Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. so so do do Thank you. you do do you do do Thanks for watching! so so

Good afternoon. The June meeting of the City of Little Rock Planning Commission is officially called to order. Today is the 11th day of June. We'll begin with a roll call. Mr. Thrower.

Yes, sir. Today, this is a roll call vote for the June 11th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Commissioner Brown?

Yes, I'm here.

Bernard? Here. Hodges?

Here.

Person? Here. Russell? Present. Samad?

Here.

Vickers? Here. Eves? Here. Haney?

Present.

McDonald?

Present.

Baxter?

Present. We have a quorum. We'd like to make a short announcement. Commissioner Kevin Haney, this is your first official meeting on the commission, so first one. Good to have you here. We will begin with a motion on the minutes. Assuming there are no questions, we'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve minutes as written.

Second. Commissioner Brown? Yes. Bernard? Yes. Hodges?

Yes.

Person? Yes. Russell?

Aye.

Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Haney?

Yes.

McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter? Yes. Minutes are approved.

Next we'll turn to the consent agenda. Mr. Moore, would you please do a reading?

Following is a consent agenda for the Little Rock Planning Commission meeting of June 11th, 2026. The first group of items are on to be either withdrawn or deferred. Item number one, file number Z10-264 is being withdrawn without prejudice at the request of the applicant. Item two, Z10-131 is being withdrawn as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications. and the application has previously been deferred two times. Item 5, Z10236A is being withdrawn as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications and the application has previously been deferred two times. Item 10, G23500 is being deferred to the July 9th agenda as the applicant failed to respond to staff comments. Item 17, Z10302 is being deferred to the July 9th agenda as the applicant failed to submit an acceptable site plan to staff. Item 19, Z9988A is being deferred to the September 10th agenda at the request of the applicant. Item 20, Z5519B is being deferred to the September 10th agenda at the request of the applicant. Item 21, Z10301 is being deferred to the July 9th agenda as the applicant failed to submit an acceptable site plan to staff. Item 27, Z9964A is being deferred to the July 9th agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications. Item 29, Z10318 is being deferred to the July 9th agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications. And item 30, Z10-303 is also being deferred to the July 9th agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications. Next are the items on consent agenda for approval. Item 3, S-2016, Worldview Properties Replat, southwest corner of East 4th Street and Kimball Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested replat subject to compliance with the comments and conditions. outlined in paragraphs D and E in the staff analysis, the agenda staff report. Items 4 and 6 are being pulled to the regular agenda at the request of Commissioner Russell. Item 7, Z10-294, rezoning from R2 to R4, 8406 Dreer Lane. Staff recommends approval of the requested R4 rezoning. Item 8, Z9258B, Big Rock Plaza Track B, revised PCD. southwest corner of Vimy Ridge Road, south of Alexander Road, staff recommends approval of the revised PCD subject to the following conditions, compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D, E, and F, and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. And no use within the PCD shall include a convenience store, a liquor store, or a pawn shop, and no tenant or owner shall permit such a use. And this is a condition that was from the original PCD approval. Item number nine, Z9407E, Village at Whispering Valley, the Beverly, revised PRD west of Village Run Parkway south of Alexander Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested revised PRD subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, and F in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 11, S867E11, Lot 9, Tract 1, and Lots 1 through 6, Tract 3, Chenault Valley Preliminary Platte. east side of Chennault Parkway between LaMarche Road and Chennault Valley Drive. Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 12, S-2018, lots 4A and 4B, C&P Johnson's replat, 3022 West 16th Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested replat subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 13, S-2019, myriad addition, minor subdivision, preliminary final plat, immediately south of 11-100 Legion Hut Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 14 is being moved to the regular agenda as you receive green cards on that item. Item 15, Z10300, Phillips Duplex Number 1, Conditional Use Permit 3022 West 16th Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the comments and conditions. outlined in paragraphs D and E in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 16, Z10308, Phillips Duplexes number 2, Conditional Use Permit 3310 West 12th Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 18, Z9260A, rezoning from PDR to R2, south side of Alexander Road, approximately 300 feet west of Hall Lane. Staff recommends approval of the requested R2 rezoning. Items 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are being moved to the regular agenda at the request of Commissioner Russell. So that goes to item 28A355, 14118 Canis Business Park annexation. East half of track 14 of SAC suburban addition. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and incorporation of the land into the city of Little Rock. And item 28.1, Z9878B, Plunkett mixed-use PCD reestablishment, 14118 Canis Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested PCD reestablishment subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. That concludes the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. Assuming there are no questions, I'll entertain a motion regarding the consent agenda.

Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the consent agenda as read.

Second. Commissioner Brown? Yes. Bernard? Yes. Hodges?

Yes.

Person? Yes. Russell? Aye. Samad? Yes. Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Haney?

Yes.

McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter? Yes. Consent agenda has been approved.

Thank you. If your item was on the consent agenda, you're free to head out. Of course, if you wish to stay and listen to the discussion, you're more than welcome to do so. All right. We're going to turn to the regular agenda, and we are going to deal with the items in this order. Item number 14, then items 4 and 6. And we'll finish with 22 through 26. So the applicant in item number 14, file number Z-10228, please come to the podium. Mr. Moore, would you do a reading?

