Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-08 - ReconvenedMinutes - Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting - February 26, 2008 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting Minutes February 26, 2008 - 4:00 PM The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in a reconvened session with Mayor Mark Stodola presiding. Nancy Wood, City Clerk, called the roll with the following Directors present: Hendrix, Keck, Cazort, Adcock, Fortson, Kumpuris, Wyrick, Wright, Richardson, and Mayor Stodola. Vice Mayor Hurst was absent. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Richardson, made a motion to add item M -1 as a modification to the reconvened meeting agenda. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present item M -1 was added. M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 12,657 - Amending Resolution No. 12,653 to correct the amount of the contract with Gametime by Southwest Parks and Playgrounds for supply and installation of poured -in -place surfacing for the Riverfront Adventure Park; and for other purposes. Staff recommends approval. Director Adcock, seconded by Director Richardson, made a motion to adopt item M -1. By unanimous voice vote of the Board Members present, Item M -1 was adopted. During the reconvened session Director Hendrix made a motion to rescind the vote she had made on Item 14 at the February 19, 2008 Board meeting, and asked Mr. Carpenter to assist her. Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney, asked Director Hendrix if she wished to make a motion to reconsider her vote on the item which involved the application for a convenience store with gas pumps, where the vote turned out to be 6 in favor and 4 against. The actual item was listed on the February 5, 2008 Agenda as follows: 14. PUBLIC HEARING Z- 6933 -B - Rescinding the Little Rock Planning Commission's & RESOLUTION approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on the C -1 zoned property located at 14100 Kanis Road. Planning Commission: 11 ayes, 0 nays. Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit. Synopsis: A record objector is appealing the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on the C -1 zoned property located at 14100 Kanis Road. Director Keck indicated that he understood that a lawsuit had been filed since the vote on last Tuesday. Mr. Carpenter indicated that he had the same understanding, but had not confirmed it with Davidson Law Firm. Director Keck asked questions related to the pending litigation and asked Mr. Carpenter to provide any direction or caution as the Board discussed the matter. Mr. Carpenter advised that the question that would be an appeal and determination if the Boards action were arbitrary or capricious. Minutes - Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting - February 26, 2008 Mr. Carpenter also stated that if there was any reason for the Board's action, it would be upheld under rational basis tests and the fact that the property wasn't zoned for that and the property across the street was, is a rational basis. Director Hendrix stated that her motion was to reconsider her vote, Director Richardson seconded the motion. Mayor Stodola wanted to clarify the Board's vote. He indicated that his understanding was there was a record objector appealing the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit and that the previous vote was 6 votes to overturn the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project; and 4 votes not to. Director Hendrix interjected that the vote had been a 5 to 5 vote. Mayor Stodola assured her the vote had been 6 to 4, indicating that it had been researched before tonight's meeting. Director Richardson stated he believed that Director Hendrix had spoken to Mr. Carpenter after the February 19, meeting about changing her vote because she was confused with the "yea" and "nay" issue. Mayor Stodola wanted to be clear on the issue stating that the action could have some effect on the issue and on litigation that may or may not have been filed. Director Hendrix stated that immediately after the meeting on February 19, she spoke to Mr. Carpenter about changing her vote because she had been confused on the "yea" for a "nay" and a "nay" for a "yea." She asked what could be done about the voting; and stated her request had nothing to do with a lawsuit. Mr. Carpenter confirmed that he and Director Hendrix had discussed the issue after the meeting on February 19. Mayor Stodola clarified that he understood that Director Hendrix did not want to change the outcome of the vote, but wanted to change her vote; not reconsideration of the entire vote. Mr. Carpenter said it is a motion for reconsideration if she changed her vote, with the unanimous consent of the Board, and would not change anything because it does not come up again. Mayor Stodola stated he heard Director Hendrix say she does not want to reconsider, but only wants to change her vote. Director Hendrix