Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey. Heat. Heat. N. Hey, hey, hey. [Music]

Heat. Heat. N. We're going to start momentarily here. We have a few board members uh getting in here due to the weather. So, just please bear with us. We're going to start here uh in just a few minutes hopefully. Thank you. Best thing That's right.

We're going to call the Little Rock Planning uh Commission uh board meeting to order here. Right at this particular time, uh would like to do a roll call, please. This is the roll call vote for the Lorac Panda Commission meeting on for January 12th, 2025. Commissioner Brown present. Bernard present. Hart here. Hodgees here. McDonald person Russell present. Samad Trimble. Let the record show Commissioner um McDonald doing a roll call vote. Commissioner Trimble didn't answer. Baxter present. Vickers present. Commissioner McDonald present. We have a quorum. All right. Excellent. Moving right along here uh to the approval of the minutes. I'm certain uh we all got to review the minutes and I would love to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to accept the minutes as distributed from the previous Second. We have a motion to second. Get a roll call vote, please. Yes, sir. Commissioner Brown, yes. Bernard, yes. Hart, yes. Hodes, yes. Macdonald, yes. Person Russell, yes. Samad, Treble, Baxter, yes. Vickers. Yes. Minutes are approved. Right. Moving right along. Uh for the

reading of the consent agenda, please. Following is a consent agenda for the Little Rock Planning Commission, June 12th, 2025. Item number one, file number S1963 is being deferred to the July 10th, 2025 agenda at the request of the applicant. Item number five, Z7500K, is being withdrawn without prejudice at the request of the applicant. Next are the items on consent approval. Item number two, S309G, block 24, Jialter Heights replat, northwest corner of Kanes Road and Atkins Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested replat subject to compliance with comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D and F and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item number three, Z994A Neil Duplex CUP, east side of the 12,200 block of Dennis Street. Staff recommends approval of the requested CUP subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs DE and F in the and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. And item number four, Z10,153, Rash office warehouse CUP, 11,000 block of Huron Lane. Staff recommends approval of the requested CU subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs DE and F and the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Item six Z6831A is being moved to the regular agenda for discussion and item 7 A350 and Z10,172 is also being moved to the regular agenda for discussion. Thank you very much. Uh my Uh we don't have any comments. Do we have any comments from the uh the board with any of the on the consent agenda? If not, I'll send a motion on. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as read.

A second. We have a motion to second. Can a roll call vote for the approval of the consent agenda? Commissioner Brown, yes. Bernard, yes. Hart, yes. Hodgees. Yes. Macdonald, yes. Person Russell, hi. Smad Trimble Baxter, yes. Vickers, yes. Consent agenda has been approved. Okay, great. If your item was on the consent agenda, um it has been approved and you're more than welcome to uh more than welcome to stay, but you can leave at this particular time. The item six and item number seven have been moved to the regular agenda and we will go in chronological order. Uh for that we will just give everyone just a moment to uh depart and then we will move to item number six Z-6831A. If the applicant is present for item number six, please make your way down to the podium. And while he's doing that, we will have the reading. Item number six, file number Z6831A, 13608 Kanis Road, PCD, located at 13608 Kanes Road. The the applicant is proposing to reszone this 2.4 acre property from PDO to PCD to allow for the construction of a 12,000 square foot indoor golf training facility on lot on lot 5R2. The existing building on lot 5R1 will will remain as general professional office use. Access to the site will be from a 27 foot wide driveway extending from Kanis Road located near the southwest corner of the property. The proposed building will be approximately 30 ft in height. Lot 5R2 which is the rear lot will be serviced

by an ingress egress easement across lot 5R1. The facility will offer year-round experiences for golfers and feature professional golf lessons, high-end simulators, a putting green, and a short game area. Hours of operation will be Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The facility will have four employees at any any given time. Lot 5 R1 which again is the front lot will be used for general professional office use. Typically four parking st spaces would be required for this office use. The site plan shows 11 parking spaces that includes one ADA parking space to serve the existing building. Staff feels proposed parking spaces are sufficient to serve the use. The site plan also shows 30 space parking spaces for the golf training facility including two ADA spaces. staff also feels this is sufficient to serve that use. The builder will will build the developer will build a 5-ft sidewalk through lot 5R1 to the parking area of lot 5R2. A 5-ft sidewalk will also be built between the golf training facility and the south facade of of the golf training facility that will provide ADA access from the two ADA parking spaces at the northwest corner of the parking area. Screening is provided by 10 foot wide land use buffers along the east and west side. 30 foot platted building line. This land use land use buffer increases to a 40 foot width along the rear property line. Staff is supportive of the requested PCD reszoning. Staff feels the request is reasonable and the applicant is proposing a quality development for this site. Staff feels the development of this property will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or the general area. Thank you. Hunting applicant, please state your name for the record. Ryan Dale with Joe White and Associates. All right. Uh Mr. Dell, uh we do have

several cards in opposition and actually a couple in neutral. Would you like to go ahead uh now? Would you like to defer your time and come back afterwards? I think we'd like to give a brief introduction of the design team and then reserve the remainder of our time to let the opposition speak and then we'll come back up to the podium and attempt to address their concerns. Sure. The floor is yours. Uh Brian Dell with Joe White and Associates. Good evening, chairman, commissioners. Um, with me I have Scott Hurley and Zach Demos. They're the developers for the project. We also have Patrick Sullivan, the Gulf Pro, who is going to run the facility. Um, this is a two lot development. Is it is on Kanis Road. It is across from Taylor Loop uh subdivision. Um, the golf building is about 12,000 square feet. Uh it's got a large undisturbed buffer on the rear of the property up against the residential. Um staff is supportive of this uh application. We we worked with them to try to bring in a quality project and bring something to West Little Rock that we don't have right now. So we've worked closely with them and we feel like we've addressed staff's concerns since we got staff support. So, at this time, I think I'm going to turn it over to Patrick and let him speak about what the program is and what they'll be doing in the building. And sir, please state your name for the record again. Patrick Sullivan. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Patrick Sullivan. I'm lifelong Arcan, a resident of Little Rock, and someone who's dedicated his life to the game of golf. I grew up playing junior golf right here in Little Rock. Went on to compete at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and spent over a decade playing professionally around the world. After retiring in 2019, I turned returned to my alma mater as assistant men's golf coach. During three seasons there, we qualified for the NCA tournament each year, something the

program hadn't accomplished in two decades. Since stepping away from college coaching, I focused on one-on-one player development. Through that work, one thing became increasingly clear. Arkansas is behind when it comes to advanced player development, especially compared to states like Texas, Arizona, California, and Florida, where favorable climates allow for yearround training. Other states have invested have invested heavily in high-tech and indoor facilities that en enable athletes to train consistently regardless of the weather. If we want Arkansas golfers to be able to compete at the highest level, we must give them the same level of access and support. This facility is designed to meet that need. 12,000 indoor square foot indoor golf training center built for year-round instruction, practice, and development. It will include soundproof Trackman hitting base, a dedicated teaching and club fitting studio, and short game area. every element designed to create a quiet appointment-based environment where serious players can improve no matter the season or the weather. Over the over the years, I've had the privilege of working with many talented junior golfers who have gone on to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in college scholarships. This facility will help even more young Aransens gain access to the tools, coaching, and opportunities they need to turn their talent into success, both athletically and academically. We have the talent here in Arkansas. What we need now is the infrastructure to support it. I believe this facility can be a long-term asset to the city of Lor Rock and a meaningful step forward for the future of G and our state. Thank you for your time and consideration and I'll reserve my time. Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman, before we get started, can we let the record reflect that uh Commissioner Trimble has arrived? And it also appears that we're having well,