Item 14, file number Z-100228A, CKM Group Home Special Use Permit, 15 Brookhaven Drive. The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow for a group home to operate within the existing two-story 2,312-square-foot, four-bedroom, single-family residence. The home's located at 15 Brookhaven Drive and will be a residence for eight disabled men. The applicant has provided information to staff that shows that there will be compliance with Sections 8406A and B of the code, which is the minimum square footage for the residence and the bedroom accommodations. The home will have one house dad, which will be one of the eight residents. Staff at Magnolia Recovery Community is available by phone Monday through Sunday at any given time and is immediately available between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 8 p.m. to 12 p.m. The home has a four-car driveway and a two-car garage. Most of the residents drive. For any resident that's not driving, they will carpool. with residents who drive or utilize public transportation. It was brought to staff's attention by a resident and confirmed by the applicant that there are three sex offenders as registered by the state of Arkansas currently living in the home. In response to concerns raised by staff, the applicant is proposing the following condition for the proposed group home. And this is quote, if our group home application is approved, we will move any registered sex offender off the site within 30 days. Also, we will not place any registered sex offenders living there after that. SAP believes that a group home for eight disabled persons at this location will have no adverse impact on the general area and staff recommends approval of the requested SUP subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. Applicant, would you please state your name for the record?

Kasha Pabian.

Ms. Pabian, as you are aware, there's 20 minutes, 10 minutes for the opposition. There are two folks who have submitted a card to oppose this item and there are two in favor. So you may yield your time or you may present now.

Can I speak after they speak?

Absolutely. Okay. Mr. Overton, is there anything that you would like to notify the commissioner?

We do have a new commissioner. Commissioner Haney. And when you pretty much as a planning commissioner, you will listen to the applicant and you will listen to the opposition. And what you do is you weigh the evidence and you make a rational basis decision. Now, in regards to group homes in which this is, there is a presumption that if eight or less people are living in a group home, and it meets all our ordinance requirements, and Bradley, this one does, correct? Correct.

Yes, it does. The disabled individuals that live in the house.

There is a presumption since all our ordinances are met that you have no basis to deny it. Now, in the case of this group home, which has been corrected, they were going to put sex offenders in the group home or the sex offenders were living in the group home. If that was the case, we would have to do a direct threat assessment. threat has been removed. So you can listen to the evidence. But since the ordinance requirements have been met, it would be difficult to rebut the presumption under our code to deny the group home. Does that make sense? All right. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Overton. Okay. The first card in opposition is Mr. Robert Cheminski. Did I pronounce that correctly, sir? You are.

Thank you.

And would you please state your name for the record?

Robert Jeminski. Go ahead. Yes, sir. I live on Serenity Drive, which is perpendicular to Brookhaven, so I'm right around the corner. And I do oppose this application. This is a refiling of a prior application, which is essentially the same except they're asking for more renters at this place this time around. And yes, although it was characterized as a group home for handicapped people, as of today, a check with the sex offender registry shows there are three occupants that are sex offenders there. It turns out that they are pedophiles and they are current parolees. Mrs. Pabian, Mr. Keppel are the face of the applicant. And we were told the first meeting that there were actually seven men in that house and five of them are sex offenders. And we do not know the criminal histories or the parolee status of the other ones, just those three. So there still are multiple problems with this application. The applicant apparently has good standing with other properties, but with this property, there's no credibility that I can find. They did not come here voluntarily and ask for special approval. They were forced to do it when neighbors complained. They were caught again when they found out sex offenders were in there. And they didn't reveal it to anybody, and they were caught again that they're housing parolees. So I'm well aware of this presumption, but there are exceptions to that presumption. And if there's direct harm to the safety and health of others, then there is no presumption. Here you've got two exemptions to that presumption. One, to the neighborhood in general, I've lived there for 30 years. These are tight residential roads, no designated parking, no sidewalks. More renters will only increase traffic congestion, decrease visibility, and increase traffic by the occupants themselves, friends, relatives, delivery vans, and more of that. I'm a senior citizen, we like to walk, and we prefer it to be a safer, Second exception is the housing of dangerous people. Originally, they were hoping for a group home. They were going under the guise that it was for handicapped people. And then they found out, well, we got felony sex offenders in there. And they didn't care that they were going to put a bunch of them in there. But I'm not sure, talking about this proposal, I'm not sure it is off the table. The federal courts have made it clear that someone's assurance that this problem is gone, that's called being moot. The test isn't that they gave assurances, that we'll be good. The test is whether there is a chance that this bad behavior can reoccur. And because of their lack of candor of who was going to be in that house, And the fact that they continued this house even before getting proper permission, there's a chance that it can happen again. There's a couple of other major problems with this proposal. It's just too weak. It's just, okay, we won't put sex offenders in there. Well, we know they got other felons they're willing to put in there, that they're housing parolees in there. And unfortunately with this, we apparently have to worry about this. And I don't even think this is a good faith proposal. It sounds like a shakedown to me. You got, I'll stop my bad behavior if you give me what I want. What is that? So even if you don't buy that there's an exception, the presumption still doesn't apply because it is for handicapped people in a group home, nothing. I see nothing. Nobody can just walk in here and say, hey, can I have a group home for handicapped people? There's no showing, no showing that anybody's handicapped. They gotta show a reason for why they need eight people in there. No showing of a reason. They're just, you know, just winging it. You can actually take this one step further. Some people believe that, well, I can put anybody in there if we keep it at four people or less. And in this case, that would not fly because the ordinance says to be a family of four unrelated people, you have to be living together as a common household. This is not a common household. A facility is placing people there, felons, parolees, they're all paying separate rent. This is not a common household. This is a halfway house or a boarding house. It's not a group home for handicapped people. A second, another big problem about this thing is they are housing parolees in here, and they're not licensed to do that. you have to be licensed through the Department of Corrections. They're the ones that come out and check for safety and if it's okay with the neighborhood and all that. I find no license for that. I don't think the city, I think it's just a great liability to the city if the city goes ahead and approves an unlicensed facility that houses current parolees not knowing what their criminal histories are right in the middle of a vulnerable population And just hope nothing happens. I don't know how you can prove that. It's a big deal. If you don't have proper license, the Department of Corrections can fine you $500 a day. I'm not just overstating this stuff. Again, going back with lack of candor, they have, Well, or lack of good faith. They have never reached out to the community at all. I know some of these group homes, they're like getting together and they help clean up the neighborhood. So they got, you know, goodwill, you know, none of that stuff. They're just trying to run over us. This is what's called, appears to be what's called an Oxford type house. They are well known nationwide for go ahead and moving in without permission. And asking for forgiveness later, and that kind of conduct should not be condoned. This has been a problem property since they've had it. They've had it since 2022. The original occupants, you know, there were multiple co-enforcement problems, police inquiries. Now you got several sex offenders. You got parolees. You got a bunch of people you don't know their criminal histories on there. You got complaints from women in the neighborhood being followed by men in that house. You got loud fighting going on. The past poor conduct is the best proof of future poor conduct. And our poor neighborhood has pretty much done what we can to help the city. We already do have another transitional living facility down the road. It is for developmentally people about 1,000 feet away. We got an Airbnb in that neighborhood, and we're hoping that it will be a quick spin away at the neighborhood. And as such, Asking that this be denied.

