Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you Thank you. so so . .

The September Woodrock Planning Commission meeting is officially called to order. Mr. Thrower, would you do a roll call?

See it's on now. Let's go out in a minute. All right. Good afternoon, everybody. This is The September 20 September 10th 2026 letter. I planning Commission meeting. This is a roll call vote Commissioner Brown president Bernard president Hodges person president Russell president Samad president Vickers president Eves.

Present.

Haney. Commissioner Haney. McDonald.

Present.

And Commissioner Baxter. Present. We have a quorum.

Thank you. I'd like to note for the record that Commissioner Haney is now present. Our first order of business is to review the minutes from our August meeting. Unless there are any questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion.

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

Second. All right. Going out again. Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Yes.

Hodges? Yes. Person?

Aye.

Russell? Aye. Samad?

Yes.

Vickers?

Yes.

Eves? Aye.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Next order of business is to review the consent agenda and consent approval. Mr. Gosden, just do a reading, please.

Yes, sir. Before I begin, are there any items that any commissioners would like to have pulled?

No. No.

All right, then I'll read. This is Little Rocks Planning Commission Consent Agenda for September 10th, 2026. Item 2, the following items have either been withdrawn or deferred. Item 2, Z9988-8 is being withdrawn at the request of the applicant. Item 3, Z10253 is being deferred to the December 10th, 2026 agenda at the request of the applicant. Item 4, Z10329 BEING WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. ITEM 5S2022 IS BEING DEFERRED TO THE OCTOBER 8TH, 2026 AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. ITEM 11Z10351 IS BEING DEFERRED TO THE DECEMBER 10TH, 2026 AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. THE FOLLOWING IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. Item 1, Z5519-B, Progressive Auto Group, PDC, 4500 Asher Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the requested PDC zoning subject to the compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D, E, and F in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 6 has been pulled from the consent agenda. Item 7, S2032, Rachel's Crossing Preliminary Platte east side of Drew Drive, approximately 200 feet south of Cantrell Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D, E, and F in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 8, Z-10330, Bradford Duplex, conditional use permit, northwest corner of Malloy Street and West 34th Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit and the variance request to reduce the building frontage setback. As noted in the agenda staff report, subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D&E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 9, Z10331, Sarah Heen Accessory Dwelling, Conditional Use Permit, 10200 Sardis Road. Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph E and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item 10, Z-10352, Daisy Street Holdings Animal Clinic conditional use permit 5508 through 5514 West Markham Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D, E, and F, and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. And that concludes the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Gosselin. Unless there are any questions or comments from the commissioners, I'll entertain a motion regarding the consent approval agenda.

Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Lennart?

Yes.

Hodges? Yes. Hurston?

Yes.

Russell? No.

Aye.

Samad? Yes. Vickers?

Yes.

Eves?

Yes.

Haney? Aye. McDonald?

Yes.

Baxter?

Yes.

The consent agenda has been approved.

If your item was on the consent agenda, you're welcome to step out. We have one item tonight on the regular agenda, and that is item number 6S-2006-A, Mr. Gosselin, were you going to do a reading of that item?

