Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

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

Heat. Heat. N. I'm not. Heat. Heat. Good afternoon. Welcome to the City of Little Rock Planning Commission. Today is the 9th day of April, 2026. The April meeting is officially called to order. Mr. Thrower, would you please do a roll call?

Yes, sir. This is a roll call vote for the Little Rock Planning Commission meeting for April 9th, 2026. Commissioner Brown. Bernard here. Hodgees here. Person here. Russell present. Samad Vickers here. Eves here. McDonald Baxter here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. Our first order of business is to approve the minutes from March's meeting. Assuming that there are no questions from any commissioners, I will entertain a motion. I move the approval of last month's meeting minutes. Second. Commissioner Brown. Manard. Yes. Hajes, yes. Person, yes. Russell, hi. Sad Vickers, yes. Eves, yes. Macdonald, yes. Minutes are approved.

Thank you. Uh, before we go into reading of the consent agenda, it is my understanding that we have received a request for Thank you. request for a deferral on item number 22 Z-10283 Common Ground Properties. Would the applicant like to come to the podium? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Uh my name is Adam Foggelman. I'm a member of Common Ground Properties and at this time would like to request a deferral of this item uh for till next month's meeting. Thank you. I'd entertain a motion regarding this deferral. I move this item be deferred until next month's agenda. A second.

Commissioner Brown. Bernard. Yes. Hodes. Yes. Person. Yes. Russell. Hi. Summad. Vickers. Yes. Eves. Yes. McDonald. Backter. Yes.

Item has been deferred to next month's meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Our next order of business is to review the consent agenda. Mr. Gosden, would you please read the consent agenda? The following is a planning commission agenda for April 9th, 2026. The following items have been withdrawn or deferred. Item two, Z-10288 is being withdrawn without prejudice at the request of the applicant. Item 3 Z-9850- A is being withdrawn without prejudice due to insufficient notification as the application was previously deferred two times. Item 6 Z6458- A is being deferred to the July 9th, 2026 agenda at the request of the applicant. Item 7 Z 8294-B is being deferred to the May 14th, 2026 agenda as the applicant failed to respond to staff comments. Item 9, S2016 is being deferred to the May 14th, 2026 agenda due to insufficient notifications. Item 13, Z10280 is being deferred to the May 14th, 2026 agenda, so the applicant can revise the application to a PC to a PCD. Item 15, Z4768-e is being deferred to the May 14th, 2026 agenda due to insufficient notifications. Item 18, Z9650A is being deferred to the May 14th, 2026 agenda as the applicant needs to submit a revised site plan. Item 20 Z1036- A is being deferred to the May 14th,

2026 agenda due to in insufficient notifications. Item 25, Z1267 is being deferred to the July 9th, 2026 agenda due to insufficient notifications. Following is cons is under consent approval. Item 1 4 5 5.1 and 8 have been pulled to the regular agenda. Item 10 Z10272 Graves Group home special use permit 6900 West Markham Street. St. Staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit subject to the compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of the staff of the agenda staff report. Item 11 Z10275 Sevilla Sevita Health Group home special use permit 110 Shady Thicket Lane. Staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of agenda staff report. Item 12 Z10266 Phillips duplexes conditional use permit northeast corner of West 15th Street and South Martin Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E of the staff analysis in the agenda staff report. Item 14 and 16 have been pulled to regular agenda. Items 17 Z-9509- Live Edge LLC PCD 120 East 6th Street. Staff recommends approval of the proposed reszoning subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D and E and the staff analysis of the

agenda staff report. Item 19 Z100083- Access village revised POD 7814T Street. Staff recommends approval of the propo proposed reasonzoning subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 21 Z10282 Saxion Enterprises PCD 2020 West 3rd Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested PCD zoning subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, and F. and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 22 was deferred. Item 23 Z8242 Stuber short form PDR revocation 1315 and 1317 Arthur Lane. Staff recommends approval of the PDR revocation request. Item 24, Z10274 QBSR STR2 PDC at 13181320 South Summit 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. And that concludes the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Gazden. If there are no questions, I'll entertain a motion regarding the consent agenda. Mr. Chair, I move the adoption of Lorac Planning Commission consent agenda for April 9th, 2026 as proposed by staff. Second. Commissioner Brown. Bernard, yes. Hodes, yes. Person, yes. Russell, I sad. Yes. Vickers, yes. Eves, yes. McDonald Baxter. Yes, the consent agenda has been approved.

So, let's go on to the regular agenda. We're going to have quite a few items. Items number one, four, five, 5.18, 14, and 16. If your item was on the consent approval, feel free to step on out. I just want to make a quick reminder, and I think most of y'all know this, that to the extent that there are seven commissioners, the applicant may defer at the applicant's expense. It does take We have eight. We have eight now, but still the same rules apply.

Okay, so eight eight or fewer commissioners, the applicant may defer at the applicant's expense. It does require a vote of six to approve an agenda item, but feel free to address that when your item is called. So, let's begin with the first item. Item number one, file number S-202- colleges at Carter Lane. Uh, Mr. Gossson, would you do a reading of that item, please? Item item one S20002- A cottages at Carter Lane preliminary plat at 4209 Carter Lane. The applicant requests to subdivide five acres into 23 lot 23 lots for single family residential development. The subdivision will contain 850 linear feet of new street. The property contains an existing single family residence located within the west half of the property. The east half of the property is undeveloped and mostly tree covered. A creek is located on the east half of the overall property. A driveway from Carter Lane is located at the southeast portion of the property. Applicant proposes to develop the subdivision in three phases as follows. Lot one or phase one, lots one and two and lots 21 and 23. Phase two, lots 3 through 7 and lots 16 through 20. And phase three, lots 8 through 15. Lots 1 through 8 and lots 15- 22 will front on old co old cottage lane, which will run east west from Carter Lane through the center of the overall property. lots through the center of the overall property. Lots 9 through 14 will take access from Old Carter Cove, which runs

north and south at the east of Old Cottage Lane. Lot 23 will take access from Carter Lane. The new streets within the subdivision will have 45 ft of rideway and be constructed to minor residential standards as per the city's master street plan. Then um the applicant submitted a revised preliminary PLA documentation to staff on March 23rd, 2026. The revised plaid eliminates all of the previously requested variances. The applicant has added tracks C and D along the Carter Lane frontage, thereby making the lots one and 22 interior lots and not corner lots. All of the lot widths now conform to ordinance standards. All of the tracks within the subdivision will be maintained by POA. In addition to all of the lots, In addition, all of the lots now have 25- ft platted building lines, eliminating the variance for reduced front setback for lots 1, 22, and 23. Staff continues to support the proposed preliminary plat as the plat has no variances requested.

Thank you, Mr. Gosen. Uh when staff recommends approval of the preliminary PR subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in par paragraph D&E and the staff analysis of the staff report. Thanks. Applicant, would you please state your name for the record? Uh Chairman Baxter, commissioners, my name is Tim Ders. I'm an engineer with White Ders and Associates. With me today is Harrison Kemp with Man Kemp. Uh we would like to go ahead and defer our presentation till after the if there's any opposition that's have the chance to speak. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.

Opposition, there are uh four cards. Uh so you have a total of 20 minutes to present your cases. Um we have Miss Karen Depipa, John Deipa, is it Ren Reina Reva and Randy Reva. Okay. Um Mr. Reva, would you like to speak first? Chairman, Commissioner. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Um we I first off I want to thank you for your service to our communities. So uh we have our neighbors over here that all came to support and I'm speaking for them. Um this uh I would like to um outline what the proposed development means to us. Um first off is very incompatible with the character of our our street or lane Carter Lane. Um we could go on to the first slide please. It logged me out. Just one second. Okay, I'll pause your time.

All right. It's it not only incompatible, there's some major issues with traffic, flooding, fire safety. So, uh I'll start with the first. Um so, a little background. My wife and I moved to Carter Lane 36 years ago. Um the house that we bought needed a lot of work and the land needed a lot of work also. and uh we've been kind of working on it ever since and improving it. Um the house was 20 minutes from the hospital and I'm on call a lot. So that worked for us and yet we still had a little bit of land which was great and we loved it. And um so we remodeled and we cleaned up the property and uh till what it became today. And there's the front of my house now. Um we added on um the next slide please. um we raised our family and uh now I'm approaching retirement along with my wife and along with a lot of the other people on our street. Um we're all sort of gotten to be the same age. Um and uh what we like about it is just a it's a country lane and um people that live there, they stay there. We actually had um if you talk to the neighbors, they all say they're real fortunate they found their home where they did. And uh we have we have one neighbor, Mr. Franetti. He's not here today because he's very elderly, but he's a retired World War II veteran. He downsized with his wife and uh only to discover that they didn't like where they moved and moved back and he built a beautiful home. Uh that's his home right there on the on the slide. Can you go to the next slide, please? There we go. That's another picture of another home. So, you could see that our lane has large estates, big homes, a lot of land, and uh except there's there is an addition of six homes that are on a regular size lot, and they're very nice. But um