Thank you, Mr. Jaminski.

Thank you.

Next card in opposition is Dwayne Bentley.

Dwayne Bentley, I live at number one Brookline Drive, about 200 feet from this house. He said a whole lot of the things that I was going to say. I do want to say that I am the first one to find out that they were having a group home in there. My first interaction with the people that was there, I went over, saw a new neighbor. I went to meet him, and the person that was with him just informed me that they carried weapons with them all the time and had weapons in the van with them. That's not acceptable for any group home. You know, if I hadn't have—I'm a retired firefighter here in town. If I hadn't have inquired with the city, you know, as to the rules for group homes and things like that, we wouldn't be sitting here today. They would have deceived the whole neighborhood and put whoever they wanted to in there. We would have never known about it. But, you know, I've lived in that neighborhood. I was raised in that neighborhood. I bought the house that my dad built in. I love that neighborhood so much. And I don't want to see this kind of organization in the neighborhood where a single-family neighborhood, children, retired people, single moms, single, you know, parents all together, you know, and the issues of having the people living that they're wanting to have in there are just not acceptable for our neighborhood. And for you to say that because it's on this consent agenda that it should be approved, that's not acceptable. I thought this was a democracy and there would be a vote instead of, you know, here saying it's already a done deal. But anyway, I don't trust these people. I went up to the Magnolia and I talked to them personally. And when I handed this young lady the card to the person that I spoke to, I never even heard of that person. Never even heard of them. And so I said, well, this is who, you know, gave me your name, so... I've dealt with the magnolia through the fire department, and I understand what they do over there. But it is not acceptable for the Brookfield addition. Put it in Chennault somewhere. I already know what the answer to that would be. But our neighborhood, we've been there since 1960, and it's a quiet neighborhood. We want to remain that way. We want to remain a safe neighborhood. And with this coming into the neighborhood, it's not going to be a safe neighborhood the way we can see it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bentley. There are two cards in favor of this. Mr. Nicholas Sampson.

Well, Mr. Board, thank you for the opportunity to get up here and speak. Many things I've heard already I was not aware of with the home. But what I can tell you is it's the time I've been there. I've been there from July of last year. And in that time we've had no issues publicly at the house. We've had no problems with neighbors. The men at the house have interacted with the neighbors in a good way. We have residents there that have helped mow yards. There's a yard catty corner to the house that the residents don't mow. They're not there, I don't know what. One of our residents has volunteered to mow that yard. We've had no law enforcement there. Any time there has been an issue at that house I have gotten in contact with Kasha. I am the house dad of that facility. And as soon as I've gotten in contact with her or Jessica, they have been there to take care of the problem immediately and that person has been removed from the residence. As for weapons of any sort, there's never been any weapons at his house. There's never been weapons in the vehicles that I am aware of. This facility offers men an opportunity to regain their footing in society. Fourteen years and four months and twenty-nine days is a long time to think about. what we've done. And the men in the house have done a lot of time. We're there to regain our footing. We're there to help. If Ms. Kasha would want to set up something with the community where we pick up trash, where we mow your lawn, where we help you out, we're there. I have recently switched to day shift. All the guys have established jobs there doing well. I have a character letter here from my boss. I know the other men are very appreciated in the job that they do and they work all over the city. We are not there to ruin people's lives. We're there to build a life, a life that we tragically tore down through our decisions. I pray that you guys listen to what's being said. I pray that if it doesn't work for some of the men in the house, that this can continue to help the next man. I thank you for your time. Thank you.

Next card in support is Mr. Kyle Carpenter.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate you guys giving us the opportunity to speak to you all. I can't tell you how fortunate I am, the situation I'm in, this house is I live with five other guys that we literally work together we love this neighborhood I mean we've gotten to know quite a few of our neighbors and I'm not sure if they know our circumstances but We have never given them a reason to question us. We've got one of the most beautiful yards on the block. We take very good care of our house. If you were to come in our house, we've got a beautiful house. We all have – I have a great – I mean, I'm doing better than I've – ever done in my entire life. I'm really thriving, and it's not only because of Miss Kasha, because of the guys that I live with. We support each other. Some of the... I'm not sure if these are accusations from guys from the past, but I can promise you, I would... I can promise you that the guys living there, weapons... I mean, these guys are, we're held to a higher standard through parole. We've, I mean, any day, and it happens. I mean, parole officers show up there, and I mean, we've, we're on it. You know, we know it's easy to stay out and do the right thing and thrive and get your life together, but it's real easy to, let it come crashing down like that. So we make sure that we cross our T's, dot our I's. I mean, things are going good for us because of what we're doing. And we love this neighborhood. I mean, we look forward to doing stuff for the neighborhood. We've talked about it. There's a gentleman that lives there that he doesn't make a whole lot of money, but he's, he saved up money to buy a lawnmower so he can help the community. Like speaking of this house, the catty corner to us, uh, you know, we've got good guys living there. Um, I, you know, I don't, I don't know everybody's circumstance, but I know I trust them and they trust me. And, uh, I really think this community is fortunate to have us there. I really do. We're good guys. We've made bad decisions in the past, but the one thing that we are doing is taking a hold of our lives and making sure that we do what we know is right. As far as I'm concerned, you know, things are just going to keep getting better as long as we're doing what we're doing. And I just, I pray that, you know, it'd be easy to just get up and move somewhere else. But I really, it is, it's a beautiful neighborhood. And I appreciate, you know, the community and, you know, we want what's best for the community too. So I really appreciate y'all giving us this time and, uh, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. You have approximately 12 minutes remaining.

