February 14, 2008.
The City filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 6, 2008. A hearing was conducted on April 29,
2008, at which time the Court announced from the bench it was granting the motion to dismiss as
to the Planning Commission and was taking the motion to dismiss as it related to the City under
advisement. On May 1, 2008, the Court sent a letter to counsel for the parties in which the Court
stated that the Respondents' motion to dismiss was granted and directed counsel for the City to
prepare the Order. Before the dismissal order was entered, but after the Court had issued its
ruling that Plaintiff's action should be dismissed, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action
under the same case number. The City affirmatively states that it was improper for Plaintiff to
file her Complaint, stating an entirely different cause of action, under the same case number, of a
case that had been dismissed by the Court and was only awaiting entry of an Order of Dismissal.
36. Pleading affirmatively, the City states that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts upon
which relief may be granted and her Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).
WHEREFORE, Defendant, City of Little Rock, prays that Plaintiff's Complaint be
dismissed; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.
Respectfully Submitted:
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
am
Amy Beckman Fields (89058)
Deputy City Attorney
City Hall — Suite 310
500 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 371-4527
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon Stephen B.
Niswanger, Niswanger Law Firm PLC, #5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110, Little Rock, Arkansas,
72211, by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this day of July, 2008.
Amy Beckman Fields
-5-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS,
3RD DIVISION
KIMBERLY MENSIE
PETITIONER
VS. CV-2008-243 FILE[ 05/16/08 16.15:02
P.af_ (V a r iQk% C i rraat' . Clear k
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK RESPONDENT
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Kimberly Mensie, ("Mensie") by and through her attorneys,
Niswanger Law Firm, PLC, and for her Complaint against the City of Little Rock (the
"City") and Little Rock Planning Commission (the "Commission" and sometimes
collectively "Defendants") states:
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
1. Petitioner resides in Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the property for which
she sought a PD-C lies within Pulaski County, Arkansas. Additionally, the City of Little
Rock lies in Pulaski County, Arkansas, the Little Rock Planning Commission is
headquartered in Pulaski County, Arkansas, and Petitioner's hearing in front of the Little
Rock Board of Directors took place in Pulaski County, Arkansas.
2. The City of Little Rock is a municipality lying in Pulaski County,
Arkansas, and process may be served on Mayor Mark Stodola, 500 West Markham
Street, Room 203 Little Rock, AR 72201.
3. This is a complaint seeking a permanent injunction, a declaratory
judginUnt, and a judgment against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation
of substantive and procedural due process of the United States and Arkansas
Constitutions, and for attorney's fees.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Rule 57 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, or any
combination thereof. Venue is proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-60-102, -116, or
any combination thereof.
Facts
5. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all preceding allegations within
this pleading.
6. Mensie, who is an African American, operated a pedicure, manicure, and
haircutting business for approximately 10 years at 5316 West Markham, Little Rock,
Arkansas. A large number of her clients were affluent white women from the Heights
and Hillcrest areas of the City of Little Rock. She also served a number of cancer
patients who resided in a nearby hotel during the patients' visits to nearby U.A.M.S.
Medical Center.
7. In early 2007, Mensie's landlord demanded that she vacate the premises at
5316 West Markham and commenced a lawsuit to evict her, even though she was not past
due on rent, presumably because he wished to sell the property to a third party. In
September 2007, pursuant to a settlement agreement in the lawsuit commenced by her
landlord, Mensie was forced from her business at 5316 West Markham. This property
remains vacant as of the time of the filing of this Complaint.
8. Mensie tried to be a prudent business person and decided to purchase
property at 310 North Van Buren, which is just around the corner from 5316 West
Markham, Mensie believed that she would be able to live and operate her business in the
structure at 310 North Van Buren. Mensie discovered after she closed on 310 North Van
Buren that it was zoned R 3, which means it was zoned for residential use but not
commercial use.
9. Consequently, she hired the undersigned and an engineer to prepare an
application for a Planned Commercial District regarding her property on North Van
Buren Street. She planned to retain the quaint nature of the structure and improve its
appearance and landscaping, and also planned to build a wooden fence around the
property. She planned to curb and make improvements to the alley next to her property,
thereby benefiting all neighbors who would use the alley. Mensie also desired to live,
perform nail -art, and tutor her clients in nail -art in her house. Such activities are not
forbidden by the Little Rock Code of Ordinances.
10. Soon after moving into 310 North Van Buren, Mensie received
anonymous phone calls threatening her. Several of her white neighbors refused to make
eye contact with or speak to her. Upon submitting her PD-C application to the City's
Planning and Development Department, she placed signiage on her structure indicating
that her PD-C application was going to be up for consideration by the Planning
Commission. The conduct of nearby neighbors worsened.
11. Just prior to and after submitting the application, Mensie and her attorney
met with Tony Bozynski, Director of the Planning and Development Department. He
indicated before the process had even begun that he was opposed to the PD-C. Soon
thereafter, the City's staff reviewed Mensie's application and informed Mensie and her
counsel that it would recommend that the Planning Commission deny the same.
3
12. The City's bases for denial included fears that she would operate a "beauty
shop" and employ more than four workers, that traffic would increase, and that the City
did not want any business north of B Street.
13. In September of 2007, a hearing was held regarding Mensie's application
where Mensie addressed the City's concerns, clarifying that Mensie would only have one
client at a time by appointment only and only two part-time employees, and that she
would not operate a "beauty shop." Mensie pointed out that there were already several
businesses north of B Street, and that an actual beauty salon was just a block or two away
from 310 North Van Buren.
14. Many of Mensie's neighbors appeared at the hearing and angrily explained
that they were against the application because it would increase crime and traffic. These
assertions ignored the "by appointment only" nature of Mensie's application and revealed
their racial stereotype beliefs. Mensie's application was thereafter denied by the
Planning Commission along racial lines.
15. Mensie appealed the decision to the City Board, who heard the appeal on
December 4, 2007. Mr. Bozynski remained staunchly against the application, even
though Mensie had addressed every one of his and his staff s concerns. He offered no
explanation to the Board for his position. Many of Mensie's neighbors appeared at the
hearing and angrily explained that they were against the application because it would
increase crime and traffic.
16. The Little Rock Board of Directors denied Petitioner's appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision regarding her Land Use Plan on December 4, 2007, at
which time City Attorney Tom Carpenter asserted a vote on Petitioner's appeal from the
4
decision regarding her PD-C application would be unnecessary. At Mensie's counsel's
urging, and upon further consideration, the City determined that a vote should be taken
on petitioner's appeal from the PD-C decision. Petitioner and her counsel were not
initially informed of this determination. Fortunately, an acquaintance of Petitioner
informed Petitioner and her counsel of the decision to vote on the PD-C appeal.
17. Such vote was taken on January 15, 2008, and resulted in a vote of four
ayes, four nays, one recusal and one absent. Other than Ms. Wyrick, who is white, the
decision was along racial lines.
18. The City has recently approved over neighbor's objections at least one
other nearby PD-C application that is similar to Mensie's application, and the other
applicant is white. In addition, the City has not enforced the residential zoning
ordinances against the other business north of Mensie's property on Van Buren Street.
Upon information and belief, those business owners are white.
19. Mensie has exhausted her administrative remedies. Fewer than 30 days
passed between the December 4 vote and the initial filing of Mensie's notice of
administrative appeal to the Circuit Court, and fewer than 30 days passed between the
January 15 vote and the filing of her First Amended Notice.
Causes of Action
1. Defendants Violated Mensie's Substantive Due Process Rights by Arbitrarilyand
CapriciouslyCapriciouLly Denying her PD-C Application
20. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all preceding allegations within
this pleading.
21. A claimant's substantive due process rights are violated where her zoning
application is denied based on capricious and arbitrary conditions. See Cunningham v.
City of Overland, 804 F.2d 1066 (C.A.8 Mo. 1986). A zoning decision is arbitrary where
it is based on random or convenient selection, rather than on reason. See Martin v. City
of Bryant, 18 Ark. App. 94, 710 S.W.2d 846 (1986).
22. Although the Planning Commission staff recommended denial of Mensie's
application, the staffs concerns were corrected by amendments to the PD-C application
at the hearing before the Planning Commission. Any decision to deny Mensie's
application could only be described as arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, Defendants
have violated Mensie's right to due process.
23. As a result of the denial of her PD-C application, Mensie's business has
been damaged in an amount to be determined by a jury.
2. Defendants Violated Mensie's FAual Protection Rights by Treating her Different)
from those Similarly Situated
24. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all preceding allegations within
this pleading.
25. The Supreme Court recognizes an equal protection claim for a "class of
one." See Barstad v. Murray County, 420 F.3d 880 (8 h Cir. 2005). In order to state such
T
a claim, a claimant must show that she was denied a benefit (such as a license or permit)
that was granted to those similarly situated to her during the same time period. Id.
26. Numerous businesses are located in Mensie's neighborhood. Many of
those businesses' owners or operators reside in the same building as their business. As
such, Mensie was denied a benefit granted to those similarly situated to her during the
same time period. Such state action constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause.
27.. As a result of the denial of her PD-C application, Mensie's business has
been damaged in an amount to be determined by a jury.
3. Defendants Violated Mensie's Equal Protection Ili is by Discriminating Against
Her Based on Race
28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all preceding allegations within
this pleading.
29. In order to prove racial discrimination, a claimant need not show a lengthy
pattern of such activity; rather, a single invidiously discriminatory governmental act in
the exercise of its zoning power. See City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358
(1975). Additional13,, a plaintiff is not required to show that the challenged action was
solely or even primarily motivated by race; where a discriminatory intent is a motivating
factor in rendering a zoning decision, the equal protection clause is violated. 4,-1 ington
Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
30. Upon information and belief, the denial of Mensie's application was
denied, at least in part, due to her race. The facts and ci.rcunistances surrounding
Mensie's application point to race being a factor in the decision to deny such application.
Therefore, the City and Planning Commission violated Mensie's right to equal protection.
VA
31. As a result of the denial of her PD-C application, Mensie's business has
been damaged in an amount to be determined by a jury.
4. Mandato injunction and Declaratory Judgment.
32. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all preceding allegations within
this pleading.
33. Because such denial was unconstitutional, this court should reverse the
City's decision and mandate that the City grant Plaintiff s PD-C application. Since the
City's denial of Mensie's application for a PD-C was arbitrary and capricious, the Court
should declare such denial unconstitutional and thus invalid.
34. Additionally, since this case involves Mensie's use of her real estate, she
possesses no adequate remedy at law. Therefore, the Court should enjoin the Board of
Directors of the City of Little Rock, its employees, commissioners and agencies, from
prcyenting Mensie from the use of her land requested in PD-C application.
WHEREFORE, Mensie prays for the reversal of the City's denial of her PD-C
application, a mandatory injunction against the Defendant compelling the Defendant to
grant Plaintiff s PD-C application, a declaration that the Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's
PD-C application is invalid and unconstitutional, and a judgment on her § 1983 claims
against the City and the Commission in an amount to be determined by a jury, for costs
and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for all other just and proper relief to
which she may be entitled.
Respectfully subnutted,
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
#5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone (501) 223-2888
Fax (501) 421-3651
www.niswangerlawfinn.com
T
By.
Stephen B. Niswanger, #96012
Alexander Cale Block, #2007149
Attorneys for Kimberly Mensie
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the day of May, 2008, a copy of the forgoing was
sent by regular mail to Amy Beckman Fields, Deputy City Attorney, City Hall —Suite
310, 500 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201.
/v \
Stephen A Niswange
0
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
3RD DIVISION
KIMBERLY MENSIE
vs.
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK and
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO. CV-2008-243
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA CARNET'
Dana Carney, being first duly sworn, states on oath as follows:
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
1. My full name is Dana Carney. I am employed by the City of Little Rock ("City")
as the Zoning and Subdivision Manager in the City's Planning and Development Department. I
have been employed by the City since January 1983 and I have held my current position since
November 2000.
2. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am competent to testify in state court.
The information contained in this Affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge.
3. This Affidavit is made in support of the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Ark. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) filed by Respondents City of Little Rock and City of
Little Rock Planning Commission.
4. The property owned by Petitioner Kimberly Mensie that is the subject matter of
this action is located at 310 North Van Buren in the City of Little Rock and is legally described
as the North 1/3 of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 3, Pfeifer's Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas (the "property").
5. As Zoning and Subdivision Manager, I am familiar with the process for re -zoning
property. Additionally, as Zoning and Subdivision Manager, I am familiar with Petitioner's
application to re -zone the property.
6. In August 2007, Petitioner filed an Application for Planned Zoning Development
— Short Form with the City's Planning and Development Department. In her application,
Petitioner requested that her property be reclassified from R-3 Single Family District to Planned
Commercial District. The specific proposed zoning for the property was Planned Development —
Commercial ("PD-C").
7. Applications for Planned Zoning Developments ("PZDs") are governed by Article
VII of the City's Zoning Code, codified at Little Rock Code §§ 36-451 — 462, a certified copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A-1". After an application and preliminary plan is
submitted and reviewed by the City's planning staff and other affected City departments, a
public hearing is scheduled before the City's Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission
approves the preliminary plan and re -zoning of the property, it is forwarded to the City's Board
of Directors ("Board") for review. If the Planning Commission does not approve the preliminary
plan and re -zoning of the property, the applicant may appeal to the Board. If the applicant does
not appeal, denial by the Planning Commission operates as a final action. When an application is
considered by the Board, either because it has been recommended by the Planning Commission
or on appeal by the applicant, if the Board approves the application, an ordinance is prepared that
re -zones the property and incorporates the preliminary plan together with any conditions. In no
instance does the Planning Commission have the final authority to re -zone the property and
approve a PZD.
-2-
7. Pursuant to Little Rock Ordinance ("LRO") No. 16,222, as amended by LRO
17,386, the Board has adopted a future land use plan and future land use map. Petitioner's
property is located in the City's Heights/Hillcrest Planning District and is shown on the Land
Use Plan and Land Use Map as Single Family.
8. Because Petitioner's application for a PZD was not compatible with the City's
Land Use Plan for her property, if Petitioner's property was re -zoned, the Land Use Plan would
also need to be amended by the Board. Accordingly, on August 21, 2007, Petitioner filed an
Application for Land Use Amendment asking that the boundaries shown on the Land Use Map
be amended to show Mixed Use as opposed to Single Family. A true and correct copy of the
application is attached hereto as Exhibit "A-2".
9. The process for approval of a Land Use amendment is similar to the process
described in Paragraph 7 above. The application is first considered by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission may approve the application, in which case it will be forwarded to the
Board. If the Planning Commission does not approve the application, the applicant may appeal
to the Board. If the applicant does not appeal, a denial by the Planning Commission is a final
action. The City's Land Use Plan and Land Use Map may only be amended by ordinance. In no
instance does the Planning Commission have the authority to amend or otherwise change the
Land Use Plan or Land Use Map.