the the first attempt of a development on our road was by Mr. Ders. Um and it was our first experience with dealing with him. uh he wanted to build 50 homes on on it with access to Lam Marsh. So all the neighbors chipped in. We hired a lawyer and we came to an agreement with Mr. Ders that he build five houses on Carter Lane without any access to Lamarsh and then he could build the rest of the houses through Lamar. So we had the five houses that were supposed to be facing Carter Lane and then the rest of the houses behind. So with the with the lawyer, we all agreed and I was there at the meeting, my wife was there. So the all the five houses were supposed to be brick or stone with attached garage. So the first house he built and then he sold off five more houses to another build builder who did what specified. Can I have the next slide, please? And then the next one. Oh, I'm out of order. Okay. But just to That's all right. So, uh, the h the first house that Mr. Ders built had no brick or side or stone like he had said. Did not have an attached garage like he said. And then at that point after we've already spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer, we didn't want to go back and do anything about it. So, we just let it go. So, we just learned our lesson. You know, you have to get these things very nailed down and everybody's busy. you know how that goes. So, we just let it go. It we have nice people there now and the other houses are beautiful and we're we're very happy for our neighbors. But, um but we just like I said, we just learned something. So, uh Mr. Dish then about 6 years ago, he bought the property next to me, which is 4209. It's the property in question. It's the 5 acres and I have a 5 acre track right next to him where is a single home. Um he fixed some things on the house. So, he bought the house for 490,000. He

fixed some things and then he put it on the market for around 700,000. But that time he didn't get any buyers. So he just left the property vacant for 5 years. And this is what it looked like in our nice neighborhood. You saw the other pictures. This is what his house looked like. Could I go to the next one, please? Okay. That is the first house he built without the tach garage. And can I go to the next slide, please? Okay. Well, never mind there. But um next one. Yeah, that's his house there now. That's how it's been for the last five or six years. So, nobody said anything because we just private people and we don't we don't bother with it. But once this started now with this 23 house deal that he wants to put there, then we called 311 and they got it cleaned up. Okay. uh about so one of the other problems with this development is flooding. So when my wife and I moved out there, we have a small creek in the back and it goes behind a lot of the houses on the east side of the street. The creek was barely a wet a wet creek in the summer, but now it's always got water in it for sure if it rains. Could you go to the next slide, please? Uh, okay. You can't make that any bigger, I guess. But you could see that's the back of my property. You see the water just coming out. Go on to the next slide, please. And that is the west side of Carter. So, that's going over to the other side. And then another slide, please. And there's another view of the west side of Carter Lane where some of our neighbors are. You can see the flooding that we're getting. So, um the the the de what has happened is the developments up um Lam Marsh on up that hill to the

um south of us is just causing more and more water to come down into the creek and getting funneled into the creek and the creek cannot withstand it and it's coming out of the banks and it's becoming a hazard. Well, the city is familiar with this and they've they've come up with a new flood um storm water control standard. The new standard requires a lot of area of your property to be used. Well, since Mr. Ders filed his plaque way back in November and then he has delayed and delayed and delayed, he hasn't done one bit of construction and one bit of anything. He's still trying to get in under the new the old storm water standard. But we really need the new storm water standard. No construction has been done. Nothing has been done. You know, I really feel like the city should apply the new standard to this. We really need it. But um when it rains now, our creek becomes like a rushing river and it's overflowing. In fact, one of the neighbors, Tammy, she's here. She's a biologist and she's worked with the core of engineers. She surveyed the property at 4209 and she said that since it comes down to his property first and then it comes on to mine and it came down to where there's there was another property there that's now that's now a nice nicer development. So it's just keeping on moving down. So when he does his development then that that's just going to flood out mine. Okay. So, she's looked at the back of the property that he's said he was going to put houses back there and she said that all the trees that require some dryness are gone. They're or dead. The only ones that are alive now are the wet land type vegetation that that lives. So, um you know, I just it's it's now a wetlands basically his property. So, which is probably why it hadn't been developed in

the past, but uh let's see here. So, the resulting flooding has impact Madison Valley, Teroop, and Gu. I think you might all be familiar with some of that. Um this is happening in areas in the in the city, and it's why we have these new standards. So, um, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality say states that uncontrolled storm water runoff from developed land adversely affects public health, safety, and welfare. Developments that have not begun construction should be mandated to meet the January 1 requirement. This this development does not. And it to me, it just says this is profit over people. That's what it is. I mean, I uh and I don't care what he says. The more water you put in that creek, the more it's going to overflow and unless something's done. Now, the city apparently has allocated money because they've spent a lot of money already on Teroop Road trying to handle all the water that's coming down that creek through Teroop Road and out Guuch and all there. So there is still some money set aside to handle the flood that's coming down to before it gets to Terro which would be my property and and his his development there. And uh my assertion should be is that well he ought to wait until that flooding is handled prior to having this development built. Um let's see. Can you go to the next slide and then next one? Okay. Is is any of these a movie that you could play? Yeah. Could you play that? There's a here's an example of the flooding. Are you all seeing it? Okay. You seeing it on screens there? Okay. So, that's just showing you the volume of water

that is coming down. Can you go to the next one? And the next movie that we have. Okay. This is behind the house. Okay. We'll go back the other way. All right. This any with the flooding. Yeah, there you go. So, that is my creek behind the house now. All right. So, um I know that Mr. Davis, he feels like he's going to do something with the flooding, which yeah, it has to be done, especially for Madison Valley, but just flooding funnel funneling more into the creek is just going to make it worse. Okay. So, the other uh problem we have with it is that the secondary fire access roads. So, the Arkansas code uh D107, 10 or two family dwell dwelling developments in a 30 home with a 30 home threshold, which our street only has 28 homes now. It'll have 30 when he's done. So, he has to have an a secondary access roads. So, he submitted two secondary access roads. One is through my backyard, which nobody has access to my backyard. And I've talked to a civil engineer and I've talked to a lawyer. Nobody he doesn't have rights to a backyard. And the other one is through the depipas that property they own and they also talked to a lawyer and he does not have rights. So he's that would be in violation um of the code. So in other words, if he goes ahead, so at least let's delay this until he's not in violation of the fire code. Okay. Um, so I also feel like being the fact that

Mr. Dator owns the property and he's the PE or the engineer on the property that that means, you know, you you must look at it very very closely, you know. Um, and I think it just needs to be restudied, a lot of it, especially these things with the fire and all that. Why why would you put that? We had a meeting with him to try to determine what he would do, my wife and I, what he was going to do. Never did he mention that I'm gonna put a road in your backyard or have access to your backyard. It was something that we found hidden in the papers, you know, that was filed. So, anyhow, um 23 homes. Can we go down further? 23 homes. One more down. Yeah. 23 homes on small lots are not compatible at all with Carter Lane as I showed you in the beginning. in uh the road that we have which you can't hardly get past. I have some pass outs. I don't know if you are looking at them. Have you passed it around?

You can see the two cars trying to get by. You could barely get by. It can't handle the traffic of that many cars. So, uh the bill of insurance that he's submitted is the total minimum size house, the minimum lot size, the minimum everything. And uh that that to me is not acceptable. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Desper now. Thank you, Mr. Eva.

Good afternoon, Mr. Debe.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, thank you for allowing me to speak. Um, I know we only have 20 minutes, so I will be very brief. I have two issues. First, I support my neighbors in their concern about flooding. Um, and the issue is this development may not in itself significantly increase the amount of water, but Mr. Jers is doing nothing to prevent it from increasing further down from his property. And it seems to me that it's quite clear that these developments that are sort of uphill, it'll be north from us have increased the volume of water so much. Maybe not one of them significantly increased the flow. But you know when you keep adding drops of water to a bucket, eventually that bucket overflows. And that's where we are now. That creek is overflowing. And one more drop is one drop too many as this images show. So it seems to me that it would be appropriate to defer this until there's further discussion about mitigation. for the flooding and there really is no mitigation for flooding onto the REAS property in the preliminary plat and it would be appropriate then to defer it especially in light of the new uh groundwater standards. My second concern relates to the secondary access roads as Mr. as Dr. Rever pointed out there's one suggested across his property and then one access to ours. We don't live on Carter Road, but we access our property from a driveway that connects to Carter Road. We own plots three and four of the Gerard edition. We own, as I learned in law school in property all these many years ago, we own that driveway in fe simple absolute. Any access to that driveway will require our consent.

There is no reason to add access to a future development that Mr. Dato's plans through a current road. Moreover, if the access on our property is for the development on Carter Lane, then it clearly is in violation of Mr. Der's agreement with our neighbors 15 or 16 years ago in which he agreed not to access Lam Marsh and the property he seeks to develop in the future that presumably would have access across our driveway has access to Lam Marsh already. For those reasons that this is not appropriate for the neighborhood that there is still ongoing concern nothing alleviates that concern about flooding and there is no right to access either my property or Dr. Riva's. and we suggest deferring this action for a future date. Thank you.

Thank you. Opposition, there's approximately four minutes left. Mr. Pippa, Miss Reeba, would either of you like to speak? And ma'am, would you please state your name for the record?

