Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat.

Heat. meeting commission. Today is the 11th day of February, 2026.

12th day. Excuse me, I'm one day behind. The 12th day of February, 2026. February meeting is officially called to order. Mr. Thrower, would you please do a roll call? Yes, sir. This is the Little Rock Planning Commission meeting for February 12th, 2026. Commissioner Brown. Bernard here. Hodes here. McDonald here. Person here. Russell Samad here. Eves Baxter here. Vickers present. We have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. Thrower. Our first order of business is to approve the minutes from January's meeting. Assuming that all commissioners have read the minutes and that there are no questions, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve the minutes as written. Second. We have a motion in a second. Mr. Thor, will you do the roll call for the voting? Okay. Commissioner Brown. Bernard, yes. Hodes, yes. McDonald, here. Yes. Parson. Hi. Russell Samad. Yes.

Eaves Baxter. Yes.

Uh, miss somebody. Uh, Vicers. Yes. Uh, Vickers, sorry. Minister, approve. Thank you, Mr. Thrower. Uh, our next order of business is to review the consent agenda. Uh we have a fairly large consent agenda tonight. Mr. Moore, would you please read the consent agenda? Yes.

Following is a consent agenda, Little Rock Planning Commission meeting of February 12th, 2026. The first group of items are on for deferral and withdrawal. First is item two, file number Z10 228. This is being deferred to the March 12th, 2026 agenda due to insufficient notification. Item four, Z7880B is being withdrawn without prejudice at the request of the applicant. Item five, Z558A is being withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Item six, S201 is being withdrawn without prejudice at the request of the applicant. Item 8, Z10236 is being withdrawn without prejudice at the at the request of the applicant. Item 910 239 is being deferred to the March 12th agenda due to insufficient notification. Item 11 S202A is being deferred to the April 9th agenda at the request of the applicant. Item 12 Z9850A is being deferred to the March 12th agenda due to insufficient notification. Item 13 Z10 253 is being deferred to the March 12th agenda due to insufficient notification. Item 18, A354 is being deferred to the March 12th agenda at the request of the applicant. Item 19, Z9533A is being deferred to the March 12th agenda due to insufficient notification. Item 21, Z10246 is being deferred to the March 12th agenda due to insufficient notification. and item 24 Z10 258 is being deferred to the March 12th agenda due to insufficient notification. Next are the items on consent approval. Uh item number three is being moved to the regular agenda for discussion. So the first item on consent approval is

item number seven Z7648A Two Moon Properties LLC PDR southwest corner of Charles Busy Avenue and Park Lane. Staff recommends approval of the requested PDR resoning subject to compliance with comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 10, G25235, Pickerwood Road Street name change to Athletic Club Drive, Pickerwood Road, west of Sam Peek Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested street name change. Item 14, Z10256, South Dell Estates Mobile Home Park, PDR, 9105G Guyire Springs Road. Staff recommends approval of the PDR subject to compliance with comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. [snorts] Item 15, Z10257, Victoria Estates Mobile Home Park PDR 5820 West 65th Street. Staff recommends approval of the PDR subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 16, Z7838, Rush Engine, doing business as Triumph of Arkansas, short form PCD revocation immediately south of 4111 South University Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the PCD revocation request. Item 17, A 353, Famonville annexation, 5414 Fletcher Drive. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and incorporation of the land into the city of Little Rock and the concurrent designation of the zoning classification I3 Heavy Industrial Zoning District. Item 20, Z 8779C, Teter Property Group, STR2 PDC, 311B West Markham Street. Staff recommends approval of the PDC subject to compliance with comments and conditions

outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report item 22 Z10254 quo number one STR2 PDC 320 South Valentine Street. Staff recommends approval of the PDC subject to compliance with comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report and item 23 Z10 255 quote number two STR2 PDC 5614H Street staff recommends approval of the PDC subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. That concludes the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. So just a note on our regular agenda will be item number one and item number three which has been pulled off the consent agenda. At this time if there are no questions I'll entertain a motion regarding the consent agenda. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. All right. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Brown has arrived and uh we'll see if I can get this right this time. Commissioner Brown here. Yes. Bernard Bernard. Yes. Hodgees. Yes. Vickers. Yes. Person. Yes. Russell.