Yes, sir. Item 6, Eagle Place Preliminary Platte, 13700 Alexander Road. The applicant proposed to subdivide 28.84 acres located at 13700 Alexander Road into 90 lots for single-family residential development. The property is currently undeveloped and wooded. varying degrees of slope. A railroad right-of-way is located along the northwest boundary of the overall property. The proposed subdivision will contain approximately 4,022 linear feet of new streets. The streets will be 26 feet wide, constructed within a 50-foot wide right-of-way. There will be a five-foot wide sidewalk on one side of all the streets. There will also be two short cul-de-sacs within the development. The main entrance of the subdivision will be from Alexander Road, Natchez Lane, and Charles Lane right-of-way dead ends to this property near the end of the southwest corner of the overall property. The applicant is proposing a secondary access into the subdivision from this right-of-way. All of the proposed lots comply with our two ordinance standards for minimum lot width, length, depth and lot area. A 25-foot building line is shown on all lots. All building setbacks will conform to the R2 zoning standard. A 35-foot building line is shown for lots 1 through 4 and 52 along the arterial road frontage of these lots. The applicant proposes to final plat the subdivision in three phases as follows. Phase 1, lots 1 and 2, lots 34 and 52, lots 77 through 90. Phase 2, lots 3 through 12, lots 40 through 44, and lots 53 through 58. And phase 3, lots 13 through 33, and lots 59 through 76. Tracks A, B, and C are shown on the plot as areas to provide for drainage and stormwater detention. Track A will have street frontage. Access easements will be provided to tracks B and C for the maintenance of these areas. A geotechnical engineering exploration report for this subject property was prepared by MTA engineers. The geotechnical design recommendations for the site construction are presented in the report. The applicant must adhere to the report recommendations during site development. The city engineering inspectors will monitor the site for compliance. To staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. Staff supports the proposed preliminary prep The applicant is requesting no variances with the plat. Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to the compliance of the comments and conditions outlined in paragraph D, E, and F and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Thank you.

Thank you. There are currently three cards in opposition. In alphabetical order, is it Reggie Cruz, Sherry Kleber, and BJ Weirich. In terms of the applicant, are they present? Mr. Chair, they do not seem to be present. Interesting. So, Mr. Overton.

Since the applicant is not present, and I've talked to Tom about this, and it's not clear because the applicant's not present. we usually defer. That's been the practice of this commission. Now, I know the board, if the applicant doesn't show up, then their practice has been that to be considered a denial. Our practice has been different. Tom is going to be, after we hear this, we're going to talk a little bit about changing our bylaws. But based upon our practice and to ensure maximum due process, And since it was on the consent agenda, my recommendation would be to defer and hear this matter and charge the notices to the applicant. And that's based upon past practice. And once again, Tom is looking at this stuff. This is not the procedure that the board of directors follows. If you don't show up to a board meeting, I think, and Director Weirich, am I wrong? It's considered, you can be, yes, it's exactly. And so what I want to do, and Chairman Baxter and commissioners know, I always weigh on the side of providing maximum due process. That's why this commission is consistently on all of our lawsuits that have ever been filed against this commission have either, number one, been dismissed, or we have won. We have never lost a lawsuit on this commission. They're either dismissed or we win them outright. And I think that as long as we keep continuing on, we're going to be fine. So my recommendation is to defer.

Commissioner Person.

I think we have the same question. So given this, Mr. Overton, given the fact that the applicant is not here, will it be proper? to remind myself, I believe others, while I'm seeing Saline County all through this, and this is the Little Rock Planning Commission. If that's proper. If it's not proper, then I will. Jeremy, can you respond to that?

I would think because we're going to be connecting to one of their major roads, but I will defer to my engineers.

The interstate is the main road that connects Saline County.

I would assume it is because Alexander Road goes into Saline County. which is probably why it's mentioned in the staff report. I don't know where it states that exactly.

And quite honestly, on questions on the application, since the applicant's not here, I would refrain from that.

That's what I'm asking.

Yes, sir. And so I think Saline County's in here because the applicant would actually have to tie into a county road And I think from the opposition's literature that they submitted, they're saying that county road can't handle the traffic.

Okay. Yes. I would I want to ask one question procedurally. Has there been a deferral by the applicant before?

Not on this application. On the previous application they did, they're resubmitting on this. This will be their first deferral.

And again, I don't have a copy of the bylaws in front of me, but it's my understanding that the commission of its own accord can make a motion to defer this at applicant's expense.

That's correct.

Okay, so that's one option. I would like to note one other thing for the record. There have been one, two, three, four, five different packets passed out. Who submitted these? And would you state your name for the record? Ms. Gleiber. Ms. Gleiber. Okay. Thank you. Would you like us to pass these back to save down on the copying expense for next meeting? That would be awesome. Okay. So how about we'll just pass these all back down here.

If you all just leave them there, I'll pick them up when the meeting is over and get them back. Even better. Thank you. Okay.

So I would – I think this is appropriate – Would any of those who are here to oppose the item like to take a brief... I don't think we can. We cannot speak about the item without... So in that case, regarding this item number six, I would entertain a motion.