I'm Ramona Reeva, Manny's wife. I'm sorry. I'm an introvert. We're all introverts here, so this is very difficult for us. I'm going to read a letter that Tammy um wrote. um the one that's the biologist that worked for the core of engineers for her. I first I'd like to say that all the land on Carter Lane area is lowland. It receives all rainwater runoff from more than 300 acres watershed and is not well suited to development. 300 acres is only the creek involved the development. It does not include the creek on the west side of Carter Lane. Therefore, total drainage through Carter Lane lowlands is far more than 300 acres in total. Further channelization of the creek will create flooding problems in existing homes and properties downstream, i.e. our home, and it will reach eventually our swimming pool, which is very upsetting to us. We've really improved the land and the area. We have lived there so long. I mean, these are one of our daughters. It's just very upsetting. We've been going through this since November. Um, she also said, "The area below being lowlands is likely the reason the area was and still is best suited to remain as small estates, as we were told by David Jones, who sold us our home, where the land can continue to hold waters and not create additional flooding in the Taylor Loop Heather area. The US Army Corps of Engineers is authorized through the section 404 permit to regulate activities placing fill material into US waterways, including wetlands. This creek feeds to the Little Mel River, which results in requiring a section 404 permit if it is designated a wetland, which it appears to be turned into

because of all the developments up Marsh, including Fstone and Daventry. We're getting all that. Prior to the development of Carter Creek Cove, the creek spread outside of its banks and slowed the downstream flow. This also occurred on the 40 4209 Carter property. Some of the slides we showed you, the water's running towards Carter Lane. The water is spreading out in his backyard. He's going to bring in Phil. We're to the north of him. It's going to come onto our land. You saw our home. We're very proud of our home and how we keep the neighborhood. Channelizing this property as opposed would move this function down to the Revas property. What was once three large estates storing storm water would not be reduced to one would would be reduced to one and likely insufficient to stop the increase of downstream flooding of homes and unfair to the revivas because their property including their home and other structures will likely begin to experience flooding where it has previously not occurred. Property use was determined when this land was initially divided into estates, allowing plenty of space for natural drainage of the surrounding properties and the 300 acre whed. Continuing to channelize this creek is passing the problem downstream and is unfair to long-term established land owners and appropriate land use that being to slow drainage and reduce flooding downstream. Carter Lane was developed as small estates in building additional homes to maxi maximize personal profit profit not only harms current homeowners but future homeowners who might purchase a home in lowlands and at risk of significant flooding. Finally, stacking 23 homes into small acreage in the middle of an area that has long been five or two and

a half or so acre estates damages the integrity of the neighborhood and is neither compatible or harmonious with the existing neighborhood. Thank you, Miss Reva. I u would would like to give you more time, but in the interest of fairness, we got to respect the 20-minut rule. Okay. I would like to note for the record that Miss Karen Depipa, where is Miss Deipa? Uh, has also submitted a card, but uh, we do not have time for her to speak. Thank you, Mr. Pippa. At this time, we'll call back the applicant, Mr. Ders, Mr. Kim. Quite a few uh, concerns were raised. You have 20 minutes, chairman. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Um, this project that we're looking at today is a 5 acre development and it's at the bottom of a roughly 300 acre drainage basin. The bulk of that drainage basin is on Pot Latch Deltic and has been developed as four or five probably four or five subdivisions over the last 20 years. Uh, that drainage basin has got a detention facility with 1.5 million cubic feet of storage in it. It's been re reviewed and approved by the city of Little Rock. It complies with the new drainage manual in terms of storm water detention. Uh and it keeps uh pre uh post-development 25-y year and a 100year storm events at the pre-development levels. Uh it's other than the Shaw Valley Golf Course is probably the large second largest regional detention facility in Little Rock. Uh the the we did those developments for Patch Deltic and designed those detention facilities. uh the the uh immediately adjacent to this development and to the north uh 5acre development was completed last year and under construction. We are devoting a significant area of this development to open space to convey the storm water from the north side to the south side. Uh, excuse me, from the south to the north. Uh, where the creek leaves the property right now on the north end where it abuts the revas. We won't do any work at that location. We are putting a single arch structure in across the creek instead of box culverts. Uh this at this location we're approximately 6,000 ft from the beginning of the wershed and this project has got about 330 ft of creek on it. Uh we are going to provide detention on site and development of this site is not going to change the peak discharges for the 25 year or 100red-year event. Uh we did prepare a a drainage report that went with the preliminary plant.

Part of that drainage report was the approved copy of the detention study for the all the acreage in Chanel Valley uh upstream of this. So of the 300 acres roughly uh 290 of that is is controlled and governed by that detention facility which is just up uh upstream in Chenol. Uh we are going to comply with all the city's requirements in terms of home elevations as it relates to 100red-year flood elevations in the creek. We are going to provide detention. Uh Hannah, did I did give uh could you give one you pull up there? I did make a quick little sketch uh showing how we would handle the overall drainage within the development itself to keep it from impacting the adjacent property owners. That one's it right there. Basically the houses from the the fronts of the houses will drain to the streets and the rear of the houses will drain to the rear the rear half. We'll build swailes along the north property line where the revas are. We'll also build a swale along the south property line to direct the water to the creek adjacent to Madison Valley where they do have flooding issues. We're going to construct a swale on our property to collect the water and convey it to an existing 48 in storm drain which you see in the upper right hand corner in believe it or not cyan. I can and I apologize for the color selections. My drafting guy I believe is color blind. Um but we are going to convi uh convey this all the all the uh improved surfaces will drain to detention facilities. Uh it is it's a big drainage basin. It's got 300 acres. Uh 25 year events roughly uh 750 cubic feet per second. A 100red-year event is over a,000 cubic feet per second. The city's got a going. We worked on a city

project that installed a 9 by9 box covert under a GCH drive back in 2016 or 2015 or excuse me under Taylor Loop at GUCH. Uh that covert was designed at the city's request for only a 25-year event and it was 9 ft square. Um, if you'll roll down a little bit, Hannah, I did a couple quick little photos. Go, go ahead and pass that to her. I had a page with some photos on it. Uh, what you see on this page are the upstream drainage structures that are on Chanel. Uh, the the pipes that you see are at Carter Cove. The development's just completed. The next one is at Abington. Uh, this is the same creek and that's the drainage structure. This one is at uh, Fstone. We used a aluminum plate arch at that location because we wanted to leave the bottom of the channel natural. We're going to we're going to use something similar to this at um at uh the cottages because we want to leave the channel bottom natural and not pave it. Uh our hope is that these will look more like amenities or water features than just the same pl the you know rock line creek. Uh the final plans that we develop will be approve submitted and approved by the city of Little Rock. they'll comply with all the ordinances. Uh I think the the other issue to address is the uh fire access. The state fire code allows uh you to develop up to 30 lots with one point of access. If you if the fire marshall believes there is going to be a secondary point of access at some point in time in the future, he can allow development to exceed beyond those 30 lots. if he doesn't think that it's going to happen in the future, he he'll require those houses to be sprinkled when they're constructed. It's not whether or not they can be constructed, whether or not they can be platted, it's whether or not they have irrigation systems in the single family residential structures. So, this is a a fire marshall call. If

the fire marshall thinks that at some point in time there may be a secondary access in or out of Carter Lane for emergency vehicles only, then he'll permit the houses to be constructed without sprinklers. If he doesn't think it's going to be happen, then he'll require the houses to be sprinkled. Uh, and it applies to all the houses. So, in other words, the houses that are in Carter Creek Co. and are currently under construction, if he doesn't think it's going to happen the minute that he it's the 30th house there, he'll require it to be sprinkled. If somebody wants to build a a new structure, they he'll require it to be sprinkled. So, it's a it it applies to all the structures, not just the new structures. And it's a farm marshal requirement, not a subdivision or platting requirement. But but we again we intend to comply with all the city rules and regulations and subdivision. Uh we're going to be a build a subdivision where 23 families are happy to live and and want to buy the houses. Uh this is a well this this is probably the I don't in this particular in this particular location. Uh we've designed probably over three or 4 hundred uh lots that drain down through this creek and that's why we built that large ditch facility on pot Deltics's property. If you happy to answer any questions that might come up. Harrison, do you have anything to add? if you have if any questions commissioner Russell

Mr. daters. Um, so couple of couple of things just really mostly to clarify for the commission and for the audience. A lot of technical terms detention, retention, box culverts. So detention, just to clarify, unlike retention is to in a storm event allow a large body of water to slow down, be collected before it is released further downstream. Is that correct?

That's correct. the detention facilities that they'll retain about a million and a half cubic feet of water and they release it over an extended period of time. The the length of storm required to heat maximum flows in this particular basin is almost 40 minutes. So in other words, it has to rain for almost 40 minutes to actually get to the peak. Gotcha. Whereas retention, all of the water would physically be collected on site, stay on site. it would not discharge to

the uh the ponds on the Shaw Valley Golf Course are combined retention and detention facilities. In other words, they're approximately six or seven feet deep. They hold, you know, millions of thousands of acre feet of water. Uh they retain that water and then buffer it and then but then they also slowly rise because of the large surface. When the surface area gets really large like that,

incoming rainfall slowly raises the lake up. But for this development in particular, you're adding detention. So arguably, you're increasing the availability of surface area to detain water during a storm event and then slowly release that water downstream. That's correct. After the storm and we and we in the creek bottom itself, the creeks are good creeks are control composed of riffles and pools. So within the rock bottom of the creek itself, we'll have isolated pools and then little riffles. There's about 3 ft of fall from north to south across the side.

And um this is this is both clarifying question for you and of staff. There are no variances being requested for this replat. There are no special conditions. Everything within this application complies with the existing uh zoning ordinance as well as the city's uh updated as of January uh storm water retention. That's it complies with all the storm water the requirements in the subdivision ordinance. Yes. And we are our zoned R2. Okay.

And so question for city attorney. This generally falls within the what is the Richardson?

So yes, the what Richardson versus Little Rock Planning Commission um is the case that's going to govern here. It's a case from the the late 1980s. Uh basically talking about the authority of the planning commission and its function. Right? So we're not really a legislative body here. And this is I I kind of had anticipated that this might come up. So I I went ahead and pulled the opinion. Um but uh essentially if there's a preliminary plat that meets all the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance, then that's not it's going to be considered arbitrary if the commission denies it. Um so that's the that's sort of the legal rule there. Are there any questions from the commission on that?

And lastly, I did want to I did want to also um get to your point about fire apparatus access. So this being a residential development only one means of ingress and egress is required for fire department apparatus access and you are not accessing any other adjacent property via old cottage curve. Is it curve or cove? Cove. Cove. Old cottage cove to the north and the south. Those are dead end streets. They did not go beyond.