Samad. Yes. Eves. Macdonald. Yes. Backter. Yes. Consent agenda has been approved. Thank you, sir. Moving on to our next order of business. Of course, those of you who are approved, you're you're welcome to stay, but don't feel like you have to to stay for the regular agenda items. There are eight commissioners. Uh, usually we are what is our number? 10 or 11, Mr. Moore? 11.

11. So, if if you would like item number one or item number three, you may defer at your expense. But if there are no objections then we'll move on to the first item which is item number one file Z-8911-B de la Rosa revised PCD 9123 Chico Road are the applicants present approach the podium

hi good Afternoon. Thank you. What is your name? Would you please state your name for the record? Um, my name is Jazelle and my mom is Lorena Delar Rosa. Thank you, Miss Del Rosa. So, Miss Delar Rosa, as you are aware, you have 20 minutes to present your case and then the opposition will have 20 minutes to respond.

Mr. Mr. Chair, that the only issue on this item today is the issue of deferral. uh the Darosa's application. We've been working with them for several months now to try to get everything ironed out and get a plan that that we feel is a acceptable plan that we can support. Uh we've done that. Uh during that time, the application had to be deferred twice in order for the applicant to explore some options with financing and getting with the wastewater on grease trap type issues, those kind of things. Um, the applicants did their notification for this meeting, but they made one very minor mistake on their notifications. So, we're asking the commission to defer it again. This would be the third time. So, you'll have to to wave your bylaws and accept a third um deferral. So, you have to take one vote to wave your bylaws and accept the request for deferral being the third deferral and then take a vote on to defer it uh to the uh March agenda.

Fantastic. Thank you, Mr. Moore. And I do remember discussing this. So, Mr. Dear Rosa, that's that's my apologies for trying to put you on the plate tonight. Oh, no, you're good. You're good. So, two motions. Uh, I will entertain a motion, unless there are any questions, to motion number one, wave the bylaws and accept this third deferral. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to um for item number one, file Z8911-B to um defer this to the next meeting. Point of order, I believe you got to wave the bylaws first.

Okay. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'm make a motion to wave the bylaws so that This may be come before the board again. Second. All right. Commissioner Brown, yes. Bernard, yes. Hodes, yes. Vickers, yes. Person, I Russell Samad, yes. Eaves Macdonald. Yes. Baxter. Yes.

The motion has been has been granted to wave the bylaws for this item. Thank you. And now we will help me with this. Mr. B, entertain a second motion to accept the applicant's request for a deferral to the March meeting. Yes. Okay. U Mr. Chair, I make a motion for item number one, file number Z-8911-B, to move this item number to the M March uh meeting. Second. Commissioner Brown, yes. [snorts] Bernard, yes. Hodgees, yes. Vickers, yes.

Person, hi. Russell Samad, yes. Eaves McDonald. Yes. Baxter. Yes. The motion carries to wave the uh item 1 Z8911-B till the March 12, 2026 meeting. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to our our first and uh last item on the agenda tonight. So, we're going to be out here nice and early. So that is item number three file Z-10234 Apex duplexes conditional use permit 3800 block of Elim Street. Is applicant present? Mr. Moore, can we entertain a reading of this item?

Sure. The Apex duplexes application was presented to you um at the last meeting. You conducted a public hearing on it. At the last meeting, it was deferred for the applicant to uh get with the um surrounding property owners to further discuss the project and provide them with some renderings and etc. Uh so I'll just read the staff update. Uh since the last meeting, the applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff. They submitted that on January 22nd. The revised site plan eliminates the proposed duplex structures on the two northernmost lots. There's an existing single fam family home on these two lots which the applicant plans to refurbish for continued use as a single family residence. So you have the request is for five remaining lots with a duplex on each lot and the applicant has made the following changes uh to the previous submittal of the site plan. Uh number one, each proposed duplex has been pulled 18 feet closer to the uh front or east property line of each lot with the proposed front setback of 30 ft. A double driveway from Elim Street is proposed for each lot. Each driveway will access a parking pad for two vehicles in front of each duplex unit and there will be landscaped areas provided between each of the parking pad areas. Staff continues to support the pro the proposed conditional use permit application and staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. Applicants, would you please state your name for the record? Uh, yes. Good evening, commissioners. Parker Spalding on behalf of Apex Real Estate Investments LLC and I have Chase Calhoun with me as well who is the owner of that uh company. Fantastic. And Mr. Spalding, Mr. Calhoun, as y'all are aware, you have 20 minutes. Uh there are two uh comment cards in opposition to your project. So, you may proceed or or let the opposition speak first.