confirmed that she wanted to change the method she used to vote at the meeting on February 19. Mayor Stodola asked if she wished for reconsideration of the vote, or to change her vote. Director Hendrix replied she wished to change her vote only. Director Cazort asked if Director Hendrix changed her vote if that would not then make the vote a 5 to 5 vote, which would change the outcome. Mr. Carpenter said it would not open it up for discussion. The rule of changing a vote, using Roberts Rules of Order, says that prior to a vote being announced, any member is free to change their vote, but once the vote has been announced, it can only be done by a unanimous consent of the Board. He stated if the change of the vote would actually change the outcome, then one objection would stop it, or nothing else would happen because the thing had already happened. Director Cazort expressed his understanding that changing her vote would affect the outcome, because the vote would then be 5 to 5 making it a tie vote. As a result, the issue of whether the Mayor could or would vote, and did not get the opportunity would come to the forefront. Mr. Carpenter stated it would not matter because the matter failed and would continue to fail. 2 Minutes - Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting - February 26, 2008 If there were two or three people who wanted to change their vote and they were permitted to do so, with a unanimous vote, then it would change the outcome. Director Cazort stated his understanding of when the Mayor does or does not vote. Mr. Carpenter said the outcome would be the same if Director Hendrix changed her vote. Director Cazort said he would support the motion to reconsider and take a full vote again. Mayor Stodola asked Director Cazort if that were his motion. Director Cazort stated he believed Director Hendrix had made the motion and it had been seconded. Mayor Stodola asked Director Hendrix if her motion was for reconsideration. Director Hendrix indicated that her motion was to reconsider. Mayor Stodola recognized the motion as a motion for reconsideration, and asked Mr. Carpenter to make sure there was the exact language that was voted on last Tuesday. Director Hendrix stated the Board would not vote today. Mayor Stodola indicated that he would like to see if the motion for reconsideration passes and then the Board would know whether to move forward or not. Mayor Stodola then asked the clerk to call the roll on the motion. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Director Hendrix, Richardson, Cazort, Wright, and Wyrick voted yes. Directors Keck, Kumpuris, Fortson, Adcock voted no. Vice Mayor Hurst was absent. Mayor Stodola announced the vote had failed. Director Hendrix asked if her next move was to sue the. Mayor Stodola stated the issue would remain as is. Director Cazort stated the Mayor has the option to vote one way or the other or decline to vote. Mr. Carpenter said he knew that is what the statute said, but that probably it could be ruled that way, but he had not seen the cases and did not know what they say at this time. Mayor Stodola declined to vote in the matter. Mr. Carpenter stated to Director Hendrix that since the motion failed, she still had the option to let the record show that she would have changed her vote from yes to no, but would need unanimous consent of the Board. Director Hendrix made the statement that her other option is to sue. Mr. Carpenter replied that he did not think she had that option, but that would look it up her. Mayor Stodola then asked for a motion to go into executive session. Director Keck, seconded by Director Cazort, made a motion go into executive session to consider nominations to the City of Little Rock Boards and Commissions. The meeting was recessed at 4:20 PM. The Mayor called the meeting back in session at 5:30 PM. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION & RESOLUTION NO. 12,658 - To make appointments to the following City of Little Rock Boards and Commissions; and for other purposes. Bruce Moore, City Manager, announced the nominations to the following Boards and Commissions: Little Rock Animal Services Advisory Board: Angela Leake (reappointment), John Seng (reappointments), Lance Lieblong (appointment), Joseph W. Ghormley (appointment), Heather Allmendinger (appointment), and John E. Lamb, Sr. (appointments; 3 Minutes - Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting - February 26, 2008 Little Rock Board of Adjustment: Bob Winchester (reappointment) and Scott Smith (appointment); Little Rock Community Housing Advisory Board: Dr. Grover Evans (reinstatement); Little Rock City Beautiful Commission: Lynn Mittelstaedt Warren (appointment) and William Wiedower (appointment); Little Rock Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Edward E. Peek (appointment); MacArthur Military History Museum Commission: Glenn R. Davis (reappointment), Joyce Elliott (reappointment), Hermann Ivester (reappointment), Linda