Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you Thank you. you Thank you.

GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE JULY 9, 2026 MEETING OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND I WILL NOW ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE TO DETERMINE QUORUM.

SURE, MADAM CHAIRMAN. THIS IS THE JULY 9, 2026 LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THIS IS A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BROWN? HERE. Hodges? Here. Person? Here. Russell?

Present.

Samad?

Here.

Vickers? Commissioner Vickers?

All right.

Eves? Here. Haney?

Present.

McDonald?

Present.

Baxter? We have a quorum.

All right. Moving right along, if there aren't any questions from commissioners in regard to the minutes, I'd love to entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes.

Chairwoman McDonnell, I'd like to make a motion for the approval of the minutes, please. Second.

We have a motion and a second. And now I ask for a roll call vote.

Commissioner Brown? Yes. Menard? Yes. Hodges?

Yes.

Person? Aye. Russell? Aye. Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Haney?

Aye.

McDonnell?

Yes.

Baxter? Minutes have been approved.

Okay. Moving right along, I'd ask for Mr. Monty for reading the consent agenda.

Madam Chair, before we get to the consent agenda, we have one item, one order of business. Commissioner Russell has asked that six items be pulled from the consent approval agenda and moved to the regular agenda. Those items are 2, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 20. And that's going to require a vote of the commission as to whether or not to entertain that request and pull those items. So you'll need a motion and a second and a vote.

All righty.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Monty, what were those, 2, 8, 9, 11, and what? 2, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 20.

Commissioner Russell, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, and I can provide some context if it's helpful for the commission. Sure. So item two is in STR. I BELIEVE. LET ME MAKE SURE I DON'T GET MY ORDER MIXED UP. ITEM 2 IS AN STR APPLICATION THAT REQUIRES A PARKING PLAN AND A FLOOR PLAN SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE BASED ON PROPOSED OCCUPANCY. IT DOES NOT AS SUBMITTED. ITEM Z10318, ARKANSAS BAPTIST COLLEGE. THE SITE PLAN IS INSUFFICIENT FOR A PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE. REFER TO SECTION 36-456 OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH LAYS OUT REQUIREMENTS FOR any plan development, whether it be office, residential, or commercial. Z10303, 13 Oakwood, STR2, similarly, does not provide a parking plan or floor plan showing compliance with the ordinance based on a proposed occupancy. S2021 is a replat, which is a variance request. This one I'm requesting full discussion because they're requesting 10% side yard setbacks. At 37 and a half feet, that would be a three and a half foot or three foot eight inch side yard setback, which I don't believe is sufficient for this type of development. I would request they accept a five yard setback, which is more typical. Z10326 5622 B Street. No cover letter was provided. IT IS GENERALLY REQUIRED TO DESCRIBE THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF USE, SO I'M REQUESTING MORE INFORMATION ON THIS AND MORE DISCUSSION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE CHANGE FROM R4 TO R5 IS WARRANTED OR EVEN BEING ASKED FOR. AND Z10328 WEST 7TH STREET, SIMILARLY, THE SITE PLAN IS INSUFFICIENT FOR A PDR APPLICATION OF THIS SIZE, AGAIN REFERRING TO SECTION 36-456 OF THE ORDINANCE. Generally speaking, I'm requesting that all of these applications, with the exception of S2021, be deferred to next month's hearing so that more information can be provided.

Do any commissioners have any questions?

I just have one question. I just want to make sure that we're respecting the citizens' time as well as the staff and board members here. ANY OF THESE ITEMS FROM 289, 11, 16, AND 20, ARE ANY OF THESE OUTSIDE OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF?

AND ARE THEY IN CONTRADICTION WITH ANY OF THE CODES? WE ARE RECOMMENDING THESE BEYOND CONSENT. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT ON REGULAR CHAIRMAN DICKERS. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. AND I'LL JUST SAY, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, NUMBER 16, WHICH WAS POINTED OUT, A STRAIGHT ZONING from R4 to R5, it was said that there has to be a cover letter. There does not have to be a cover letter. Jeremy, if you can pull up the application, and if you could show me cover letter on there for the requirements, I'd like to see that.

And if cover letter is not required, that's fine, but generally it's supposed to be some kind of justification for the request, something written, which there is not, at least not that I was provided. We provide a staff report? Yes, but there wasn't a written request from the applicant. Other than the application, which simply says changing from R4 to R5.

That submittal does not require a cover letter. Anyone who owns a piece of property can simply request a change in zoning, a straight zoning to another category. There is no justification required.

No reason has to be given.

Well, in this particular case, I don't want to get too far down the road, but in this particular case, there's a nonconforming use on the property, and I believe there's a sale of the property, and the new buyer wants it zoned properly so that the use complies with the zoning, basically.

Which would be totally fine, but that wasn't provided in the documentation, which is why I asked for additional information.

Commissioner Vickers, just to continue, there was the replat that was asked to not be deferred. We did talk to the applicant, and the applicant will do five feet because if they don't do five feet, they will have to do a fire rated wall, which would cost them more money. They don't want to do that. Jeremy, you've spoken to them.

Yeah, according to building code, if you're less than five feet off your property line, you have to rate it for one hour, which means a It's going to cost them a ton of money to do, and then it restricts how many windows they can have and all that, and that's not what they want. So they're going to do five feet.

And we spoke with the applicant, correct?

Correct.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I respect each and every board member up here and wanted to address their concerns. However, I want to make certain that If the codes have not been followed correctly or inaccurately, I want to make sure that they are. If everything checks out, I just wanted a confirmation. And if all these items checked out under the codes, under the state codes and local codes, I wanted to make certain if that's the case. If so...

I feel comfortable moving forward. Commissioner Vickers, I'll just make the statement like I made last month and like I probably made the month previous. Our professional staff has been doing this for over 40 years. Monty, have we changed our process from the time that you've been here, the way that we review anything, any item that comes before this commission?

Not very much. The review of items now are the same. uh, pretty much as they were the code changes, which kicks in some, you know, updates every now and again, but, but basically it's the same review.

Okay.

Thank you.

So with this being said, commissioner Russell, is there any amendment that you would like to make or are you still wanting us to move forward with taking those six items and moving them to, uh, if S two zero two one, the replat, uh,

If they're accepting the 5-foot side yard setback, then that should be heard in a public meeting, their application amended as they plan to amend it, rather than it being on consent agenda. Because if it's on consent, then it will be approved with the 10% setback, not 5 feet. At least that's my understanding of the procedure.