Um I I'll go real quick and then I'll reserve the rest of my time um to respond to the opposition. Um, as was discussed, we were here in December. U, Mr. Grooms, my law partner, was here. I'm stepping in for him today. And I just want to point out one of the issues that was addressed during that December meeting was the possibility of using the alley behind the proposed duplexes as a driveway and as a means of uh, ingress and egress to each of the duplexes. Uh, Mr. Calhoun worked with the city, went back and forth on the uh feasibility of using that alleyway as a driveway, and it was determined by both the city and Mr. Calhoun that it wasn't feasible. There's a power pole in the middle of the driveway. It's never been graveled. It's never been graded or anything like that. Um there's fences from some existing structures that bleed over into the alleyway. And so after working with the city and after determining that that alleyway was not sufficient, uh they came up with the site plan that you have in front of you now for the double drives off Elwim Street. Um and so I I think based on what occurred after the December meeting that the um proposal in front of you should be sufficient and should alleviate any um concerns about trying to use that alleyway behind the duplexes. Uh again in the December meeting there was um some of the community members that asked for more information. After that meeting Mr. Grooms hung around, talked to them for 30 or 45 minutes. Um in January, Mr. Grooms communicated with a Miss Sandy Becker and

Mr. Becker.

Oh, Mr. Sander Becker. I'm sorry, sir. Sandy Becker. I'm sorry, sir. I'm sorry. Uh communicated with Mr. Sandy Becker. um and some of the other community members via email. Um there were additional communications in February after the new site plans were finalized. Uh Mr. Calhoun was aware of those conversations and I believe Mr. Calhoun had a meeting with several community members this Saturday last Saturday regarding the project and so we've given every opportunity to exchange information ask questions and so I believe everyone should be fairly informed about the the status of the request at this time and and so unless any of the commissioners have anything right now I'll reserve the rest of our time and Mr. Calhoun can answer any questions about the specifics of the project itself.

Thank you Mr. Fon. Thank you. Okay. In terms of the opposition, Mr. Becker, uh, we have your card and then Miss Romero. M. Romero. Okay. Mr. Becker, would you like to speak first? And sir, would you please state your name for the record? Sandy Becker. Mayo. Yes, sir. So [laughter] noted.

Please make sure the record is correct on that. Um, okay. I always believe in I've we have met there was um just to be technically correct uh it did take a while to get communication. We actually met were able to meet and I appreciate the developer being willing to meet with us. It was this past Saturday. Uh we we did not receive the documents that until uh Friday of last week. So it was a there was a gap in between just honesty. Okay. We did reach that point. I do appreciate Mr. Calhoun. Uh when we uh we bypassed to get to him directly because we were not communicating well. So when we got to him, he did respond instantly. That's given credit where credit is due, including giving us a cell phone number that he asked to answer in the evening. I appreciate that. we did have uh and we were on a real short timetable because you know at that point that was less than a week before today. So uh we we got together with some of the neighborhood people and we decided best time to meet of course was Saturday because most people would not be working that time. So the short of this is we did meet we had a good conversation. He uh Mr. Calhoun also gave us other projects he had. We actually went and visited them and one of the tenants there just happened to drive by and we had a pleasant conversation with them too. We did not knock on their door. They said hi. We said hi. We asked you live here and we had a conversation. Now here's the gist of it. Um we looked at the physical construction. the physical construction. Uh we were pleased with the general the design and everything else of the the ones that we did see and