12 minutes remaining. Okay. So real quick, I'd just like to explain the Magnolia, who we are, what we do. So you have a better understanding of the program. So we opened two and a half years ago. We're located on Roosevelt. The facility that we're in is called the Magnolia Recovery Community. It was a retirement community prior to me taking the facility over. And that was for individuals with disabilities. We are a substance use treatment program. So the individuals that come to us have a history of substance use.

cannot discuss people's disability, whether it's handicapped, substance abuse treatment, we do not discuss that. Under the American Disabilities Act, that is not something that we can even begin to discuss.

Okay. Okay, so can I talk about them paroling out to our facility and they go through programming?

You can talk about the programming, but you cannot talk about someone's disability. Sorry about that.

So individuals parole out to us from prison so they have to fill out an application. We approve the application based on the answers to our questions and then we offer programming there that they are required to successfully complete. It is a minimum of four months that they're required to live at the main campus which is 3601 West Roosevelt. During that time we are doing all the things that we need to do to hold everyone accountable. We do room checks, we do bed checks, we have on-site parole officers. that see our clients every single week. When they are eligible to graduate our program, we offer them a residential home to move into once they successfully graduate. So you can't move into one of my houses if you haven't proven to me that you're gonna keep your room clean, that you're gonna take the trash out and do everything that you're supposed to do when you live in a home. So these are the life skills that we are teaching the clients that stay with us. Once they are eligible to graduate and want to move, not everybody wants to move. We have people that have lived at our main house for over two years. But once they are eligible to move, it is sent to the parole officer. The parole officer approves or denies the plan. And if they are a sex offender, they are required to, the parole officer has to approve the address first. Then they're required to register at the 12th Street location within 72 hours of moving. So any house that we have and any other group homes, it's not like we're just randomly allowing people that have all these sex offender crimes and all these things. That's not what we are. So these addresses are pre-approved before they even move into our homes by their parole officers. Once they moved into our home, we still have a house dad, which Nicholas told you he was the house dad at this one. He's ultimately responsible for keeping the main house informed because he lives there. We're not there every day. He lives there, so he keeps us informed as to who's doing what they're supposed to be doing. We also continue the things that we do, the testing and whatever we need to do to make sure that everyone's doing what they're supposed to do. It's disheartening to hear that it people feel like that we're taking advantage of the situation because that's not what we're doing. We are trying to help as many people as we possibly can. We all know the recidivism right here in Little Rock. We all know the opportunities are not out there for people to get back on their feet. We currently have 140 men at our main facility. We're opening another one that's going to house another 36 because we want to make a difference. But somebody's got to advocate for them. And I feel like that's me. I'm advocating for individuals who can't advocate for themselves. A lot of them, because of their charges, can't go rent an apartment. Or they can't turn utilities on in their name because they owe fees from the last time that they had utilities on. They can't get a cell phone. you know, much less an apartment or buy a house or buy a car. So, you know, we're trying to make a difference and we're trying to help them get back on their feet so they can be successful. So they don't say, I'm going to go back to what I know because that's easy. It's easier to go back where you came from and go back into the bad habits. It's much harder to put a foot right in front of the other and try to get your life back on track. Employment is very, very, very difficult for this population with all of the felonies and misdemeanors and everything that they're facing. So we're fighting as hard as we possibly can. And I hate this is the first time that we've really had a chance to speak about who we are and what we do. But I can assure you that we, I am not going to allow any nonsense to happen in any of my facilities because I have a reputation to my background. I'm a nurse. I do anesthesia for a living. So I've been practicing anesthesia for over 20 years because I want to help people. So as nurses, we advocate for those, for those people. And so this is what I'm doing to help the community. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Peggy. Commissioners, any questions? At this point, I would entertain a motion.

Well, actually, I guess not. My question is more of a procedural one than what's going on with the system. Not talking about anybody's individual disability, but I guess where I'm concerned is the application says for disabled individuals, but what it actually is is parolees. So does that create any kind of logistical or legal concern for us down the road? Because I know the assumption has to do with it, but since it's two very different things.

The fact that they're parolee doesn't weigh into this.

I'm saying that because the House says, again, I may have a little too legalistic here. Yeah. It says disability, which I understand those with disabilities, we have to approve that. This says parolees. It's two different things, at least to my mind. But if you're telling me legally, it's not a...

It's a group home. Okay. And you're... We're not talking about disability and we're not talking about you're treating what type of specific disabilities, but you are a group home, correct? You're a long-term care facility. How long do your people normally stay in the home?

At the main facility, the minimum that we require is four months and that's phase one.

Okay. How about at this particular location? As long as they want to stay. So it's a long-term care facility. The other question came up, are you licensed?

We are licensed through Arkansas Community Corrections.

Ms. Chair. As far as procedures go, when we have people come in to apply for special use permits for group homes, we ask the question of the applicant, are all the residents that are going to live there, are they disabled based on the federal definition of disability? If the answer is yes, that's as far as we go, and it's a group home. Regardless of whether they're parolees or not or whatever their other situations may be, they're disabled.