Our staff, we're not opposed to the 3-foot 8-inch setbacks. However, the applicant knows that if they choose to do the 3-foot-8 setback, they're going to have to do an hour-rated wall. It's still up to them whether they choose to spend that money or not. So as far as our staff is concerned, we're still recommending approval with the 10% setback.

With that, then, no, I would make a motion to remove the aforementioned six items from consent approval to the regular agenda.

Okay. We have a motion. Do I have a second?

OK.

Seeing that I have no second, then the motion fails. And we'll move right along and ask Mr. Monty for a reading of the consent agenda.

I hate to interrupt. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We will have to come up to the podium and do that. But hold on. The chairwoman will have to give approval. And we usually have addresses to be made at the citizen statements afterwards.

after the consent agenda.

Just for respect of everybody, time and respect for everybody's item on the agenda. If your item is on the consent agenda, which the reading is about to be heard now, and if it's approved, then it will be approved or denied, and you can take matters up with the staff afterwards or at the citizens' review at the proceedings of the meeting.

But we're in opposition to one of the items that you have.

On the consent agenda?

Yes.

Well, it was probably, it will probably be moved to the regular agenda. Did you fill out the green card, ma'am? Did you fill out the green card? Yeah, if you filled out the green card.

Okay, then.

Yeah, it will be moved to the regular agenda. So, it's coming.

I just wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

All righty. Mr. Monty.

Following is the consent agenda for the Little Rock Planning Commission meeting of July 9th, 2026. The first group of items are on for withdrawal or deferral. Item number one, file number Z6458A is being withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Item 3, Z10280 is being withdrawn as the applicant filed a different application for this property. Item 4, G23500 is being deferred to the August 13th agenda as the applicant failed to respond to staff comments. Item 6, Z10301 is being deferred to the August 13th agenda at the request of the applicant. Item 12, Z6978B is being deferred to the August 13th agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications. Item 18, Z10-319 is being deferred to the August 13th agenda so the applicant can address issues related to parking. Item 19, Z10-324 is being deferred to the August 13th agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications. Item 21, Z10-329 is being deferred to the August 13th agenda as the applicant failed to complete the required notifications. And item 22, Z10-253 is being deferred to the September 10th agenda at the request of the applicant. Next are the items on consent approval. Item number 2, Z10-267, partially STR2 PDC, 1904 Fillmore 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. Item number 5, Z10302, Wright Multisectional Manufactured Home Conditional Use Permit, 10811 Sardis Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP. Subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 7, Z9964 Sanchez Revised PDR, 1200 South Taylor Street. Staff recommends approval of the revised PDR zoning subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 8, Z10318, Arkansas Baptist College POD, north side of West 17th Street within the 1400 block between Martin Luther King Drive and South Pulaski Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested POD 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. We have cards on item number nine, so we're moving that to the regular agenda for discussion. Item 10, Z2020, Lots 1 through 5, Chennault Central Replat, east side of Chennault Parkway, approximately 360 feet north of Arkansas Systems Drive. Staff recommends approval of the proposed 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 11, S2021, Plots 3R through 6R, Block 14, Garland's Edition, Replat. Southwest corner of East 14th Street and Bender 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, Z10317, Pleasant Valley Church of Christ, Christian Student Center Conditional Use Permit, 2923 Fair Park Boulevard. 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. We have a card on item 14, so we're going to move that to regular agenda for discussion. Item 15, LU 2026-1902, a land use plan amendment from office to commercial, lot 1RR, Arkansas Systems Park. Staff supports the proposed land use plan amendment in the Chenault Planning District from office to commercial. It recommends approval. Item 15.1, Z10325, a rezoning from O2 to C3 east side of Chenault Parkway approximately 360 feet north of Arkansas. Systems drive. Staff recommends approval of the requested C3 rezoning. Item 16, Z10326, a rezoning from R4 to R5 east 5622 B Street, staff recommends approval of the requested R5 zoning. Item 20, Z10, 328, forward properties, PDR, south side of West 7th Street, approximately 170 feet west of South Oak Street, staff recommends approval of the requested PDR zoning subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. And item 23, Z5223D, Stubblefield revised POD and Carter short form POD revocations, 1400 Bishop Street. Staff recommends approval of the POD revocation request. That concludes the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Monti. We've heard the reading of the consent agenda. If there aren't any questions by any commissioners, I would love to entertain a motion.

Chairwoman, I'd like to make a motion to approve all in the readings of the consent approval agenda. Second.

Okay, we have a motion. Okay. We have a second. I ask for a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Brown? Yes. Leonard? Yes. Hodges?

Yes.

Person? Aye. Russell? No. Samad?

Yes.

Vickers?

Yes.

Eves? Yes. Haney?

Aye.

McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter? Consent agenda has been approved.

Okay, thank you. If your item was on the consent agenda, you can either stay or leave. But we will be moving right along to the regular agenda, and we will go in this order. We're going to start with item number 17, then we will go to item number nine, and then number 14. Just gonna give a little bit of time for everyone to clear the room.

What about 17? Did you say 17?

17 will be heard first.

Oh, I'm sorry.

How's everybody doing tonight? I think this is the one most of you all are familiar with. There's a couple of new commissioners. My name is Mike Orndorff. I'm a home builder and developer in the neighborhood of Petaway.

Madam Chair, do you want a staff presentation on this one before the applicant? Okay.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what was going on in the corner, but yes, I would love to hear presentations.

Item 17, file number Z10128B. This is the Orndorff PDR located at southeast corner of East 21st Street and Bragg Street. The applicant proposes to rezone this 0.16 acre property from R4 to PDR. The developer proposes to replant the property into six separate lots, lots 1R1 through 1R6. The development will contain an attached two-story single family unit on each lot. The site plan shows five-foot front and rear setbacks for the proposed building, approximately 15.5 feet from the west property line and 16.3 feet from the east property line. The building, again, will contain six two-story single-family units, approximately 1,080 square feet in area, with a front patio along the north property line facing East 21st Street, and a rear stoop is located on the rear of each unit. The development will also contain a 10-foot sidewalk, and utility easement along the rear of each lot. The proposed use of the easement will provide a pathway for tenants to transfer trash bins to the curb for standard city pickup. Section 36502 of the city zoning ordinance typically requires one parking space per unit for this proposed use. The site plan provides no off-street parking. The applicant states that on-street parking will be utilized for tenant parking. Staff does not support the parking plan and suggest the applicant provide off-street parking as required by code. Staff does not support the proposed PDR zoning. Staff feels the proposed site plan is overdeveloped in a manner that does not allow the development to comply with off-street parking standards. Staff feels the lack of off-street parking would have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. And staff recommends denial of the requested PDR zoning.