said our initial thing was we didn't have information. We did have information uh and we do it and um I appreciate Mr. SC is honestly I when we talked afterwards cuz after we met we sat we talked among the neighbors and so we came up with here here was the the one of the lingering concerns we have is this is density. Okay. Uh these lots are 48 foot literally to make this work on this particular property the design is and this is just architecturally what it is. You basically take one building, you run it front to back because that's the only way that it will fit on a 48 foot lot. There is approximately 12 ft uh standard distance between it. But the density is our one uncomfort level that we have when this area is intended to be we all in all areas we prefer a mixture of rentals. Okay, but there also needs to be as much as possible uh res uh regular residential R1, R2, R3 that is hopefully owner op occupied. That was the only concern that several of our members still had concerns about because in this particular area you basically are talking about let's see if I think five no okay five buildings they're very very close to the other you're having two families on one 48 foot lot. If it was just one or two, okay, that's more of a blend, but this basically is a almost like a mini apartment complex done in the shape of duplexes. That was the concern. And here's the thing about it is I actually like Mr. C we had a real pleasant conversation but there there was that was the concern

that several members still have that basically this development and it's better because now it's less so that that helps a little bit. Okay. But that was a concern that we still had. So it was felt that we need to voice that concern that when you start putting more of a development that has is really intense puts people really close to each other and we looked at his other properties and all that and I it's all like if this was happen it's all like okay we will hope for the best but we were looking at in that neighborhood compressing people that close together side by side. It's like the whole block basically is one duplex after another. We looked at other places where we won't infield. rental property has a thing, but this is concern that several neighbors still had that concern is this is a lot real close together and it looks more like an apartment area than a residential because there's so many units right there on that one block and the one pass with a camp street in between one of them. But yeah, so that was concern and I was one of the things I was asked and agreed to is that that concern does need to be voiced and that we want new construction but that concern that anytime we think and I'm speaking not just for this development of if a development basically comes in and it has the capial to change somewhat the characteristic of a neighborhood that was concern that we at and um like I said, I like him. We had a pleasant conversation. We got past all our things. Yes, dear wife, dear. Uh we had but that's the concern that we have. Okay.

Uh the rest of stuff, a lot of other stuff we appreciate his and we taught construction. I work a little in relation to construction. We understood the construction concepts and all that, but that one concern we felt needed to be voiced. Thank you, Mr. Becker. Mr. Romero.

And ma'am, would you please state your name for the record? Ashley Romero. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Um, so I have prepared or my uncle have prepared because I'm speaking on my uncle's behalf. Um, so he has written, "Me and my family have lived more than 18 years on Eagle Street. The neighborhood is very calm. No problems, no noise. Always a quiet, calm life every day of the week. I'm here speaking for me and my neighbors who could not be here. Some of my neighbors are older and can't leave home due to health issues. We are totally against this construction of duplexes because when doing so, no one is guaranteed calmness of the neighborhood anymore. It becomes dangerous. The people who move in or rent start causing problems. their safety isn't or our safety isn't for our families or our homes. The robberies, drug sales, and shootings we can day and night. We begin to fear for um we begin to live in fear and can't sleep because constantly check in and it creates stress. Our childrens could not go out and play in the yard like they do now. As an example would be this next street over Hol Street. The police is constantly going over to the duplexes for disputes or shootings that happen consistently and we do not want that for our street, Elum Street. Please do not let this construction happen so we can live a calm, quiet, and stress-free life. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Monro. Applicant, looks like you have about 17 and a half minutes. You may return to the podium and address any of those concerns that have been raised. Uh thank you for your time. Just a couple comments I guess on that and then if anybody has any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Uh one on the density I I understand that and they are duplexes. One thing we did do is originally we had planned to tear down a single family house that's on a double lot and it was going to be more units. We when we looked at it, we realized that the the house, although it was in disrepair, was repairable. So, we went in and renovated the house and actually sold that to an owner occupant. Um, and so instead of making a rental, instead of tearing that house down and making four additional units there, we actually refurbished the badly dilapidated house and then sold that to somebody who intends to live there long term who's already moved in. Um, so we did lower the density a little bit. Uh, as far as the the density of the five duplexes, it's it's we look at the neighborhoods and we try to one as far as quality and tenant class. We try to build a higher quality unit that's going to attract the best possible quality tenant. We also want to be cognizant of not overpricing for the neighborhoods. We want to build the most affordable. We start with a tenant in mind. So, the most affordable rental and still keep it as nice as possible. And doing the duplexes makes that achievable. So, we can still make a really nice uh duplex unit. They're going to be threebedroom, two bath units, the exterior facade of them, and I wish we had some 3D renderings. We provided them, but I think it's okay. Unless you guys wanted to see them, but you do. Okay. I think we have copies of it. But they're really nice on the exterior. So, they they look and feel kind of like a single family house. Um they're three-bedroom, two bath, so they're they're similar