Okay, Mr. Chair, I make a motion in regard to item number S2006-A, Eagle Place preliminary plat I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEFER THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE.

SECOND. SECOND.

MR. BROWN?

YES.

LARGE?

YES.

HODGES? YES. PERSON?

AYE.

RUSSELL? AYE. SAMAD? YES. VICKERS? YES. EVES? YES. HANEY? YES. MCDONALD? YES. BAXTER?

Thank you, Mr. Thrower. All right. With that, we have two more orders of business before we close. Can I ask a quick question?

So it's the counties that – I'm just trying to get clarification in my head. So it's on the county line? Is that how that works?

No, it is not. It's just very close. I think in their staff report they're referring to Salina County because it's so close to it.

That right there makes – I'm just trying to figure it out.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I don't know what that's about.

So who are these from? Can we answer that question?

We can't discuss the item. To the extent that we've already voted on this item and deferred it, let's suspend discussion until the October meeting. At this point, two orders of business remain, citizen communications. Are there any citizen communications? All right, and then I believe we have a report from Mr. Gosden on the subcommittee.

Yes, we had our subcommittee meeting last week. As of right now, what we have been doing is we've been mainly discussing our goal right now is to try to fix any inconsistencies with definitions and as that applies through the through the chapter 36. And so what we did and Mr. Russell was so kind to do is he, he is loaded in the chapter 36 and we've kind of, used a little bit of AI to figure out to do inconsistencies because, hey, that's what it does. And it's spread out a bunch of inconsistencies. So what we really did is the other day we just went through. I do have a copy of all of that and I will be sending that out to all of y'all shortly as long as and also I'm sending y'all all out a link to the chapter 36 that shows you how to get to that so you can review them as you as you check this as well. And I'll also be sending you all a link because I want you all to also, because after November, we're planning on having a training session for all commission members because some are fairly new. And we will also be having possibly, I mean, we've got at least one commission member whose term is up. So we'll have at least one more commission member. So that's why we're going to wait until November. Really, that's a whole separate issue. But what we mainly talked about was inconsistencies and all of that. So we reviewed all of that. And I'll get everyone a copy of that so that they can review that as well. And if they have any comments or input on it, they're more than welcome to let staff know. And we can get that part of the commission as well.

Hey, Jeremy. I've got all of the PDFs in a folder. I can send a Dropbox link to everybody if it's easier. And it'll include Chapter 36, the revisions, and the actually the whole zoning.

That works on that.

I mean, you sent those to us, didn't you, already? The Dropbox or do you need to send it again? Sometimes the link expires so I can just send a live link to everybody to download.

Okay.

If it's easier.

Yeah, and that won't violate anything because we're not discussing an item. Isn't that right, Sean?

That's correct.

Okay. Fantastic. We are going to also be sending out, we're going to try to entertain setting a regular meeting to where maybe it's like the third Wednesday of the month or fourth Wednesday of the month. I'll send out suggestions next month of how that works because I know some people can't guess how far that is, but it's a lot easier to plan it on your schedule if you know it's going to be a certain date. So I'll be sending out a suggestion of what Wednesdays typically work the best for us, but I'll be open for suggestions for any time for anybody on trying to get something a little more regular instead of just me sending out requests every once in a while. That sounds great.

and commissioners you think should we include a copy of just your summary report as part of the minutes for september meeting or should we just keep that separate we'll keep it separate perfect all right are there any commissioner mr overton yes um

We have met with the city attorney and we're going to be recommending to the commission some changes to our bylaws. We need to clean up our consent agenda language and also conflicts of interest and recusals. But in particular, the consent agenda are upon advice of our city attorney. If a commissioner chooses to remove an item off the agenda, It happens automatically. It doesn't require a vote. And so any commissioner could pull every single item off of the regular or move an item off of the consent agenda onto the regular agenda at their own will. And so we're going to make sure that the bylaws reflect that.

Thank you. Any commissioner communications? All right. With that, the September meeting is officially closed.

Thank you.