All right. So now we will discuss item number 17. If the applicant is present, I ask them to approach the podium and state your name for the record.

Hi, I'm Mike Orndorff.

Hello, Mr. Orndorff. We do not have any cards, so you may go ahead and discuss.

All right, guys. Sorry about that. Eager to discuss this. I just wanted to catch you guys up on this first page right here. This is actually some other projects that you guys approved in some of the past applications that I've had. One is a duplex townhome. You guys approved two properties for a zero line lot split. We put townhomes on them and we've sold two of them. Both of those were to first-time homebuyers. This picture that I have here, both of these are under contract. We just completed this a month ago. Already, both of these are under contract. And in both cases, these are to first-time homebuyers. These homes were priced, the first two were priced at $110,000 apiece, and the second two were priced at $112,000 apiece. So that puts their mortgage, this is a broad, generalized... estimate mortgage at around $840. The one individual that I've talked to when I was asking him like what his mortgage was after the purchasing and that was he actually put you know things like a fence and you know different things into the price of the sales price ended up being like closer to $120 but his mortgage was still like around $840 per month. For a guy that's coming from Maumelle, a single father, to be able to capture $250 in savings per month, it's a big deal. Also, part of, like many of my applications, part of what we're trying to accomplish here is to increase housing that is more attainable to first-time home buyers. So just want to commend you guys. Thank you guys so much for your help and your support in this. It's one of the bigger barriers to creating these more attainable housing is the cost of land. So anytime we're able to buy a lot and able to divide that lot up over more homes, the easier it gets for us to build more attainable housing. Yeah, just wanted to share that. Also, we built six of these. We did a lot split and built six, two bedroom, bath and a half. These are not townhomes. They have the five foot setback for fire reasons, etc. We've got one left, and in one case, it is a first-time home buyer. These were priced closer to $175,000, so not as advantageous, but still with regard, like when you're looking at the average new construction sales price in Little Rock, like today, as my real estate agent, so the median, the average is higher, but the median is $476,000 right now for new construction. So it's become more and more difficult to build new construction housing. and bring it to the market for first-time homebuyers. And I think I've told you this before, but my story is like the first home that I ever lived in was a two-bedroom, one-bath. The first home that my wife ever lived in was a two-bedroom, one-bath. But generally speaking, most of new construction, three-bedroom, two-bath, two-car garage, end up. And the reason that is, most of the land that we develop, it's more expensive. And the more you pay for land, the more square feet you got to build in order to spread that cost of the land out. So the main reason The main thing that we're trying to accomplish with regards to this project at 703 East 21st is to create more attainable housing to spread the lot costs out and be able to pass that savings on to the buyer. I recognize that this is showing 18-foot wide lots and then the AI renderings that I had printed are 16. The goal would actually be 16-foot wide lots. Monty, you can back me up on this. The request is for six lots. We can make those adjustments to reduce the size of the lots post-application approval. A couple other notes, I'm sure many of you are familiar with. The average age of the first-time homebuyer is 40 years old. I just read this today in the New York Times. 33% of adults under the age of 35 lived with their parents in 2025. You guys are familiar with the master plan. There's a goal to get 6,000 new residents downtown. So I think we're all interested in getting more density. And then I'd show these pictures the last time, but I just wanted to remind people, like we do houses without parking in Petaway. We do them all downtown and we do them all over the United States and all over the world, but we also do them in Petaway. These homes are, 80-plus years old. One's a six-plex, one's a four-plex. They're inped away. I walked by the six-plex this morning. There was one car parked outside on the street. There were two lime green scooters in one of the yards. I regularly see an individual who lives in one of the units riding the bus at 630 in the morning. So we live in a neighborhood There's six bus stops on East 21st. I didn't count all the bus stops in Petaway, but we live in a neighborhood where people use public transit. So you've got people coming down Commerce, you've got people coming down, I'm sorry, you've got buses coming down Commerce, Rock, and East 21st, and then also Main. But me, as a builder, I am only allowed to build houses for people who own cars, or at least I have to provide the infrastructure to... house a car in order to build a house. So this is this particular project is an effort to one increase something closer to more affordable housing and bring six new units to the market. It's also an effort that because it's on a bus line, it's across the street from a bus stop. From the 21st Street side, it's across the street from a bus stop. It's also across the street from a bus stop on the Bragg Street side. So individuals who might use public transit, this is very convenient to them. And if any of you were able to watch the video that I had sent It's about a quarter mile from Kroger. Just a lot of advantageous things about the particular location of this project. I live in Petaway. I think that we need more individuals who live in Petaway. We want to increase the density. I think it's good for the locally owned businesses in the business district of ours. And then we also just want to maintain the economic diversity of the neighborhood. So that's several of the key points that we're trying to accomplish with this particular project. And I have some questions, but I would rather field some questions from you guys if you had any before I ask mine.

Okay. Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicant?

I actually have one more for the staff and then a follow-up to the applicant. Is the parking the only issue with this one, or are there other issues, or is it just the parking? It's the parking. Okay. So I guess, just from my perspective on this, and this is the applicant, I've lived in cities like Chicago and D.C. where you do have the lack of parking, and Unfortunately, your whole thing about being on the bus line probably hurts you more with me than it did because I've seen situations where they park on a street and a bus almost hits them. So there's a safety issue there. And this is not D.C. This is not Chicago. We're not a walking public transport city. Yes, sir. Which we were, but we're not. So is there any way you could modify this to address the parking issue? Because there's a lot of things about this I really, really like. Sure. But when staff asks about parking, it makes me nervous because they tend to be a little more flexible than a lot of staff I've seen. Yes, sir. So what's, is there a way to fix this that would address that? Or is that just not in your plan at all, possible in your plan whatsoever?

Well, it is, it's not something that I'm, I am willing to, yeah, to make some concessions. I would prefer to target a market that would be more likely to not own a vehicle or to only own one vehicle or use public transit or use a bike or ride share or something like that. That would be my preference. If I build homes that offer off-street parking, the whole market will want it. And that's good. I mean, as a businessman, that's good. You want the whole market to want it. But they're going to drive out the individuals who don't want it and don't need it. And then I have to pass on. And it would be minimal. If I'm honest, it would be minimal to offer. There's room for five off-street parking spaces off of the alley. If you gave them 10 foot, there's 50 feet there. You give them 10 feet each. There might be, I think, close to 30 feet off the alley for five spaces. But you're opening up that market to everybody. And now you have people who might choose to use public transit or ride share or ride a bike or walk, et cetera. And when you open it up to the market, like it just crowds them out. I'm not saying that I would likely make more money if, and you know, I could price them higher if I did that. But that's just kind of not the goal. It's also, there's just something that like, I'm consistently forced to build houses in a neighborhood that has public transit, but I can only build for people who own vehicles. So there's just some rub. I don't know. Does that make sense?