Norton (reappointment), Stacy Williams (reappointment), Dan Daugherty (reappointment), James L. Hobson, Jr. (reappointment), Ginger Kimes (reappointment), and Alex Vernon (reappointment); Midtown Redevelopment District No. 1 Advisory Board: Howard Baker Kurrus (reappointment) and Jonathan Timmis (appointment); Little Rock Parks and Recreation Commission: J.J. Lacey Jr. (reappointment) and Robby Vogel (reappointment); Little Rock Racial and Cultural Diversity Commission: Mary Parham (reappointment) and Dennis Burrow (reappointment); Little Rock Sister Cities Commission: Johnnie Pugh (reappointment), Bryan J. Barnhouse (appointment), Emma Jane Ohnemus (reappointment), and Penelope Sur (appointment); Little Rock Zoo Board of Governors: J. J. Vigneault (reappointment), Sam Walls, III (appointment); Little Rock Arts and Culture Commission: Dr. David Belcher (reappointment), Andrew C. Irvin (reappointment), H. Terry Rasco (reappointment), and Ken Milton; Arkansas Museum of Discovery: Gertrude Clark (reappointment), Edmond Hurst (reappointment), Bruce Cross (reappointment), Ellen Gray (appointment), Todd Newton (appointment), and Jerry Vascocu (appointment). Motions were made and approved by unanimous voice vote for each commission appointment. Director Keck, seconded by Director Wright, made a motion to adjourn the meeting. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M. 11 Minutes - Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting - February 26, 2008 ATTEST: APPROVED: IVA ty rn Woo CMC Mark Stodola I Mayor Notation: The Little Rock Board of Directors Agenda Meeting for March 4, 2008, followed the reconvened meeting. There was further discussion regarding Z- 6933 -B - Rescinding the Little Rock Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on the C -1 zoned property located at 14100 Kanis Road. Planning Commission: 11 ayes, 0 nays. Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit, and the previous vote by the Board to disallow the vote to be reconsidered. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, stated that he had been incorrect in some of the information he had provided in regard to the vote on the above mentioned item concerning Director Hendrix's vote. He state that her vote would change the outcome because it would change the vote to a 5 to 5 vote which means the item would fail. The Planning Commission's action would have been allowed, and if the Board had granted her unanimous consent to change her vote, that it would have changed the outcome. He said there was potentially a way to cure all this, since that meeting had been adjourned; but if there is a single objection, then it would not make any difference. He explained to the Board that he had spent the time they were in recess to review Roberts Rules of Order. Director Hendrix asked Mr. Carpenter to clarify is statement. Mr. Carpenter stated that at the end of the last meeting (Reconvened Meeting), held earlier tonight, that there was some discussion or comments that she could still reflect that she wished to change her vote for the record, but that it would still take unanimous consent of the Board for her to change her vote on the record. He stated he had indicated this would not make a difference in the outcome of the item, but was now saying that it would make a difference because typically the appeal is that the Planting Commission has denied the application, and that the Board was overturning that action. This is an application where the Planning Commission has granted the application, and the appeal was to overturn it, so a 5 to 5 vote would have defeated the resolution, which means the project could move forward. Director Hendrix explained that she had misinterpreted the "yea" and "nay" voting and thought that should be changed because it is confusing. She thought this was an error, and the Board had been unfair in not allowing her to change her vote, and said she would keep all this in the back of her head and use it when she needed to. Mr. Carpenter stated that there had been some previous discussion on how these issues came before the Board, and that he did not know why the items could not come to the Board as "for" or "against" regardless of what the Planning Commission had voted; and then in the recitals say what the Planning Commission's action was. He stated there is no burden of proof involved as in an appeal; and worded this way it would be a vote for or against the project. Director Hendrix asked if there was a way that in a week or two or thirty days, she could come back and appeal to the Board again, to see what the vote would be. Mr. Carpenter replied that there is a motion to expunge and that she could attempt to get enough votes to expunge the previous vote. Director Hendrix asked if she could do that at the next Board Meeting. Mr. Carpenter told her it could be done at anytime until there has been a change of circumstances. There was no further comment, and the agenda meeting was adjourned.