10. Petitioner's Application for Planned Zoning Development — Short Form and her
Application for a Land Use Amendment were presented to the Planning Commission on
September 27, 2007. After public hearing, the Planning Commission denied both applications.
11. Petitioner appealed the adverse decision by the Planning Commission to the
Board. On December 4, 2007, after public hearing on the issues, the proposed ordinance to grant
-3-
Petitioner's Application for a Land Use Amendment failed. There was also a public hearing on
that date with regard to Petitioner's application for PZD, but the Board did not vote on the re-
zoning issue on that date. The appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Planned
Commercial District was again presented to the Board on January 15, 2008, and the proposed
ordinance to approve the re -zoning failed.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Dana Carney
Date:_ �0CLA q�, �-a ,
STATE OF ARKANSAS )
)SS
COUNTY OF PULASKI )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this Z-10- day of March, 2008.
Notary Public
d. p,
My Commission Expires: 40.�••..,••� �r,�-.
� :PUBLIC
r • ■
Area
Vicinity Map
L�UI)llll
Case: Z-8263 N
Location: 310 North VanBuren Street
Ward: 3
PD: 4
CT: 15
TRS: TIN R12W6
)O�
0 100 200 Feet
o
a�ddF]�Q
E Qlj
❑o�o 000
El
AST
11
D9 I F--1
Vicinity Map
*i1D!;nnCOo1
0ID
Land Use
a�� // � noEl o❑0
[ ] a� OdQQ [` E
Q Cl o
0
ED � � ❑ ��
❑ �AFAYETTE
AVE
C ST
113
Q�
uED
ll 0 0�
W,
Case: Z-8263 N
Location: 310 North VanBuren Street
Ward: 3
PD: 4 0 100 200 Feet
mmmmmmogzzzz
CT: 15
TRS: TIN R12W6
EX19TING FENCE 15'ALLEY
AND WALL TO BE
HC
WN1 ' TDYG CONCRETE
p{3
7� Yr
G
`--
„ PADTGPERi3%=J AREA
gy ��
0SS
1
r3 i �
GARAGE _
DOOR
P ❑
{ .
I I
r t{
I I;
o
REMOVE E�sTnvc �
UNDERGROUND
STORM SHELTER
EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR
g�
BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE
R.
&
91
EW iAYE£ P
NG
r'
LANDSCAPE
R.Gv
M
apO'
AEEA ,
I I
�.
"Jj PRGI Bmr:v/w:
7�, I FUTURE RESIDENCE
�-
• •.
�I EXPANSION
GROUND FLO—ORt 560 SQT.
SECOND FLOOR
C OPApUn
f5"QT
AREA I
0SfEG
METAL BUDDING
LANDSCAPE g
AREA
PJ7STRiR PF: CE
]SB.I I'
TO BE REMOVED
REMAIN
GROUND MOUNTED
PROJECT SIGN
8 FT. TALL
120 SQ. FT. AREA
Z-8263 9 K IMMI Y •SHORT -FORM PD-C
Little Rock Board or Directors Meeting —Minutes -January 15, 2005
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
January 15, 2008 - 6:00 PM
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in regular session with Mayor
Mark Stodola presiding. Nancy Wood, City Clerk, called the roll with the following Directors
present: Hendrix, Cazort, Adcock, Fortson, Kumpuris, Wyrick, Wright, Richardson, Vice Mayor
Hurst, and Mayor Stodola. Director Keck was absent. Director Wyrick gave the invocation,
which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Stodola asked the Board to consider the listed Modifications.
ADDITION:
M-1. RESOLUTION NO. 12,640 Authorizing two (2) additional street improvement projects
for the 2004 Bond Capital Improvement program including a contract modification for an
extension of the Fourche Dam Pike from Richland Drive to the Fourche Creek Bridge and the
construction of a traffic signal with intersection modifications at Vimy Ridge Road and
Alexander Road.
DEFERRALS
3. RESOLUTION — Authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement to transfer
property to Natural Environs, Inc. for building two (2) affordable, super -energy efficient homes.
Staff recommends approval.
17. To amend Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to dogs; and for other purposes.
Director Adcock, seconded by Director Richardson, made a motion to add Item M-1 to the
Consent Agenda, and to defer Items 3 and 17 to February 5, 2008.
CONSENT AGENDA (1— 7)
1. MOTION - To approve the minutes of the Board of Directors meetings of December 4, 2007,
December 18, 2007, and the Reconvened Meeting of December 21, 2007.
2. RESOLUTION 12,635 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Witt
and Associates to provide lobbying services; and for other purposes. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: The City of Little Rock solicited proposals for the provision of federal
lobbying assistance in 2006 to help acquire funding and resolve issues. This was done in
partnership with the Little Rock National Airport and the Little Rock Port Authority. The
City's share of the contract will not exceed $35,000 for this calendar year.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting- Minutes -January 15, 2008
3. RESOLUTION - Deferred to Feb 5 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into an
agreement to transfer property to Natural Environments, Inc., for building two (2) affordable,
super -energy efficient homes. Staff recommends approval.
4. RESOLUTION 12,637 - To authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for Master
Plan in and around MacArthur Park. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: A resolution to
authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Conway + Schulte Architects in a
not to exceed amount of $100,000 plus reimbursable for Master Plan of MacArthur Park
and Surrounding Area.
5. RESOLUTION 12,638 - Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract for construction
of a spray fountain in Riverfront Park; and for other purposes. Synopsis: A resolution to
authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Arkoma Playgrounds & Supply for
construction of a spray fountain in Riverfront Park.
6. RESOLUTION 12,639 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Larry
D. Hale as part of the Mid -City Targeted Neighborhood Enhancement Plan. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: Mr. Larry D. Hale is purchasing the property located at 2212 South
Oak Street in the Mid -City Targeted Neighborhood Enhancement Plan (TNEP) area. Mr.
Hale is requesting $13,288 in TNEP funds as part of the $66,440 rehabilitation project.
The balance of the funds required for construction is provided through loan funds secured
by Mr. Hale. The application has been reviewed and is recommended for funding.
7. RESOLUTION 12,636 - Authorizing the City Attorney to file suit to jointly Quiet Title or in
the alternative, condemn a parcel of property on Old Fourche Bayou adjacent to the Little Rock
Port Authority; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval.
The Consent Agenda was read. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort, made a motion
to adopt the consent agenda. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the
consent agenda (Items 1-2, 4-7, and M-1) was adopted. Director Keck was absent.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (Items 8 - 15)
8. ORDINANCE 19,904 - LU07-13-01 — To amend the Land Use Plan (16,222) in the 651h
Street East Planning District from Industrial to Commercial; and for other purposes. Planning
Commission: 11 ayes, 0 nays. Staff recommends approval. Synapsis: Land Use Plan
Amendments in the 65th Street East Planning District from Industrial to Commercial for
future development.
9. ORDINANCE 19,905 - Z-8282 - Reclassifying property located at 7000 Geyer Springs
Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, from R-2 to C-3; 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 1.2 Acre property located at
7000 Geyer Springs Road is requesting that the zoning be reclassified from R-2 to C-3.
2
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes - January 15, 2008
10. ORDINANCE 19,906 - Z-8283 — Reclassifying property located at 4800 Baseline Road in
the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, from R-2 to C-4, with conditions; 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 2.04
acre property located at 4800 Baseline Road is requesting that the zoning be reclassified
from R-2 to C-4 (with conditions.)
11. ORDINANCE 19,907 - Z-8284 - Reclassifying property located at 8707 Mabelvale Pike in
the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, from R-2 to C-3; 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 2.67 acre property located at 8707
Mabelvale Pike is requesting that the zoning be reclassified from R-2 to C-3.
12. ORDINANCE 19,908 - Z-8285 - Reclassifying property located at 6423 Geyer Springs
Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, from I-2 to C-3; 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 0.54 acre property located at
6423 Geyer Springs Road is requesting that the zoning be reclassified from I-2 to C-3.
13. ORDINANCE 19,909 - A-311 — Accepting The Rocket Annexation (some 240 acres south
and east of Cooper Orbit Road); adding certain land to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Planning Commission: 11 ayes, 0 nays. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The
annexation of some 240 acres south and east of Cooper Orbit Road, in the east half of
Section 7, T-1-N, R-13-W, to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
The grouped items (Items 8-13) were read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director
Cazort, made a motion 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. Director Adcock, seconded by
Director Cazort, made a motion 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 of the
Board Members present the ordinances (8-13) were passed. Director Keck was absent.
14. ORDINANCE 19,910 - To approve various amendments to Chapters 31 and 36 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; providing for modification of various
procedures, definitions, land use regulations and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11
ayes, 0 nays. Staff recommends approval.
The ordinance was read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst, made a
motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading.
Tony Bozynski, Planning Director, gave an overview of the item. Gene Ludwig, Michael
Lasiter, and Paul Black spoke against the ordinance saying the definitions were to broad and
some to restrictive regarding the definitions of airport and landing field. Mr. Lasiter asked the
Board if the proposed change would require a permit for any landing spot.
t3
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting —Minutes - January 15, 2008
Mr. Carpenter suggested the word "Continuously", be added to the proposed definition of
landing facility.
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 as amended. Director Adcock,
seconded by Director Hurst, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third
reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board Members present, being two thirds in number,
the rules were suspended and the ordinance was read the third time as amended. By unanimous
voice vote of the Board Members present, being two thirds in number, the ordinance (Item 14)
was passed. Director Keck was absent.
15. ORDINANCE - Failed - Z-8263 — To appeal the Planning Commission's recommendation
to deny a Planned Commercial District at 310 North Van Buren Street. Planning Commission:
1 aye, 6 nays, 3 absent, and I open position. Staff recommends denial. Synopsis: The
applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's action of denial for a rezoning of the site
from R-3 to PD-C to allow a full service beauty and nail sale to operate from the site
This item was not voted on at the December 4, 2008 Meeting. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney,
stated at the December 4, 2007, meeting that the Board did not have to vote on the item because
of the failure of the Land Use Plan item that accompanied this item. Mr. Carpenter had
requested that the record show a defeat of the Planned Commercial Development ordinance, as a
direct result of the defeat of the Land Use Plan ordinance. In this instance the applicant was
asking for a Planned Development that would have to fit in with the Land Use Plan; and by
defeat of the Land Use Plan, by definition, the Planned Development can not be made
compatible with the area. Mr. Carpenter went on to explain that his previous interpretation of the
voting issue had been incorrect, and the Board did need to vote on the Planned Development,
Notices in regard to this issue corning before the Board again on January 15, were sent to all
those that attended the meeting on December 4a'.
Steve Niswanger, representing Kimberly Mensie, gave a brief history of why his client appealed
the Planning Commission's decision. He noted that there were several businesses in close
proximity of his clients Van Buren address. He clarified that there would be one full time
operator (Ms. Mensie doing nails), and two part-time hair hairstylists. He indicated that traffic
would be minimal because the clients would be seen by appointment only. Ms. Mensie's living
arrangements were also clarified; she will be living in the garage apartment on the property.
Paula Lingo, Scott Smith (Hillcrest Residents Association President), Rena Sheffer, Marcia
Camp, and Ruth Bell (Pulaski County League of Women Voters) were present to speak in
opposition of the applications (Item 15). Many of those who spoke in opposition were residents
of the area on neighboring streets. The major issues of concern included: increase of crime due
to commercial use, potential decline of property values in the area; increase of traffic; and
enforcement of the zoning laws and requirements on the property if the applications were passed.
There was also a request to allow the area to remain as it is by disallowing any more commercial
zoning. They said this was not about business, it was about property, and they did not want to
see the residential components of the area eroded.
11
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes - January 15, 2008
Becky Whelan, Tammy Cumbie, Carolyn Johnson, A.R. McKinney, Sandra Tindall Heather
Broner, and Elizabeth Clark were present to speak in favor of the application (Items 15). Those
who spoke in favor included neighbors of the property and clients of the business. They
indicated that Ms. Mensie was a good business owner; that she easily controlled the traffic
coming in and out of her business with the "by appointment only" stipulation; and the business
was quiet. They indicated that she had made several improvements to an otherwise deteriorating
property by fixing up the house on the property, clearing away overgrowth of grass and plants,
cleaning up debris and trash in the area and surrounding alley, and adding more lighting. The
neighbor across the alley from the house indicated that the additional lighting and activity in the
area may over time decrease some of the crime in the area. The consensus of this group was that
the business and Ms. Mensie would contribute to the area.
The ordinance was read the third time. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows:
Directors Wright, Wyrick, Hendrix, and Richardson voted yes, Directors Kumpuris, Fortson,
Adcock and Hurst voted no. Director Cazort recused at the beginning of the discussion due to a
conflict of interest. Director Keck was absent. The ordinance (Item 15) failed.
OTHER BUSINESS (Item 16 - 17)
16. ORDINANCE 19,911 - To create a Land Bank Commission for the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas; to set forth certain duties and responsibilities of the Commission; to declare an
emergency; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval.
The ordinance was read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Vice Mayor Hurst, made a
motion to make an amendment to the ordinance, The amendment was in Section 3, to take out
the last line, and add a comma, and to add the language "maintain the architectural fabric of the
community." She stated that in speaking with some of the historic preservationist, this would
address their concerns. Vice Mayor Hurst, seconded by Director Richardson, made a motion to
approve the amendment. By unanimous voice vote of the Board Members present, the
amendment was approved. Vice Mayor Hurst, seconded by Director Richardson, made a motion
to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading, By unanimous voice vote of the
Board Members present, being two thirds in number, the rules were suspended and the ordinance
was read the second time. Vice Mayor Hurst, seconded by Director Richardson, made a motion
to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third reading. By unanimous voice vote of the
Board Members present, being two thirds in number, the rules were suspended and the ordinance
was read the third time. By unanimous vice vote of the Board Members present the ordinance
(Item 16) and the emergency clause were passed.
17. ORDINANCE - Deferred to February 5, 2008 - To amend Chapter 6 of the Code of
Ordinances pertaining to dogs; and for other purposes.
5
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting —Minutes - January 15, 2008
CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS
Speaker: Toneile Watts
Topic: Vicious Dogs. Ms. Watts showed pictures of bites and cuts of where a pit bull
dog had attacked her ten year old son. Ms. Watts stated she was in favor of
banning pit bull dogs in the City and felt this particular dog should be euthanized.
Mayor Stodola informed Ms. Watts that a discussion regarding vicious dogs was scheduled to
take place on February 5, 2008, and told Ms. Watts she was welcome to come to that meeting for
the discussion.