No. you told the city as part of this application is is that we had no intention of building these routes. We were not committed to building these routes and that we would not build these routes. So old Cottage Cove will not be built or Well, what which one is that? The North South Street. North South Street. No, we are going to build the North South Street and we'll plat the ride ofway all the way to the boundary lines on each side. Gotcha. But it will not extend beyond it. No, there is no access being being provided to No, we just we just agreed not to create any barriers. Okay, thank you. That's

I have one question about the the storm water plants. So, new storm water versus the old storm water plan. What's what what's going on there, Mr. Ders? as as part of the adopt in order to get the ordinance adopted uh in the spring of 2025. Uh the city said that if you own a piece of property right now and you submit a preliminary plat development plan prior to September 29th of 2025 that you can develop that property uh under the old storm water under the 2018 version of the storm water drainage manual. uh it used different methods to consider detention and everything else on this project because the drainage basin is so large. Our detention is going to comply with the 25 and 100year. The original the 2018 version only required you to comply with the 100redyear requirement or 25-year storm. We're going to go ahead and comply and retain the 100red-year storm as well so that we don't increase the hundred-year storm event on this project. What that means from a practical sense is under the previous regulations, a 25-year storm event was the maximum volume of water that developers had to comply with under the new regulation. They have to be able to

was the right word. We look at we look at a more severe event, the hundred-year event. and and and the throughout Chenol, we've been designing for the hundred-year event anyway. And so, we're going to design for the 100red-year event in this subdivision as well. And that's not necessarily to say that it only happens once every hundred years. It just means that that type of storm event has a 1% chance of happening and that's what's being designed for. I have a question for Mr. Rea. Dr. Reeves. In your presentation, you had a slideshow. There was a lot of water running at a fairly fast clip. Where is that in relation to your property? It's in my backyard. Your backyard?

Yes. Now, you said they were planning on building a road right in that backyard. Correct. Or

Yeah. Well, that's what the map that he submitted to the city, but I've already talked to um an engineer and he said there's no way that he can access your road. By the way, I've already tried to get access through Gu to back of my property cuz I own on the other side of it and the city denied me when somebody put a a a fence across there. The city said, "No, you do not have access through Gu. It's a private drive. You have to access it through your other property that you own." So, this was about 15 16 years ago. So, I don't know where he's coming up with this old cottage cove road or something. I've been there 36 years. I've looked at maps. Of course, he's an engineer, so he's got some access to maps that I don't have, I guess, but there was never any easement, anything on any of my documents that said there's a road back there going through there. I mean, that'd be right next to my pool. Um, I don't I I don't buy it. Um, so no, I I don't see how he could have access through there. I've got it fenced. Uh then you have the creek you have to get over. So I don't see any fire truck going over a creek. Um it's not just one that you could drive. It's it's kind of deep um and wide. So no.

Can Can we Can we pull up the the plat? Yeah. Thank you. So I think there's I think there's some confus confusion here. The site is being accessed from Carter Lane. It's not being accessed from your property. There is there is no access from your property anywhere onto this property. No, it's the egress that he's claiming for the um the egress is the secondary egress. There is no secondary egress. It's it's filed. We just don't want to even file it then and pull the file. There is no secondary egress. I've got um in those documents I got them I've got the map.

That is that's what's being approved or being considered for approval. And part of it was that he had to comply with secondary egress. Even though his from what I understand, even though he only has 23 houses, our street has way more than that. And therefore, he's went past the 30 houses. So he needs he was asked to supply secondary egress and he put down my property through old cottage cove road, which I've never heard of and I've been there almost 40 years. There's never been a road there. Mr. That's a new road that's Thanks, Commissioner Russell. Mr. Ders, would you please address this issue?

So, looking at this plaid right here with Old Cottage Cove on the east side, it does not run north and south. It's it's being built, but it's not being connected. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. The commitment that we made to the fire department is that we wouldn't block it off, that we wouldn't put a track across the end that you couldn't drive across. We said we'll leave it open so that if there is in the future some attempt to get secondary access back into Carter Lane, we wouldn't create an obstacle as part of this plat to that access. And and the reason that we submitted that was to confirm with the fire marshall whether or not we'll have to sprinkle these houses or not. That's the that's the balance at 30 lots. Above 30 lots, if the fire marshall doesn't think there's any chance that the street will ever tie in, he'll ask you to sprinkle the houses. if he thinks that there's some way to tie this thing in or it may be tied in in the future, uh, then he won't require the houses to be sprinkled and and the farm marshals across the state interpret this differently. The Little Rock fire marshall interprets this differently over time and and this came with a new fire marshal in Little Rock, this new interpretation. And so that's why we wanted to go ahead and address it uh when we did, but it's related to whether or not the houses are sprinkled. Yeah, we have no intention of building any streets on any other property.

Commissioners, Commissioner Person, you any additional questions? I'll ask one final question, Mr. Davis. Just everything that that has been brought up by by the Rivas and in terms of the water. I mean, I understand that there are current storm water plans in place and it meets those requirements, but we're seeing images in which the flooding is severe and we all know what weather in central Arkansas can sometimes do. So, how do you address these concerns?

The the this channel is a significant channel. It drains 300 acres of upland, relatively steep topography. The the flow rates for just a 25-year event are 700 cubic feet per second. That means that that rushing past you know every second are 700 cubic feet of water which is roughly something that's the velocities out there during peak events are probably in the natural channel are probably around 6 to 8 feet per second and so that that water's rushing by at a quick rate and it's a relatively large cross-sectional area. These culverts have got areas that are probably four or five feet wide and 15 or 20 feet long long. So there's roughly somewhere around 100 square feet of opening to convey just the existing flows and and the existing flows now are the same as the pre-development flows because of the large detention facilities constructed. It's a significant creek. Uh this creek used to cut to the east and flow through Madison Valley. The old maps show that. So but at some point in time the whoever was ranching or farming that decided that they would divert it to the west or to the north. So it goes now it flows to the north. But the but the city is addressing this. They've got a project currently underway north of Gu where there are or excuse me north of Taylor Loop where they're improving a section of channel at that location. They're building a 14 foot wide flat bottom concrete creek there. Uh and I have committed to working with trying to get this excuse me the city to improve that creek downstream from this development where people will grant easements and allow the city to improve the creek. But right now, the existing creek channel handles relatively low flows. The rest of the flows spread out into the overbank areas.

Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. With respect to consent item S-20002- A cottages at Carter Lane Preliminary Trust, I move the approval of it sub based on staff recommendation and as long as the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs DE and staff analyses are met, it be approved. Second. Commissioner Brownard. Yes. Hodes. Yes. Person. Yes. Russell.

Hi. Sim. Yes. Vickers. Yes. Eaves. Yes. McDonald. Backter. No.

Motion's approved. Thank you, Mr. Ders. Thank you, residents. Turn to our next item. Item number 4, Z-10245, Bates Group Home Special Use Permit, 301 Dryad Lane. Mr. Gossson, would you please do a reading of this item? Item number four, Z10245 dates group home special use permit 301 Dryad Lane. The applicant requests a special use permit to allow a group home to be located in the single family residential structure at 301 Dryad Lane. The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow to offer allow for a group home to operate within an existing one-story 3,499 ft 4bedroom single family residence. The home is located at 301 Dryad Lane and will contain a maximum of of six disabled persons at any given time. The property contains a onecar wide driveway from Dryad Lane. The driveway will will have parking for two vehicles. On street parking is allowed along lane. The applicant notes that one or two of the residents will drive. Also, there will typically be one staff person at the site at any given time. To staff's knowledge, there are no other transitional residential residential facilities located within 1500 ft of the property. Section 8406A of the city's bu building and building regulations ordinance requires a minimum u area per dwelling requires 450 square ft for the first occupant and 100 square feet for each additional occupant. Therefore, the minimum area for a residence occupied by seven persons is 750 square feet as noteds the residence

contains 1400 1,399 square ft in the area. Section 8-46B requires 70 square feet for the first occupant and 50 square feet for each additional o occupant. The applicant provided a statement demonstrating compliance with this section of the code as there are four bedrooms capable of housing a total of seven persons. Staff recommends approval of the proposed special use permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Thank you. Thank you.

Applicant, would you please approach the podium? Is the applicant present? Mr. Bates, I do not recognize uh in the room is present. Um I will go out in the hall and uh and call him. Okay. Let the record reflect that the reading has already been undertaken for item number four. In the interest of time and efficiency, let's move on to item number five. We need to defer the

We need to vote for deferral, Cameron. So if if if it's a situation where like Mr. Bates is is like on his way, uh we have in the past, you know, moved moved an item back, but if if it's a situation where Mr. Bates is not here, you can vote to defer it. Okay. No, Mr. Bates, uh he's he's not he's not here. Um I work with him closely in my office. I don't recognize him in the in the audience. So, it sounds like in this case either we can push it towards the end or I will entertain a motion to defer this.

I think Mr. Chair, I think there's somebody in the audience that it has something to say. I'm sorry, ma'am. Standing up. Yes. Yes. Ma'am, would you were you here in opposition or are you representing the application? Opposition. Okay, we're good. Um, thanks, Commissioner Russell. So let's uh let's put item number four. I believe it's within my authority to put it towards at the end of the the meeting and let's move on with item number five. So ma'am if we Yes. When we come back to this item at the end assuming the applicant is present you'll be welcome to to present. Sir in opposition to Yes ma'am. I didn't know if you had it. I came Yes. Yep. We do have your cards. Miss Haney and Miss Dunn, I assume.

Yes. I'm sick. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. We will put this. Unfortunately, the applicant's not present, so we're extending them the opportunity to come later. We will put this at the end of the agenda. Move on to item number 5, LU 20226-9-01, land use plan amendment, Chanel Valley Planning District. Mr. Gossson, would you do a reading, please? Yes. Um, well, item number five is you, Hannah.