So while I'm hearing this, you're just opposed to putting parking on this?

It is my goal to build houses that are attainable to individuals. So, I mean, my first goal is to build more attainable houses. No, I'm willing to concede and negotiate on that. It's the second priority to build homes for individuals who choose to use other forms of transit other than cars.

So, Mike, are you suggesting that by reducing the development from six units to five, it does not make the sale price attainable?

No, we would still be able to accomplish an attainable sales price. Even at five with off-street parking, I think it would be a very, we would still meet that goal. It would be less, it would be easier for us to move them. But you're going to get five people who for sure own a vehicle. Can I hit one other point? So 21st Street already allows street parking. Street parking is already safe, legal, and free on 21st Street. We do it all day, every day. You can go there right now. We're parked on both sides and the bus goes up and down that street all day, every day. I've met with the bus since the last time that we met. I'm sorry, individuals who worked for Rock City Metro. And unfortunately, that individual no longer worked for them. They were going to come here and speak on behalf of public transit in that regard in support of this issue, but they no longer work for Metro. But they want riders. So this is not something that You know, when they see cars parked on the street, they are already dealing with that. The buses already go up and down 21st Street with cars parked on each side. I feel like I'm being redundant. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

But, Mike, to that point and to Commissioner Brown's point, There are already three speed bumps on 21st Street because the city knows that there is an issue with speed on that street. There's two. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Well, there's one in front of Petaway Square behind my house.

Yes, sir.

There's another closer to... MAIN STREET AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE A LITTLE BASICALLY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS ON THE SAME BLOCK AS THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO THE CITY KNOWS THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH SPEED. THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH SAFETY WITH THE CARS AND THE BUSES. ADDING MORE ON STREET PARKING FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE is going to make that street less safe for pedestrians, which is exactly the people that you're trying to serve.

You don't believe that, Jeremiah. You know that's not true. You know that's not true. You've read Walkable Cities, right? You've seen the science. Yes. You've seen the research. No, street parking makes streets safer. Street parking negates the reason, the need for speed bumps. We've made requests, and it is a local street.

But it's on a bus line. It is not a local street because buses don't go down local streets. They go down arterial streets. This is an arterial street. It is built for faster traffic.

I think that... I disagree with you. And I think somebody I mean, I'm not in a position to to speak on that, but all I can say is we already park on either side of the street. The bus has been using this line for a very long time. They did put in the speed bumps, I'm assuming in the 90s or before, because there weren't individuals on 21st Street, and they were using it as a drag strip, and we don't have stop signs on 21st Street. So that was their way to reduce the speed. When you park cars, and you'll notice, go to Peddaway Square and hang out, you'll notice people drive and the bus, They drive substantially at a much lower speed because people park on both sides of the street, making it safer for the pedestrian.

We've actually... Street with the stop sign, which slowed down traffic and stopped the drag racing.

Yeah, we actually requested, the neighborhood requested that they remove that speed bump and replace it with four-way stops. We filled the request sheet up, you know, within 24 hours, we filled the request sheet up, but Public Works denied that request. So like to replace the, you know, the Rock Street and the Commerce Street intersections with four-way stops. So people may not stop at a stop sign, but they'll slow down. But we could get rid of the speed bump that is in front of somebody's driveway. They have to drive onto the speed bump to pull into the driveway.

Going back to the parking issue if the sixth unit had been removed and five parking or yeah five parking spaces added I think even the city staff would be supportive of doing Compact spaces rather than full-sized which makes it easier provides you a little bit more green space on on that alley It would have been recommended for approval by staff and because there was nobody in opposition of it It would have been on consent agenda.

Mm-hmm

Is that still not something that you're willing to consider? It is.

It is. Is building six houses and not providing off street parking to make sure that we're giving individuals who may choose not to own a vehicle and use public transit an option, is that not on the table for you? Absolutely. I want to see houses built in my neighborhood. We'll get them some off-street parking. I'm having trouble understanding why this isn't a priority for the city. And that's actually the questions that I had for Planning Department and Planning Commission.

It's because currently it's required by the zoning ordinance.

But it's not across the rest of the United States and the world. Why aren't we moving in a direction that we would not require that?

We have another commissioner that has a question.

Thank you, Chairwoman, for permission to speak. So Michael, I like your concept here. I, too, couldn't appreciate Commissioner Brown. I've lived in bigger cities and, you know, in this town hall of the street. However, what I'm just, based upon looking at the area and the geographical terrain that we're in here in the southern region, I see it is six spaces or six homes. What I'm trying to get behind is, you know, I understand about parking and, you know, normally there are two parking spaces. If you have, you know, two bedrooms, stuff like that, it's normally two parking space per bedroom. My comfort level on this is, I mean, I get what you're saying, but based upon the ordinances and codes that we have to adhere to, as of today, understanding that there's certain things that, you know, that I will have to be accountable for, you know, with the citizens, you know, of the city and trying to follow those codes and ordinances. So you're saying that you would be open to, uh, creating those at least say five spaces and maybe that one extra space if person may not want it. So the price may be, you know, uh, affected, uh, you know, via market by that. My second question, or my first question, I was making a statement. My question I wanted to ask is if you add these parking spaces, or let's just say the five parking spaces that you can't add, and even the sixth one, you know, that may be advertised and marketed as somebody who quote unquote, you know, does not want to have a vehicle at their disposal. How would that affect the price or the cost of it? Because you said the units would be around $110,000 to $112,000. It depends on what Joel and Arsenio do to me. I'm just asking, just an estimate.

So Joel and Arsenius are the civil department. They might be watching this. I mean, no disrespect. But they're the ones who kind of, they direct me on how, you know, driveway might be constructed. But if we're talking about a 50-foot wide pad that is 25-foot deep, spread out over five homes, honestly, it may be a couple grand per house. It's not that much. It's not something that's going to kill the deal.

So basically it was still- And it would add value to the home.