it's up technical difficulties with the uh monitors, but we do have it uh behind you uh for the audience. Thank you. And just uh to make a statement for all action items on the agenda for the regular agenda this evening. uh for opposition uh as well as those in support uh you have a total of up to 20 minutes. So uh you still have time remaining uh uh on your your clock but at this particular time uh we're going to go to any in opposition or Sel did you have any else to add? We'd like to let the opposition speak at this time. Thank you. All right. So we actually have a couple of cards that are in opposition and it look like we have two cards that are I guess neutral. Uh, so the first card we have is Carolyn Hatch. If you're present, please come to the podium. Hello, my name's Carolyn Hatch. Um, I wanted to come down and just talk about um what we're putting here and where it is in location to where I live. I live in Taylor Park neighborhood which is directly across Kynes from the proposed driveway here. Kynes Road if you guys don't live out there. It's just a mess. I mean there is so much traffic. There's been so much growth out that way without an infrastructure improvement and it's becoming very hazardous. And I fear that not only the building construction time frame, but also any additional traffic into this is really going to cause more hazards because you have two driveways near well a road and a driveway nearly directly across the street from one another. It's going to block up Kanes Road more than it is. People are going to be stopping trying to turn left, trying to turn right, and it's just going to make people more aggressive

than they already are. That's my primary concern. I I personally am a golf fan, but I just don't think that this is a good way to set it up. I mean, I would propose, you know, if you're going to go forward with something like this, can you figure out a way to not have the entrances both right directly across the street from one another? Can you do something that would allow people in the neighborhood to get out more readily? because it's very difficult at certain times of day to get in or out of our neighborhood whether you're turning right or left. So, those are my primary concerns. Uh, thank you for your attention and concern. Thank you very much. Next card is Ann Jones. Hello, my name is Anne Jones. I live at 22 Chapman Lane in Taylor Park. I resided there for 17 years and I've watched the development along Kanes Road all this time and watched the traffic increase with no real increase in the support of the Kanes two-lane road that goes by my property. I have no objection to building the golf facility. I what I object to is exactly what my colleague Carol said. I object simply to the location of the driveway or or the entrance way into the facility. There's going to be two businesses on this property. Not just the golf facility, but also the the Traml House at the front of the property is going to be leased out. There's a 30 car parking lot for the golf facility, a 10car parking lot for the front facility. That is a total of possible 40 cars of people trying to go in and out of this property. The ingress and egress to my neighborhood is difficult at all times,

but it is particularly difficult during rush hour. So my question is, could not the entrance way be moved to the east side of the property in some way to then swing around if you want to and go back to the west side. move the entrance way to the property so that we do not have a conjunction of the two facilities, the two businesses of people trying to go in and out directly across from our neighborhood of people trying to go in and out. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Charles. So, we have two cars I believe that are neutral uh if I'm reading it correctly. The first card here is, if I'm saying the name correctly, uh, Manish Shaw, if I'm saying it. Yes. Are you in support or you just neutral? You in support? Yes. Okay. All right. And the next car is, is it Beth Smart? Yes, I'm well. Good afternoon. I am a resident of also Taylor Park. I'm 15 Taylor Park Loop. I'm not against the facility like my other neighbors have said the biggest problem itself is actually the driveway. So we are looking at even today when I was coming here I was looking left and right to exit to exit. I didn't even look in front of me only as and I told myself look at that driveway as you're leaving so I can see the location of it before I got to the commission. It's not there. again, if they can move it a little bit over to the west or to up Kanes, it would be wonderful. But I've also got a couple other questions. We do see that we have um 30 parking spaces and we have for the um u for the new golf facility and we also have 10 parking spaces for the office. How many offices are going to be in that new office is my question to the developers.

Okay, we will get that definitely addressed once um they come back up to the And then uh somebody just mentioned a putting green. Is that going to be on the last third of the of the acre or the last third of the lot? So the last third of the lot is vacant and so uh when whoever was reading what was going to go on this lot, they mentioned a putting green. Is that going to be a live putting green where people can come practice? Okay. Yes. know maybe we don't know. Okay. And then my last question is um okay how many professionals can train at once? We're trying to get an idea of how many people are going to be there. So how many professionals can be training at once? Now we have one professional here saying that he's going to be he's going to be offering the training offering the training. But do we have five other people that are coming? So that you're going to have five cars coming in um at 12:00 and five cars leaving at 1:00 and five more cars coming in at at 1:00. We need to know that answer. Of course, our biggest concern of course here is the location of the driveway. If we can just get it moved over a little bit now, we're not trying to both of us are trying to exit at the same time. Thank you for your time, gentlemen. Thank you. All right, that concludes the um cards and opposition. Dale, please come back up. There were several questions that uh I think uh one that we heard get repeated over and over and over was the driveways. And when we worked with staff, we intentionally lined the driveways up from Taylor Loop so that you can see across. If we were to slide the driveway to the east, we would then have conflicting left turn movements where people would be attempting to turn left into the golf facility and people would be attempting to turn left into Taylor Loop and we

would have a gridlock. So that's why it's on the west side. We also don't open till 10:00 a.m. We're going to miss the morning peak for Baker Elementary. The PM peak on Kanis Road is actually staggered. It's over a very long volume of time. So, there may be some of that that hits the PM peak, but it it'll be staggered. We won't be hitting at a direct time. Um, if you have any other questions about the driveway, I'll be glad to to answer that. The putting green will be inside. It won't be outside. Everything with the golf facility will be inside. Um, as for the number of employees, I believe we're going to have a maximum of four employees at one time working on site. So, there's there will be some turnover, but we're not talking about that the place is going to be packed and and they're just going to be rolling through there as as much as Patrick may want them to be. If there's any other questions, uh we'll be glad to attempt to answer them. We don't have an answer on the number of offices. Is that part of this application is to keep the existing office, but the Traml Law Office is moving out and another professional office will move in there. There's not any planned expansion or any other use for the existing building. It'll stay as a a professional office and it's 2200 ft. It's about 22 development application. Actually, it is because it's it has to cover the whole entire property, but we're holding it off on a separate lot. So the golf facility will be on the back lot and the office will be on the front lot. So currently it just stays as as it is. Yes sir. The the the leasey will change but it'll stay as the same use. It'll stay as professional office. So you said there's a max of four employees uh I guess full-time at one time that'll be in the facility.