Yes, that's me. Okay. Um, this is an application for a land use plan amendment in the Chanel planning district to allow the change of designation for 4.18 acres at 6 Norton Road and 18511 18521 Canrol Road from suburban office and residential low density to mixed use. The land use plan amendment is concurrent with the resoning request for case file 7 or Z7880C and a land use changes required for this reasonzoning request proceeding approval in order to allow for consistency with the adopted land use plan. The subject site is four tracks of land each containing one single family structure. The site jointly has 584 feet of frontage along Cantrol Road, 403 feet along Norton Road, and 309 feet along Maywood Drive. The property is bordered on the east, south, and west by existing single family neighborhoods located on culde-sacs and deadend streets. Maywood Drive provides singular egress to 21 single family homes and Norton Road provides singular egress to five single family homes um excluding the structures on the subject site of application. A daycare center is located east of the site across Norton Road. Staff finds that requested land use plan amendment from suburban office and residential low density to mixed use is reachable in is reasonable and appropriate given the site's uh arterial frontage surrounding land use context and access to existing and planned multimodal transportation facilities. The mixeduse category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. uh a plan zoning district is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three. Canel road is supported by established multimodal planning frameworks um and is on the master bike plan. Norton Road and Maywood Drive are designated as local streets and may require rideway dedication or improvements as

development occurs. The proposed mixeduse designation is consistent with development patterns already present in the northeast and farther east along the corridor. Within a quarter mile radius, there's a total of 19 acres of mixed use designated land fronting Cantrol Road only 100 feet away from the existing property. Uh mixeduse areas in this vicinity support wide range of neighborhood oriented commercial and residential use. The requested amendment would allow the site to function as a logical transition between the uh higher intensity commercial and office uses along road and the lower density single family neighborhoods to the south and west. Um the site is within the highway 10 design overlay district and provides additional layer of design guidance to ensure compatibility. The amendment is consistent with the development trends and land use patterns uh along the council road corridor and the intentions of the Chanel Pal Valley or Chanel planning district. There are note identified historic resources concerns and the concurrent zoning request uh allows coordinated review and ensures that subsequent development will conform to applicable district and overlay standards. Um for these reasons, staff reports uh supports the proposed land use plan amendment in the Chanel planning district from suburban office and residential low density to mixed use and recommends approval.

Thank you, Mr. Ratcliffe. Would the applicant please approach the podium? Chairman It is my understanding that there is 5.1 as well and so can we have that item read as well?

Mr. G. Item 5.1 Z7880- C reszoning from R2 and O2 to C3 6 Norwood Road and 18511 through 18521 Canel Road. The applicant requests to reszone 4.8778 8778 acres of property located at 6 Norton Road and 85118 through 18521 Caner Road from R2 and 01 to C3. Um R2 single family district and 01 quiet office district um is going is 2C3 that's general commercial district. The reasonzoning is requested for future development of the site. The property is comprised of four four parcels of land. A single family home is located on each parcel. Portions of the overlaid property are tree covered. Staff is supportive of the requested C3 resoning. Staff believes the C3 zoning will represent a continuation of the zoning pattern along Canel Road. 01 PDO and C3 C3 and PCD zone properties are located north and east of the site. A non-comforting welding shop has historically been located across Maywood Drive to the west. Staff recommends approval of the requested C3 zoning. The applicant uh a staff update. The applicant submitted a revision to the application to the staff on March 3rd, 2026. The applicant has revised the application by eliminating the numbers 33 per C3 permitted and conditional use list. Please see the attachment for applicants edited use list. Staff continues to port the application. So the applicant did provide a list of C3 uses that they will be prohibited prohibited from using and it's in the staff report.

Thank you. Thank you. Applicant, would you please state your name for the record? Uh yes, sir. Good afternoon, chairman, commissioners. I'm Brian Dale with Joe White and Associates um representing this application. We also have Mark Kathers over here in the corner. He's the owner of the property. Staff did a excellent job of introducing both the land use application, the resoning. We'd like to reserve our time and let the opposition speak. Thank you, Mr. St. There's one card in opposition. Is it Morgan Grounds?

Sorry. Thank you, sir. Would you state your name for the record?

Sure. My name is uh Morgan Grounds and I live on Maywood Drive. Um I'm here uh representing the residents of Maywood Drive um regarding this development. So, good evening and thank you for your time today. My name is Morgan Grounds and as I said, I live on Maywood Drive uh which is directly adjacent to the proposed site. I am here in opposition to both the land use amendment and the mixeduse and resoning request. Before I begin, I want to note a procedural inconsistency in the staff report as there are references to both C1 and C3 zoning. However, the resoning application is specifically for requests for C3 general commercial. This distinction matters because it allows for the most dense uh development type. So, just a few things that are of concern to us as residents on Maywood. The land use consistency and spot zoning. The adapted land use plan designates this property as residential loss density and suburban office which are specifically intended to be compatible with nearby neighborhoods. This site is surrounded to the east, south, and west by established single family homes on local dead-end streets. While there is some commercial zoning along road, there is no C3 zoning directly adjacent to the residential facing side of this property. Approving highdensity commercial zoning here would create an isolated commercial entitlement that is inconsistent with both the adapted land use plan and the existing neighborhood patterns. Traffic school safety and bicycle integration or other issues. The staff report indicates that a traffic impact study may be completed after excuse me may be completed later during the development review. At the same time, this site is located approximately 50 yards from Little Rock Christian Academy, where traffic is already concentrated during arrival and miss, excuse me, during arrival and dismissal times. The report also references a planned class one bike path along Canrol Road, which will introduce additional interactions

between vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Approving zoning before evaluating these these impacts is a procedural issue and I ask and it asks to approve intensity first and analyze safety later. Both Maywood and Norton Road are dead-end residential streets. Maywood Drive and Norton are local deadend residential streets designed for residential access, not commercial circulation. The staff report does not evaluate how increased traffic, delivery vehicles, or misdirected drivers would impact these streets. There is also no analysis on how commercial access requirements or fire access standards would function adjacent to dead-end neighborhoods. Without this evaluation, there is no clear understanding of how this development would affect the safety and function of these residential streets. Fourth, storm water damage, drainage, and flood risk. The staff report indicates that drainage will be addressed later, but the report's own mapping shows a stream channel and flood related features running through this specific property. Residents in the area have already experienced drainage concerns during heavy rainfall. Increasing development intensity increases imperous surfaces and runoff. Approving zoning before completing a drainage analysis creates unnecessary risk for surrounding homes. access infrastructure and sequencing of review. The report also notes that roadway improvements, wide array design destinations and infrastructure coordination may be required. These are not minor details. They are directly determined how the site functions yet. These items are being deferred to a later stage. From a planning and procedural standpoint, this reverses the logical order of review. Infrastructure capacity and access should be understood before zoning in intensity is approved

and not after. Number six, buffering compatibility and overall district requirements. The site is located within the highway 10 design overlay district which has a clear purpose under section 36-434 to promote compatible development and prevent small lot strip commercial patterns. The overlay includes specific standards including limiting building density to one per two acres and promoting development that protects the character of the corridor. However, there are no sight specific buffering, light or compatibility measures included in this request and no site plan has been provided. Without this information, there is no way to evaluate whether this proposal complies with the overlay requirements that I've stated previously. The Highway 10 overlay exists to prevent strip development, but approving zoning without a plan removes the very protections that overlay is meant to provide. At its core, this request asks you to remove significant increases in land use and intensity without critical information. There is no site plan, no traffic study, no drainage analysis, and no defined compatibility measures. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you deny this request or at a minimum defer it until these issues are fully evaluated and addressed. Thank you for your consideration and time tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Gr. Mr. Dell, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Um we were here last month and we took a deferral. There was a little bit of a shortage of commissioners as well as we had some neighborhood opposition. Um we did communicate with one of the representatives. We um they asked us to strike I believe it was 90ome uses out of the C3. Our client agreed to uh strike I believe it was 64 of them and I believe that's included in the list. Is that that's correct? So, we've we've struck 64 of the C3 uses, allowable C3 uses trying to be a good neighbor. Um, there are several letters of support for this reasonzoning that are in uh your packet or maybe in the file as well. Um, if this resoning were to happen, um, they're correct. We would have to provide a site plan later on. we would have to comply with chapter 36 of the code which has land use buffering against uh you know residential zones. We are in the highway 10 corridor so we would have to comply with that as well. Um when the site plan is developed um drainage and street improvements would have to be addressed. Right now we don't have a site plan. We don't they're trying to land different tenants for this mixeduse concept that they have. Um but without the zoning in place they can't guarantee that these tenants you know to come. So uh the zoning is the first logical piece that has to happen. Um this property is on Canal Road. It's got roughly 560 ft of frontage on a state highway or a principal arterial. Um that is where the traffic is. That is a state highway. um if a site map could be pulled up. Directly across from this development is Valley Ranch Drive and um the highway department is working on extending their improvements west.

It's way in their future plans, but um they intend to have a traffic signal at Valley Ranch Drive and Canrol later on. Well, we would want to line our our driveway up with that entrance so that we could take advantage of that traffic signal. that that's where our main entrance to this development would be occur would be off Highway 10 at the traffic signal there. Um, our client has also purchased number 12 Norton Road, which is 2.3 acres. It's not included in this resoning application, but they purchased it to keep it as a residential buffer to the south. So on Norton Road there, the property that's directly south, our client also owns and and and and we're keeping it R2. We're not asking for a reasonzoning or any change on it as well. Um Norton Road and Maywood Drive are both deadend streets to residential. So there should not be any cut through traffic on those on those streets. They they don't go anywhere. So any any traffic that is generated should stay on Canrol Road. It it would come in and come out on Cantrol Road. Um if the resoning were approved, if a site plan were developed and tenants were landed, staff has the right if they feel that it is overbearing to require a traffic study. if uh if if they land some very low volume uses and staff believes that they have the authority to to wave the traffic study. But if they require it, we will do it. But we can't do a traffic study till we know who our tenants are and what the users are. Some of them have a lot more demand than others. Um Mark, do you have anything else you want to add that I've missed so far?