That's where I'm going with it. But this is an opportunity. It doesn't get easier than this. Guys, I'm not afraid to concede. I'm not afraid to cave on this. I want to see more housing in my neighborhood. This is an opportunity for you. If you can help me understand what you guys keep saying that code is. I am here applying for a variance. I understand it's in code. This is separate from code. Yeah, I'm asking you to vote on something and approve it and not meet that one parking space standard, which to be clear, back when Director Collins was here, he and I had several conversations. The way he read that code, and maybe you can help us out with this, Commissioner Russell, is that that is just a standard. That's something that you can, at your discretion, uh, make, you know, make changes to. That is a, that is a parking, uh, standard and not a, which gives you discretion.

Is that how I? So generally speaking, everything in the zoning code, we have discretion to either approve or deny variances. The question is whether or not the commission and staff feels that they are reasonable. And for this level of density, and well, I don't want to get into polling, but I've already told you I'm not in support.

Sure, sure. But no, I appreciate your feedback. Where is a good place? Where would this make sense?

Where is there a place that this would make sense? Yeah, you know the sixplex that I showed you earlier? Multifamily development with zero parking, nowhere.

Okay, well the sixplex that I showed you earlier, that's on Commerce Street, which is 50 foot right of way if I remember right. But that is working right now and has for the last 80 years, 80 years. And I actually don't know when it was built, but I'm just saying, like, it is working.

It was built in the mid-century.

So it's your position that you would you would a sixplex will never work in Little Rock. And that's OK if it is. I'm just asking.

I applaud you for using that as an example, but you're applying a zoning standard that didn't exist. To present day.

Wait, zoning is out the door. We're not talking about zoning anymore.

What I'm saying is the ordinance didn't exist when that building was built. It was also built at a time when fewer people had cars.

And it exists today and it's working now. Like, yeah, I get it. It was built 80 years ago and it's existed for 80 years and people live there. And it doesn't have off-street parking.

I'm not arguing the fact that our zoning ordinance doesn't need to change. That's exactly why.

You have an opportunity to pilot a project for the city to demonstrate that you don't need off-street parking in order to increase the housing density and the housing attainability for people, and you're not taking this opportunity.

Some parking needs to be provided.

If I can interrupt. Yeah. We have some other questions from commissioners. Commissioner Hodges? Commissioner Haney?

I do have a question, and this is just directed to, because I'll be the first to tell you, I'm the new guy.

Speak into the mic, please.

Sorry. See, told you, I'm the new guy. So in Hillcrest on Kavanaugh, the city etched out on street parking, and would that be a possibility here? And I don't know enough about the density either, so I'm not, I'm asking, is that, you know, is there a lot of street parking in this area that you're referencing?

Yes. Come Friday night to Moody Brew's Jazz Night. Come Sunday night to Moody Brew's Sunday Sounds. Come Saturday to the Petaway Square Market. We fill the streets up. I don't have a problem with it. I love it. Street parking is safe, legal, it's free. We have a grid system. Our neighborhood was platted in the early 1900s. The streetcar used to come down 21st Street, so public transit is not unfamiliar to East 21st Street. It started there. We just had to dig through the street for a sewer drain for this next phase of Petaway Square. And we had to dig through the rail ties. They're still underneath the asphalt.

So to follow up then in that scenario, and I'm not saying that it's an option for this particular project because I don't know. But as far as... I'm a little confused here too. So I hear you referencing it as a six plex, but it's individual.

It's six individual townhomes sold separately. Yes, sir. Yeah. There is a six plex on commerce.

So would these be like condos?

Uh, I'm going to call them townhomes. I feel like condos are like on top of each other more so, but these are, they all connect. Yeah. They share a wall and they're sold individually.

So each person's responsible for maintaining the structure individually. Not a... What is it?

Horizontal property regime. I've listened to a podcast about it. I should know a whole lot more about it, but...

It's just semi-attached.

They share a common wall. There is... Right. There's some things that go into if there is an issue. No, sir. If there are not any more questions, I have some questions for you all. And honestly, y'all are so done with this, right?

Chairwoman, if I may, I have one quick, not so a question, but a statement. And just trying to wrap my head around this because knowing that this was coming up here today and having lived in bigger cities and having some appreciation of this, I shouldn't say specialized. It's not specialized. It's been around for a long time nationally in bigger cities. My thought process initially says, hey, each parking space needs one. But what I can get comfortable with, just been thinking about it all week, is even if you had an optional, like some people may not want, but you have optional parking. So it may not be full six parking spaces, but if you had three parking spaces or four, you know what I mean? Because some people may not want that option, but some people may. And so that option can go like, you know, three three units can have it and three units may not have it. You know, I'm just trying to be forward thinking and, you know, because I know these these projects are specialized and and some some cities have pilot programs like this that they would, you know, want to look at to even explore or research to have a better understanding of it. So. I'm trying to get my head wrapped around.

You're not going to get too many developers who are building these in their neighborhood who are going to come here and fight for this two times in a row. So you're only going to get so many shots at this. I'm not hard-headed. If y'all want some off-street parking, which if you put one back there, I'll try my best to put five. There's 50 feet. We'll fill it full of concrete. And again, I think there's, I got to do the math again, but I think there's 20 plus feet to accommodate five spaces. There's not space to accommodate six. So if you wanted one per unit, the application would have to drop down to five in order to accommodate one off-street parking per unit. But I just want to remind you, there are seven on-street parking spaces on the street that is safe, legal, and free right now. People can go out there right now, and you can just fill that corner up with seven cars, and you don't have to ask anybody's permission, and there's no recourse for it. If I could build one house, and they could put seven cars out there on the street, it's safe, legal, and free right now, and it will be tomorrow. Additionally, there's some parking across the street if there were a need for overflow parking that goes completely unused all the time. It's next to the abandoned hotel. And unless the hotel comes in, they're like, no, well, we need that street parking, which, I mean, I suppose it could happen.

I would say this, Michael. Even with those five spots that you could put down, I can wrap my head around that, you know what I mean, personally. Like, okay, I can understand it. It's five parking spaces. The sixth one doesn't get it, but obviously that would be built into that price. It may be a couple of grand cheaper or whatever for that particular unit. And the other five maybe have a parking space. But again, those are just my personal thoughts on it. And try to be creative because I understand you're No, I promise you I appreciate it. Don't misread my face. Your development and concepts are forward thinking. And 20 years from now, we all may be laughing at this and, hey, look, we never needed these spots. But however that may be as of today, I know.

When you think about Timu, driverless Teslas.

Trust me, I get it. And I'm just saying of how I can get my head wrapped around this development or this particular development. So that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

So I think I can't get my head wrapped around it. We talked about living in various places. I stayed in D.C. and we were street parking everywhere. And I've been to this particular area. I've been in Pitaway and people are parking on the street. And this is this area is pretty much downtown. I was talking to my fellow commissioner like this is very close to downtown where you have multiple areas with street parking. So I guess the first time you came there was five lots here. Is this the same lot that had five units?