Yes. So I can presume there are four people getting trained up on that particular time. attempt to answer this so that I don't misspeak. So there will be a maximum of two professionals that would be teaching or facilitating needs of whoever is in the facility. Um and then two other hourly staff workers. Again, somebody to run kind of the front desk and make sure that reservations are being made and met. Um and then somebody else that can also just assist. um but only two that would be teaching at at any given time. So So we can I guess assume that uh there would be there won't be like a group of 30. No, it it is it will be offers there. It would be probably oneonone or two on two, something like that. Correct. It'll be, you know, with the professionals. It'll be one-on-one. Um there are some some Trackman bays in there for other people, but they will be appointment only. Um, so I would I would say we it would not be um 30 people like you said at any given time. Um, it would it be it's pretty low volume. Okay. Thank you. Can I can I ask a quick question of staff regarding the driveway? Um it's it's I guess the goal here would be to line it up with the driveway across Kanes because if you ever get a traffic signal as you add traffic signals to Kanes, you would have true four-way intersections and not oddly staggered. Is that is that part of the reason why you want it across from it's not directly across from the neighborhood entrance, but it's it's close enough perhaps to to catch it with one traffic signal. Commissioner Hart, you have it right. And uh I'll uh reflect what uh Mr. Dell said. It was it was to prevent

the two left turns from competing with with each other. Um, my name is Scott Hurley. I'm part of the application. Can I just highlight just a couple other things real fast? Go ahead, Scott. Okay. Um, I I don't know if everyone got it, but there was like 19 letters of support that came in uh vouching for Patrick, how great he is, how much they believe in this, how much the city of Little Rock needs it. So, I I hope you guys got that because it was more than just somebody signing a signature. Um, also want to let everybody know that the three of us travel Kynanis almost every single day. Uh, Zach and I have officed on Kanis or adjacent to it for almost 20 years now. Patrick lives in Woodland's Edge on Kanis. So, we are we are here and we're seeing it and doing it every single day. Uh, Kanes is a minor arterial designed to handle about 18,000 cars a day and currently it's at about 14,000. So, I don't think this little 12,000 foot facility is really going to become a major impact on this corridor that again we drive every day. And then um I've been told at least a couple times that the city already has plans within the next 6 to 12 months to put a traffic light at Cooper Orbit and Kanes. Um that is going to stop the traffic obviously and allow people in Taylor Park, our businesses, basically everyone up and down to be able to come and go as needed. So, we looked at all that. we visited with staff and and that's why we're hoping that uh you guys will be able to support the application. Thank you, Scott. All right. At this particular time, I'm going open the floor up uh to any of the uh board members that have any questions, comments. Well, if we don't have any questions or comments, uh Mr. Dell, you come back up to the podium if you want. If you will, I would love to entertain a motion. Uh I'm just going to ask one question again staff. So this this traffic issue

obviously uh raised by Miss Hatch and Miss Jones and Miss Smart. Mr. Hurley just mentioned again minor arterial 18,000 cars a day currently at 14,000 cars a day. In terms of I mean just long-term planning widening Kanis is that something that's also being thought about know it's a little bit beyond the purview, but I do want to address these concerns. I don't have that answer for you, Commissioner. Sorry. Okay. There has been some bond issues discussed, but I don't believe any money has been earmarked for this corridor at this time. Not that I'm aware of. And last, but not least, I'm I'm a not an expert in this area, but in terms of the alignment of the drives, this is the optimal way to do it. Correct. line them up so that eventually if there's a signal put in, it can go in there. Correct. Yes, sir. We feel that's the safest. Okay. Mr. Chair, I would like I'm I'm I'm sorry, madam. We can't hear you address you, but you know what? We want to hear what you have to say. Dale, if you will, could you please come back up to the podium and and please make your comment. Thank you. I'm sorry. All I wanted to say is that there is a signal just maybe an eighth of a mile to uh upcan is towards uh towards Chanel uh Chanel Parkway. So there's already one there. I doubt we're going to get another one right where we're at. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Did you have another question? No comment. I would like to make a motion at this point uh that the commission approve the requested PCD zoning and file number Z-6831- A subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in

paragraphs D, E, and F in the staff analysis of the agenda staff report. Second. All right. Could I please get a roll call vote, please? Yes, sir. Commissioner Brown, yes. Ward, yes. Hart, yes. Hodes, yes. Macdonald, yes. Parson, abstain. Russell, hi. Sad. Trimble, yay. Bter, yes. Vickers, yes. Motion passes. All right. Thank you, Mr. D. Thank you. All right. Now, we're going to move to item number seven, and we'll give it just a moment uh for departure. But item number 7, A-350, uh and Z-10172. If the applicant is present, we will give it just a moment. Uh if you're present, please make your way to the podium, please. All right. While the applicant is making uh their way to the podium, uh Monte, if you will. Sure. That's what happens when you remodel.

Say it. Okay. Yeah. This is the staff report for um A-350. Uh this application uh is for a request for annexation of land generally located in the port planning area. Um the request is to grant the 100% petition accepting the property petition to be annexed and to obtain municipal services. The annexation request involves approximately 783 acres proposed for incorporation to the city of Little Rock. um the applicant or the petitioners seek access to municipal services in order to facilitate development of the property for uses under the I3 heavy industrial zoning district. Additionally, there is a concurrent request to establish the I3 um heavy industrial zoning district designation for the petition upon uh for the petition land upon annexation. Uh neighborhood association contacts are notified of all items on the planning commission agenda uh via single notice prior to the commission hearing and property owners within 300 ft of the annexation uh were notified of the hearing as a supplemental notice. Um the property is located within the city's extr territorial jurisdiction where zoning authority is granted but in this section of litter rock not yet exercised. Um so the area is not currently zoned. The area is designated as industrial um by the land use plan. The requested zoning designation of I3, heavy industrial aligns with the land use plan. The I3 zoning district is is designed to accommodate industrial uses which involve potentially objectionable uses and hazards and which therefore cannot be reasonably expected to conform to a high level of performance standards but which are essential to the economic viability of the city. um public rideway has been dedicated in the subject area for a portion of a new roadway named Riverport Road. Um and I think you can see that on one of the other sketch maps uh to intersect with Zuber Road at the

east and extend westward towards the Fush Bayou. The road is intended to intersect Harper Road to the south upon future development of the land which is not yet occurring. The master street plan indicated uh indicated a desirable a minor alter route in this area uh intended to provide a general path from Zuber Road to Harper Road. The dedicated ride ofway which preceded annexation aligns with the desired connectivity. Upon annexation, the city will be responsible for the continued maintenance of approximately 9,44 linear feet of roadway um Riverport Road and Harper Road and related drainage facilities. Riverport Road is being constructed to the city's industrial street standard approved for roads within the port area. Uh no municipal solid waste services will be provided to the area as there are no residential structures on the land. Um those are handled um by the port and the proposed use is intended for non-residential uses. As part of the development of the land within the annexation area, the developer will have to extend water and sewer services from the existing service lines to any new development in coordination with CAW and Little Rock Water Reclamation Authority. The applicant has provided the city with a letter dated May 12th from the Arkansas Geographic Information Systems Office that the annexation request meets all requirements outlined by state law. The area is contiguous to the city of Little Rock's municipal boundary along the area's northeastern boundary and meets all requirements for a petition of annexation by 100% in accordance with state law. Verified by Palaski County Judge's order that was signed and filed on May 14th, 2025. The order sets the exact boundaries of the annexation, which by custom includes all adjacent rideways. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and concurrent zoning classification of the area as I3 heavy industrial district. Thank you for the reading. Yes. All right. Applicant, please make your way to the podium and uh please state your name for the record.

Logan Timus, attorney with Kil Regano and representing the applicants. All right. Attorney Timus, uh would you like to go ahead and and make your uh statement now or would you like to defer your time and come back? If I may defer my time. Sure. All right. We just have a few cards here. All right. We do have uh three cards here in opposition. The first card here, I believe, is James Wilson. Good evening. My name is James Wilson and uh I'm here on the purpose of uh the uh zoning at uh off of uh Fush Dam and uh uh Earl Lane. I my my uh property is adjacent to the uh Ratcliffe property which has been sold and uh and I just want to want to know what what what we've been do what we do. We've been uh over our family been over there for at least a hundred years and all of a sudden everything is gonna change you know and we just want to know how we stand and what's what's going on with the land over there. That's mostly what I want. Thank you very much. The next card is Deborah Wilson. Okay. Same. Okay. Thank you. And then we have the last card here is Tara Lancaster. Yes. I just want to know if you got my statement so we can have it on the record, please.