Right. But I guess, and again, coming from an HR background, parolee status doesn't usually equate to disability, at least in a hiring standpoint. But in this case, you're saying that those two equate. Right. Is that what I'm hearing? Okay.

Correct. And then to go even further, Commissioner Brown, I want to make it clear. Someone that has a disability falls under the ADA and the FHA. If you're a sex offender, you are not a protected class. And there is nothing to protect sex offenders from living anywhere But the fact that this particular group home has agreed to not house sex offenders in there, then that direct threat assessment doesn't have to be done. But you do understand if you move a sex offender into that home after you're approved and this is a condition of your permit, the city of Little Rock will go in there and revoke your permit. And you have to come back before the Planning Commission and a direct threat assessment be done because you've agreed to that. And this commission, because you've agreed to that, can't do a direct threat assessment on the current people that you have in there because you've agreed to move them out, correct?

Yes, sir. Okay.

Judge. I'm aware. And I'm sure that these neighbors are going to be watching that sex offender registry. I'm sure they will. And if one of them letters end up on that door, we're going to revoke your permit.

Okay.

All right.

The question was brought up regarding weapons. Are there any... any type of searches or anything that take place to make sure that, you know, individuals shouldn't be carrying weapons or not afforded those weapons.

There are house inspections that are performed and as well as the parole officers to show up and do inspections of the house. We don't do them daily. No, we don't do daily inspections, but it's definitely a violation of our program rules as well as the conditions of their parole.

Mr. Jeminski, I believe, brought up that a particular lady was being followed. Are you aware of anything like that?

No, sir. It's never been brought to my attention.

Is there a clear policy that if certain lines are crossed, crimes are committed, Are those residents immediately kicked out?

Yes, sir.

And are you aware of any incidents within the past 12 months of this or of residents being kicked out? And if so, how many?

If anyone's been discharged, it's been because they violated something that we didn't agree with, but they didn't come home for curfew. They were gone for several days. They tested positive for a drug test.

I have one question for you. You said something about the parole officer. I'm sorry. You said something about the parole officer approved the addresses and you had mentioned something about their status as a sex offender was known. I just wanted to understand, were you aware that notification had to be given out and of certain rules around housing a sex offender.

Um, as far as I'm aware, I didn't know that I would have to give notification. They are required to register at the 12th street location and then the parole officers are the ones that approved the address. So if there was a directive that I had to do something to notify the neighbors, I would have done so, but I've never been told that I had to do that.

I'm going to ask one other question.

This one of either Mr. Jaminski or Mr. Bentley. You are the other set of eyes on the ground. Obviously, listening to Mr. Bentley, Mr. Sampson, Ms. Pabian, I mean, sound like some very positive things. Folks who want to be a part of your neighborhood, who want to help the neighbors, who sounds like they've actually gotten out and introduced themselves, which is more than most of us these days. All that goes to say, are there any incidents besides what was mentioned of them causing a disturbance in this neighborhood?

Well, I can say, you know, neighbors have told me of arguments that have been outside. I do know that this four-car garage or two-car garage, whatever it is, that is in the house, they used it for exercise equipment. They used it for parking. They do park in the street and neighbors had to ask them to please, you know, don't block our driveways for the possibility of us hitting your car when we back out. I don't have that issue. I live down at the end of the street in the circle. But, you know, other than the neighbors telling me—and one neighbor moved because he had two small children. And they were not aware that there were sex offenders living in the house until, you know, we found out and we started asking questions and stuff like that. Now, you know, there's also been mention, I mentioned about the gun. I didn't say that anybody in the house was carrying a weapon. I said that the guy that was bringing the guy home from wherever informed me that he carries a weapon with him, you know, and that was a little uncomfortable. They also refer to a house catty-corner. The man that owns that house, he's passed away and the house is in foreclosure. That really has nothing to do with any of this.

They've been coached. Granted, they're mowing the yard now, ever since this started. They've been coached. Granted, they're starting to mow the yard now, but it'll probably go back to being trashy after this is done. There is at least three incidences with guys following women. That was not a single isolated incident. Any other questions?

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions? Entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the requested special use permit subject to the compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E in the staff analysis of the agenda staff reports, and this is for item number Z-10228-A.

Second. Commissioner Brown?

On the advice of the city attorney, I'll vote yes.

Menard? Yes. Hodges?

Yes.

Person?

Yes.

Russell? Aye. Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Haney?

Yes.

McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter? Yes. Motion is approved.

Next, we'll turn to item number 4, Z-4768-E. Mr. Moore, would you please do a reading?

Item 4, file number Z-4768-E, Valley Oaks Court. Lots 1-0-3-4 are conceptual PDC, located at the northwest corner of Mabelville West Road and Angel Court. Mr. Davidson is here representing the application. Do you want a presentation, or do you want to go straight to Commissioner Russell's concerns?

Let's go straight to Commissioner Russell's concerns.

Thank you. So with this application, as with all of the others, I actually have the same comments to make with respect to application Z10283, which we'll get to next. I do have some legitimate concerns about that. The larger concern is the City of Little Rock has a very clear ordinance for submission requirements of a planned zoning district that aren't being met. And we need to be applying these submission requirements fairly, equitably, and evenly across all applicants. The submission requirements do not ACCOUNT FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. AND THE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE FAIRLY LENGTHY. SECTION 36-456 OUTLINES THE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR A PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. THERE ARE ALSO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CONDITIONS AND REVIEW GUIDELINES IN SECTION 36-460. that are not being met. So this application specifically only provides a site plan. It does not provide any proposed use. It does not provide any proposed parking, does not provide any proposed landscaping, does not show us the size and orientation of the building that should go on this lot. It does not meet the minimum standards of a planned development and should not be heard by this commission until that is provided. Additionally, because this is a planned development application, it is proposing to create a zoning island unto itself. Within our zoning code, based on use, we have requirements for setbacks. We have requirements for easements. We have requirements for landscape buffers based on use, whether it's adjacent to a residential area or a quiet office area or something else. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING COUNT. THIS APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT ADDRESS ANY OF THESE ITEMS. THIS IS REALLY MORE OF A COMMENT FOR STAFF. IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABIDING BY THESE REQUIREMENTS, WHY WOULD WE BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION?