I had to change the application. So we are now asking for six, but you can always build less. But I couldn't ask for four and still build five.

So what was the, we were at five. The issue was parking with those, right? Yes, sir. And you came back with six with the same issue. Yes, sir. I guess that's what my question is.

Like, what was... Well, I had to change up the application. But again, if I'm going to be perfectly honest, I'm comfortable with seven. The room is there. Like, I'm... I don't personally have a problem with seven units there. I want to target a market that will choose to use other forms of transit other than a car. I think that by not providing off-street parking, I'm more likely to get that buyer or that end user. So, I mean, that's the motives behind it. And it's not, if you can believe me or not, it's not a, I am a for-profit, a profit-driven builder, but it's not a money-driven motive to build houses that don't offer off-street parking because it does, it reduces your market, the number of individuals who are going to, you know, be interested in that.

I was just interested in the process from going from five to six.

Well, you can't do the same application the same. You have to wait 12 months to submit the same application. So I had to submit a new application. I didn't want to do less units. I want to do more or the same. And so I had to change the application.

I think we have staff.

With respect to that, that is true. The application was denied by the board for five units with no off-street parking. Mr. Orndorff is correct. He did have to change the application to bring it back in less than a year. It could have been changed to five units with on-site parking, but he chose to do it with six units with no off-site parking.

That's what I was wondering, like,

So what I'm hearing is a lot of changes that could be made. Do you want to...

Okay. Yeah. Well, the other thing is when you guys denied it, the last two, I wasn't here for that. And there were some neighbors that came in that I felt like just really changed. Because remember we met and I felt like the tone of the room was like, yeah, go get the easement for the trash, being able to take the trash from behind your home. And then when you bring this back, we'll be good. Well, then when we brought it back, then the pastor of the church showed up and the out-of-state landowners to the west showed up. And I wasn't here, and it was voted down. And I can speak to those issues now if you'd like. I don't know if you're done hearing about this.

I mean, do we have any other questions?

I have one quick question first to staff, just to verify. I have a question for you. So the board did vote down a five-unit no-parking one of this before. Correct. Number two, how many bedrooms are in each unit?

The goal would be to build two-bedroom, one-baths.

So it's potentially having up to, what, 12 adults in this, or say two adults and two kids sharing a room, which...

Yes, sir. I need to remind you guys, 7% of our population do not have an automobile. I said it the last time, but I won't say it. But go ahead.

Okay. That's what I didn't know. Thank you.

There is a percentage of our population who chooses not to own a vehicle.

I have a question for staff. To Michael's point earlier about, you said there's seven spaces currently if you were building a single family home. With 12 adults with this application, what would be the variance between that and an accepted single family developed in whatever parking spaces would be allocated for that type of development?

If you were to build one single family home on this lot, the ordinance would require one off-street parking space.

Require one. But you're saying that there's seven spaces available?

On street. Yes, sir.

On street. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah, the whole there might be 12 people in this home, that's what can go wrong. Let's think about what can go right, and that's we build six houses for individuals who are desperately in need of houses that are in a reasonable location to a grocery store, in a reasonable location to public transit, and that's what this opportunity is. I'm not opposed to putting off-street parking on the alley. But again, this is an opportunity. And so my question is, what is the plan? Aren't we trying to increase ridership? Isn't Metro City Bus, are they not rehabilitating? Are they redoing something downtown? What's the plan? How do we increase ridership?

How do we increase ridership? I guess that someone from Rock Ridge and Metro would have to be here. I respect that. I understand. I know that Rebecca was going to come here and speak for you.

It just seemed like we should, as a city, have some plan. If we're going to have a public transit, what are we going to do for housing for people who might use the public transit? What's the plan? I'm not trying to make a gotcha question. This is just for discussion.

Commissioner Hodges, do you have a question?

Yes. This is more for staff. If he agrees to amend this to either do five or six off-street parking, would he have to go through a procedure and come back on that, or can it be made tonight orally? Give me a response.

Well, we would really need to see a site plan to see how that's going to work. The options are for the applicant to proceed forward as is with the vote on the application before you. If he can defer it to redo the site plan and provide off street parking. Deferral for one month will need a revised site plan by like probably Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Otherwise, it would need to be deferred two months.

And this was denied by the city board when it went before it. Okay. Thank you.

It didn't make it to the City Board. To be clear, I have appealed a position by the Planning Commission in the past on a project where we didn't provide off-street parking, and I appealed it to the City Board, and the City Board did approve it, that particular project. I would argue, I can't speak for city board directors, but I think there is more of an appetite at the political level for increased housing for individuals of these needs than you might realize.

The question is, Mr. Orndorff, do you want to make any amendments to this application? Or do you want us to move forward?

I think that we need to go on and vote on this. Another month is going to put us into the 12 months, because I think the last vote was last September. We can take the vote on this application as seen. So this isn't y'all's opportunity to do something really special.

You're not going to get me. I just got one real thing, Michael, here. You're saying you do not want to defer? No, we won't defer.

I can bring a new application to you guys that would be filed with off-street parking in a month from now. I can say it won't be a month because I've missed the deadline, but here in a couple months. I'd like to see housing here by whatever means necessary.

Basically, what I feel in just listening to some of my board members here, they made some great observations here. is I think we're trying to get our heads wrapped around your concept. However, it's trying to understand, right? So it may not be six spots. Maybe it's three. Maybe you're saying, you know what, I'm going to provide three for non-transportation for those people who are just eccentric and they only want to ride the bus or Uber, et cetera, and then I have three that need a parking space. Even though you have, I think, a limit for, what, five back there, right? Yes, sir. So I'm just saying that. But however...

THIS IS YOUR I'LL DEFER. I'LL GET YOU A SITE PLAN THAT IS MORE ACCOMMODATING TO WHAT I THINK IS THE MOOD OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS AT YOUR TOTAL DISCRETION. I UNDERSTAND.

I APPRECIATE IT.

I'M REQUESTING DEFERRAL.

FOR ONE MONTH?

YES, SIR. And I won't take up near this much time next month, I promise. Thank you guys so much.

Can I ask a quick question? It's really, so the first time you applied, there was opposition, but there's no opposition from the residents?

There was opposition the first time. Yeah, there were some out of state land property owners to the west. who were in opposition, I can share some of their stories. I mean, there's NIMBYs, and then there are people who are not in the house that I own in the state next door's backyard. It's an abandoned dental office, and they don't have enough off-street parking to accommodate. I mean, it's a 50-year abandoned dental office, but they don't have, you know, off-street parking.