Director Cazort, seconded by Vice Mayor Hurst, made a motion to adjourn the meeting. By
unanimous voice vote of the Board Members present, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 P.M.
ATTEST:
S//Nancy Wood
Nancy Wood, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED:
S//Mark Stodola
Mark Stodola
Mayor
C:7
City of Little Rock
Office of the City Hall - 200
LAM City Clerk 500 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1429
Phone: (5011 371-6803
CERTIFICATE o,.�"`�ITT''`'f•
;c=
STATE OFARKANSAS }
COUNTY OF PULASKI
5 ,
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK }
I, Nataki S. Blocker, Assistant City Clerk, within and for the City aforesaid, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of Minutes of a meeting of the
Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, held on December 4, 2007, as the same
now appears of record in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office on this 22nd
day of January 2008.
NATAKI S. BLOCKER
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
�,,,fftr nnrN�rp
City of Little Rock, Arkansas
GIT y-
**These minutes were passed by the Board of Directors at their January 15, 2008 meeting. 3 - OF - -
f��r11H 111111.���ti``
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
December 4, 2007 — 6:00 PM
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in a regular session with Mayor
Stodola presiding. Nancy Wood, City Clerk, called the roll with the following directors present:
Hendrix, Cazort, Wright, Wyrick, Keck, Kumpuris, Fortson, Adcock, Vice Mayor Hurst, and
Mayor Stodola. Director Richardson was absent. Director Adcock gave the invocation, which
was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Stodola asked for a moment of silence in memory of Patricia Musticchi a long time city
employee in the Information Technology department and her father-in-law who were killed in a
plane crash over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.
PRESENTATIONS:
Employee Retirement — Bobbie Forbush
Bicycle Friendly Community Award — Ken Gould
ADDITION
M-1. ORDINANCE - Deferred to December 11 Reconvened meeting. - To amend Chapter 6
of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to Dogs; and for other purposes. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: In response to citizen concerns about a growing population of Pit
Bulls within the city, the Animal Services Advisory Board proposes legislation to regulate
the ownership of designated Pit Bull type breeds.
DEFERRAL
29. ORDINANCE - To amend Chapter 12, Article I of the Little Rock City Code (1988) to add
a section to prohibit the retail sale of or distribution of novelty lighters within the territorial
jurisdiction of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The
Little Rock Fire Department is requesting that the City Board of Directors approve
amending Chapter 12, Article I of the Little Rock Code to add a section to prohibit the
retail sale or distribution of novelty lighters within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of
Little Rock. A novelty lighter is defined as a lighter that has entertaining audio or visual
effects, or that depicts or resembles in physical form or function articles commonly
recognized as appealing to or intended for use by children. Exception would be made for
lighters manufactured prior to 1980, or lighters which are not operational.
Director Adcock, seconded by Director Keck, made the motion to add Item M-1 to the agenda
and to defer Item 29. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present Item M-1 was
added and Item 29 was deferred.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
Mayor Stodola indicated that he would like to have the first reading of M-1 tonight and to let
those present go ahead with their comments on the item so that they could leave if they needed
to. Director Keck requested that the reading occur after the Consent Agenda and Citizens
Communications.
Mayor Stodola requested the reading if the Consent Agenda to include Item 4.
CONSENT AGENDA (Items 1— 3)
1. MOTION - To approve the minutes of the Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting of
November 6, 2007.
2. MOTION - MSP07-02 — To set the date of public hearing for December 18, 2007, to amend
the Master Street Plan (19,152) modifying the design standard for Pinnacle Valley Road, from
Cantrell Road to County Farm Road; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 4 ayes,
7 nays. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: A Master Street Plan Amendment to adopt a
modified design standard for Pinnacle Valley Road from Cantrell Road to County Farm
Road.
3. RESOLUTION 12,617 - G-23-393 — To set the date of public hearing for December 18,
2007, on a request to abandon a public right-of-way located in Block 360 and 361, Original City
of Little Rock Addition. Planning Commission: 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent,. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: The applicant is requesting a portion of the alley located in Block 360
and Block 361 of the Original City of Little Rock Addition be abandoned as public right-of-
way including all easements.
SEPARATE ITEM (Item 4)
4. RESOLUTION 12,618 - Of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, to appoint successor
Commissioners to fill vacancies on the Board of the Chenal Valley Municipal Property Owners
Multipurpose Improvement District No. 4, of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Synopsis:
There are presently two vacancies on the Board of Commissioners of Chenal Valley
Municipal Property Owners Multipurpose Improvement District No. 4 of the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas.
The Consent Agenda (Items 1-4) was read. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort,
made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. By unanimous voice vote of the Board Members
present, the Consent Agenda (Items 1-4) was adopted. Director Richardson was absent.
CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS
Speaker: Michael Stoyanoff
Topic: Proposed PRD off Rahling Road
Speaker: Jim Nichels
Topic: Negotiations with AFSME
2
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS (cont.)
Speaker: Demetra Brown
Topic: Complained about a noisy neighbor on Marshall Street
Speaker: Luke Skrable
Topic: Answers to issues from the past. He wanted a list of the 19 addresses that he has
complained about. He also wanted to know if City money was being spent on the
lawsuit against the City Manager.
Speaker: Jane Harrison
Topic: Complained about the crime in Southwest Little Rock.
Speaker: Mr. Kennedy
Topic: Complained about the crime in Southwest Little Rock and 911 response time.
Speaker: Ellen Buckley
Topic: Traffic light at Roosevelt and Battery Streets and Fourche Dam Pike road
construction. She thanked Director Hendrix for help on the issues.
Speaker: Troy Laha
Topic: Made comments about the problems in Southwest Little Rock. Complimented the
Zoo and Public Works Departments for the improvements on Fair Park near the
Zoo.
Mayor Stodola requested the first reading of Grouped Items excluding Items 14 and 22
because he has speaker cards on those items.
GROUPED ITEMS (Items 5 — 26)
5. ORDINANCE 19,865 - MSP07-01 - To amend the Master Street Plan (19,152), to move the
Collector alignment for the proposed extension of Aldersgate Road to the north; and for other
purposes. Planning Commission: 9 ayes, I nay, and 1 recusal. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: A Master Street Plan Amendment to move the Collector alignment for the
proposed Aldersgate Road to the north.
6. ORDINANCE 19,866 - LU07-11-03 — To amend the Land Use Plan (16, 222) in the
Interstate 430 Planning District located at the present terminus of Aldersgate Road and east
of South Shackleford Road, from Office, Multi -Family and Park/Open Space to Mixed -Use;
and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 recusal. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: Land Use Plan amendments in the Interstate 430 Planning District
from Office, Multi -Family and Park/Open Space to Mixed -Use
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
7. ORDINANCE 19,867 - Z-8262 - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Rowan Village Long -Form PCD, located on
Aldersgate and South Shackleford Roads, 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, 0 absent, 1 recusal. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The
applicant is seeking a rezoning of this twenty—two (22) acre tract of land for a mixed -use
development containing residential office and commercial uses.
8. ORDINANCE 19,868 - Amending Chapter 30 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas, providing for a deferral of Master Street Plan Construction Requirements for
property located at 13800 Colonel Glenn Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. Planning Commission:
11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Authorizes a deferral of
street improvements required under the Master Street Plan for five (5) years or until
adjacent property is development for Kathy's Revised Long -Form PCD at 13800 Colonel
Glenn Road.
9. ORDINANCE 19,869 - Z-7698-A - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Kathy's Revised Long -Form PCD, located at
13800 Colonel Glenn Road, within the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, 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 applicant is requesting an amendment to the previously approved
PCD to allow the office use located at 13720 Colonel Glenn Road to become a permanent
use.
10. ORDINANCE 19,870 - Z-6526-B - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Parker Lexus Revised Short -Form PCD,
located on the northwest corner of Shackleford Road West Boulevard and South Shackleford
Road, 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 applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from 0-3 to PCD to
allow the site to be used as employee parking for Parker Lexus and to expand the allowable
uses for the site.
11. ORDINANCE 19,871 - Z-6555-A — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Industrial District titled Lot 5 Evergreen Industrial Park Short -Form
PID, located on the southwest corner of Mabelvale Circle and Mabelvale Pike, 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
applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from I-2 to PID to allow a church to construct
a new building on the site. I-2 uses are being requested as alternative uses for the site.
I
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
12. ORDINANCE 19,872 - Z-4768-C — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Office District titled Valley Court Revised Long -Form POD, located
just east of the South Loop, 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 applicant is seeking a revision to the previously
approved POD for the non-residential portion of the development to create building
footprints for future development.
13. ORDINANCE 19,873 - Z-8279 - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Residential District titled Barber Street Housing Short -Form PD-R,
located on the southeast corner of East loth and Barber Streets, Little Rock, Arkansas;
amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes.
Planning Commission: 10 ayes, 1 nay. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The request is
to allow a rezoning of the site from R-4 to PD-R to allow thirteen (13) residential living
units with off-street covered parking on the 0.51 acre site.
14. ORDINANCE 19,874 - Z-4607-B - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Residential District titled Boyd 151h and Izard Streets Short -Form PD-
R, located on the southeastern corner of ISth and llxard Streets, 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. The applicant is
requesting a rezoning of the site from R-4 to PD-R to allow the construction of five (5) new
Single -Family homes.
15. ORDINANCE 19,875 - Z-7898-B - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Cross Street Elderly Housing Revised Short -
Form PD-R, located at 1022 Cross Street, 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 applicant is seeking an amendment
to the previously approved PD-R to allow the development of the third lot previously
identified for future development.
16. ORDINANCE 19,876 - Z-7919-A - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled JAPB, LLC Marina -Condo Project Revised
Long -Form PCD, located north of 3rd Street and east of Bond Street, Little Rock, Arkansas;
amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes.
Planning Commission: 10 ayes, 1 nay. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The project
now consists of a condominium/marina project developed in four (4) phases. The initial
phase will begin in 2008 with completion of the project in 2014.
17. ORDINANCE 19,877 - LU07-15-02 — To amend the Land Use Plan in the Geyer Springs
West Planning District located at 7604 Eagle Drive from Single -Family to Mixed -Office
Commercial; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 ayes, 0 nays. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: To amend the Land Use Plan in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District located at 7604 Eagle Drive from Single -Family to Mixed -Office Commercial for
future development.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
18. ORDINANCE 19,878 - Z-5688-A - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Office District titled Lamb Revised Short -Form POD, located at 7604
Eagle Drive, 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 recusal.
Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site
from the present non -conforming R-2, Single -Family to POD to allow 0-3, General Office
District uses, a health studio and spa, barber shop, and a snack shop, not to exceed 100
square feet of gross floor area as allowable uses for the site.
19. ORDINANCE 19,879 - Z-5699-B — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Robertson Revised Short -Form PCD,
located at 800 North Spruce Street, Little Rock, Arkansas; amending the Official Zoning Map
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 9 ayes, 1
nay, and I absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant is seeking a revision
to the PCD to expand the area and to expand the allowable uses for the site to include C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial uses for both properties.
20. ORDINANCE 19,880 - Z-6183-A — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Regan Short -Form PCD, located at 7101
North Chicot Road, 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, 0 absent,
I recusal. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant is proposing to amend the
previously approved PCD to expand the site area from the current 0.61 acres to 0.81 acres
and allow the construction of a new building on the site to be used as additional storage.
21. ORDINANCE 19,881 - Amending Chapter 30 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas, providing for a deferral of Master Street Plan Construction Requirements
for the intersection of Colonel Glenn and John Barrow Roads, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Planning Commission: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and I open position. Synopsis: Authorizes a
deferral of construction of a right -turn lane for the length of the property as required
under the Master Street Plan for rive (5) years, until a future phase of the development, or
until adjacent property is developed whichever occurs first for Olden Akel for the Akel
Short -Form PCD, located at 8724 Colonel Glenn Road.
22. ORDINANCE 19,882 - Z-8236 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Akel Short -Form PCD, located on the
northeast corner of Colonel Glenn and John Barrow Roads, Little Rock, Arkansas; amending
the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. Planning
Commission: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and. 1 open position. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: The applicant is seeking a rezoning of this site from C-3, General Commercial
District and R-4, Two -Family District to Planned Commercial Development to allow the
construction of a new fifty (50) foot by one hundred (100) foot metal building to replace two
(2) existing buildings located on the site.
9
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
23. ORDINANCE 19,883 - Amending Chapter 30 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas, providing for a deferral of Master Street Plan Construction Requirements
for Chenal Parkway and Highway 10, Little Rock, Arkansas. Planning Commission: 11 ayes,
0 nays, 0 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Authorizes a deferral of
construction of Chenal Parkway (approximately 450 feet of boundary street improvements)
and Highway 10 (approximately 1,700 feet of boundary street improvements) required by
Master Street Plan for five (5) years, until a future phase of development or until adjacent
property is developed whichever occurs first for Mr. Eugene M. Pfeifer, IH, for Northwest
Territory Addition, located near the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10.
24. ORDINANCE 19,884 - Z-8042-A - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Lot 10 Northwest Territory Short -For, PCD
located on the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway, 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 applicant
is proposing the rezoning of this site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to
allow the development of the site with a nine (9) - foot landscape strip along the eastern
perimeter.
25. ORDINANCE 19,885 - Z-8273 - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Residential District titled Auxor Arms Apartments Long -Form PD-R,
located at 9101 Auxor Road, 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 applicant is seeking a rezoning for this site from
R-2 to PD-R to recognize the existing use and allow additional parking to be constructed on
the site.
26. ORDINANCE 19,886 - To amend Chapter 3, Article II of the Little Rock Code, 1988, to
add certain criteria for waiving or reducing false alarm civil penalties; and for other purposes.
Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The ordinance amends the false alarm ordinance
adopted in 2005 to provide for waiving or reducing false alarm civil penalties up to the
amount an alarm user spent to repair or repair their alarm system.
The grouped items consisting of Items 5 — 26 (excluding Items 14 and 22) were read the first
time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort, made a motion 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. Director Cazort, seconded by Director Hurst, made a motion 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 of the Board Members present, being two thirds in number
the ordinances were passed (Items 5 - 13, 15 — 21, and 23-25). Director Richardson was
absent.
7
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
Director Hendrix recognized residential developers for the contract on 10a' and Barber Streets.
NewAge Residential Contractors is the company name; James McDaniel and Barry Jackson are
co -owners of the company.
Mayor Stodola requested for the first reading of Item M-1.
M-1. ORDINANCE - Deferred to December 11 Reconvened meeting. - To amend Chapter 6
of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to Dogs; and for other purposes. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: In response to citizen concerns about a growing population of Pit
Bulls within the city, the Animal Services Advisory Board proposes legislation to regulate
the ownership of designated Pit Bull type breeds.