If uh if there's any questions for staff or commissioners, we're here to answer anything that that you guys may have. Thanks, Mr. D. Commissioners, any questions either of opposition or Mr. Dell, Mr. Commissioner Russell.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to I don't necessarily have any questions, but I am going to use a little bit of time sort of to hop on on my soap box, so I'll beg a little bit of indulgence. Um the the gentleman that's in opposition is absolutely right. Um, unfortunately the problem is when you have a restrictive zoning ordinance in a city like this, this is the process that we have to abide by. We have to apply for changes in use first before we propose any kind of building, any kind of, you know, property development, traffic studies, drainage studies, environmental studies. All of these things are secondary to use and that is quite frankly the wrong way to develop properties in a city, especially a city the size of Little Rock that continues to expand. Um, I think even Mr. Dale would agree with me on that. I mean, we've had lengthy conversations about the need for changes to our zoning ordinance. I'm, you know, excited that this this commission has taken it on to review the existing zoning ordinance and to start to work to propose meaningful changes to alleviate some of this confusion about process and you know increase the availability of development throughout our city so that we all benefit from that. Um but again, unfortunately, this is the process that we have and until those changes are made, we have to abide by the rules uh and the regulations that we currently have. And so,

thank you, Commissioner. I'm in support of this application because it's really not asking for anything special. Thank you. Any questions, additional comments? I'll entertain a motion. I'm sorry. Are we able to vote on this at once or do we need to do separate votes? Separate two votes. Separate votes. Yeah. Correct. Yes. So motion on item number five and then subsequently on 5.1.

Yeah. Little Rock Planning Commission of April 9th 2026 item agenda item LU2026-9-01 land use plan amendment Chanel Valley Planning District from from uh suburban office and residential low density to mixed use. Staff recommends approval. I move the approval by the commission. Second, Commissioner Brown. Bernard, yes. Hodes, yes. Person, yes. Russell, I sad. Yes.

Vickers, yes. Eves, yes. Macdonald. Baxter, yes. Motion's approved. Thank you. Uh Rock Planning Commission of April 9th, 2026. Agenda item 5.1 Z-7880- C resoning from R2 and O2 to C3 6 Norton Road and 1851 and 18521 Canal Road. I move approval.

Second. Commissioner Brown. Bernard, yes. Hodgees, yes. Person, yes. Russell, I sad. Yes. Vickers, yes. Eves, yes. McDonald. Backter. Yes. Motion's approved. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thanks for coming out, Mr. Grounds. Our next item is item number eight. We're going to get through at least one or two more items, maybe take a short break, but let's keep on moving forward. S-2012 eny development replat 1514 1516 South Ringo Street. Mr. Gden, please do your reading. S--2012 eny development replat by 1514 and 1516 South Ringo Street. The applicant proposes to replplat a 26 acre parcel into two lots to allow a single family resident on each lot. The property is compi comprised of the north half of lot 8 and all of lot nine block 281 of the original city of Little Rock. Currently, there are two single family residents being constructed on the site. The residents conform to the R4 zoning criteria. After replplatting, the residents will continue to comply with the R4 zoning standards, building setbacks, heights, etc. The two lots will have lot sizes as follows. Lot 8A, 3.42 42 ft average by 139.96 ft, which is 5,237 ft. Lot B would be 37.2 ft average by 139.96 ft, which would be 5,2 37 ft. The applicant is requesting three variances with the proposed replant. Section 36-256D4 of the city zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 70 ft and a minimum lot area of 7,000 ft. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances for reduced lot width and reduced lot area. Section 31232B of the city's zoning subdivision ordinance states that no residential lot

shall be more than three times as deep as it is wide. The applicant was requesting a variance to this requirement for the two proposed lots. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. All the variances are relatively minor issues. The applicant submitted additional information to staff as requested. The staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with this application. Staff supports the requested replats. Staff recommends approval of the requested replat subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda. staff report. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. CS. Applicant, would you please approach the podium and state your name for the record? Roy Andrews, Holloway Engineering.

Good to see you, Mr. Anders. If y'all don't have any questions, I'll yield to opposition. Yes, sir. There are three cards in opposition. Mia Foreman, Morgan Whiteitman, and is it Kathy Wells? I can't read the the the writing. Kathy Wells tric. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, Miss Wells, would you like to uh be our first speaker?

And just a reminder that the three of you do have 20 minutes to share. Thank you for the ability to speak to you today. uh the president of the downtown neighborhood association regrets. She's traveling on business. So I am a member of the uh organization and I'm reading it on her behalf. This is the official organization submission. The downtown Little Rock Neighborhood Association respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the proposed replat of the property at 1516 South Ringo. It proposes to subdivide the lot requiring three variances on reduced lot width, reduced lot area, and a waiver from the lot width to depth ratio requirement. While we noticed the houses are already under construction, they may meet certain R4 standards for setbacks and height. The variances requested fundamentally alter the intended pattern of this site. The request would create these two lots. You've cited the numbers. I won't repeat them. In courting, sorry, granting this multiple variances is going to represent a substantial departure from the established standards that guide residential development. It carries additional significance because it's the site of the former AE Bush House, part of the historic Bush Row. The demolition of this historic structure in 2024 was widely recognized as a significant loss to Little Rock's historic and cultural landscape. Our plan for the city encourages development

decisions that recognize and respect these con context of important sites and surrounding built environment. This replat would further alter the development pattern of this block. We've already had some subdivision activity on the southwest portion. The Downtown Little Rock Neighborhood Association also believes development decisions at this site should be evaluated in light of the 2024 Downtown Little Rock master plan that emphasizes reinforcing the character of existing neighborhoods, protecting historic and cultural assets, encouraging context sensitive infill development. Development that relies on multiple variances to establish a new lot configuration risks undermining these goals and altering the historic pattern of residential development in this area. We're also concerned about the precedent created when so many requests are reconsidered after developments begun. It had been the subject of uh proposals before and had been denied. Finally, the Little Rock Neighborhood Association wishes to express our strong support for the position taken by the Dunar Historic Neighborhood Association, which has formally opposed this replant and the development pattern it represents. As neighboring organizations committed to preserving and in strengthening the historic residential neighborhoods of downtown Little Rock, we share their concerns regarding compatibility, historic context, and long-term planning impacts. We support thoughtful redevelopment and additional housing opportunities in our city, but this should occur in a manner that respects adopted planning standards, historic context, and the established character of our neighborhoods. We

respectfully ask denial of the replant. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Wells. Miss Foreman. Good afternoon. I see you have a few baseball players in town. Yes. And we are trying to get to baseball, so I'm going to cut this short and I will submit my letter in the end so we could ski. Yes, ma'am. Would you state your full name for the record? I will. Maya Foreman. Maya. Thank you.

Um, dear members of the Little Rock Planning uh commission and board of directors, I'll write to you as neighborhood and property owner at 1524 South Ringo. I own the property to the left. I've been here before. You have heard me speak before. Um the point the problem with it is the presidents when they when they bought it they tore down. They shouldn't have tore down. We're beyond that point now. But they keep making changes. They're keep trying to set precedents for this to continue in the neighborhood and if it keeps going on this path what's going to happen to the neighborhood. Um the concern along with um the other neighborhood and the Dumbar Community Association is that when you keep making changes as these homes get um torn down is that you're destroying the integrity of these historic homes and uh in particular my home. We've been delayed a lot of rehab on the home because if you keep making changes in the neighborhood, then I'm no longer going to be able to be on the registry and that dictates how I'm able to um to uh rehab my property and the way I would rehab my property because if homes like this keep getting torn down, then you know, how many years is it going to be before we don't have a historic neighborhood any longer? Um the proposed replat further seeks to intensify the land use in conflict with the city's ordinance including title 36 and applicable zoning provisions which require consistency with comprehensive plan neighborhood context as well as infrastructure capacity. Um disrupting established lot patterns and scale is a zoning concern not merely aesthetic. Um the Dumbar historic district is not simply a collection of parcels. It is a living representation of African-Americ African-American history in the little in Little Rock anchored by institutions such as Philander Smith University and Arkansas Baptist College. Decisions made by this commission will determine

whether that legacy is preserved or in incrementally diminished over time. As a real estate professional, I fully support a responsible development and reinvestment. However, development must be consistent with established law, respectful of existing community character, and align with long-term planning objectives. The current proposal fails on each of these fonts uh fronts. Therefore, I respectfully request that the planning commission deny the proposal replat application as currently submitted, require substantial revisions that ensure compliance with ordinances considering historic preservation standards and um subdivisions with the neighborhood and consider the cumulative impact of development on the integrity and sustainability of the Dumbar historic district. Approval of this application again will set precedence that weakens the city's ability to enforce compatibility standards and protect historically significant neighborhoods. Such a precedence would have consequences far beyond this single parcel. Thank you for consideration and your continued service to all of the residents of the city of Little Rock and not just the investors.

May I submit this letter to you? Thank you. Yes, you may. Okay. and Morgan Whiteitman. Is that correct? Please state your name for the record.