So, I sent my comments yesterday and um I thought they were supposed to be read here, but if not, I mean, I can I can say them just however you want to do it. Did anyone please? No, please. I mean, we we have them at the foul. Okay. If we have them, but if if you like to make a statement, you can. Are you going to read them or I I didn't get a chance to look at them. Go ahead and read your comments if you don't mind. This this is a public hearing, so I I didn't get a chance to look at them. So, how does this usually work? You just look at them, but you don't present them. Um I'm looking for them, Joe, by the way. So, is that usually how it goes? You don't No, we have Well, we have a number of different So, we have multiples of letters, uh, comments, concerns that are addressed, and so we individually can read them and then they are put in a file for the record. But if you want to make something, you know, since this is a public u meeting here, you can definitely uh state your concerns. Okay. So, as my cousin mentioned, my family has been there for um a very long time. Um and um the people there, the majority of them are they're pretty um they're they're elderly. And so I had some concerns because I I see what's been presented. However, it hasn't been fully disclosed as to what will be on the property. I have read some articles um that mentioned a 330,000 square foot data center um which I do have concerns about that especially from looking at it from a environmental um um perspective. So, uh I would like to get some information about that. Also, if there are plans for a data center, um I have um some questions about um the

water usage. Um I've heard that those um facilities use quite a bit of water and I just want to see how it will impact the residents. Um, and with the um the road extensions and and everything that's um being proposed, how would that affect people? Again, as I mentioned, there are several elderly people there. Not sure if you've been in that area, but if you turn to go take a left to go um Harper to get on Highway 365, that's pretty much the the exit. I mean, you can go down Harper Road, but say again, you have elderly people in the case of an emergency, that's a situation between life and death. They would literally have to go all the way around, get on um Fraser Pike and then try to get to the interstate from that um from there where, you know, before they could just hit the highway and just get into Little Rock that way. So um so that's another issue um that I that I mentioned as well as again the fact that no one is saying what is actually going there. We know that Amazon bought some property but there's another company that bought or I guess they're in the process. I think there's an MOA or something out, but we're still we don't know what will be there um or who's putting it there. But again, like I said, it's rumored and I've seen articles that said it's going to be a data center. And again, health issues, you know, whether it's EMF, like I said, the water supply and there was something else I mentioned in there as well, the air quality, noise pollution. Um what um what do you plan to um put in place to assist residents with

dealing with these inconveniences that they will be exposed to when this goes into um play? Because I mean the reality of it is with all the money that has um all the money that has exchanged hands at this point I really you know I don't know I mean I don't think you know I don't know what to what to think at this point. Um but I just want to make sure that my family is protected. So um that's all I have. Thanks. Thank you. All right. That concludes our cards. If we can have the applicant to come back up to the podium, please. And there were several uh concerns uh based upon that. Uh if you're prepared to answer any I have I did, you know, I wrote our questions down, but at this time I want to give the floor over to you. Please feel free to make your your opening statement and to address any of the concerns. Absolutely. Um I'll start off with first addressing uh the zoning as I industrial. Um, as noted in the staff report and by staff earlier, uh, the Little Rock or Little Rock's land use plan already identifies this area, um, as industrial, consistent with that and with other, um, portions of the port area. Uh, the petition and the request is uh, for I3 industrial zoning to allow for future development. Now, on the point of future development, um our application is limited strictly to annexation of the property and reszoning. Um for future development that may be contemplated, uh I don't have information on that. Um and happy to defer to Jack Thomas with the Chamber of Commerce to comment on future development, but the application's limited to annexation and resoning. So, um, not in a position to address those specific concerns as to specific development right now. All right. All right. At this particular time, I want to open the floor up to any of the

commissioners that have questions or comments. Go ahead. And this either to you or to staff. Is this currently land that is unincorporated in unincorporated area? Yes, sir. That's correct. Well, I was speaking with legal and I don't know if I need to recuse myself from this being that I sit on the pic county court. So, just just at least it the fact that we have it on the record is good. If you feel you know the uh that that it might affect your decision in some way that it would bias you in some way, you can certainly recuse. Um, but I I I mean I guess would would the applicant feel the need for uh Commissioner Person to to recuse? I don't feel that's necessary. We've we have submitted our petition and had the order issued by the county judge approving the petition. Um so do not feel that's necessary. All right. All right. Commissioner Russell, floor is yours. I have a I have a couple of questions. So, um, both for the applicant and I guess also for for staff. So, this property is being proposed to be annexed into uh the city of Little Rock. So, my first and not most important question, but the most obvious question is what is going to be the financial impact uh to the city of Little Rock taxpayers if this land is annexed into the city? City of Little Rock does not require developers to pay impact fees for large industrial developments like this. It all falls on the taxpayer to maintain services. So, what is that financial impact going to be? If I may defer that question to Jack Thomas, the Chamber of Commerce. Yes, sir. I think Excuse me. Yes, sir. I think valid question. And I think we've

we've worked closely with the company um to develop a structure and and modeled what this investment will look like. Um having the ability to annex this into the city limits of Little Rock uh provides for significant significant property tax revenue. Um we've looked at at at some models that are in the the millions annually to to the city of Little Rock. So I don't know if that answers your question, but that's not even a little bit. Okay. What is the financial impact to the citizens of the city of lur rock by annexing annexing this land? The city of lur rock is going to be responsible not the developer to provide services to this land. What is the financial impact? The developer is providing some of the services to to the development. Um I I don't know without modeling the specific impacts of of what you're you're speaking to. roads, sanitation, electrical. Yeah, good good question. So, we're pursu So, the water infrastructure and the wastewater infrastructure is to be paid for by the company. Um the the road infrastructure is to be paid for by a combination of sources pursuing state funding, county funding, federal funding. So, there's uh a number of potential sources that that could could fund that. And maintenance. magnets would be on on the public side would be would be up to the city. Correct. And so you don't know what it would cost? I don't know what the maintenance would cost. I I know that there would be millions in property tax revenue that goes to the city potentially if the development is to be approved. Yeah. Well, but we're not talking about a potential development because this is just an annexation and a change of use. So, as the attorney just said, there is no proposed use. We're just changing the use. So theoretically, there is no company that's going to develop this land. We're just discussing

the change of use in the annexation. So all we really care about is what is the financial impact to the taxpayers of the city of Little Rock. Yes, sir. I I'm I'm not an attorney, so I may be getting out over my skis, but but I can tell you that the what we have modeled in terms of the financial impact of the city of Little Rock is significant in a positive way. Okay. So if there is a proposed use, what is that use? The uh the proposed use for part of the property is as mentioned a a data center um that's a 300,000 foot building. Okay. This property borders two waterways and what appear to be likely two freshwater lakes. what environmental impact studies have been done uh to determine the negative effects that the surrounding property owners are going to realize. Yeah, very good question. That's that's part of the due diligence period that's that's to come. So, I I can tell you this is a company who wants to do everything right. uh they want to go through through the process making sure that they do all of the the necessary sustainability practices and build to to the best practices that are up to to standard. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Who's the company? Yeah. So, I'm I'm bound by an NDA, but uh it's the company is uh the the city board approved Willowbend Capital LLC. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna make it I'm going to make a statement for the for the commission. Um, this and and I'm gonna I'm gonna say this tongue and cheek. This sort of reminds me of uh Hillary Clinton saying that we need to read the bill or we need to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Um, I'm not in support of annexing this land. not support of changing the zoning