The Mayor recognized Terry Allen to speak on Item M-1. Mr. Allen indicated that he had been
involved with pit bulls for 17 years and that he had owned two. He indicated that biting was not
the problem, but that the population was out of control and that there were very many
irresponsible owners. He thought that the requirements of the ordinance to muzzle the animals
and place a plaquard on the house were too rigid. He proposed that instead of punishing owners
because of the breed they choose to own, that the owners be required to have obedience training
with annual or semi-annual behavior assessments that can be done at the vet's office. He also
suggested that the Board work with the Arkansas Insurance Commission with the insurance
issues.
Director Adcock asked the Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, to respond to the insurance questions
and asked Tracy Roark to give a presentation. Mr. Carpenter reported that many insurance
carriers don't cover homeowners that carry specific breeds of dogs. He indicated that it is
difficult to get in many case and it is also costly, but not impossible.
Director Cazort indicated that he was pleased with the approach to address the owners and not
the animals. He asked the City Attorney's Office to clarify some items in the ordinance in regard
to identifying the breed and the muzzle. He also asked for a comparison of the new ordinance
with the current vicious dog ordinance.
Mayor Stodola asked staff to follow-up on Mr. Allen's suggestion of behavior assessment.
Director Kumpuris requested a dollar amount on the expense of the insurance. Director Hurst
asked City Manager, Bruce Moore, about enforcement of the new regulations indicate din the
ordinance. Mr. Moore indicated that there was no money in the 2008 budget for enforcement
efforts.
Tracy Roark, Animal Services Manager, gave a brief presentation on the ordinance and
entertained questions from the Board. Discussion included over population, muzzling, licensing,
enforcement, breed specific vs. vicious animal, and a ban vs. more restrictions.
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
Mayor Stodola requested the first reading of Item 14.
14. ORDINANCE 19,874 - Z-4607-B - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Residential District titled Boyd 15th and Izard Streets Short -Form PD-
R, located on the southeastern corner of 15th and Izard Streets, 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. The applicant is
requesting a rezoning of the site from R-4 to PD-R to allow the construction of five (5) new
Single -Family homes.
The item (Items 14) was read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst, made
a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. By unanimous voice
vote of the Board members present, being two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended and
the ordinance was read the second time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst, made a
motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third reading. By unanimous voice vote
of the Board Members present, being two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended and the
ordinance was read the third time.
Barbara Smith, spoke in opposition of the item; her major area of concern was that the
development was too dense for the corner. She asked the Board to vote against the development.
Tina Boyd (applicant), Boyd Homes, spoke in favor of the development.
A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Directors Hendrix, Cazort, Wright, Wyrick,
Keck, Kumpuris, Fortson, Adcock, and Vice Mayor Hurst voted yes. Director Richardson was
absent. The ordinance (Item 14) was passed.
Mayor Stodola requested the first reading of Item 22.
22. ORDINANCE 19,882 - Z-8236 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Akel Short -Form PCD, located on the
northeast corner of Colonel Glenn and John Barrow Roads, Little Rock, Arkansas; amending
the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. Planning
Commission: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: The applicant is seeking a rezoning of this site from C-3, General Commercial
District and R-4, Two -Family District to Planned Commercial Development to allow the
construction of a new fifty (50) foot by one hundred (100) foot metal building to replace two
(2) existing buildings located on the site.
The item (Items 22) was read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort,
made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. By unanimous
voice vote of the Board members present, being two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended
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 two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended
and the ordinance was read the third time.
9
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
There was no objection to the item. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows:
Directors Hendrix, Cazort, Wright, Wyrick, Keck, Kumpuris, Fortson, Adcock, and Vice Mayor
Hurst voted yes. Director Richardson was absent. The ordinance (Item 22) was passed.
Director Adcock, seconded by Director Wright, made a motion to recess the meeting at
8:05 PM for a five (5) minute break. The meeting was reconvened at 8:20 PM.
Mayor Stodola requested the reading of Items 27 and 28.
SEPARATE ITEMS (Items: 27 — 37)
27. ORDINANCE 19,887 - LU07-11-04 — To amend the Land Use Plan (16,222) in the
Interstate 430 Planning District located at 600 Autumn Road, from Office to Mixed -Office
Commercial; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 ayes, o nays. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: Land Use Plan amendments in the Interstate 430 Planning District
from Office to Mixed -Office Commercial for future development.
28. ORDINANCE 19,888 - Z-6278-D - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and
establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Studio Joe's Revised Short -From PCD,
located at 600 Autumn Road, 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 applicant is requesting an amendment to the
previously approved PCD to add a restaurant with alcohol sales as an allowable use for the
site.
The items (Items 27 and 28) were read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director
Cazort, made a motion 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 was read the second time. Director Cazort, seconded by Director
Adcock, made a motion 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 of the Board
Members present, being two thirds in number the ordinances were passed (Items 27 and 28).
Directors Keck and Adcock voted no. Director Richardson was absent.
29. ORDINANCE - Deferred to Jan 2008 - To amend Chapter 12, Article I of the Little Rock
City Code (1988) to add a section to prohibit the retail sale of or distribution of novelty lighters
within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Staff recommends
approval. Synopsis: The Little Rock Fire Department is requesting that the City Board of
Directors approve amending Chapter 12, Article I of the Little Rock Code to add a section to
prohibit the retail sale or distribution of novelty lighters within the territorial jurisdiction of the
City of Little Rock. A novelty lighter is defined as a lighter that has entertaining audio or visual
effects, or that depicts or resembles in physical form or function articles commonly recognized
as appealing to or intended for use by children. Exception would be made for lighters
manufactured prior to 1980, or lighters which are not operational.
10
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
Mayor Stodola requested the first reading of the ordinance (Item 30). Pictures of the
structures were presented at this time.
30. ORDINANCE 19,889 - To condemn certain structures in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas,
as structural, fire and health hazards; providing for summary abatement procedures; directing the
City Attorney to take such action as is necessary to raze and remove said structures; declaring an
emergency; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Twenty-six (26)
residential structures in dilapidated and/or burned condition causing a negative
environmental impact on the residential neighborhoods in which they are located.
The item (Items 30) was read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Cazort,
made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. By unanimous
voice vote of the Board members present, being two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended
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 two-thirds in number, the rules were suspended
and the ordinances were read the third time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board Members
present, being two thirds in number the ordinance and emergency clause was passed (Item
30). Director Richardson was absent.
Director Keck, seconded by Director Hendrix, made a motion to keep the ordinance (Item 31) on
first reading. There was discussion as to which version of the ordinance the Board was voting
for or against. Director Keck withdrew his motion. Director Hendrix withdrew her second. The
item will be presented at the first meeting in January.
31. ORDINANCE - Deferred to Jan 2008 - To create a Land Bank Commission for the City
of Little Rock, Arkansas; to set forth certain duties and responsibilities of this Commission; to
declare an emergency; and for other purposes.
Mayor Stodola opened the public hearings for Items 32 and 33. There being no speakers in
favor or opposition of the items the public hearings were closed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Items 32 — 35)
32. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE 19,890 - G-23-390 — To abandon the excess right-
of-way, located adjacent to 5800 Scott Hamilton Drive. Planning Commission: 6 ayes, 0 nays, I
recusal, 3 absent, and 1 open position. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Windsor
Republic Door, Inc., adjacent property owner, requests to abandon forty (40) feet of excess
Scott Hamilton Drive right-of-way (40 feet by 985.36 feet) located adjacent to 4800 Scott
Hamilton Drive.
11
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
33. PUBLIC HEARING & ❑RDINANCE 19,891 - G-23-391 — To abandon portions of street
and alley rights -of -way located south of East 9a' Street and east of Ventura Street. Planning
Commission: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and I open position. Staff recommends approval.
Synopsis: Little Rock National Airport adjacent property owner, requests to abandon
portions of East 10"', Bedford Drive , Maxwell, Carson and Lawson Streets, and alleys
located within Blocks 43, 44, 50 and 51, Industrial Park Addition.
The items (Items 32 and 33) were read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director
Hurst, made a motion 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. Director Cazort, seconded by Director
Fortson, made a motion 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 of the Board
Members present, being two thirds in number the ordinances were passed (Items 32 and 33).
Director Richardson was absent.
Director Cazort announced that he had a second degree of relationship to the attorney
representing the applicant for Items 34 and 35; he recused himself from the discussion and
vote of these items.
Mayor Stodola requested the first reading of the items (34 and 35).
34. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE — FAILED - LU07-04-01 — To amend the Land Use
Plan (16,222) in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District from Single -Family to Mixed -Use; and
for other purposes. Planning Commission: I aye, 6 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. Staff
recommends denial. Synopsis: Land Use Plan amendments in the Heights Hillcrest
Planning District from Single -Family to Mixed Use for future development.
35. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE — No Vote - Z-8263 — To appeal the Planning
Commission's recommendation to deny a Planned Commercial District at 310 North Van
Buren Street. Planning Commission: I aye, 6 nays, 3 absent, and I open position. Staff
recommends denial. Synopsis: The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's action
of denial for a rezoning of the site from R-3 to PD-C to allow a full service beauty and nail
sale to operate from the site
The items (Items 34 and 35) were read the first time. Director Adcock, seconded by Director
Hurst, made a motion 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.
Tony Bozynski, Planning Director, gave a brief presentation on both of the applications and
answered questions about signage and parking.
12
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
Steve Niswanger, representing Kimberly Mensie, spoke in favor of the applications (Items 34
and 35). Mr. Niswanger gave a brief history of why his client was before the Board appealing
the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Niswanger noted that there were several businesses in
close proximity to the Van Buren address that his client owned. He clarified that there would be
one full time operator (Ms. Mensie doing nails) and two part time operators (hairstylists). He
indicated that traffic would be minimal because clients were serviced by appointment only and
that they would park in an area that is surrounded by a privacy fence. It was clarified that the
client lives in the garage apartment on the property and would continue to do so if the
applications were passed. Mr. Niswanger reported that his client had been receptive and
complied with all of staff concerns; which is evident by the amendments that had been made to
applications. He concluded by reading some letters of support from some of Ms. Mensie's
clients and indicated that some long time residents of the Hillcrest area wanted the business in
that location. He asked the Board to implement their economic development policy.
Those present to speak in opposition of the applications (Items 34 & 35) were Marcia Camp,
Rena Sheffer, Bryan Germany, Stirl M. Lingo, Paula Lingo, Synthia "Kim" Latta, Ruth Bell
(League of Women Voters), and Scott Smith (President, Hillcrest Residents Association). Mark
Robinette was present, but did not speak. Many of those who spoke in opposition were residents
of the area on neighboring streets. The major issues of concern included: increase in crime to
the area, potential decline of property values in the area; increase in traffic; and enforcement of
the zoning laws and requirements on the property if the applications were passed. There was
also a request to allow the area to remain as it is by disallowing any more commercial zoning.
Those present to speak in favor of the applications (Items 34 & 35) were Carolyn Johnson,
Marcella Callahan, Daphne Puckett, Elizabeth Clarke, and Becky Whelan. Those who spoke in
favor included neighbors of the property and clients of the business. They indicated that Ms.
Mensie was a good business owner; that she easily controlled the traffic coming in and out of her
business, and the business was quiet. The also indicated that she had made several
improvements to an otherwise deteriorating property by fixing up the house on the property,
clearing away overgrowth of grass and plant, cleaning up debris trash in the area and surrounding
alley, and adding more lighting. The neighbor across the alley from the house indicated that the
additional lighting and activity in the area may over time decrease some of the crime in the area.
They concluded by asking for support of the application because they felt that it was an attribute
to the area.
The term "spot zoning" came up during the discussion of these applications and Tom Carpenter,
City Attorney, clarified why this item should not be considered "spot -zoning." He indicated that
the application was a planned development which by definition was something that can be put
into an area with the appropriate safeguards to be compatible with the area, but wouldn't be
zoned that way as a matter of right.
Mayor Stodola requested the third reading of the ordinances. The City Clerk read the ordinances
(Item 34 and 35) for the third and final time. The Mayor then clarified the vote process on each
of the items.
13
Little Rock Board of Directors Meeting — Minutes — December 4, 2007
A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Directors Hendrix and Wright voted yes.
Directors Wyrick, Keck, Kumpuris, Fortson, Adcock, and Vice Mayor Hurst voted no. Director
Cazort recused from the discussion and vote. Director Richardson was absent. The ordinance
(Item 34) failed.
Tom Carpenter explained why the Board did not have to vote on item 35 because of the failure of
Item 34. He asked that the record show that a defeat of the Land Use Plan ordinance (Item 34) is
a defeat of the Planned Commercial Development ordinance (Item 35). In this particular
instance the applicant was asking for a Planned Development that would have to fit in with the
Land Use Plan; and by defeat of the Land Use Plan, by definition, the Planned Development can
not be made compatible with the area.
36. PUBLIC IMAPJNG & ORDINANCE — REPORT - 2008 Budget Update, Mayor
Stodola and Bruce Moore, City Manager, presented the significant changes made to the budget
since last reported and answered questions from other Board Members. The Board sent several
follow-up questions for staff to answer on or before the reconvened meeting on December 21,
2007. Issues discussed included: funding to outside agencies; operation of the Advertising and
Promotions Commission; employee raises; and increase of parking deck fees, parking fines,
privilege licenses, and other fines.
Jim Nickels spoke in regard to the transfers from other departments and asked questions as to the
accounting for those transfers. He indicated that a 2.5% salary increase was not adequate for
some of the lower paid employees of the City. He concluded by asking the Board to review their
funding for outside agencies.
37. EXECUTIVE SESSION & RESOLUTION - To make appointments to various City of
Little Rock Boards and Commissions. Synopsis: Municipal Airport Commission; City Beautiful
Commission; MacArthur Military History Museum Commission; Midtown Re -Development
District No. 1 Advisory Board; Oakland Fraternal Cemetery Board; Sanitary Sewer Committee;
Sister Cities Commission; Zoo Board of Governors.
Director Keck, seconded by Director Hurst, made a motion to recess the meeting and reconvene
on December 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM for the purpose of discussing the budget, issues pertaining to
the dog ordinance, and to make Board and Commission appointments. By unanimous voice vote
of the Board members present, the meeting was recessed at 10:40 PM.
ATTEST:
Nancy'Wood,
City Clerk
14
APPROVED:
Mark Stodola
Mayor
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING
DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED NAILS BY KIMMIE SHORT -
FORM PD-C (Z-8263), LOCATED AT 310 NORTH VAN BUREN
STREET, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED ' BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property
be changed from R-3, Single-family to PD-C:
North 64.16 feet of Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 3 Pfeifer's Addition to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
SECTION 2. That the approval of Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263),
located at 310 North Van Buren Street is subject to compliance with the following
additional conditions:
■ That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as submitted,
including all staff comments and conditions as outlined in the Planning
Commission Agenda Staff Report in paragraphs D, E, F and including any
conditions indicated in the staff analysis in paragraph H and subject to
additional conditions imposed at the Planning Commission Public Hearing
as amended by the applicant.