My name is Morgan Weissman. I'm the executive director of the Quapa Quarter Association. Um, thank you for having us out today. So, dear commissioners, we respectfully submit this response in opposition to the proposed loting application for 1516 and 1514 South Ringo Street. After careful review, we have significant concerns regarding the proposal's incompatibility with the established character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. While the historic structure no longer stands and construction on the lot is ongoing, we oppose the request requested variances to allow the reduced lot width, the lot area, and to increase the lot width to depth ratio. Granting these variances would permit a development pattern that is inconsistent with the prevailing scale, spacing, and orientation of homes in the area. The surrounding neighborhood is defined by wider facing homes on generously sized lots. This property, as you've heard, also carries significant historical importance. The AE Bush House, constructed in 1919, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984. The current owner was formally notified of the home significance on October 5th of 2023. Although the structure has since been demolished and consequently delisted, its loss underscores the importance of thoughtful, contextsensitive redevelopment moving forward. Planning staff have appropriately noted that future development at this site should consider potentially adverse impacts on the remaining Bush Row residents and the broader historic context. The current replant proposal does not meet that standard. We are most concerned about the precedent this request would set. Approval would effectively enable after the-act replatting to reverse earlier development decisions, creating a pathway for similar requests that prioritize short-term gain over long-term neighborhood stability. Consistency in policy application is essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring predictable outcomes in the planning process. We do recognize and

support the need to bring more density into Little Rock's neighborhoods. However, this goal can and should be pursued in ways that reinforce rather than undermine neighborhood character. The city currently has hundreds of unsafe or vacant houses and even thousands of vacant lots. Encouraging reinvestment to those properties while maintaining compatibility with existing architectural patterns offers a more balanced and sustainable approach to growth. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the planning commission deny the proposed replotting application for 1516 and 1514 South Ringo Street. Thank you so much. Thank you, Miss Wman.

Mr. Anders, floor is yours. You have 20 minutes.

Thank you. Um, yes. Unfortunately, the house was tore down. It was in a um disrepair situation. These lots, yes, we're asking for a variance. If you were to look at pages on adjacent streets, you'll find that this is similar. Um, they're similar lots to this size uh with variances with this this width of 37 feet, this depth. um that is not uncharacteristic of this area um especially for redevelopment. Um as far as I'm aware, there is not an overlaid district that prohibits um or restricts the house that can be built on it. Um that is something that I think the association should look at such as Hillrest and Canrol and I think that would help this area but as of right now I do not believe there is one. So my client is just trying to uh build two affordable houses uh almost 1400 square feet on these lots. Commissioners any questions? Commissioner Russell.

So clarification for staff. What's the proposed square footage of each individual lot? 5,237 ft. What is the minimum required square footage for an R2 single family lot within the downtown city of Lur Rock? 6,000. The minimum allowed is four. Yes. Yeah. So, as single family residences, these would be well above the minimum required for a single family home. That's correct. Um, these two homes are currently under construction.

Correct. So, they have been permitted. We can consider them to be built existing. Right. And sorry for the confusion. Originally you said R2 on it and these are R4 lots. So my square footage was different, right? But R2 if they were zoned single family only would be 4,000. Uh 6,000 is the minimum uh for R2 in downtown then which one's 4,000? 4,000 I believe is what is it? R5 maybe R4. I'd have to look at that. I'm not certain on that. But for R2 it is 6,000. But these are R4 anyway. Um, and so these were permitted allowable to be built on this single lot as a duplex.

Yes. Yes, they were. Even though they're separated. Yes. And so for argument's sake, these are two single family homes built on one lot. That's correct. And so as a rental, as two single family homes on one lot, they're really only good for rentals. I mean, for the most part, yes, someone could own one and rent the other. I mean, but yeah, for the most part, subdividing them allows for two single family single families to purchase the lots and live there. Yes. Yes. That's all. Any other questions? Commissioners,

I just have one um quick question uh for Mr. Andrews here. How is is the builder uh taken into consideration of the characters of the home? Uh being that it's in a historic historical district, do you know that they changed from what they had originally proposed um I have to admit I haven't seen the homes, but um from what they had originally proposed on the site, I believe it's more in character with the area, but I honestly can't tell you. So there is no local ordinance district for the neighborhood. So there are no historic standards that apply that area.

Dunar itself is a uh national register historic district but that is based solely on the number of contributing structures within the neighborhood. It is unfortunate that the historic contributing home was demolished. Well, actually, I don't think it was contributing when it it had lost, I thought. Was it contributing? It was individually listed. Oh, it wasn't. This is outside the historic district. These are three individually listed. Oh, this is outside Dunar called the Bush Row. Gotcha. Yeah, it's in the Dunar community, right? But still no local ordinance district that has any bearing on this application.

Got it. Because that that was and I do want to clarify that. That was my one question. Miss Foreman, I think she's already left unfortunately, but she did mention, you know, about potential tax credits because I know those can be quite significant, 30%. So, this lot being divided in this way will not affect any future historical registering of homes because these are individual contributors, not part of a neighborhood. Correct. Um, her building is listed individually, so her tax credits are only locked in to her. Got it. She They're not in a district. Okay. As long as she doesn't It's a common misunderstanding, but yes, she she'll still have her tax credits.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, commissioners? All right. I'd entertain a motion. Right. Little Rock Planning Commission meeting of April 9th, 2026. I move approval of item S-2012 ENY development- replat 1514 and 1516 South Ringo Street recommend approval as long as the conditions outlined in paragraphs DE and the staff analysis are accounted for.

Do we need a second? All right. Commissioner uh Brown Leonard, yes. Hodes, no. Personson, yes. Russell, hi. Samad, yes. Vickers, no. Eves, yes. McDonald, yes. Two, three, four, five, six. Motion's approved. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much, Miss Whiteman, Miss Wells. Thank you. All right, we're moving on to our third to last item. Item number 14, Z-10281, Mr. Gossson reading

item item 14 Z102 81 a reszoning from R2 to I2 and OS on the 7600 block of Jameson Road the east side. The owner of the 4.0 0 acre property located in the 1600 block of Jameson Road east side is requesting that the property be reszoned from R2 single family district to I2 light industrial district and OS open space district. The property is undeveloped and mostly wooded. The applicant proposes to reszone the property as follows. West the west 1.38 acres from R2 to I2. the east 2.70 acres floodway from R2 to OS. The property is designed as I industrial and PKOS on the future land use plan. The proposed reszoning will not require an amendment to the plan. Staff is supported of the requested I2 and OS zoning. The proposed resoning will represent a continuation of the reszoning pattern for this area along Jameson Road. The properties immediately north and south as well as across Jameson Road are currently zoned I2. Staff recommends approval of the requested I2 and OS zoning. Thank you.

Thank you. Applicant, would you please state your name for the record? Uh yes. Uh Ben Wells with engineer with White Dares and Associates and we would like to defer to the opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Wells. There is one card in opposition. Looks like it is. Is it PMI management? P A MI. I can't read it. Okay. Um, yeah. Name PMI TMI. I can't read it. Management Jameson Road. Looks like the opposition is no longer present. So, in light of the fact that there's no opposition, I would entertain a motion. the Rock Planning Commission of April 9th, 2026. I move approval of item 14 Z-10281 reszoning from R2 to 1-2- and OS 7600 block of Jameson Avenue east side based on staff recommendation of approval and the claim meeting all of the applicant meeting all of the conditions and comments in the uh staff's recommendation

second Commissioner Brown. Bernard, yes. Hodes, yes. Person, yes. Russell, hi. Samad, yes. Vickers, yes. Eves, yes. McDonald. Baxter? Yes. Motion's approved. Uh, is Mr. James Bates in the room? 301 Dryader. Still not present. Second to last item. Item number 16, Z-5963-H.

Mr. Gossip, read, please.

Item Z 5363- ACE, Brody Creek subdivision cell tower, revised PRD, the west side of South Bowman Road, approximately 500 ft north of Brody Creek Trail. The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PRD zoning for the Broady Creek subdivision by constructing a 150 foot tall cell tower on one of the undeveloped tracks along South Bowman Road, the east boundary of the subdivision. The Brody Creek Property Associations own six undeveloped tracks of land along South Bowman Road. The property is undeveloped and wooded. The POA has signed an agreement with the Towers LLC providing their approval of the use of the property. The site is designed to be pushed up into the woods with a long and curved driveway off Bow Bowman in order to break the line of sight to the antenna to the antenna site to break the line of sight to the antenna site. This provides fully fully mature natural screening that is in place now to shield the views of the site from the surrounding properties. The proposed access drive to the tower site must be approved by the fire department with respect to the design grade turnaround prior to the building permit being issued. Staff is supported supportive of the revised PRD zoning. Staff believes that the applicant has taken steps to make the placement of the cell tower have a minimum impact on the surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the revised PRD zoning subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph DE and F and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report.

Thank you. Would the applicant please come to the podium? Good evening. I'm Tracy Gil representing the towers. Thank you, Mr. Gil. There is one card submitted in opposition. Would you like to speak now or? Well, I'll yield to them and Yes, sir. All right. Mr. is it DHI Lipkkey? Miss Dishe. Disha. Disha. Thank you. Miss Disha Lipkkey, you have up to 20 minutes.