to a heavy industrial use, especially when it borders agricultural land and single family residences. This does not sound like a wellthoughtout application to me. If there is a proposed use, you need to get with your client and propose something. Give us the environmental impact studies. give us the information and the data that we need to make an informed decision, not a oh well, you know, maybe one day somebody might do something cool here. That's that's not what this should be. Uh Mr. Thomas, no, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Brown. So, I guess um point of information is Nancy Pelosi, not Hillary Clinton. He's made the comment. Yes. That's right. And while I don't have Commissioner Russell's uh indepth developmental knowledge, as a psychologist, some of the way you phrase some things makes me very nervous in the sense that you said the company, but then you told us it was approved by the board being approved by the board, then it's public information, but then you tell me it's an NDA and then the attorney told us a little bit ago, we didn't know what the use is going to be, but then you tell me it is a use, but you can't tell us. So, I'm a little nervous here about what's really going on. So, help me be less nervous. Yeah. Because you the two of you have said three different things in two presentations. I'm not trying to bust your chops here, but as a as a citizen who's been able to receive an impact of some changes before, I realize this is land used for heavy industrial, but heavy industrial anything from a nice little little factory that's under control to as point out data centers. I'm all for data, but if we don't know what the environmental impact is, those things have a high degree of environmental impact. And obviously there's some folks there that that's going to hit. So can you clear that up for us? Absolutely. And with respect to my comments about um not knowing future proposed uses, um as Jack Thomas mentioned, that is a proposed use. Um,

I'm not banking on that company. um following through my my instructions and our goal is to annex this property so that once the Little Rock Port Authority acquires the property from the Rat Cliffs, which has been approved by the city board, um that the Port Authority can attract businesses, bring businesses in to to the port um and allow those businesses develop the land for industrial purposes, whether that is a data center or some other expansion. of existing businesses within the port. So that hopefully that answers your question on my comment about Okay. Again, you just said he just said it's going to be a data center. You just said you don't know if it's going to be I mean we need to know and again we need to know what's really going to happen because we have to think about the citizens of Little Rock. Okay. And so if you tell and again you're telling you you said there was something approved by the board of directors which that's so that should be public information and will you make recommendations to the board. So so what's what's just tell me what's going on guys? I mean am I I mean if one of the commissioners wants to call me out here if I'm wrong call me out. Very valid. Yes sir. So you know Logan's here I think to speak on behalf of the applicant. I'm here to speak on just to provide a little bit of color as to what what's going on here. Right. So the uh the proposed development that that could be a possibility, this is a a prerequisite to to that taking place. So you know what I can tell you from from an environmental standpoint is that the company pledges to meet and better any noise ordinance u and in the absence of any ordinance meet or better any industrial standards for light industrial zoning. Uh the site will be designed to minimize any external noise from operations and will utilize the most current and quietest technology at

every stage of the project. There was a comment about about water supply. Um what I can tell you is this does not negatively impact our water supply for the residents of the city of Little Rock um or our ability to recruit other companies or protect protect residents. We've worked very closely from the early stages of this this project with Central Arkansas Water to make sure that that's the case. Couple of comments on what you just said. If you are proposing to adhere to light industrial zoning, why is this for heavy industrial zoning? Yes, sir. So, I'm addressing one proposed development there. There could be No, no, no. I don't care about proposed developments. I care about your application. Yeah. You want heavy industrial zoning. So, anything that is built on this property is going to have to address heavy industrial zoning requirements. Yeah. So, if there's nothing proposed that is going to be heavy industrial, why are you seeking that? I'll defer to the applicant. The applicant's pursuing heavy industrial consistent with zoning of other are the rest of the port authority area. Okay. So any heavy industrial zoning use would require at minimum an EPA phase one and phase two analysis on the property. This would include waterways, natural and also surface. This would include ground contamination. This would include the the actual construction of the facilities on the site. air quality, noise, traffic, everything under the sun. Those those studies cost, you know, anywhere from 50 to a quarter million dollars. The the I don't understand this application.

It just doesn't make any sense uh to me at all. Mr. Chairman, can I speak for just a second? Here. So, here's the way I look at this. We have a major economic engine in the port of Little Rock. I think it's about 5,000 acres. Uh this is an opportunity for the port, which is um well, obviously landlocked on one side by the interstate, landlocked on another by the river itself. this is an opportunity for the port um to potentially expand by 783 acres. So the way I'm sort of approaching this regardless of proposed uses regardless of any proposed U data center which would not by the way occupy 783 acres. I look at this as is it in the best interest of the city and this metropolitan area to continue to provide our port with the sites that are needed to attract um huge employers and revenue generators in our community. And so the answer to me to that is yes. But there's an unfortunate part about this too, and that is the residents that previously were isolated from the port area and previously had a buffer between their home and industrially zoned property, which in in the zoning hierarchy, I3 is about as bad as you can get when it comes to zoning. So, I get that. Um, this hits home to me because those people who who live there would now be uh right on the back door of the

port authority and they would be adjacent to an industrial property and that's a real issue. Um I I am particularly sensitive to it right now because I have a family farm in South Arkansas which sits right in the middle of this lithium uh area. Right. So what what is just a a farm to me where I hunt and fish now there are all these people wanting to mine things out of the ground um to make lithium batteries. So um I I I get that. Um it it's I think as a planning commissioner so really I'm sitting here going okay what is best for the overall community um and weighing that against the concerns of the homeowners who have been there for many years. So, I'm not really looking at this as um and Jack, no no um I'm not trying to throw shade on the data center, but I'm not really looking at this as just a data center or uh just any other th this could be a variety of things that are developed over the next 20 or 50 years on this 780 acres. Um, when you zone it I3 though, there's no doubt you're turning it into uh the port. The port uh which if you drive through the port today, you see a whole host of different uh businesses from uh you know making giant windmill uh turbons to uh peanut butter. So it could be just just about anything, right? So that's sort of the way I'm looking at it. I'm super sensitive to uh the families and the residents who live in this area. I'm also super sensitive to the needs of the city to better this

economic driver that we call our port. And it is it is the hub of uh huge employers and it is the site where when our city goes out to recruit big companies like Amazon, it it's where they want to be. it's where they want to be. So, um, that that's the way I'm looking at it. If that that helps or hurts, I I don't know, but that's that's the way I'm looking at it. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah. So, I just want to thank you, fellow commissioners, for your thoughts. Um, I will say this. Um, being on commit being on this commission is a battle at times because I mean, I've always thought that the city is not just made of ordinances and it's also made of people. Um, and the I3 classification you're seeking right on the doorsteps of College Station and Sweet Home. Um, I'm going just tell you now, I'll be voting for this. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. Yeah, I just want to follow the comments of my two commissioners. I gota be very frank with you. Reading through this, I initially thought, yeah, great idea, economic driver. I think what's had me making me very nervous though is again it backs up to some people who've been there. You're saying light industrial use. This has heavy industrial use and we really don't know what we're voting for. Not only that, but with heavy industrial use, there is an environmental impact that it sounds like hasn't really been looked at yet. So, and again, let's get into the the the maintenance impact, which you know, I think and again, as a as as an applicant, you guys decide to defer, connect more info, see what you can tell, see what you can't. But I do think there's a lot of question marks here that at least for me personally make me very nervous. Again, when I read this, like, yeah, really cool. But as you guys talk, I just want to be very honest, the more questions came up, the