I'm going to be completely honest. I'm kind of torn here because I mean, I want to do what the right thing is to do. But at the same time, I look at this development, I look at your neighborhood and I'm like, this would be a beautiful addition. So I see a lot of positive, you know, and there's I live in Hillcrest. I mean, I'm not used to no one ever questioned street parking. I mean, When I go home, there'll be 550 cars parked along Kavanaugh.

I park in the street every night.

I do too. And so this is kind of different for me. So I'm just interjecting in that manner. I didn't realize that it was actually required until today. So I've learned something.

I'd also like to say that I do like what you're trying to do in this area. But IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEFER, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

OKAY. THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM NUMBER Z-101-2A-B, ARNDOLPH PDR, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A DEFERRAL UNTIL NEXT MONTH'S MEETING. AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SECOND.

COMMISSIONER BROWN?

YES.

MENARD? YES. HODGES?

YES.

Yes. Russell? Aye. Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Haney? Aye. McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter is absent. The motion has been approved to defer the item to the August agenda.

Thank you.

All right. Moving right along, we will now discuss item number nine. The applicant is present. I'd ask them to approach the podium, please. And we'll have a reading for this application as they come up to the podium.

Okay. Item number nine, file number Z10303 is the Benbrook STR2 PDR located at 13 Oakwood Road. The applicant is requested to rezone this 0.25-acre property from R2 to PDC to allow the property to operate as a short-term rental too with a maximum stay of 29 days. The home is a single-family residence. The owner will not reside in the residence. The residence has not been operating as a short-term rental previously. The property is occupied by a 1,739-square-foot one-story single-family residence. There is existing off-street parking for at least two vehicles within a circular drive off of Oakwood Road. There have been no Department of Planning and Development enforcement cases or any police reports for this property. Currently, the city has approval for 152 short-term rentals. Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning to allow a short-term rental too at this location. Staff feels the rezoning of the property will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. And 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.

Okay. Would you like to state your name for the record, please?

Becca Swerna. So I'm acting on the owner's behalf and I'm okay to defer to the opposition.

All right. We have two cards in opposition. One from Stacy D. Fletcher. Would you approach the podium, please?

BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT HEARD. SO I APOLOGIZE.

NO PROBLEM.

THE SECOND IS I HAD SOME DOCUMENTATION BUT DIDN'T MAKE COPIES FOR EVERYBODY. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT. BUT I CAN DESCRIBE WHAT THEY ARE AND THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM TO CORROBORATE MY ARGUMENT.

BEFORE YOU START, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A QUICK REMINDER THAT OPPOSITION has 20 minutes as well as the applicant. Okay. 20 minutes total.

Mine's going to be real short.

Okay. If someone could, thank you.

Okay. I think there was, well, let me first say, we received a letter from Ms. Swarmer and she works very poetically about how she's going to provide short-term housing for people going to UAMS or professionals who need short-term housing for work. and all the safety and all these things. My problem is, and I hate to quote Dr. Phil, but I kind of have to, I think what he said was the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And what you will see with these documents is without the permit, they've already been offering this for rental starting June 30th. I show there the listing and the calendar And that is 13 Oakwood. So they're already breaking the rules. And it's what? Section 36-604, compliance. I'm sure you all know what that is. Basically it says you can't open as a short-term rental before you have your business permit. Now maybe they haven't had anybody there yet, but they already offered it. So how can you do that and already break the rules? The other thing is, I think they probably had to have somebody in there. That's pictures of parking issues. They've already had people, as the previous thing, off street parking. They had some parked in their driveway. They had some parked off the street in violation. Our road goes straight through to UAMS. It is located conveniently, but it's my understanding That is a run, what they call run road, which allows the fire department to get safely through because also park on the other side has that real curvy road, you know, that the fire department can't do in an emergency. And we have a fire department coming through there all the time. So when there's off people off street parking, it's dangerous. But that's not my main argument. My main argument is they've already violated the rules. So they should not be allowed to have a chance at a permit for another year. Plain and simple. If you can't follow the procedure when you're supposed to do it before you even get the permit, how do we believe they're going to do so after they get the permit? And that's all I have to say about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Jonathan Manley, would you please approach the podium?

Yes, hi, I'm Jonathan Manley. I just wanted to echo Stacey's comments and stand against this.

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, thank you to everybody who has offered input I understand that short-term rentals can be a little bit scary for people who have not been around them So I would like to debunk a few of the myths with things and also bring some clarification my husband and I own a company we started with our own short-term rental in 2020 and At that time, the city was still in the process of trying to figure out where they stood with things, how they wanted to bring things. And I have worked with these guys often to try to figure out, like, where are we at? What do we need to do? Always trying to be above board with things. My properties, all the properties that we have taken on at this point, we have been, we've come to you guys. There are plenty of short-term rentals that are trying to fly below the radar. I would guess, I don't know, I mean, 300 or 400 at least, I would say. We don't take on those properties without explaining to the homeowner which we have done in this case This is a process that is important to us. It's what the city requires We play by the rules with that So what you're seeing is a property that's in the process of us taking over management and when we take over management of a property we are I can't speak for every short-term rental host, but I can speak for us. We are intentionally local on purpose. We want to make sure that we are not just super hosts on Airbnb and places like that, which we are and always have been, but we are also super neighbors. I would never take on a property that I didn't feel like I was comfortable being the neighbor to this property. We intentionally have cameras on all of our properties, exterior cameras, let me clarify. Because we want to make sure that nothing is going on the city doesn't allow short-term rentals to be used as event spaces We also follow that rule so if anybody if a booking comes in and they say something about a birthday party I'm immediately going back just bringing clarification Does that mean you're gonna you're wanting to have extra people over because if so that's gonna be a hard no for me I Don't have the time. I've got three children We're busy. I'm a homeschool mom and I don't have time to try to crash a party at 10 o'clock at night. That being said, there have been a couple times where my husband has needed to go and do that. But we watch the cameras. We monitor things. It's very, very rare. But I would say three or four times since we've been hosting and since 2020, we get it shut down quickly. So I feel like we have been very good and very thorough at being mindful of neighbors also regarding parking When I first saw this property it had plenty of off street parking Parking on the street is also permissible. It is a wide enough street, so it doesn't present an issue to any degree but I mean, it's got a circular drive, so you could comfortably fit four vehicles. And the majority of people are not. I wasn't trying to wax elegant. That is the type of people that we get at our short-term rentals. I was just checking earlier prior to the meeting starting. Like tonight, in one of our houses, we do have someone who's doing cancer treatment at UAMS. So they're in their first round of chemo. We have somebody who is here for a business conference for a few days. And then somebody else in town for a funeral tonight and tomorrow night. And then a host of families like us who, if you have three kids, then you know the reality of you no longer fit in one hotel room. And it's kind of weird with the breakdown of our family to separate my husband and I and figure out what kid's going where. Airbnb's short-term rentals are a good solution to that. So I totally understand people traveling with pets. They want a backyard for their pets to run around in. So those are the type of people that we host. I do not ever allow someone to book our home. Airbnb offers an instant book. I have that turned off for people who don't have any prior reviews or for people who have any type of negative review, even if it's a 4.8. They're not going to be able to instantly book with us. And I think that that's important because it gives me the opportunity to reach out bring clarification, hey, these are all of the expectations and the rules of the home. And then to give them a heads up, we're going to be watching things pretty closely. So if they still feel comfortable at that point, they say that they agree to the rules, then I'll accept their request. But we do watch and pay attention. And this is no different than that. So we've explained to the homeowner, this is the process that we have to do. And that's when we came to you guys for it. Feel free to ask any questions if I haven't been clear.