Yes, Commissioner Russell, thank you for the question. Our staff goes to great lengths to review these. The development staff has 40 plus years of experience doing this. Mr. Moore himself has been doing it for over 35 years. I trust exactly how Monty and Jeremy and Mr. Smith and Mr. Thrower, how they handle the review process. And this one specifically, it doesn't supply a site plan, but just like developments like the district, they were approved plan development with certain zoning requirements built into it. In this case, this would be specifically C3. So it would be built to the C3 standards when the site plan was submitted for building plan review. Mr. Moore, do you want to elaborate?

Well, everything Commissioner Russell mentioned is addressed in this plan development, but it's a conceptual plan development, which the city has done many times over the years. The district that Brad was talking about is where the old Sears used to be. That's a plan development, a PCD, and basically what the conceptual plan development does, it outlines basically where the street's going to go, how the lots are going to be laid out. There are no site plans for the district. Those site plans are reviewed when each lot is developed through the building permit process. And the plan development set forth that specific one, just like it does this one, that all of the development standards will be tied to a zoning category, in this case C3. buffers, landscaping, minimum parking, building height. All of those things will be addressed through the building permit process. Basically, you're just approving the use for the property, which in this case is C-3 permitted uses. The one thing this does that's different than the C-3 standards, the building setbacks that are set forth with the proposed replat of the property the setbacks from all the property lines are actually greater than what the C3 requires. So like along both street frontages, they're proposing 45-foot building setbacks where typically you would have 25. So the conceptual type of plan development is something that was determined appropriate years ago, and we've done many of them throughout the city. With respect to that, and focusing more now on submission requirements, the planning staff reviews, interprets, implements the zoning ordinance every day. Over the years, we've developed policies and processes of how to do that. The submission requirements for plan development, first thing you've got to understand about plan developments, they're not all the same. You've got planned developments for items 23 through 26, which involve a 50-foot wide lot, basically, with a duplex type structure being constructed on that lot. You've got Shackleford Crossing, where JCPenney's and Walmart is on Shackleford. That's a planned development. When we look at submission requirements, we try to be reasonable. We get what we need. to review the applications, but we try to be reasonable. Things like a topographical cross-section of the property, where that might be something we would want to see on Shackleford Crossing with items 22 through 26, there's no need for them. And we're not going to make the applicant jump through hoops and spend money and provide things that we don't need. Pedestrian circulation systems, general schematic landscape plans, contours, if we don't need them based on what we know about the property, then we're not going to ask for them. So we try to use judgment when we review. But what we can guarantee is we're not going to bring an application before you for a plan of development unless we're comfortable with it, unless we've seen everything that we need to see to be comfortable to make a recommendation. There's a couple applications, and I don't remember whether they were planned developments or not, but they do involve site plans that were being deferred because the applicant simply did not submit to us what we thought was an acceptable site plan. So we will not bring an application to you unless we feel that we've covered all of our bases and they're comfortable with giving a recommendation.

So with this application specifically, it's currently located within a planned office development that was previously approved. and so their desire is to move from a pod to a pcd or pdc however you want it for part of it however there's c3 across the street there's o3 down the street it's also surrounded by r2 which is single family why or what rationale did staff have for not recommending that since they're within and actually providing greater setbacks than what is required by the C3 zone that they're seeking, rather than go through the plan development process, which they're clearly not meeting the documentary burden, according to the zoning ordinance, why not simply recommend that they change from the POD to a C3 zoning, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S THE SAME PROCESS FOR THEM. IT'S ACTUALLY LESS OF A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE NOW WE'RE ONLY DOING A REPLAT AND A SITE PLAN APPROVAL VERSUS CREATING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS CREATING ITS OWN ZONING ISLAND. Whether they're using the C3 as a baseline, I'm finding it hard to agree with that rationale. It seems it would be better for this to be zoned C3 rather than a PDC.

That could be an option for the applicant. I think we felt because the property was already under a plan development and the plan development really doesn't get into requiring that a land use plan be changed. that we were comfortable with taking this as a revised planned development.

But would this qualify as a PDC? Would it qualify under the original POD? What do you mean exactly? Would it meet the requirements of the original planned development that was approved? Well, the original planned development was for office. So this is different than what was approved. So it would not meet the requirements of the original planned development? Ergo, it's a new planned development. Sure, yeah, exactly.

I think we were more comfortable going through the planned development process because it's already zoned for a planned development rather than going through a straight zoning process.

Thank you. Commissioner Russell, with respect to items 4 and 6... Do you have any other questions or are you interested in making a motion?

No, for item six, I do have legitimate life safety concerns that I think the commission needs to address.

Okay, so regarding item four, no motions. In that case, the item will stand as approved.

Is that a proper understanding? No, you have to make a motion.

Okay, so we'll take a motion with respect to item number four.

All right, Mr. Chair, in regard to item number, item number Z-4768-E, I make a motion that we approve the proposed rezoning subject to the compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, and F in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report.

Second. Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Menard? Yes. Hodges?

Yes.

Erson? Yes. Russell? No. Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves?

Yes.

Haney?

Yes.

McDonnell?

Yes.

Baxter?

Yes.

Motion is approved.

Okay. Item number 6, Z-10283. Mr. Moore, would you do a reading?