more nervous I am about this. I don't I don't know if that's it's that that's the issue. So, we had clarity. We could probably roll, but this is there's too many questions. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. Any other comments or questions from any other commission? Yeah, I must say I agree with what's been said here relative to the potential use of this property. Of course, we never know exactly what's going to be there, but from what you what I understand and I read about data centers, they are not good neighbors to pretty much anybody as far as I'm concerned. So, Any other comments or questions? And I just want to lastly add this. I don't think anyone's uh opposed to economic development of this magnitude for the city. I think uh not only this administration uh it's about progressive uh and we you know we want to attract the big the Amazons and the Googles. We we want that and uh I think moving forward uh that would be great to grow the city to grow the state to create you know impact revenue jobs you know however I think the way that I think that was presented and I'm speaking not speaking for the board speaking for me personally is is we just don't know you know what I mean and I think that puts a fear level into uh you know our thoughts of Okay. How do we see are we doing what's best for the people of the city and and how do we go about that? Just I think I think it I don't know if it was Commissioner Russell or Commissioner Brown who made a statement about um the hazardous and the health issues and the air quality noise quality. Not only that, but these big data centers, you know, I was hearing about even, you know, let's say once everything hypothetically if it, you know, if it gets approved or if it don't get approved, however, but I was reading on these data centers and even the people

around it, they're exposed not only to the with the water and noise, air quality, but even the the the type of visual uh you know uh issues that could happen like lights all around it. You know, some people live out there and it's the light problems because there's so much light and things like that out there that you have to have, etc., etc. So, it's just so many questions that's being raised that we just don't know. And I think that's what's really uh you know having me personally at a at a standstill on this um you know because there are questions well if you do these studies let's say you get approved you do these studies and there are you know different health issues that may arise then how are you prepared to assist um the community or the neighbors or the people you know if these you know may happen. So, a lot of things are just, you know, they're not in place. And I think uh, you know, for me that it it's hard for me to to swallow that, you know. So, I mean, I think if we would have had those issues addressed, if we would had it, you know, everything addressed and so we can understand it here, I think that, you know, it would, you know, probably people would have a better feeling, I think, about uh, the whole process, you know. So, you know, with with that being said, I mean, it's just it puts me at a at a standstill on this, but I want to open if any other commissioners have any other questions or or comments. Yeah, just just one comment. I mean, to I guess this is really to my fellow commissioners. If if we're not prepared to allow our port to expand, if we're not going to put new business and new industry attached to the industry and business we already have at the port, then where are we planning to put it? This is the most logical place for it to go. Expansion of

our port is the most logical place. Why? Um well at the existing port go up. Why can't it go where? Up. Up. Um I I think if you look at industrial parks all over the country, you don't you don't see them going up. Yeah. Bad design is is No, there's there's trucking. Uh there's the port itself, which is there's the different modals of transportation. There's rail here. Uh, so I guess what I'm saying is if we're not prepared to support the Little Rock Port and its expansion and its ability to recruit new industry, are you going to start it? Do we do another do we do another business park somewhere else? I mean, where where are you going to put it? I mean, this this is this is what progressive communities do. They grow their economic engine producers. I don't agree that growing out is ever a good idea. And and let me just say this. I I know everyone may have their own opinion and feels on this one here. And you know, I want I want everybody to address it. That's why we have an open form. And I like to know, you know, each and every you know, board member thoughts, you know, on this. And then Commissioner Brown, I know you had a question. Yeah. I just a comment my commissioner made comment about not being one of the porting the port to grow. I for one want the port to grow, right? I think it's important. And like I said, when I first read this, I was like, "Yeah, easy, easy peasy. What I'm going to do is I'm actually gonna make a we don't always make recommendations, but I would encourage you, and this is your decision as an applicant, to say, you know what, let's take a deferral here and figure out how much information you can and can't give us. I realize there may be some other drivers out there where you want to just say skip that and go appeal the board of directors." But I think there's some questions that we brought up and the assistant brought up that could be easily answered. I know NDA's great issues, but you know, I'm sure if you talk to that to them, you could

figure out what you can share and what you can't. If y'all want to do that and come back next month and or or the month after and say, "Here's what's going on." I think that might be a good move because again, we want the port to grow. There's just too many questions in the way this has been presented today to be able to confidently go, "Yeah, cool. Let's let's go." Can I ask you to say you want to do it? Yeah. Quick question, if I may, Mr. share while y'all are considering this. Thank you, sir. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and Miss Lancaster, I really appreciate y'all speaking and and I have a feeling that there are others from this neighborhood that weren't able to make it that feel similarly in terms of of your residents. I'm looking at this map. I have pretty much on my personal computer what's pulled up there. Y'all are right off 365, right? Is that correct? Okay. And then one more time, sir. Yes, sir. And then just to confirm, Mr. Timus, so the boundary of this proposed annexation is going to be bordered on the west by Harper Road. Correct. Correct. in terms of noise studies and I I've been around data centers before out in Utah. They are loud and I know that the technology is getting better, but has there been any sort of study just kind of getting ahead of the curve in terms of current decibel levels because I think there is a quarry to the west and obviously there's industries to the northeast. What is the current decel level? And with this proposed industrial, again, there's going to be a difference between light industrial and heavy industrial, but what is going to be the increase in volume levels? And how will affect these people who have been here for at least a century? That's a good question. I appreciate that. I don't have an answer at this time, but

and I just go ahead. And then one last thing, and I'm Oh, man. sometimes and I say this pretty much every meeting our job it's cutting the baby in two right Solomon because there's these competing drives and motives and of course as residents of Little Rock all of us we want to see our city grow and we want this city to be businessfriendly and on the flip side we also have to respect and to the extent that we can protect our community. So, I I'm at a quandry right now and I'll leave it at that. No, again, I just want to make this for the record. We're not requiring or mandating you to defer. This is uh your freedom of choice and your decision that you can defer until next month or when you choose. Could I could I ask staff a quick question? I think I think I know the answer to this. We're talking about annexing this and reszoning and and zoning this. It would I guess it wouldn't be a reszoning. It would be an annexation and a zoning. Would not So this would have to be subdivided into lots, I assume, at some point. And would not each individual uh user slash company slash uh industrial user that came to this property, would would they not have to come back to us for site plan approval in the future? Isn't that when we would talk about their specific issues? I think if they're coming in if they're an I3 use, I don't think it would come back to this body. I think that there was there's permitted uses in I3 and and unless they had exceptions, if they had any exceptions to an I3 use. True. Yeah, I think they're but otherwise it wouldn't times. But I I also uh just want to remind this board that, you know, we've um the port has been a good partner for the city. Um we have done

this many times before. Same same situation. I mean, if they come in at if they annex into the city and they don't say what they want to be, they come in at R2. We're not going to have any R2 in the in the port. They have to say I they have to say a zoning. And the highest and best use is I3, which reflects what exists at the board at the port right now. And again, we have done this very thing and this board has passed this very thing before. I think it's just the fact that if it is I3 and that is the use, it would not come back before the board for any type of feedback from these people here today. And I think that's what the problem is versus I2 and then somebody coming in saying, "Oh, wait. We want to make chemicals right here next to neighborhood." I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm I'm sorry. So, could you just give us just give us a We're going to try to get to you uh here. here. I just want to make sure if any other commissioners have any other comments here, but I will address your question that you have here. Okay. Any other commissioners have any other comments or questions here? All right. If not, sir, go ahead. Come up to the podium and address your your question here. I was I was just asking uh how will we know the proposal of this? They sent them out, but everybody don't get them. You know what I'm saying? you know, supposed to be to the post office or in the mail or something and next thing you know, hey, we getting a letter in the mail saying that this is this is this has gone through unless you're within 350 ft