SECTION 3. That the preliminary site development W 1p at be a proved as
recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission.
SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Nails by
Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street is
conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36,
Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances.
SECTION 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby
amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change
provided for in Section 1 hereof.
SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
the final approval of the plan.
SECTION 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining
portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so
declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the
ordinance.
SECTION 8. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of `the same
that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of such inconsistency.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City of Little Rock Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
2
RR=ToN Pi
E3DBTC4G FENCE IW ALLEY
AND WALL TO BE
w RBMOYLU RwmC,
r--
I
�
• WYG" E1 omo CONCRETE
DJO PAD1082r"WPn
LANDRCAPe
AREA
SALTING
I
GARAGE
_
DOOR
I-
�I
:z
I
EExOV3 E,C1nINO
UNDERGROUND
STORM SHELTER
o
EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR
BUSWESS AND RESIDENCE
• LAlvscLFE
i .. � y ti0d 4 ARYA •� ENCB I
L.
_ GR FLOORI al
PhO . _ _ I ONO FLOOR * 66W
@GPAQUE�AC7• J LANDSCAPE
�TlCR:. � . : . ARC. �
ac-A6AL�A CWT UILDIN`6
- 1o$PAI. SUH➢ING - - - - - -
-----
LANDSCAPE
AREA
. .�g31ThY3.FE.Y08 Iuu'
G
RC
-.air x
M 0 WALRTO
E
W
REMAIN K
z
EgA
w
;z
GROUND MOUNTED
PROJECT SIGN
8 FT. TALL
120 SQ. FT. AREA
Z-8263 o NKIMMIF AIL BY 0 SHORT -FORM PD-C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN
(16,222) IN THE HEIGHTS HILLCREST PLANNING
DISTRICT FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MIXED USE
(LU07-04-01) AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That Single Family at 310 North Van Buren be amended to Mixed
Use.
SECTION 2. That the ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and
after its passage and approval.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayor
Vicinity Map
Plan Amendment
Case: LU07-04-01 N
Location: Van Buren and B Street
SF to N4X
Ward: 3
PD: 4 0 100 200 Feet
CT 15
TRS: TINR12W6
&mmmIl—
Ali ON
IN
by O
Area Zo
Vicinity Map
L—�
POD
Case: LU07-04-01 N
Location: Van Buren and B Street
SF to N4X
Ward: 3
0 100 200 Feet
PD: 4 mmmmmmmmm::Zz=
CT: 15
TRS: TIN R12W6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT AND
ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED "NAILS BY KIMMIE"
SHORT -FORM PD-C (Z-8263), LOCATED AT 310 NORTH VAN BUREN STREET,
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE OFFICAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY
OF LTITLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, an application has been made for a Planned Zoning Development establishing a planned
commercial district titled "Nails by Kimmie"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heard the item and made a recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS.
Section 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property be changed from R-3,
Single-family to PD-C:
North 64.16 feet of Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 3 Pfeifer's Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Section 2. That the approval of Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z8263), located at 310 North
Van Buren Street is subject to compliance with the following additional conditions:
That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as submitted, including
all staff comments and conditions as outlined in the Planning Commission Agenda Staff
Report in paragraphs D, E, F and including any conditions indicated in the staff analysis
in paragraph H and subject to additional conditions imposed at the Planning
Commission public hearing as amended by applicant.
Section 3. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by
the Little Rock Planning Commission.
Section 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Nails by Kimmie Short -
form PD-C (Z8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan
approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454(e) of the Code of
Ordinances.
Section 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the
respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof.
Section 6. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until the final approval
of the plan.
Section 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
[PAGE 1 OF 3]
ORDINANCE - ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - NAILS BY KI MAIE
l
7
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
-38
declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance which shall remain
in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not
originally a part of the ordinance.
Section 8. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same, that are
inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
inconsistency.
PASSED: January 15, 2008
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Nancy Wood, City Clerk Mark Stodola, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney
[PAGE 2 OF 3]
ORDINANCE - ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - NAILS BY KIMWE
[PAGE 3 OF 3]
ORDINANCE - ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - NAILS BY KIMMIE
Page 1 of 1
Carney, Dana
From: Moore, Bruce
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:43 AM
To: Dawson, Cindy
Cc: Day, Bryan; Wood, Nancy; Carney, Dana
Subject: RE: schedule for Nails by Kimmie issue
Let's shoot for Jan 15th
From: Dawson, Cindy
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:50 AM
To: Moore, Bruce
Cc: Day, Bryan
Subject: schedule for Nails by Kimmie issue
Bruce -
Tom asked me to check with you as to when you would like the Nails by Kimmie issue
brought up and voted on (there was no actual vote taken when the item was presented to the
Board). There will not need to be a public hearing, since the public hearing was already held.
Nancy said it could be placed on either the Jan. 8 meeting or the Jan. 15 meeting,
although the 15th is not as heavy an agenda.
Our office will send out notices to those who were present at the meeting when it was
heard.
Cindy
12/19/2007
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION
NOVEMBER 20, 2007 AGENDA
Subject
Action Required
Submitted By
An Ordinance establishing
Ordinance
a Planned Zoning District
Resolution
titled Nails by Kimmie
Approval
Short -form PD-C (Z-8263),
Information Report
located at 310 North Van
Buren Street.
Submitted by:
Department of Planning
and Development
Bruce Moore
City Manager
SYNOPSIS
The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's
recommendation of denial for a rezoning of the site from
R-3 to PD-C to allow a full service beauty and nail salon to
operate from the site.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested PD-C zoning.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of
the requested zoning by a vote of 1 ayes, 6 noes, 3 absent
and 1 open position.
CITIZEN
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed PD-C
PARTICIPATION
request at its September 27, 2007, meeting. There were
registered objectors present. The Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association, all residents who could be
identified located within 300 feet of the site and all property
owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of
the Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is the owner and operator of Nails by
Kimmie and the owner of property located at 310 North
Van Buren Street. The applicant is seeking a rezoning from
R-3, Single-family to Planned Development Commercial to
allow the utilization of the site as a full service beauty and
nail salon. The shop has four employees including the
owner. The shop offers a variety of services including
manicure, pedicure, massage, tanning, hair coloring, hair
cutting, hair removal, permanent makeup and other
beauty/aesthetic services. The applicant indicated at the
Planning Commission public hearing she did not intend to
reside in the structure although the application was filed
indicating she would live on site in addition to operate her
business from the site.
Normal business hours are from 10 am to 8 pm Monday
through Saturday. Other times are available by
appointment.
A single sign to identify the business and direct customers
to the rear yard parking is proposed within the front yard
area. The rear yard is proposed to be paved with ten (10)
parking spaces. The parking will be accessed via an alley
located along the northern perimeter.
Please see the attached Planning Commission minute
record and site plan for the applicant's specific
development proposal and the staff analysis and
recommendation.
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING
DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED NAILS BY KIMMIE SHORT -
FORM PD-C (Z-8263), LOCATED AT 310 NORTH VAN BUREN
STREET, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property
be changed from R-3, Single-family to PD-C:
North 64.16 feet of Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 3 Pfeifer's Addition to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
SECTION 2. That the approval of Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263),
located at 310 North Van Buren Street is subject to compliance with the following
additional conditions:
■ That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as submitted,
including, all staff comments and conditions as outlined in the Planning
Commission Agenda Staff Report in paragraphs D, E, F and including any
conditions indicated in the staff analysis in paragraph H and subject to
additional conditions imposed at the Planning Commission Public Hearing
as amended by the applicant.
SECTION 3. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as
recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission.
SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Nails by
Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street is
conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36,
Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances.
SECTION 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby
amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change
provided for in Section 1 hereof.
SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
the final approval of the plan.
SECTION 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining
portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so
declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the
ordinance.
SECTION 8. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same
that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of such inconsistency.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City of Little Rock Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
K
= m =-I + -�-- W--. . j MM
1=1
�,�_ �-�
� � � � �� !
'�2 $
� � �� �
�,r / �f� %�
y�w«d�
e � �
� �� j
�� �
/: 1�
(� -
�� —
� � .m �
� ■
�`^ � -
MsTING FENCE W ALLEY
AND WALLTO RE
ABMOVED RLA
CN G- EXI&MG CONCRETE
r -_ g LOA De0 ?AD lu DER139OVED LANDSCAPE
I L ! GARAGE
o
�. DOOR o
UNDERGROUND
STORM SHELTER
k�
_ o EXLSTING STRUCTURE FOR
BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE
1YEERIONG
PRD 1 •
PRnPose I
coenqucl ALY ,1
- METALBUDt]D.'O
LANDSCAPE - ,�-
AREA
1
_ FUTURE RESIDENCE
EXPANSION 'I
GROUND FLOOR t 560 SQ.FT. =j
LANDSCAPE I SECOND FLOORt 660 SQ.FT. I
AREA I
LANDSCAPE
ASIA n
GROUND MOUNTED
PROJECT SIGN
8 FT. TALL
120 SQ. FT. AREA
aw
RC
E
W
Z-8263 g NAILS BY 0 S0 SHORT -FORM PD-C AN
Et
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
September 17, 2007
Mr. Ms. Kimberly Mensie
C/o Niswanger Law Firm
5 Inwood Circle, Suite 10
Little Rock, AR 72211
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision File No. Z-8263 — Nails by Kimmie
Short -form PD-C
Dear Mr. Niswanger:
This office has received your appeal of the Planning Commission's action on September
27, 2007, in which the Commission recommended denial of a rezoning request to for a
Planned Commercial Development to allow this site to continue to operate as a
naillbeauty salon.
The issue will be placed on the Board of Director's November 20, 2007, agenda to set the
date of Public Hearing for December 4, 2007. The Board of Directors' meetings begin at
6:00 p.m. and are held in the Board's Chambers located on the second floor of City Hall
at 500 West Markham Street. No one needs to be present at the November 20, 2007,
Board of Director's meeting.
As the appellant, you are responsible for notification of the public hearing. I have
attached a notice form. Notices must be sent via certified mail. The notices must not be
sent prior to the November 20, 2007, Public Hearing. On November 21, 2007, contact
the City Clerk or me to assure the December 4, 2007, Public Hearings date was set. The
notices must then be mailed no later than November 23, 2007. Return a copy of the
notice, the list of persons notified and the certified mail receipts to the City Clerk no later
than November 30, 2007.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821.
Respectfully,
Donna James, AICP
Subdivision Administrator
cc: Nancy Wood, City Clerk
Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD
OF DIRECTORS ON AN APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A SHORT -
FORM PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT
TO ALL owners of land lying adjacent to and within 200-feet of (including across the street
from) the boundary of the property located at:
Address:
General Location:
Owned By:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for a Planned Zoning Development of the
above property requesting a change of classification from District to
District has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A
public hearing on said application will be held by the Little Rock Board of Directors in the Board
of Directors Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall on at
p.m.
ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST MAY APPEAR and be heard at said time and place, or may
notify the Board of Directors of their view on this matter by letter. All persons interested in this
request are invited to call or visit the Department of Planning and Development, 723 West
Markham Street, 371-4790, and to review the application and discuss same with the Planning
staff.
AFFIDAVIT
I herby certify that I have notified all the property owners of record within 200 feet of the above
property that subject property is being considered for rezoning and that a Public Hearing will be
held by the Little Rock Board of Directors at the time and place described above.
Applicant (Owner of Authorized Agent
(Name)
(Date)
Y
In addition to the 200-foot notification list of property owners previously notified you
are required to notify the following individuals and neighborhood associations as well.
These notices must be mailed certified mail and must be mailed no later than November
23, 2007. Please provide proof of publication no later than November 30, 2007.
The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association
Mr. Scott Smith
P.O. Box 251121
Little Rock, AR 72225
Rebecca Whelan
Cecil's Fine Jewelry
10720 Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
Sandra Tindall
602 N. Palm Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Carolyn Johnson
1811 Foreman Drive
Little Rock, AR 72227
Margaret Raney
RPM
1421 N. University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72205
Pamela Gibson
5329 Lee Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72205
Beth Person
607 N. Polk
Little Rock, AR 72205
Frances Davis
713 N Fillmore Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
R. Bryon Germany
5112 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Rena A. Sheffer
5126 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Marci Camp
5128 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Sara Chastain
3934 S. Lookout
Little Rock, AR 72205
Elizabeth Clarke
5310 C Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Marcella Callaham
1703 Breckenridge Drive
Little Rock, AR 72227
Becky Whelan
4 Lyric Lane
Little Rock, AR 72205
Clint Davis
5111 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Paula Lingo
5021 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Michael Thompson
5119 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Delores Lecompte
5103 C Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Ruth Bell
7611 Briarwood
Little Rock, AR 72205
Mark Robinette
500 N. Tyler Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC �D-
#5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211�
Telephone (501) 223-2888
Stephen B. N3swanger
Facsimile (5o1) 421-3651
steve@n i swasz ge rl awfwM - c o m IZ-A
.
C)(' T 2 2
October 19, 2007 —�
Mayor Mark Stodola and the Little Rock Board of Directors
ATTN: NANCY WOOD, CITY CLERK
500 West Markham, Room 200
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Kimberly Mensie's application for a Planned Commercial District at
310 North Van. Buren Street.
Dear Mayor Stodola and Members of the Little Rock Board of Directors:
Please find enclosed Kimberly Mensie's Application for Planned Zoning
Development, which was executed and denied on September 27, 2007.
Ms. Mensie wishes to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, as she
believes that strict enforcement of Zoning rules would cause her undue hardship, and that
approving her application would be in keeping with the provisions and spirit of the
zoning code.
SBN/cb
Encl.
cc: Kimmie Mensie
Cordially,
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
Stephen B. Niswanger
www. niswangerlawfirm.com
PAGE 02
PLANNING
10/0212007 14:30 5013993435
09l2?JOS �
�fpzd,d" 2 V� G
, pgL1CA,T10N FOR
PLANNED ZON1.NG DEV�LOPM N'T SHORT FORM
011kv
CASE F9-BNO. r�
I'L { COMMISSIGN MEETING DOCKETED FOR
�--
V
Application is hereby meda to the Board of Directors thrAct 1$b p � ts of Arlmn ss and Planning
t �I
Commission pursusnt to Arka> m 1aw ❑n City plersning, � I
36 of the Little hack Cade of ❑rdinanee5 as amenda ' pet`tioniDg £or clsssificati4n of the following
described area as a Short Form Planned Zoning I� P
o Q
Legal Description: Nab o -T-
-R L T f
r- rti r c� 1 7 L l7"r k' feu
Title to this property is vested in:
If an individ"Ai other than the tide holder file9 this Applicatloa, attachment of letter is required
authorizing this person to act on behalf of the title bOld¢T.