Item number six, file number Z, 10-283, is a common grounds properties PDR, 2219-2223 South Commerce Street. And I'll go ahead and give you just a real brief introduction to this because the applicant has amended the plan since the first time it was before the commission. The applicant has submitted revisions to the PDR application, submitted those on May 15th. The revision changed the concept from a detached single-family residence to a townhouse concept. The applicant proposes a total of 18 townhomes with two three-unit buildings and three four-unit buildings. Each unit will be on a separately platted lot. The applicant submitted a very detailed description of the use, and I won't go into that. I'll let the applicant hit the whatever points he wants to discuss on that. But basically, you'll have access drive from Commerce Street that will serve the two three-unit townhomes. And then you'll have an access drive from 23rd Street, which will serve the three four-unit townhomes. Each townhome will have a garage with a parking pad behind the garage. And there will be some additional parking spaces for visitors at the east end of the development. Staff does support the development. It recommends approval. Let me find that. Staff recommends approval of the requested PDR zoning as revised, subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

I would be happy to. My name is Adam Fogelman. I'm a member of Common Ground Properties and the agent representative for In It to Win. Between the two LLCs, we're neighbors. We're neighbors and friends. We've known each other for a decade or more. And what you saw in the last slide, it's a strange amalgamation of three different additions to the city of Little Rock that came together prior to 1900. With the third addition, I believe, being on the southern boundary, it resulted in much of the interior area there being landlocked. The code that exists, the PRD code, is a truly custom suited product to actually make this land which was previously undevelopable, developable. It's been laid out the way that it has to address some of the concerns that neighbors had with the original design concept. The fear was that there would be too much street parking and the folks on Commerce Street there used street parking to accommodate visitors. So it was addressed through the use of townhouses with garages included in the townhouse design as well as kind of an internal drive system. There are fire access points on both east and west. East from 23rd Street. I'm looking backwards. East from 23rd Street and west from Commerce Street. I know that the fire department provided feedback. And then you'll see access to the garages on the rear. This is in the Petaway neighborhood. There's been great focus in development in Petaway to be pedestrian friendly and to maintain front porches and connection between pedestrians on the sidewalk and passing by to folks in their homes and on the front porches. Remain consistent with that design concept Which you see on the Commerce Street side and on the interior it provides an interior circulation area and common space in that interior green while simultaneously avoiding and respecting the Utility easements that exist one on the north end of the property is an existing sewer main that the city laid some time ago and a phone and overhead right now, overhead electric line running north-south through the center of it. Those constraints along with the previous limitation to access resulted in this layout respecting all of those things. I'm happy to answer any questions. The neighbors that expressed previous concern, I've touched base with all of them. I'll go on a limb and say none of them are here today and all have expressed that they're satisfied with the changes. Thank you, Mr. Fogelman.

Commissioner Russell. So similar to the last application, I'll just simply state generally that the application does not meet the requirements for a planned development. But the specific concerns that I have about this are centered around parking and fire and life safety. I don't believe, because these are being proposed as townhomes, I don't believe that there's enough information provided about their construction to adequately review it. I am concerned about the five-foot setbacks on the north side of the property for the six sorry, the two three-unit townhome buildings. I'm also concerned that the driveways do not conform to minimum driveway lengths. The 14-foot drive aisle does not meet minimum off-street parking standards, nor does the north drive aisle for the two four-unit townhomes meet the minimum standards for off-street parking. IN THAT INSTANCE, THE DRIVES DO MEET THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY STANDARD OF 22 FEET IN DEPTH, BUT THEN THE OTHER FOUR TOWNHOUSE BUILDING UNITS O, P, Q, AND R, ALL BUT TWO OF THOSE, TWO OF THOSE MEET THE STANDARD, TWO DO NOT. it not meeting the minimum standard for parking plus the issues of fire and life safety being so close to the property lines, I do not support this application.

Staff, do you have any response to Commissioner Russell's comments?

Mr. Chair, the fire department is in our review process from the time we have our first interdepartmental meeting after the filing deadline. They have been given a chance to review this several times. I believe Mr. Fogelman has referenced that. In their comments, in the staff report, they mentioned nothing about this. So that would be saying that they would be overlooking their own rules. So again, we support this. It's a planned development, and it's been reviewed thoroughly.

The application does state that a variance is required from the fire apparatus access, though.

May I clarify that? I believe that the variance is to accommodate the fire apparatus access, not to vary from it. Where the driveway meets 23rd Street, because that is a bend in 23rd, the variance is actually to allow for the driveway flare when it meets the right-of-way to cross the abutting property boundary, there are existing driveways there. It's going to follow the path and pattern that is already present.

So in other words, the fire truck, when it makes the turn from 23rd onto the property in order to access the property, will drive over someone else's property because it cannot make the turn.

I believe that's incorrect because the driveway flare is within the right-of-way, and the right-of-way is the city's, not the adjoining property owners.

Well, it says the fire department typically requires a minimum access driveway width of 20 feet. To accomplish this, the driveway from East 23rd Street will need to be closer than 5 feet from the property lines. The applicant will need a variance from Section 30-43, as explained in paragraph D of the staff report. The variance can be granted by the planning director or the planning commission.

In 30-43, I think it is, it says that you can't have a driveway flare within the right-of-way that crosses an extension of the adjoining property boundary. So we're talking about what's in the right-of-way and where the private drive meets the public improved road and not on somebody else's property.

Thank you. I'd entertain a motion at this point.

Mr. Chair, in regard to item number C-10283, I make a motion to approve the requested PDR zoning subject to the compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report.

Second. Commissioner Brown? Yes. Bernard? Yes. Hodges?

Yes.

Person? Yes. Russell?

No.

Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Haney?

Yes, sir.

McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter?

Yes.

Motion is approved.

Next up, we have item number 22.