of the Unless you're within 350 ft of the property. You will not get a notification. I I'm I'm I'm less than 5T from it, which is why you got a notification. So, it'll come in the mail again. Yeah, you will. You will get notification through mail service. Yes, sir. So, you will get notification in the mail. Yeah. Yes. All right. Okay. Master. Yeah. Go ahead. I have one question before you before you say something. Okay. Go ahead. Um, did staff know about the proposed use or were, you know, I'm just trying to see was it approved like why was it approved? Was it approved because of the um why was it recommended for approval? Um, I would just like to know. So, since this is in an incorporated area, um, it's in Flask County at this time. Um, so it we don't have the perview to to review we don't have the authority to review the current uses in the area. So upon annexation and upon being incorporated that's where we have our jurisdiction and I just want to add that the additional context is in the staff report there was a major state law that was changed where we will be losing our extr territorial jurisdiction um which allows us to do land use planning uh in this area. So there is an additional context and um this is quite a large area. So just want to give that background to that point. Um but directly to your answer um no because it's not in our purview for review. Thank you. All right. U madam please state your uh question that you had. Okay. So I just think that there's a a a right and a wrong way to do things and I think this has just been done all wrong

basically. So, um, I did do a little research, um, when we got the letters, and I know they're trying to say, you know, make it as if they really don't know what's going on, but from my understanding, there was a special meeting that was held back on the 29th of April. And, um, our mayor, um, Frank Scott, um, was in attendance and they got this deal done with the, I think he mentioned the company's name, which is Willow Ben Capital LLC. So, um I mean I just think if you're going to do things, just inform the people and not just try to, you know, just go in and do backdoor drug deals and um not, you know, take people into consideration. So, um I just think everything just from the Port Authority, like I said, I mean, paper trail shows what's going on. They're buying land and then they're turning around turning um selling it to corporations. But I just think if we could get those impact studies um done um and just get a better idea of what's really going on before they even present here to I mean I don't understand how you can um approve things without having that type of supporting documentation. Um but I mean that's just me. That's all I want to say. Thanks. All right. Um any more questions or comments? Mr. Chair, uh question to staff out of curiosity. uh may not be applicable for this particular application, but just in general. Um is there because of the proximity of the freshwater in the residential area, is there an issue or element within applications that triggers collaboration with ADQ and that impact? Uh yes there there there would be if if it's adjacent and just the size of of course the the development would would trigger any sort of you know coordination with ADQ they have they would have to follow state law

when it when it come to environmental quality. Okay. And m Mr. Chair I just I just want to say and to the what was previously stated was comparing this to a drug deal. This is an economic development deal. Uh, I think staff finds that sort of wording below par. Thank you, sir. For the record, um, Attorney Tim, could you please come back up to the podium here? Um, so did you have any kind of closing remarks or statements? I'd like to close by just saying that that this 783 acres um you know a portion of it is already being developed as an Amazon. Amazon has already done the environmental studies. Um they're ensuring that their development is uh conforms to all environmental laws um has minimal impact and and they're committed to being a good neighbor. Um the hope the port's hope is that the remaining uh portion of the 783 acres can be used to attract new businesses. Um attract greater economic impact to the city of Little Rock. The land is currently undeveloped. Um so it's a blank slate and a great opportunity for businesses to join our great city. Um, so at the end of the day, uh, the intent and the purpose is to annex this property in the city to allow the port to do so. All right. And just lastly, to confirm, do you have did you have a question? Sure. And just to confirm, did you want us to move forward on this or did you all want to defer until next month meeting or at your choosing? Moving forward. You like to move forward uh with it or defer? Meaning moving forward meaning we will vote today on it

or you can defer and get the questions maybe addressed concerned by the members of the committee and other addressed by the community that you can come back until next month. That's what I mean when I say defer or if we move forward meaning we will vote today on it and and if the application is not approved today it still goes to the city board we'll go forward today please thank you all right if we don't have any other questions uh do you have a comment I was just gonna make one more comment on on this I if if you know we we and make this more difficult on companies like Amazon or whomever else might want to locate in the port. Um, by doing that guys, there there is a guy sitting right across that river in an office about a/4 mile away and his name is Terry Hartwick and he will he will take he's the mayor of North Little Rock and he will take everybody in his city that thinks it's too difficult to do business in this city. They did it with our baseball park and they did it with our civic center and he'll he'll get the Amazon. He'll he'll get them all. Everyone he can get. So that's why I just think that um it's important to work with staff and and work with the port. Um and and I get that residents will be impacted. I get that. But I just think it's best for the city of Little Rock um to move forward with an approval of this. So that's my last comment. I'll shut up. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm gonna I'm gonna put out one more comment and then afterwards I will entertain a motion. Chairman had to step out for just a

second. I would very much appreciate in the future the resident's concerns addressed even in annexation, some sort of buffer. I just feel that that should have been discussed and in a project as large as this. And I know, you know, Jack, you do a great job at the chamber, Mr. Timus. I have no doubt to question that you represent your client exceedingly well, but these are residents and they have been here for a long time and this is a not insignificant project and it's going to be very hard for me. I know one way or another it's likely going to get appealed to the board. Again, this is just a recommendation to the board ultimately from our commission. But there's too many questions for me for me to vote positively on this right now as much as I want economic development for our city. And I think we're all agreed on that. So I just I just want to make that point for the record. Commissioners, any other questions, thoughts, comments? Mr. Chair, I'm gonna I'm gonna hand it back over to you. Um, yeah. No, I had Sorry about that. Just a quick question. Attorney Timus, could you please come back up, please? So, I wanted you to uh just address uh a couple of things. I know you said you had some other information that you probably needed to to get, you know, uh you know, some questions. I guess you didn't have the answers to, but if you will, could you just briefly u what I want to know is just can you just briefly speak on uh as far as the details that you that you have that you can share with us? I know you said some things that uh maybe I don't know if you well know that was Mr. Thomas said he had an NDA, but is there anything could you speak on the terms of of I say not saying you got to get in intrigued in the details of the structure of the

deal, but can you just speak and just give us some appreciation the board on u uh the the impact when I say impact is the impact of of the businesses the companies uh that would come in and doing this. You said they have actually have done some environmental studies on this. Is there something that you can sum you don't have to give great details can you summarize that because what I want to make sure before we leave today is making sure that all of us have some understanding or appreciation of of everything that we possibly can take when we making a decision like this. Absolutely. So can you just briefly just give us some some high points and what we want to know is we trying to find factual right factual high points on this if you will. Absolutely. Um so what I can do is I can I can give a little more background on this 783 acres itself. So this property was owned by the Radcliffe family. Um now owned by four uh heirs of the matriarch of the Radcliffe family. The port recently acquired 380 or 338 acres. Um the if you can see the screen up there that middle orange line they acquired that 338 north of that 107 of those acres was subsequently sold to Amazon and Amazon is in the process of developing on that 107 acres. Um, while I don't have definitive details on to what extent Amazon um did their environmental studies, I know for a fact that they did do significant environmental diligence before committing to purchasing that 17 107 acres. The southern portion of the subject property is still currently owned by the Ratcliffe um heirs. uh it is under