It is desired that the boupdariss shown bn the District Map be axnanded and that tlaia area be amended
and that this area be xeOpssified from the present
FAM L District
to
District.
Present USO of Property:
Desired Use of FropertY
it
It i$ understood that laptke of the public herring hereon before the Littlo Rork Plamiag Commission
will be pobIished at least fifteen (15) days prior to said bearing in a daily newspaper as regDired by Act
186 of the 1957 Acts of Arkansas and Section 23 of said Ordinance, axed that stnticc of prejimvnry
hearing before the COmmissiOP trust be circulated by the applicant to all Otbtr parties is ixlteres4
including
the Camm�ss a�artd that the of c st of tb�ese na ce of t sktall b bnrne by tixc ae area under ��lic as
required by
LUS G MAIL. ADDRESS:NIV+a��� to
(owllrlt7 � . R 7- t ,
or (AGE, aMk pliONE'
BUSMSS P14 NE: � � Z 3 -- '�
FILING F P.C, APPRO'Vl D:
Collectprs P.C. DENIED: q Pfl to `I
paid sttunp BD. OF DIR. APPROVED:
here ORD 'ANCB Nf).
51811a r of Secretary of Conuxission or
Authorized Agent
Et
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
September 28, 2007
Kimberly Mensie
C/o Niswanger Law Firm
5 Inwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72211
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
Re: Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van
Buren Street
Dear Sirs:
This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above
referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning
Commission at its meeting on September 27, 2007:
Approved with conditions.
Recommended approval with conditions.
Recommended approval as submitted.
Denied your request as submitted.
Deferred to the
X Other: Denied your request.
Meeting.
If you wish to appeal this recommendation please contact me for instructions on the
appeal process. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at
371-6821.
Respectfully,
Donna James, AICP
Subdivision Administrator
Stephen B. Niswanger
stevc,tili i swangerlawfirm.com
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
#5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
September 12, 2007
Tony Bozynski, Director
The City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone (501) 223-2888
Facsimile (501) 421-3651
Via Hand -Delivery
Re: Kimberly Mensie's application for a Planned Commercial District at
310 North Van Buren Street.
Dear Mr. Bozynski:
Please find enclosed the amended Site Plan for Ms. Mensie's Short Form
application for Planned Zoning Development, pursuant to your office's notes and the
comments at the meeting at City Hall on September 6, 2007. Also enclosed is the an
executed affidavit of proof of mailing of notice together with a certified abstract list of
property owners located within 200-feet of the site.
Ms. Mensie plans to operate the business Monday through Saturday from 10 a.m.
to 8 p.m. and by appointment. She plans to have no more than four (4) employees,
including herself. She plans to reside on the site. She does not plan to use a dumpster.
The anticipated time from for construction of the proposed residential expansion is two
(2) to five (5) years and perhaps longer, depending upon her financial resources.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me today Ms. Mensie's alleged
zoning violation and the notice of same. I plan to have a talk with her to discuss this
issue and plan to report back to you. In addition, as we discussed, I have not received a
copy of any notification concerning denial or acceptance of her business license
application.
I remain optimistic that Ms. Mensie's choice to "play by the rules" and invoke the
machinations of this process (and the attention of the City) is better than a choice to try to
stay secret and stay under the radar of the City. As you know, she has been a law-abiding
www.niswangerlawfirm.com
September 12, 2007
Page 2
taxpayer for many years at hear former nearby location, and has to my knowledge
remitted a great deal of sales taxes to the City.
Cordially,
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
Stephen B. Niswanger
SBN/sn
Encls. (excluding site plan)
cc: Barry Williams
Kimmie Mensie
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
DATE: August 20, 2007
❑ ENTERGY (2)
❑ CenterPoint Energy
❑ AT & T (2)
❑ Central Arkansas Water
❑ Little Rock Wastewater
❑ Pulaski County Planning
❑ Little Rock Fire Department
❑ Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2)
❑ Parks and Recreation Department
NAME: Nails by lUmmie Short -form PD-C
TYPE OF ISSUE: Planned Commercial Development
FILE NUMBER: Z-8263
LOCATION: 310 North VanBuren Street
❑ Planning and Development — Site Plan Review
❑ Planning and Development Graphics
❑ CATA
TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN:
On September 27, 2007 he Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue.
NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on August 31, 2007.
NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on S ep teniher 6. 2007.
A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or
recommendations will be appreciated.
Si erely,
Donna 3ames, AICP
Subdivision Administrator
(Please respond below and return this letter with your comments for our records.)
Approved as Submitted. PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY September 4, 2007.
Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.)
*To all utilities: If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justification for the
easement or the request will not be included in the Planning Commission agenda.
Comments:
By:
Enclosure
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Zoning and
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Sara Chastain
3934 S. Lookout
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 $UbdIVISIOn
September 28, 2007
Sandra Tindall
602 N. Palm
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
September 28, 2007
Elizabeth Clarke
5310 C. Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
Et
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6663
September 28, 2007
Marcella Callahan
1703 Breckenridge Drive
Little Rock, AR 72227
Dear Citizen:
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Becky Whelan
4 Lyric Lane
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
L�
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
September 28, 2007
Marcia Camp
5128 `B" Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
Et
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
September 28, 2007
Clint Davis
5111 `B" Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Robert "Bryan" Germany
5112 `B" Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Paula Lingo
5021 `B" Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
Et
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
September 28, 2007
Scott Smith
2701 Kavanaugh
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and -Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Michael Thompson
5119 `B" Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and -Development Planning
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Zoning and
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Dolores Lecompte
5103 "C" Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Ruth Bell
7611 Briarwood
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
September 28, 2007
Mark Robinette
500 N. Tyler
Little Rock, AR 72205
Dear Citizen:
On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your
participation in the September 27, 2007 Commission meeting. It is very important to the
City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -
making process.
Nails by Kimmie Short -form PD-C (Z-8263), located at 310 North Van Buren Street and
A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District (LU07-04-01),
located at the 300 Block of North Van Buren, was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. If the applicant files for an appeal of this decision you will be
notified of the appeal request.
For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff
responsibilities are as follows:
Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore
Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James
Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney
Future Land Use Plan Amendments — Eve Gieringer
Thank you again for your input.
Sincerely,
Tony Bozynski
Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission
Page 1 of 2
James, Donna
From: Bozynski, Tony
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 7:41 AM
To: James, Donna
Subject: FW:
FYI
-----Original Message -----
From: Mark Robinette [mailto:j_m_robinette@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:18 PM
To: Bozynski, Tony; Young, Venita
Subject:
RE: Opposition to agenda items LU07-04-01 and Z-8263
Mr. Bozynski and Planning Commissioners,
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting to personally voice my concerns on the above agenda items, and I wish
these comments to be made a part of the record. I am a homeowner living 3 blocks away from these proposed
actions. I strenuously object to the approval to either action.
This is an exercise in line -drawing. The 100 and 200 block of Van Buren are lost to commercial uses. Extending
commercial encroachment 1 block north will, as is evidenced by the advancement of commercial encroachment
from the 100 block to the 200 block, lead to commercial encroachment of the 400 and 500 blocks of Van Buren
and so forth. I am particularly concerned that allowing this northern advancement will place the residential
character of the neighborhood between A Street and Lee Street in jeopardy. Such northward advancement will
lead to westerly advancement down Lee Street to meet the already advancing commercial development coming
east down Lee Street from University. Commercial development will eventually constrict the already embattled
homeowners in the A to Lee Street area into selling out to commercial development and thereby ruining the
residential character of the adjoining area north of Lee Street and the ability of any residents who choose not to
sell out to quietly and peacefully enjoy their homes. Homes lying between Van Buren and University, especially
those along Lee Street, which already deal with more than their fair share of traffic, will suffer most seriously. The
Commission should draw the line at the 200 block of Van Buren and keep with the character of the neighborhood
residential.
I also wish to address the use of the planned development process in this matter. I am not opposed to
responsible use of the PDC process. Its inherent flexibility provides necessary tools for city planners to re -develop
marginal pieces of commercial property. (If the applicant wished to re -develop this for residential use, PDR woudl
be an appropriate process). This particular application, however, is an abuse of the PDC process. First, for the
existing use of the property (residential), the property is not marginal. It has appropriate setbacks and the like. It
coudl be re -developed using PDR. It was a residence for many years, and could continue to be used
residentially. It could be renovated and sold as a residence for a premium. What the applicant seeps to
accomplish is to create a, marcinal piece of commercial gropert_y #or the POC process where none exis#ed_ by
amending our land use plan to allow commercial uses. If this were already a commercial zoned property, I could
understand the use of PDC to develop such a small, irregular piece property, but here the applicant is making a
problem where there is no problem.
Additionally, the applicant seeks to use the flexiblity of the PDC process to avoid making any substantial
investment in the property. Asides from some re -decoration and retro-fitting for a commercial use, the property
will essentially be the same old house. This is a similar problem to that of 600 North Tyler (the old Cafe Percito).
Surely, if "planned development" means anything, it not only means that it should be used to develop marginal
pieces of property of a like use, but also the property developer should make a substantial investment in the
property over the existing property's land value and improvements. The Fair Park Surgery Center (FPSC) is a
good example of how the PDC process should work (other than the re -zoning followed by PDC strategy used in
that instance which is again the problem here). The FPSC has appropriate setbacks, parking, screening, and it is
9/28/2007
Page 2 of 2
a ground -up new construction project. The applicant in this matter will have none of these indicidents of re-
development. Rather, the applicant will merely use the same old house for a new use. Clearly, this is not
responsible planned development and allowing this to proceed as planned will give incentive for others wishing to
reap a windfall by converting old residences into valuable commercial property by merely posting a notice, paying
an application fee, and having a hearing. This windfall comes at the expense of their neighbor -homeowners' quiet
use and enjoyment.
I would also add that any commercial use in this area of Van Buren should be severely_ restricted in hours and
days of operation. I would suggest like hours and days of operations as the surrounding businesses on the 200
block of Van Buren —Little Rock Prosthetic, The Eye Center, FPSC, and the chiropractor's clinic. These
businesses operate only during weekdays from 8 to 5.
Thank you and the Commission for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Mark Robinette
Neigborhood homeowner
(501) 603-9782
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!
9/28/2007
9/10/2007 3:20 PM FROM: StevensDellFax TO: 9,4213651 PAGE: 001 OF 001
0���w`��,�,, STEVENS-DELL G ASSOCIATES
• " 5312 WEST MARKHAM • LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72205 • (501) 664-6567 0 FAX (501) 664-3574
www.stevene-dell.com
09/10/2007
To Whom It May Concern:
Kimmie Mensie has been our neighbor for the past 8 years. She is a very dedicated and
hard worker in respects to her business. As far as I know she maintained a friendly
working environment to her customers and her neighbors.
Sincerely,
4_
Steve Stevens
Stevens -Dell & Associates
501-664-6587
Monday, September 10, 2007 (10).max
3:31.51.5
03.03 4 2 p m 0� ;f-T?U.' 1 it
September 26, 2007
Stephen B Niswanger Attorney At Law
Donna [aeries / Dept Of Planning & Development
Red. Kimmie Nferiskie
To Whom It May Concern:
i am writing on behalf of my manicurist & friend Kimmie M-enskie.
• I ha►•c been a customer ofKimmies for about 14 years (at 3 different salons in the
Uiillerest area).
• Kimmie is an extremely bard and dedicated professional,
• Kimmie is the only full timernanicurist at her location (there are 2 other part time
stylists — but I bate only see them time to time aver the past few years').
• Kim schedules I client per hour — which allow her extra time to clean — she run a
very healthy sanitary shop.
• Traffic or parking should never be an issue since at the most — there would be 1
client ear per hour.
• Kimmie was Forced to move out of her old location ram, 5316 W Markham (literally
around the tamer from her new iacation) when the owner decided to sell the
property.
• l know that Kimmie recently purchased a house (on Van Buren) that had been
abandoned for years and was all extreme eye sore to the neighbor hood. Kimmie
is working hard to clean up the yard (which was horribie) is trying to landscape
via trimming bushes and trees to bring the property back to lillcrest st=dards.
• I kuow there are numerous business within 1.2 blocks of Kimmies new proposed
location and I am sure that she will help maintain and improve the aesthetic value
of rite property— due 10 her love for the HiI[crest area.
You
&b_,�
ammy Cumbi
PO Box 250932
Little Rock, AR 72225
work = (501) 373-5585
September 27, 2007
RE: Opposition to agenda items LU07-04-01 and Z-8263
Mr. Bozynski and Planning Commissioners,
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting to personally voice my concerns on the above
agenda items, and I wish these comments to be made a part of the record. I am a
homeowner living 3 blocks away from these proposed actions. I strenuously object to the
approval to either action.
This is an exercise in line -drawing. The 100 and 200 block of Van Buren are lost to
commercial uses. Extending commercial encroachment 1 block north will, as is
evidenced by the advancement of commercial encroachment from the 100 block to the
200 block, lead to commercial encroachment of the 400 and 500 blocks of Van Buren and
so forth. I am particularly concerned that allowing this northern advancement will place
the residential character of the neighborhood between A Street and Lee Street in
jeopardy. Such northward advancement will lead to westerly advancement down Lee
Street to meet the already advancing commercial development coming east down Lee
Street from University. Commercial development will eventually constrict the already
embattled homeowners in the A to Lee Street area into selling out to commercial
development and thereby ruining the residential character of the adjoining area north of
Lee Street and the ability of any residents who choose not to sell out to quietly and
peacefully enjoy their homes. Homes lying between Van Buren and University,
especially those along Lee Street, which already deal with more than their fair share of
traffic, will suffer most seriously. The Commission should draw the line at the 200 block
of Van Buren and keep with the character of the neighborhood residential.
I also wish to address the use of the planned development process in this matter. I am not
opposed to responsible use of the PDC process. Its inherent flexibility provides necessary
tools for city planners to re -develop marginal pieces of commercial property. (If the
applicant wished to re -develop this for residential use, PDR would be an appropriate
process). This particular application, however, is an abuse of the PDC process. First, for
the existing use of the property (residential), the property is not marginal. It has
appropriate setbacks and the like. It could be re -developed using PDR. It was a
residence for many years, and could continue to be used residentially. It could be
renovated and sold as a residence for a premium. What the applicant seeks to accomplish
is to create a marginal piece of commercial property for the PDC process where none
existed by amending our land use plan to allow commercial uses. If this were already a
commercially zoned property, I could understand the use of PDC to develop such a small,
irregular piece property, but here the applicant is making a problem where there is no
problem.