I would like to open the floor to commissioners for questions.

You said the owners of this property? You're not the owner.

No, I'm not.

Where does the owner reside?

They are in North Little Rock, I believe.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Commissioner Brown.

Okay, so... The opposition made something about it being used prior to this application. Was that before or after you got involved?

Before, and that's why we explained to them we've got to get on this. Because some of our other properties, they were already in existence before the rules with the city came in.

Yeah, we're aware of that. Yeah.

And just out of curiosity, why isn't the owner here themselves this evening?

I've always been able to act on their behalf. So I've been here multiple times.

When the owner's not here, it gives us, just for future reference, when the actual owner's not here, at least me and some of my colleagues, that gives us a little bit of, we're more comfortable when the owner also shows up, just so you know.

Say that again? We're much more comfortable when the owner is also here. Okay. Yeah, that's helpful to know. It's never presented an issue in the past, so I'm sorry. I didn't realize that that was necessary. Okay.

WELL, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR ITEM Z-10303, SUBJECT TO THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMENTS, CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPH E AND THE STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE AGENDA STAFF REPORT.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

SECOND.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

COMMISSIONER BROWN? YES. LENARD? YES. Hodges? Yes. Person? Yes. Russell?

Yes.

Samad?

Yes.

Vickers? Yes. Eves? Yes. Haney? Aye. McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter is absent. Motion is approved.

Moving right along to item number 14. The applicant is present. Please approach the podium at this time. And we'll have the reading for this application.

Item 14, file number Z10-327, the Sun Auto Tire and Service Conditional Use Permit 2610 Cantrell Road. The applicant requests the CUP to allow an auto parts sales business with limited motor vehicle parts installation on C3 zone property at 2610 Cantrell Road. The property is currently undeveloped. A branch bank building, which previously existed on the site, was recently removed from the property. The outcome proposed to construct a one-story, 6,566 square foot commercial building near the center of the site. The proposed building will have bay doors on the south side of the building facing Cantrell Road. The building will be located approximately 93 feet back from the The south property line, 52 feet from the north and 25 from the west and 43 from the east property line. There will be a total of 31 parking spaces. The parking plan does comply with ordinance requirements. Access drives will be located along the north and east property lines with access being from within the overall shopping center development within cross-access easements. The applicant will construct a five-foot sidewalk along the west property line of the property. The sidewalk will be located along the east side of the main entry drive to the overall shopping center development from Cantrell Road. The sidewalk will connect to the sidewalk along Cantrell Road and provide pedestrian access to this side as well as the overall shopping center development. Staff is supportive of the requested CUP. Staff believes the proposal will have no adverse impact on the general area. The applicant is requesting no variances with this application. Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, and F and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report.

African, please state your name for the record.

Jake White with Joe White & Associates. I'd like to reserve my time to listen to the opposition.

Okay, we have one card. Mr. Stephen Roberts?

Yes.

Please approach the podium.

Thank you very much.

This will be short. In life, you don't get too many opportunities to oppose things, and most of the time there's no impact, but you always take a shot when you can get one. I'm here to represent some of my family members that have businesses in this area, and I'm opposed to it because of the fact that this is an example of a national corporate chain coming in to an area and probably have an effect on privately owned businesses that have been in Little Rock for years. And because of that, I just wanted to express my opposition. And also, Mr. Brown, I'd like to point out the owner's not here either for this, the owner of the property. And so because of... because of these circumstances and so forth, just wanted to step up with the opposition. And I realize it's not a major corporate impact as you would have if you had a Walmart coming into Hillcrest or in the Heights area or something like that. Corporate chains do affect the business and the community of the city in some ways in bad cases, as you can see in small towns across the state. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Applicant?

Thank you, Mr. Roberts. I understand his concerns of how this could affect family businesses. To his point, on the national corporate side, I mean, there's several businesses in this area that are corporate. There's an Ace Hardware. There's a Taco Bell right there. So there's several other chains here. The only other thing I'd like to say, well, so he mentioned there's no owner present. I'll say they're not here because they're out of state. So we're representing them for that reason. You know, it's zone C3. I'll say across the street there's another tire and service store that's also zone C3 right there on that map. But thank you.

All righty. Do we have any questions from any commissioners at this time?

Is this like a Midas or like a – was it Christian Brothers Auto? Yes, sir.

Similar thing, yes. Okay.

Any other questions from commissioners? All right, well, I'll entertain a motion.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR ITEM Z-10327, SUBJECT TO THE REQUEST OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH COMMENTS, CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPHS D, E, AND F, AND THE STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE AGENDA STAFF REPORT. SECOND.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER BROWN? YES. MNARD? YES. HODGES?

YES.

Yes. Russell. Aye. Samad.

Yes.

Vickers. Yes. Eves. Yes. Haney.

Yes.

McDonnell.

Yes.

Chairman Baxter is absent. The motion has been approved.

Thank you. All right. That concludes items on the regular agenda. Do we have any comments? from the public at this time? All right. We have no other new business to discuss. I say this meeting is adjourned.

Hold on, Madam Chair. Sorry.

Yes, sir.

Question for staff. Are we going to have a meeting of the zoning ordinance committee soon?

I apologize. That was an oversight on my part. So I'll take full credit for that. Just don't put it in the minutes. And I'll get something out. Okay, great. It may not be tomorrow, but next week at the latest.