Okay. Um, we just received notice of all of this at the end of March, so we really haven't had a whole lot of time to look at exactly what's being proposed. We own the land. So, um, at the bottom there's my mother-in-law's house on that section on this side of Bowman. And then our piece is the kind of the pie shape that is on that side of Bowman. So I really was just coming to find out where exactly this tower is going to be and because I think it said the notice had 4300 and 4600 listed and our property is 4500. So, I wasn't real clear on the 4600 because it showed they're also putting a roundabout in on the bottom side of our land or that they're proposing to do that. Um, our my husband is the owner of this and I'm his wife. Our concern is with the potential roundabout going in and then the pot the potential of this cell tower and whatever it entails, how we're going to end up have where our access to the land is going to be. Um, we have it listed with a realtor and she recommended that I come to this meeting. I she couldn't come, but she had another prior previous uh engagement tonight, so she told me to come and just get as much information as

we could possibly get. Um so I just really want to know how this is going to affect our our property. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Miss Lipkkey. Thank you. Oh, and our property has been in this family for multiple generations. I I can't remember exactly when his grandfather told us that they bought that piece, but it's been a long time. Thank you, Mr. Gil. Feel free to address questions that were raised.

Yes, thank you. Um on the drawing up here, the land that's squared out up there is north of Brody Creek. There's about six or seven acres. It's all wooded. It runs north to to the creek. And for the neighbor, the creek runs across or underneath of Bowman there. There's a street running off to the right to the east and going towards the south called Spring Creek. The access drive would be approximately across Bowman from Spring Creek and it goes about 90 feet into the woods pretty much due west. Then it will curve and go southward to a 60 by 60 ft square up in the trees. So the ordinance allows by right. Actually, this site would be permitted by administrative approval if it weren't a PRD. If it was just R1 or fact any zone, I believe in the city allows. So, that goes all the way back to 1996 where there's a federal law telecom act of 1996. The Little Rock ordinance complies with that law. In fact, it's been gosh, I don't know how many years that I've come before the planning commission in the city of Little Rock personally. I've been doing these since 93. I've been before the commission years ago. And because of that ordinance change, any of the sites that I've personally worked on, which have been many, have all been compliant. So, we've never had to come before the commission. is in this case all that land that meets the setbacks that was a what I'm going to call suitable spot not in a creek bed or not in a flood zone or uh didn't have a house sitting right beside or anything else. Uh there's not too many parcels out there that comply. So that was zeroed us in here and the POA was in

support of this. They want that green space to be maintained as a permanent green space. So, uh, I mean, frankly, they get a little bit of rent income out of it. It's kind of a non, uh, it doesn't create traffic. There's no people in and out, so it can stay as a green space. Basically, the code requires the pole. We call it a tower, but it's essentially a monopole. It's just a big steel pole. It will be 150 ft, which is the allowable height by code. At that height, the setbacks to the property lines would need to be also 150 ft. And in this case, to the north is four uh 504 ft. To the east, which is where the neighbors at, it's 176 ft. To the south, it's 406 feet. And to the west, it's 150 ft. And the shortest distance is the 150 ft. that is the property owner association that's approved the site has entered into the agreement with the towers. So we submitted the plans a little while back when they went through the city offices uh departments public works had a concern because of the roundabout and the widening of Bowman. We've met with them. They shifted the site a little bit to the west which made it even closer to the homes of the owners that approved the site but it's still completely in compliance there. So um the telecom well the telecom act we talked about the the federal the FCC requires the wireless phone companies to provide certain levels of wireless service in this part of the city. uh all the carriers I I'm a contractor. I work with all of them. They all need

more additional capacity in this area because all the users are just sucking up all the capacity. The FCC looks at it like we think in terms of we have a cable company and we have um uh in some cities a power company may provide uh service. We have uh fiber companies now, internet companies, we might have old DSL lines and they're all providing communication services to the consumer, but the FCC has mandated the wireless providers to get in there and provide certain level of service so the consumer or the citizens of the city have as many choices as possible for them to be competitive with each other and to provide the best service for the uh citizens. So that's kind of what's driven us here. I've worked on this site for a long long time and have because of the zoning frankly and we have beat it and beat it and beat it and that parcel is like the best spot. It it may be the only spot frankly that fully meets all the standards except for it sits in a PRD that was passed way back then. So, we're talking about a wireless communication facility or WCF, but the reality is we wouldn't be talking about that. We'd be talking strictly about a PRD. We're just asking to revise the PRD. They'll come back with the application by right to build the thing. So, um I'm happy. Sometimes I'm in a position in cities around the state or in other states where I'm coming before a board and I'm asking for all kind of variances and you know we're talking about landscaping everything else. The beautiful part of this site is we're not asking for any of that. You got a mature woods and we're as deep into that woods as we can be.

And even as deep as we are, the side that we're pushed closest to, excuse me, is the homeowners that have agreed to let us be there in the first place. So the POA there, Brody Creek, have gone overboard from the very beginning. They wanted to be good neighbors to all the other neighbors. They kind of took it upon themselves to be the short end of the stick, if you will. They insisted that we not cut a access road directly out to Bowman because they wanted to retain the woods. So they've gone to a lot of additional expense to create the access down. I'm not going to say beside the creek because it's down just a little bit, but it's all undeveloped and they own all that land. But it goes west. So even when you're coming up or down Bowman, you will never have a direct line of sight looking to this antenna site. So they pushed the access by the time it turned south. It's about 90 ft away from the edge of the rideway there. So I think that should address any concerns you would have, especially if you're off to the southeast. There won't be any impact at all.

Okay. So do Miss Lipkkey. Miss Lipkkey, just for the sake of keeping a record, can you approach the podium? Oh, it's about to go. Oh, sorry. That's all right.

Go ahead there. Okay. I I'm just I'm trying to get a visual in my mind of exactly where this tower is going to be. So in inside of this dotted line, I see two lines in relation to those three blocks. What which block would it be in? It's approximately 500 ft north of Brody Creek Trail. Okay. No, I'm sorry. I'm a female. You see the pond, the little dark shaded area, kind of irregular shape towards the bottom of the picture. That's the pond at Brody Creek Trail. Okay. Okay.

With the fountain, the little street, Brody Creek Trail, is just north of that running off to the west. And then on the north side of that, we're about 500 ft north. So where Spring Creek, where you see the houses up kind of Right. Right. If you just kind of go just a tad north of that, you see where the creek runs across behind those houses, that's where the entrance would go in and it would turn and come south. Now, if we go over to Brody Creek, where you see the houses coming around the north and then turning to the south, as they turn around, you get about between the second and third house there from the top, just coming out into the center there, into the center of that woods.

Okay. So, it would be pretty close to that first solid line. Yeah, Miss Licky, I I wanted to extend a little bit leniency to get your questions answered, but uh we do need to submit this to a vote. I'm certain and confident to say that it's not going to affect your land. Okay. Um Mr. Gil, thank you for your presentation. Thank you for letting me speak. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And uh I will entertain a motion.

Yeah. Little Rock Planning Commission, April 9th, 2026. Move approval of item 16Z-5963-H, Brody Creek subdivision cell tower revised RPD, west side of South Plowman Road, approximately 500 ft north of Prody Creek Trail based on staff recommending of this item. I move approval. Second. Commissioner Brown. Bernard, yes. Hodes, yes. Person, yes. Russell, hi. Smad, yes. Vickers, yes. Eves, yes. Macdonald,

yes. Motion's approved. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Lipkkey. Thanks for coming out as well. We're going to return to item number four. The applicant is not present. So, would any commissioner like to Make a motion to defer. Mr. Yes. Planning Commission or Little Rock Planning Commission, April 9th, 2026. I move the dismissal. Deferral. Deferral.

Deferral. Item agenda item Z-10245 Bates Group home special use permit at 301 Graham Lane at the applicant's expense. Second. Commissioner Brown Bernard. Yes. Hodes. Yes. Person. Yes. Russell. Hi. Sad. Yes. Vickers. Yes. Eves. Yes. McDonald. Baxter. Yes. Items have been deferred to the May meeting. All right. Thank you. Are there any public comments?

Yes, ma'am. You may approach the podium. M Mr. Chair, I I will remind everyone that during uh citizen citizen communication, we cannot discuss an item. That is correct. Ma'am, would you please approach the podium? Yes, sir. And state your name for the record? Uh my is that better? Yes, ma'am. Uh my name is Meg Dunn and I'm the president of the Pinbrook Clover Hill Neighborhood Association of which the uh 301 Dryad is located in. No m as our director is saying to the extent that this item was deferred. Yes, sir.

And to the extent that this item is pending before our commission and will potentially at the applicant's expense come back before us in May, we can't hear comments from you on this item. Okay. unrelated to this. Excuse me. No, I was I was just sorry I was backing you up. Yeah, just on this specific item if you got a general comment or or or something about, you know, something unrelated to the application. But

Well, may I just ask and you can tell me if if it's not allowed. Um, is there any way to get a copy of the um where this says the special use permit outline and they mentions outline in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis. Yes, ma'am. Is there a way to get a copy of that? My understanding, Miss Dunn, this is part of public record. So, after this meeting is adjourned, you may approach Mr. Gosden and he'd be happy to give you that information. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Um, so public comments. Okay. Yeah, sir. Please approach. Tell me. So, Eric Dere, I live on dry as well.

Okay. Um, so this it is operating as it is now. No, we can't entertain questions regarding the specific item. So, what are our anything that's related to the public record, you can go to Mr. Gazden afterwards, but Okay. Yes, sir. Sure. Just real quick, do you know what day in May? It'll be the second Thursday, which I believe is going to be May 14th. The 14th. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I know. I I appreciate your concern. Commissioner comments.

Excuse me. Uh Mr. Chairman, the applicant will be required to submit notices to property owners within 200 feet of the boundaries of the property. So, if you live within 200 feet of this address, you will you will be getting or you should be getting a notice of public hearing via certified mail. Okay. Well, um I'm farther. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. One very quick note, I would like to note that Vice Chair McDonald wasn't here because of jury duty. So, many thanks to her for her public service. And with that, the April meeting is officially adjourned. Thank you. Hey, hey, hey.