sized units to somebody that's going to rent a threebedroom, two bath. Those are the ones that we actually built the similar ones.

Right. Yeah. And so we switched to each unit will have its individual driveway entrance and two parking pads. And we also do like fenced in backyards to try to draw people with pets and families and stuff like that. So it's just a little bit higher quality unit than than I think what a lot of people are building. Um so it both helps with the look and feel of a neighborhood. to drive down the street. It should look and still feel like a regular residential neighborhood from an aesthetic standpoint and then also a tenant quality. We we tend to get a higher quality tenant. We also self-manage. So I own Chase Kellen Real Estate, which is a third party internal and third party property management company. So usually the intention with these is for us to build them under our the construction company builds them, but we have an investment company that will likely own them and then we manage them inhouse. Uh and so we're really involved in the lease up process. We because we're the ones that ultimately have to deal with the tenants. Uh we want it's important to us to place the highest quality tenant that we can. So we we screen everybody and and definitely don't want issues with tenants down the road. Does anybody have any questions for me? Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Calhoun. Any any questions for Mr. Calhoun or Mr. Spalding? and let the record reflect that some images, proposed images of the development are being circulated to the commissioners right now. [clears throat]

Each duplex is um I'm sorry. Um each duplex has two car parking spots for each one. Yes, sir. And again, they're going to be physically separated just just so that there's no issues between the two units. Gotcha. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Mark.

Just just food for thought with this with respect to density. Uh some of you may remember the state of Arkansas passed um legislation that allows accessory dwellings on all residential lots in the city. So, there can be two residences on each of these lots. So, they're they're not this exact configuration. uh they would have to do them a little differently, but as far as density goes, it's and they and they would not uh do not have to ask for any kind of reasonzoning or anything for that. It's by right. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner Vickers. Okay. If there are no further questions, I will entertain a motion with respect to item number three. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got one more. So, at [clears throat] first, how many duplexes was were on the lot the first time around? So, [snorts] it was going to be seven lots, which would have been 14 units total. So, and then we we salvaged the single family house and eliminated two of the lots that we're going to develop to do plus which is going to be four. So, it's five now total. So, five lots total. It'll be 10 total units.

All right. Sorry. Seeing no further questions, uh I'll entertain a motion. All right, Mr. Chair. In regard to item number three, file number Z10234, I make a motion for the approval of the revised PCD subject to the compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Second. Commissioner Brown, yes. Bernard, yes. Hodgees, yes. person. Come back to me, please. Russell Samad, yes.

Eves. McDonald. Yes. Backter. Yes. Back to Commissioner Pson. Yes. Motion's approved. Thank you, Mr. Thrower. Oh, and yes, for Vickers. Uh, Commissioner Vickers, I'm sorry. It's It's okay. No, I'm sorry. I apologize. I It's okay. It's my fault I did not change the roll call. No, no, it's from you being the chair. I totally understand. And I got Vicers here. That's why I keep screwing this up because I did not change the names of the commissioners. So, I apologize for that. That's my oversight.

No, not a problem. I apologize. Commissioner Vickers, you did vote yes, right? Yes. Okay. Commissioners, uh, chair, uh, and, uh, public, I apologize for that. I will have this right next month. Thanks, Mr. Mr. Romero, Mr. Becker, thank you so much for coming out. Uh, seeing, and I do, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Spalding, just to the extent possible, continue to work with the community, but thanks for so much for for coming forward. Thank you, Commissioner. I think we're going to be out in hopefully record time. Um, we do have room for public comments. Seeing no comments, any commissioner comments.

With that, uh, the February meeting is adjourned. Thanks so much.