Additionally, the applicant seeks to use the flexibility of the PDC process to avoid
making any substantial investment in the property. Asides from some re -decoration and
retro-fitting for a commercial use, the property will essentially be the same old house.
This is a similar problem to that of 600 North Tyler (the old Cafe Percito). Surely, if
"planned development" means anything, it not only means that it should be used to
develop marginal pieces of property of a like use, but also the property developer should
make a substantial investment in the property over the existing property's land value and
improvements. The Fair Park Surgery Center (FPSC) is a good example of how the
PDC process should work (other than the re -zoning followed by PDC strategy used in
that instance which is again the problem here). The FPSC has appropriate setbacks,
parking, screening, and it is a ground -up new construction project. The applicant in this
matter will have none of these incidents of re -development. Rather, the applicant will
merely use the same old house for a new use. Clearly, this is not responsible planned
development and allowing this to proceed as planned will give incentive for others
wishing to reap a windfall by converting old residences into valuable commercial
property by merely posting a notice, paying an application fee, and having a hearing.
This windfall comes at the expense of their neighbor -homeowners' quiet use and
enjoyment.
I would also add that any commercial use in this area of Van Buren should be severely
restricted in hours and days of operation. I would suggest like hours and days of
operations as the surrounding businesses on the 200 block of Van Buren —Little Rock
Prosthetic, The Eye Center, FPSC, and the chiropractor's clinic. These businesses
operate only during weekdays from 8 to 5.
Thank you and the Commission for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
t
Mark Robinette
Neighborhood homeowner
Stephen B. Niswanger
steve@niswangerIawhrm.com
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
#5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
August 20, 2007
Tony Bozynski, Director
The City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone (501) 223-2888
Facsimile (501) 421-3651
Re: Kimberly Mensie's application for a Planned Commercial District at
310 North Van Buren Street.
Dear Mr. Bozynski:
Please find enclosed Ms. Mensie's Short Form application for Planned Zoning
Development, 18 copies of a Site Plan, 3 copies of a recent survey, the bill of assurance
for the subdivision, and a check for $95. We are requesting to be on the docket for the
September 27, 2007 subdivision hearing.
Ms. Mensie is the owner and operator of Nails by Kimmie. If the City approves
her request to reclassify her property at 310 North Van Buren Street from R-3 to PCD,
the surrounding neighborhood will be greatly enhanced. Kimmie has three employees
and her shop offers a variety services, including Manicure, Pedicure, Massage, Tanning,
Hair Coloring, Hair Cutting, Hair Removal, Permanent Makeup, and other
beauty/aesthetic services. Her business proposes to operate Monday through Friday
during regular business hours, on Saturday from 10 am to 6 pm, and at other times by
appointment only. She would provide a tasteful sign identifying her business and
directing her clients off of Van Buren and into her parking lot located off the adjoining
alley way.
We are looking forward to the hearing and the chance to discuss Ms. Mensie's
application. Thank you for your consideration.
SBN/j s
cc: Kimmie Mensie
Cordially,
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
w
Stephen B. Niswanger
www.niswangerlawfirm.com
Stephen B. Niswanger
steve@niswangerlawfirm.com
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
#5 Innwood Circle, Suite 110
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
August 6, 2007
Tony- Bozynski, Director
The City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone (501) 223-2888
Facsimile (501) 421-3651
Dear Mr. Bozynski:
1 am writing -on behalf of my client, Kimberly Mensie, of 3.10 North Van -Buren
Street. After the recent dispute with her landlord, she has been forced to f nd-a new
location -for- her business. She must vacate her current premises by August 31, 2007.
Ms Mensie purchased the property on North Van Buren several'-weeks.ago and
subsegwntly contacted the Zoning and Subdivision staff to discuss her plans to. operate
her business at that location. Ms. Mensie will be' submitting a short form application for
Planned Zoning Development %in. the next few daysasking the- city to reclassify her
property from R-3 Single Family to,a Planned Commercial District. The next available
public heazing:is Septteinber 27. If the planning.c:ommission approves her request at that
hearing, she,would then go before the Mayor and Board of Directors on November 6 for
final. approval. Allowing for the 30-day waiting period, the property would be officially
reclassified on December 7. .
Although Ms. Mensie is excited about beginning the application process for a
PCD reclassification; the time -frame is slightly problematic. Her current lease will
terminate on August 31; from that period until mid -December, Ms. Mensie will have no
place to operate her business and earn a living unless she is able to do so out of her home
at 310 North Van Buren.
We would like to request a meeting with you to discuss the possibility of Ms.
Mensie obtaining a business license by way of the Home Occupation Accessory Use
permit. Her property on North Van Buren is zoned R-3. According to § 3 6-25 5 of the
City Code of Little Rock, specific accessory uses are permitted, including certain home
occupations. Although a beauty salon is prohibited under § 36-253 (b) (6) (c), Ms.
Mensie does not cut hair, has a number of regular clients for whom she performs
www.niswangerlawfirm,.com
August 6, 2007
Page 2
pedicures and manicures by appointment only, and is willing to be creative in working
with the city in order to comply fully with the law.
We think your knowledge of the City's zoning goals and guidelines along with
your personal recommendations on how Ms. Mensie could conduct her business legally
in the interim would be most helpful. We are respectfully requesting to meet with you at
your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,'
NISWANGER LAW FIRM PLC
_Stephen B. Niswaniger
ST3Nljs .
cc: Kimmie,Mensie
CIEC.IL'S
FINS JEwEL-Rv
i G-
/
i _ 7
ki
12,
eo
1jt
%L..� �1- �,,�''Vi �-. •� 1, t�-� =�7`��� �"� f�, � � 6 ;��y�.,�-!
ly
- �-i �-• � �� � �"� � -a �` �-
,r : IE: K �1
10720 F2cdnt-
_y Parham load - Tre 13is Squ r� L#tt1E Rank, ,yT}carssas 72212
501 _22:5.5068 , hc>nE�! - 501 225,6134 fax - C�cfls�arsstvtia.n�t a maii
602 N. Palm St.
Little Rock, AR 72205
September 24,2007
To: Whom It May Concern
Re: 310 N. Van Buren St.
I have been a resident of Hilicrest for 18 years. For 8 of those years I have been
a client of Kimberly Menzie at "Nails by Kirnmie". I find it quite extraordinary that
In all of that time she has never failed to keep an appointment with me. That
speaks to what a hard working, responsible, reliable business owner she is.
With the opening of the MidTown shopping center and other revitalization efforts
in the Hillcrest area, I think we need and should support businesses such as
Kimberly's. Her Business will be an asset to Hillcrest and should fit in well with
other businesses already established along Van Buren.
I think it is worth mentioning that Kimberly maintained a very neat and attractive
business on W. Markham and I know that those same high standards will be
apparent at the Van Buren location.
I am confident that Kimberly and her business will add value to the Hillcrest
neighborhood and I urge consideration and approval of her commercial zoning
request.
Sincerely,
Sandra Tindall
'1GA,zes x-e3 600/£ ZJV'd Wd M ZT : ZT L00Z/:bZ/6
,zan.XaS xVA
Vo, 2i6fl
2
Sep, 6• 20071 11:16AM ark n,spt:E
O'srt)LOV+''S.jO IV-.SoVc
1,21 :L iForeiM t Vb Dyive
L.Lttte RzCk r A'l- ]-iL222Y-
Septercber 6, 2007
To WhOln It May Concern:
pw; Nails by Yiuunie & Co.
I fun writing on behalf of Kimberly Mensic, dlhf a Nails by Kimmie & Co., most recently
located at 5316 W, Markham, Little Rock, Kirr nie was forced to vacate that location
due to a sale of the building, and plans to relocate to 310 N. Van $umn, little Dock,
which currently is not 7.oned for commercial use.
I have been a client for several years, and believe the Hillerest neighborhood benefils
greatly fCom a aail and hair salon with the quality service that Nails by Kirnmie provides.
For #his reason, I respectfully request that a variance be considered to zone the new
location for eomrnercial use.
Thank you for your cowideration of this rnatter.
Sincerely,
carvlyn S. 3 son
09/24/2007 16:49
FOREST PLACE APTS PAGE 02
September 24, 2007
To: Steve Niswanger
Ref. Nails by Kimmie
Dear Mr. Niswanger,
1 am writing you on behalf of Kimberly Mensic, owner of "Nails By Kimmic," located at
310 North Van Buren, City of Little Rock, State of Arkansas.
The owner of this business is very professional. and above board; I have ,received and
appreciated her services over a period of thirteen years. T am a Property Manager at 1421
N. University and work for Rector Phillips Morris. It is most convenient for me to travel
to Ms. Men.sie's new locale just as it was, the former. location. Please see what you can
do to instigate the City's giving her a variance in zoning so that she may continue to do
business in her usual courteous manner of perfection, giving all of us the opportunity to
have hands and nails and feet that are the best!
Thank you for your continued support of this young lady!
Most Sincerely,
Margaret R ey
Forest Place Apartments
September 22, 2007
Little Rock Planning Commission
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
To Whom It May Concern:
My daughter and I have been going together to see Kimmie at Nails by Kimmie, every
other Friday for the last 5 years and my daughter was going for 5 years before that.
Kimmie was forced to move to the new location when the owner of the property that she
was renting sold it out from under her. Despite this we are more pleased at the new
location than the last one.
We have lived in Hillcrest for the last 30 years and have many ties with this area. We
have seen a house turned into a Shop on the corner across from Kroger, and we know that
there are Dentist offices off of Kavanaugh Blvd that also were once homes. This may
sound odd, but we like this idea. We were pleased when U.S. Pizza turned and old gas
station/car garage into a restaurant, and we are excited that they will be moving to a new
location at the lodge soon.
We would hope that her move to Van Buren will be easily accepted as there are several
businesses located along that road already. A new Surgery center, a hair dresser across
the way, two antique shops (one north and one south of her location) and a laundry on the
corner of Van Buren and Kavanaugh. We know, and have already seen, that Kimmie will
not let that property go back to the disrepair that it was in. We also hope that the Little
Rock Planning Commission and the Hillcrest Residents Association will see that having a
business in a house is in keeping with the quaintness of Hillcrest and it is much better
than letting the house be destroyed by some other neglectful owner.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Judy and Sara Chastain
cc: Little Rock Planning Commission
Hillcrest Residents Association
Niswanger Law Firm, PLC
r,
Page 1 of 1
James, Donna
From: Pamela Gibson [lacicera_2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:32 AM
To: James, Donna
Subject: Hillcrest zoning change and VanBuren gingerbread house
Just a note to let you know I oppose changing Hillcrest's zoning to "mixed use." I also oppose
commercial use of the yellow house on the corner of B and Van Buren that requires parking for
customers.
Pamela Gibson
5329 Lee Ave.
661-9278
9/25/2007
Page 1 of 1
James, Donna
From: Beth Brown [beth.person@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:25 AM
To: James, Donna
Subject: zoning change
I am writing in regard to the zoning change application for 310 N. Van Buren. I am unable to make it to
the hearing but wanted to let you know that I am very much opposed. I live in the neighborhood (607 N,
Polk) and I do not think this would be good for our property values. Additionally, the traffic in that area
is always a problem as it is. We do not need a business and parking lot to worsen the problem. Please
respect the homeowners that live in the area. We live here because we like the quiet traditional
neighborhood. We do not want to see this become a business district. Please reject this zoning change.
Thank You,
Beth Person
607 N. Polk
9/25/2007
Blank Page 1 of 1
James, Donna
From: Frances [francesd@haaspsychiatric.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:32 AM
To: James, Donna
Subject: Zoning Change for 310 N Van Buren
As a resident in the 310 N Van Buren area I am OPPOSED TO THE ZONING CHANGE proposed.
Frances Davis
713 N Fillmore Street
Little Rock AR 72205
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: 9/25/2007 8:02 AM
9/25/2007
Page 1 of 1
James, Donna
From: Germany, Robert [robert.germany@wgint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:58 AM
To: James, Donna
Subject: FW: Business Zoning Application for 310 N. Van Buren
x2244
From: Germany, Robert
Sent: 25 Sep, 2007 11:55 AM
To: 'djames@littlerock.or'
Cc: 'paula lingo'; 'rcdavis2323@yahoo.com'
Subject: Business Zoning Application for 310 N. Van Buren
Donna,
I wish to go on record as opposed to the property zoning change requested for 310 N. Van Buren by the
new owner, Kim Mensie.
Since I may or may not be able to arrive in time to speak at the public hearing scheduled for this
Thursday, I would like to express my opinion on the matter now, for public record.
I am opposed to a having a commercial enterprise immediately adjacent to my residential property at
5112 B Street for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Privacy concerns related to intrusion by patrons in the alleyway behind my house, intrusion from
patrons parking in the back yard parking lot, and intrusive business and/or non -business related
activities, especially during nights and weekends (e.g., friends, patrons, unrestricted parking for
football games, tailgate parties, etc.), all immediately adjacent to my back yard;
2. Water runoff concerns due to a parking lot being installed behind the house and adjacent to my
back yard;
3. Traffic concerns related to an already heavily traveled N. Van Buren and increased traffic in the
alleyway, possibly inhibiting residential, utility, and emergency vehicle traffic;
4. City enforcement of zoning and business provisions, especially after hours (i.e., nights,
weekends);
5. Potential property devaluation; and,
6. Concerns for the surrounding residential properties and general welfare of the neighborhood.
Best regards,
le Ui-ya( Olvrdefry.
9/25/2007
James, Donna
From: renas@aristotle.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:32 PM
To: James, Donna
Cc: renas@aristotle.net
Subject: proposed re -zoning of 310 N. Van Buren St.
Dear Ms. James and Little Rock Planning Commission:
I am very concerned about proposals for changes at 310 N. Van Buren St. I live on B St near that
property and am not in favor of it changing from a residence to a business.
from a residence to a business. North of B St., Van Buren is predominantly residential without any
of the busy nature of commercial property. I would like it to stay that way and preserve the quiet
nature of our neighborhood. A three to four employee business would increase activity during the
day but then leave an unoccupied building on the corner of an alley at night. This could
encourage an increase in the crime that is already occurring in our neighborhood.
the crime that is already occurring in our neighborhood. A further concern is that the nail salon
may eventually leave and another business of any type could move in without the neighbors
having any recourse about the change.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Yours truly,
Rena A. Sheffer
5126 S Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
5128 B Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
September 19, 2007
City of Little Rock
The Little Rock Planning Commission
Planning, Zoning and Subdivision
Donna James
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
RE: Kimberly Mensie
310 North Van Buren Street
Nails by Kimmie::Short-form PCD (Z-8263)
To whom it may concern:
As a property owner on the B Street side of the block where the above
mentioned change is being considered, I am opposed to further commercial
intrusion into our residential neighborhood.