Mr. Chair, I'll save us all a lot of time. I have the same objections to these applications as I have previously about the planned development requirements not being met. I'd like to go on record as simply saying that this commission needs to take a very long, hard look at our planned development requirements. We need reasonable modifications to allow for decreased requirements for residential plan developments, office plan developments, and commercial plan developments. If we're not going to require all of our applicants to play by the same rules, then we need to change the rules. If you'd like to move forward with a motion to accept these remaining applications as originally read on the consent agenda, I'm willing to support that.

I would like a discussion before we do that, though.

Okay. If possible. Yes. Let's, in the interest of time, we know the, what, five items, 22, 23, 24, 25.

I feel certain I can talk about all of them.

I don't mean to speak over your chairman, but I can talk about all of them at the same time. Yes. Let's bypass a reading of these. Applicant, would you state your name for the record?

Yeah, I'm Vernon Williams with Garnett Engineering.

Floor is yours.

I've been kind of hijacked by comments like this from him before. And, you know, I felt hijacked before because the documents that the documents that the planning department has here aren't all the documents that I turn in. You know, if you put my project up, any of them, this one, it shows one plot plan that isn't even the current plot plan. that I've turned in. I've turned in a survey for the property that's not represented here. I've turned in a complete replat of what the property is going to be. And when he was going through his list of things that my projects needed that they didn't have, I believe I've turned in a document that represents every one of those. To build a residential house, you have to turn in a plot plan to code enforcement. That document's turned in and reviewed. To break the property up into two pieces, you have to file a replat. All my developer has to do is have me sign it, have my surveyor sign it, have himself sign it, and take it down to planning commission. And those are all documents I've turned in, and he can go build the house. It's hard when you get in here and you get accused of not turning stuff in. And today at least I was smart enough to see what the package was going to be and know that I was going to get hit with this and bring everything that I actually turned in. I've turned in a full set of house plans for this. I've turned in a full set of elevations. I mean, I just don't know what he's talking about.

Commissioner Russell. He's looking at what we're provided. I review these applications based on what is in the staff report. If the staff report is not complete, then I cannot review it based on the zoning ordinance.

So with respect to what Mr. Williams has pointed out, this is reviewed as a two single family lot planned development, just like all the rest of them are reviewed. no, it doesn't comply with, if you get right down to every submission requirement, like Mr. Russell's talking about, without us using discretion and saying, we don't need this, this, and this. No, it doesn't. But we got what we needed, and what we provide to this commission, every application that comes to the commission has a survey. We don't put the survey in every... agenda report. Um, the site plan shows the proposed building line or the proposed property line, which will run through the building. Um, we don't feel that it's necessary to put the simple little replat drawing in with that. I mean, we can if you want us to, but, um, floor plans, we don't ask for floor plans. We don't review floor plans during this process. Um, So for Mr. Williams to say that everything we asked for was submitted, for us to adequately review the application, yes. But with respect to where the direction that Mr. Russell's coming from, with every single plan of development, whether it's for one house or whether it's for 100,000 square feet of commercial building area, yes. We use that discretion and know they're not all the same.

Yes, Mr. Overton.

I'm hoping that this provides you all some comfort. I don't want to go into great depth, but we do have new commissioners. This situation with what's required under our code, has been tested many times in the court and the court consistently rules that every single thing that we asked for does not have to be provided. Uh, now they have said if there's a flood study that needs to be done and we know that there's issues like for a preliminary plat and it says flood drainage study. If there is no flooding issues, the court said we don't need it. But if there's flooding issues and you're approving a preliminary plat, put it in there. So the court understands each property is very specific, and our requirements that are laid out are the things that may be needed, but not absolutely strictly required because, like Monty said, development is very expensive, and everything under that list is not absolutely needed it all the time. And we've got multiple circuit court decisions that have decided that because when someone opposes an application, the first thing they're going to do is going to court and say, well, you shouldn't approve the preliminary plat because this was required. That does not mean an automatic win for them because the court's going to say, well, was that reasonable to ask them for that? No.

And these are things, I mean, staff, just to clarify, I mean, if the commission deems them necessary for review, these are things we can request, correct?

Absolutely.

Okay. How about this? I'd like to entertain a motion on items number 22 through 26. As far as a motion.

Do I just list out each item, number, and index? Or do I need to do them individually?

Let's do them individually.

All right.

Actually, I'm going to play parliamentary procedure here. I make a motion we suspend the rules to allow us to vote on them all at once.

Second.

Okay.

Very good.

All right. Items, numbers 22 through 26. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OF THE REQUESTED PDR REZONING SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPHS, D&E, AND THE STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE AGENDA STAFF REPORT FOR ITEMS 22 THROUGH 26 OR NUMBER 22 THROUGH 26.

SECOND. COMMISSIONER BROWN.

YES.

BENARD. YES. HODGES.

YES.

Person? Yes. Russell? Aye. Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Excuse me. Haney? Yes. McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter? Yes. Motion has been approved for item 22 through 26. Fantastic.

That takes care of all the items on the regular agenda. Are there any citizen communications? I do have two brief announcements before we adjourn. Met with full-time staff on Monday. The zoning subcommittee slash ordinance revision team, that's going to start back up hopefully, what, end of July, I believe. So those commissioners who are interested in that, there will be an email coming out on that. I do think it would be... in our interest to discuss the planning development plan development requirements a little bit more. So hopefully we can bring that up when we meet in July. And then with respect to the July meeting, vice chair will be leading that and commissioner Vickers will be serving as vice chair. I'll be on vacation. Any other thoughts, comments, suggestions for the pitch for the people on that, excuse me, on that, uh, code stuff we're looking at.

I'll send out a couple of different dates so we can decide on, what works best for everybody.

Thanks, Jeremy. All right. June meeting is adjourned.

Thanks for watching!