We have an active Neighborhood Crime Watch, and we're involved in
sharing information and watching out for each other's property. Because
we are just two blocks from the busy intersection of Markham and Van Buren,
we are constantly at risk for petty crime. I have enclosed a 90-day area
crime report with our location high -lighted.
Workers, such as carpenters and lawn care people, can't turn their
backs without having their tools and equipment stolen. These thieves are
well organized, and they patrol the streets daily, frequently breaking into
fenced yards and locked storage buildings. Their presence is obvious to
the neighbors, but we can only be wary and constantly vigilant.
In this already crime -plagued setting, the addition of such a business
would constitute an "attractive nuisance." Women getting in and out of cars
in a secluded parking lot on an alley would present a perfect target for
purse -snatchers and car-jackers as well, since there is an on -ramp to 630
a half mile away.
You would need to see this alley, which connects Van Buren and Harrison
between B and C streets, to confirm my concerns. There are (mostly high)
back fences along the alley bordered by vegetation up to 25-30 feet in height.
At one point, the hedge on either side joins overhead for a tunnel effect.
The setting invites crimes of opportunity.
Property owners up and down B Street and C Street are continually up-
grading thei►- houses and improving their yards. We have poured a great deal
of money and effort into these improvements,and further intrusion of
commercial property can only erode the value of our homes. The occasional
commercial buildings along Van Buren appear to have been there since before
zoning became an issue, certainly since before Hillcrest took on the unique
character that requires protecting.
My concern is that, once the property acquires a zoning change, it will
be easy to make a lateral change -in -use that may not require revisiting
Planning Commission rules. Adequate parking space is often the primary
restriction that hampers a change of use, and, once the parking lot is
established, there is no telling what business might go in next. The
fascination with fingernails can't go on forever.
Sincerely,
Marcia Camp
- -a- - _- -
jerrald.stuari psbcglobal.net
From: "Hill, Michelle" <MHill@littlerock.org>
To: <jerral d. stuart@sbcglobal. net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: crime data approx. 90 days
JUINCYR CODEDESC
EXPRESSION 1
INCTIME
INCDATE
1 2007 INTOXICATED
101 N UNIVERSITY AV
3:35:00 AM
4/22/2007
1 2007 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
101 N UNIVERSITY AV
3:35:00 AM
412212007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
101 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:03:15 AM
5/10/2007
1 2007 LARCENY —NO UCR
101 N UNIVERSITY AV
2:15:00 AM
5/13/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
101 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:54:09 AM
5/18/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
101 N UNIVERSITY AV
1:00:00 AM
6/22/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
101 N UNIVERSITY AV
3:45:00 AM
6/28/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
115 N FILLMORE ST
12:20:00 PM
4/8/2007
1 2007 WARRANT ARREST
115 N FILLMORE ST
10:05:00 AM
4/8/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -MISCELLANEOUS
123 N POLK ST
9:20:00 PM
5/25/2007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
123 N POLK ST
9:15:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 AGGRAV ASSAULT-NONFAMILY-GUN
123 N POLK ST
8:00:00 PM
6/26/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM YARDS
200 N VAN BUREN ST
6:30:00 AM
5/30/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
201 N POLK ST
10:00:00 AM
4/7/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/PRIVATE PROPERTY DAMAGE
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
12:15:00 PM
4/16/2007
1 2007 HARASSING COMMUNICATION
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
10:00:00 AM
4/20/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
201 N POLK ST
8:35:00 PM
4/20/2007
1 2007 ASSAULT/SIMPLE/DOMESTIC DISTURB
201 N PIERCE ST
12:38:00 AM
5/4/2007
1 2007 LOST/STOLEN PROPERTY
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:20:00 PM
5/9/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
9:00:00 PM
5/9/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
201 N PIERCE ST
8:50:00 AM
5/29/2007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
201 N POLK ST
8:10:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 SHOPLIFTING
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
8:58:00 PM
6/4/2007
1 2007 STORED PROPERTY
201 N TAYLOR ST
3:00:00 PM
6/8/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
12:30:00 PM
6/10/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
8:26:00 PM
6/14/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
201 N POLK ST
3:00:00 PM
6/15/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
6:00:00 PM
6/18/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
7:33:00 AM
6/19/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
201 N POLK ST
9:00:00 PM
6/24/2007
1 2007 FORGERY OF CHECKS
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
1:23:00 PM
7/5/2007
1 2007 DISTURBANCE
201 N POLK ST
5:00:00 PM
7/10/2007
1 2007 SHOPLIFTING
201 N UNIVERSITY AV
1:33:00 PM
7/13/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/HIT-RUN/PRIVATE PROPERTY
205 N UNIVERSITY AV
8:27:00 PM
4/5/2007
1 2007 SHOPLIFTING
207 N UNIVERSITY AV
8:30:00 PM
5/23/2007
1 2007 ROBBERY -BUSINESS -GUN
207 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:00:00 PM
6/11/2007
1 2007 ROBBERY --NO UCR
207 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:00:00 PM
6/11/2007
1 2007 ROBBERY -STREET -GUN
207 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:39:01 PM
6/12/2007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
207 N UNIVERSITY AV
5:53:00 PM
6/13/2007
1 2007 SHOPLIFTING
207 N UNIVERSITY AV
11:55:00 AM
6/18/2007
1 2007 SHOPLIFTING
207 N UNIVERSITY AV
12:00:00 PM
6/18/2007
1 2007 UNAUTHORIZED USE OF VEH (DRV W/O CONS)
209 N FILMORE ST
6:30:00 PM
7/19/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
214 N FILLMORE ST
10:30:00 PM
4/21/2007
1 2007 ROBBERY -STREET -GUN
214 N FILLMORE ST
8:45:00 PM
4/2412007
1 2007 AGGRAV ASSAULT-NONFAMILY-GUN
218 N TAYLOR ST
4:00:00 AM
6/17/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
220 N FILLMORE ST
12:33:00 PM
4/5/2007
1 2007 ASSAULT/SIMPLE
220 N FILLMORE ST
10:45:00 AM
5/26/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
220 N FILLMORE ST
10:55:00 AM
5/26/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
220 N FILLMORE ST
8:30:00 AM
5/26/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
220 N FILLMORE ST
10:50:00 AM
5/26/2007
9/18/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
220 N FILLMORE ST
11:00:00 AM
5/29/2007
1 2007 HARASSING COMMUNICATION
220 N FILLMORE ST
1:00:00 PM
6/11/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
220 N FILLMORE ST
8:00:00 PM
6/15/2007
1 2007 SHOTS FIRED
221 N FILLMORE ST
9:03:00 PM
6/10/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
223 N TAYLOR ST
10:00:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
321 N PIERCE ST
9:30:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
405 N PIERCE ST
8:00:00 PM
4/26/2007
1 2007 HARASSING COMMUNICATION
406 N VAN BUREN ST
4:30:00 PM
4/26/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
406 N VAN BUREN ST
7:00:00 PM
5/4/2007
1 2007 UNAUTHORIZED USE OF VEH (DRV W/O CONS)
406 VAN BUREN ST
7:00:00 PM
5/8/2007
1 2007 RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY
406 VAN BUREN DR
1:00:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
406 N VAN BUREN ST
1:49:00 PM
7/13/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/PRIVATE PROPERTY DAMAGE
415 N UNIVERSITY AV
11:15:00 AM
5/14/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
418 N PIERCE ST
10:00:00 PM
7/1/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
501 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:10:00 PM
5/21/2007
1 2007 BIKE/STOLEN
506 N POLK ST
9:00:00 PM
6/27/2007
1 2007 BIKE/STOLEN
511 N TYLER ST
6:30:00 PM
6/6/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
614 N FILLMORE ST
11:55:00 PM
6/27/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -MISCELLANEOUS
614 N FILLMORE ST
11:55:00 PM
6/27/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/HIT-RUN
616 N BUCHANAN ST
12:01:00 AM
4/21/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
620 N PIERCE ST
5:35:00 PM
4/26/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -PARTS FROM VEHICLE
701 N UNIVERSITY AV
4:00:00 PM
7/21/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
710 N TAYLOR ST
12:01:00 AM
4/1/2007
1 2007 BIKE/STOLEN
804 N VAN BUREN ST
10:15:00 PM
5/11/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
811 N GRANT ST
10:00:00 PM
6/6/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
908 N PIERCE ST
9:00:00 PM
4/25/2007
1 2007 SHOPLIFTING
1900 N POLK ST
7:40:00 PM
5/2/2007
1 2007 VACATION HOME
3012 N GRANT ST
6:00:00 AM
7/16/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5100 LEE AV
8:45:00 AM
5/15/2007
1 2007 AGGRAV ASSAULT-NONFAMILY-KNIFE
5100 W MARKHAM ST
9:30:00 PM
6/6/2007
1 2007 STOLEN AUTO (VEHICLE THEFT)
5101 C ST
12:01:00 AM
4/28/2007
1 2007 STORED VEHICLE
5101 C ST
12:01:00 AM
4/28/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -PARTS FROM VEHICLE
5101 H ST
10:00:00 PM
5/6/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5101 H ST
9:10:00 AM
5/18/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM BUILDING
5101 G ST
11:00:00 AM
5/18/2007
1 2007 FRAUD -ILLEGAL USE CREDIT CARDS
5105 F ST
11:00:00 PM
7/11/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5109 G ST
10:00:00 PM
6l3/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/HIT-RUN/PRIVATE PROPERTY
5110 W MARKHAM ST
11:30:00 AM
6/6/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -NO FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5112 LEE AV
8:00:00 AM
6/21/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
5115 F ST
1:00:00 AM
5/27/2007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
5120 W MARKHAM ST
7:35:00 PM
4/4/2007
1 2007 STOLEN AUTO (VEHICLE THEFT)
5120 W MARKAM ST
5:00:00 PM
4/5/2007
1 2007 STORED VEHICLE
5120 W MARKAM ST
5:00:00 PM
4/5/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
5120 W MARKHAM ST
11:00:00 PM
5/19/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5121 G ST
10:00:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 BREAKING AND ENTERING
5301 LEE AV
6:00:00 PM
7/18/2007
1 2007 HARASSING COMMUNICATION
5303 C ST
2:00:00 AM
4/30/2007
1 2007 AGGRAV ASSAULT-NONFAMILY-OTHER WEAPON
5303 C ST
12:48:00 PM
7/6/2007
1 2007 AGGRAV ASSAULT-NONFAMILY-OTHER WEAPON
5303 C ST
12:50:00 PM
7/6/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
5310 C ST
7:30:00 PM
5/6/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5311 C ST
9:00:00 PM
5/5/2007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
5324 C ST
7:30:00 PM
6/2/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5325 LEE AV
11:30:00 PM
6/13/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5325 LEE ST
11:30:00 PM
6/13/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-NONRESID
5326 W MARKHAM ST
5:30:00 PM
6/23/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5332 A ST
4:42:00 PM
6/29/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -MISCELLANEOUS
5400 B ST
7:00:00 AM
6/2/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -MISCELLANEOUS
5400 B ST
3:00:00 PM
6/29/2007
9/18/2007
- --a- - -- -
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5410 C ST
7:30:00 PM
5/6/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5419 LEE AV
7:45:00 AM
5/3/2007
1 . 2007 TERROR THREAT
5501 C ST
9:30:00 PM
6/26/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5503 B ST
5:00:00 PM
4/4/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
5505 C ST
8:00:00 AM
4/13/2007
1 2007 MENTALLY ILL
5509 LEE AV
2:05:00 PM
4/2/2007
1 2007 DISTURBANCE
5510 A ST
4:00:00 PM
7/4/2007
1 2007 LOST/STOLEN LICENSE
5510 A ST
8:00:00 AM
7/16/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM YARDS
5512 W MARKHAM ST
9:00:00 AM
4/13/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -MISCELLANEOUS
5517 W C ST
6:00:00 PM
7/2/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5523 WOODLAWN DR
6:00:00 PM
7/3/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5700 B ST
12:01:00 AM
6/3/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5700 B ST
2:30:00 PM
7/7/2007
1 2007 BURGLARY -FORCED ENTRY-RESID
5705 LEE AV
1:01:00 PM
6/25/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
5719 B ST
5:35:00 PM
4/29/2007
1 2007 TERROR THREAT
5719 C ST
11:44:00 PM
6/21/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
5720 W MARKHAM ST
10:45:00 AM
5/23/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
5720 W MARKHAM ST
8:00:00 AM
6/5/2007
1 2007 ASSAULT/SIMPLE/DOMESTIC DISTURB
5720 W MARKHAM ST
11:55:00 PM
6/7/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5720 W MARKHAM ST
6:30:00 PM
6/18/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5720 W MARKHAM ST
10:30:00 PM
6/29/2007
1 2007 LOST/STOLEN PROPERTY
5720 W MARKHAM ST
1:00:00 AM
7/20/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL TRESPASS
5721 LEE ST
3:16:00 PM
4/15/2007
1 2007 HARASSING COMMUNICATION
5806 B ST
8:00:00 AM
7/2/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5808 B ST
2:00:00 AM
5/19/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -FROM AUTO
5808 B ST
8:30:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
5817 B ST
7:00:00 PM
6/3/2007
1 2007 LARCENY -PARTS FROM VEHICLE
5824 LEE AV
8:00:00 PM
6/26/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/HIT-RUN
5907 F ST
5:00:00 PM
4/27/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/HIT-RUN
5907 F ST
5:00:00 PM
5/14/2007
1 2007 SHOPLIFTING
6000 W MARKHAM ST
2:30:00 PM
4/28/2007
1 2007 RESISTING OFFICER/ARREST
6000 W MARKHAM ST
2:30:00 PM
4/28/2007
1 2007 FLIGHT TO AVOID PROSECUTIION/CONFINE
6000 W MARKHAM ST
2:30:00 PM
4/28/2007
1 2007 STORED VEHICLE
6000 W MARKHAM ST
1:50:00 PM
5/21/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT/HIT-RUN
6000 W MARKHAM ST
1:50:00 PM
5/21/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT
N UNIVERSITY AV
3:00:00 PM
5/27/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT
400 N POLK ST
12:47:30 PM
4/12/2007
1 2007 ACCIDENT
N UNIVERSITY AV
9:35:00 AM
4/26/2007
1 2007 INFORMATION
MARKHAM ST
12:09:00 PM
4/28/2007
1 2007 RESISTING OFFICER/ARREST
5520 W MARKHAM ST
2:55:00 PM
4/28/2007
1 2007 LOST/STOLEN PROPERTY
5520 W MARKHAM ST
3:15:00 PM
4/28/2007
1 2007 INTOXICATED
MARKHAM ST
12:30:00 AM
7/3/2007
9/18/2007