contract um for the port to acquire that portion um at which time the port would use that property to entice and bring other businesses. Um all of these businesses are uh extremely thorough in their diligence, extremely committed to the areas that they're choosing. Um and frankly will not uh they will not commit to an area unless they can ensure that they're meeting environmental laws. um making the least impact they can um and they've identified this area as as one of prime interest. Yeah. See, I mean that's why I like to make sure that things are all laid out on the table because I was kind of under the impression that the studies were in the process of actually getting done and had haven't been completed. But if you're saying they have, you know, the studies have been done then Yeah. What' you say? If if I'm saying if environmental studies have been done from Amazon or or any entity if you will because if Amazon does it, it don't matter if it was Amazon uh whoever, right? There are studies been done which that means they can be verified and they can be uh reviewed if you will, right? What so application? Why aren't we reviewing them? I'm sorry. Why aren't we reviewing them? No, what I'm saying is I'm sure is a very trustworthy person but studies. No, no. What I'm saying is if the information is out there, even if it have to go through a court of law, I mean, they can't be proven. That's what I'm saying. I was under the impression that the it no studies have been done or they were in the process thereof. Now, to me, that changes because if they studies are done, then that means that that information can be brought up. So, it can't be. So what I'm saying is if if the study has hasn't been done right then some things can't you know change

and say oh well wait a minute there this is a hazard and they shouldn't have done this in the first place. If the study but if we don't those studies that have it has no bearing whatsoever on our vote. No commissioner what I'm saying is no what I'm saying is I'm not arguing with you or saying you're wrong and I'm right. What I'm saying is that there are studies out there that can be identified and proven and reviewed uh upon upon if need be or if it ever comes to that point then you will have that information that we can go back and refer to. That's what I'm saying. If we vote to approve and the city board of directors votes to approve the annexation and the reasoning, we don't get to review it. No, no. This is Commissioner Russell. What I'm what I'm saying is I was under the impression that the environmental study that it hasn't been done. Right? Okay. So now if it has been done, what I'm saying is you can go back and review that now. So you can't you can't go back and say, well, oh well, we just didn't know. So now it's saying, oh, I'm not at fault. I'm not liable. What I'm saying is now there is literature, there is documentation and there is studies have been shown and saying oh they were liable. So now there if something has been done and the community is affected then justice still can be served because yes in fact there there is and was documentation showing that the effects thereof. So I was under the impression that there was not any studies to even show that. Does that make sense of what I'm saying? No, because I still don't understand what bearing it has on this commission hearing right now. So, this is this is what I'm saying. If there are studies that's been done that the attorney just attested this on record, congratulations. I can lie. No, what I'm saying it's not lying. Where are they? If it's lying, if it's lying, then there are consequences that go if we're going to base our vote, our discussion on the

possibility that there may be studies out there, where are they? Commissioner Commissioner Russell, you're wrong on this. Could you please Could you please understand what I'm saying? I'm not trying to argue with you. I can't understand what I'm not arguing with you. What I'm saying is I was under the impression, Chair Vickers, I' I've heard what you've said multiple times and Chair Russell, we can move on and we all heard what you said. No, we're not moving on. I'm the chairman of this committee and if we have a question, I'm going to address that. If you have a question, I show you respect as always and let you ask any question or comment on anything that you ask me. Correct? Yes. So, what I'm trying to do is make sure we get all the facts. We get all the facts, then we're here for the people. We're not here for me and you. I'm I'm here looking out for the for the people and for and for the city. So, what I want to make sure is before we leave here to make sure that not only the people here get justice, but making sure that we have all the facts on the table. If all the facts are not on the table, I don't think we did a good service. So what I'm trying to make sure before we leave here today, whether we be here for three hours or for 10 hours, I want to make sure that we got all the facts on the table and that we're doing the right thing for the people and we're doing the right thing for the city. I haven't seen any facts. So So what I'm saying, so actually this actually makes a good point. I have a question to staff and maybe this will clear up a lot of people's nervousness. from an environmental impact standpoint, what are the city's requirements for new development in in I3 for an environmental impact study? And what are the gates that we have to somebody say, "Hey, you know, what you're proposing is to because again, that's details that we don't know." And so what what are the what's that process? Because we don't have much insight. They they would have to uh submit a site plan to us. Okay. Uh it would go through review from both our staff. It would go through review from uh public works staff. uh if it's over one acre uh that's going to have a SWIP. So, ADQ is going to be involved in this. So, there there are several levels of

review that are going to take place on anything that goes here. And again, this is the the port of Little Rock that that is located right here because of its special location to rail, the river, and the interstate. But but I guess what I'm saying is are there gates to make because I think where we're all again where we're nervous just so we're clear is the lack of clarity and we know where this is a uh annexation discussion. We've heard about Amazon. We heard about a company that can't be named. Now we've heard Amazon's doing enviral impact study. Okay, good. And I full disclosure I did some work with them years and years ago and they actually are probably one of the more environmentally conscious companies out there. It was like 20 years ago. So I'm not going to recuse on that based on that. just full disclosure. Um what are the gates for future development to look at that environmental impact? I guess what I'm trying to understand because what we don't want to do is say okay we'll roll with this but somebody comes in and puts a hazardous chemical plant or you know I mean you know I don't know paper mill or something that that actually does have a big impact. What are what are the what are the the how we make sure that how how are those studies reviewed to make sure there's not a major negative impact on the citizens close enough there for it to matter. Again, Commissioner, there are several levels of review that that this goes through and and our our engineering staff in planning and the engineering staff in public works and and our environmental staff take this very seriously. And we would be reviewing this uh especially an I3 uh uh uh project and adjacent to residential adjacent to some waterways. Uh we would look at this very very with a very you

know deep magnifying glass and and we wouldn't want this to impact negatively in any way because this is always for positive. This is for This is for positive for Little Rock from a from a tax base standpoint and from a growth standpoint. And I think that Commissioner Hart had it right. If you want to see this go across the river, he's quick to do so. See, and and that's where that's where I I it kind of rubs me the wrong way because um being concerned about I3 compared to I2 and asking say, "Hey, listen, won't we if you if you apply for I2, you know, I'm all for that and if something so another company comes in and say, oh no, we want to do chemicals, of course, that's I3." That doesn't mean we're against the port. That doesn't mean we're against economic opportunity or economic freedom. That doesn't mean that. That means two things can't be true at the same time. We could be for economic opportunity and be concerned about the people of College Station and College Station and Sweet Home. Thank you. So don't that don't don't tell me I'm not for economic freedom, economic opportunity, and I want businesses to go to North Lock because I have concerns about the pollutants that somebody may inhale in the future or the water comes out brown because in a in the name of economic opportunity, uh two things can be true at the same time. Uh and again, I will say again, I want to be on the record. Um, if we're going for I2, cool. That's fine. Uh, I3 in the vicinity of this neighborhood and of the water system and in good conscience, I can't do it. I understand. Did you have a question, Brad, or comment on that? Okay. Well,

again, again, what I wanted to make sure again before we leave here as a as a full board is we have all the facts in front of us and I want to make sure that if if there's anything that we missed or didn't have because I was again I was under the impression that there was studies maybe in the progress but if there's are studies done that's what I like to do. I like to look at what's factbased. I don't like to look at anything mystical or anything that's I like to look at is right what's right in front of me, right? So, if I know if I have if I have certain things that will not only protect the city, but most importantly protect the people in the city, that's what I care about. And if you got studies out there that have been done that they can go back and prove, which we have it on the record, as attorney Timman said that that you have, that puts me at ease because I'm thinking about the people because if something ever comes up and there's a is it a a health issue or hazardous, we can always go back and reflect to documentation and any judge in the land will and if it's basically if they're saying it's right, then the people is protected and that's what I care out. So number one is do we want to see progress for the city? Do we want to see jobs created? Economic development. Yes. But do we want to see safety and health? I think safety and health just like what commissioner person said is is should be number one. But what makes me feel comfortable uh on this and a light just went off on my head and say well because at first I was like I'm at a standstill. I can't do this. And then I just said, "Let me let me just ask some different questions and making sure that attorney Tim is understanding what we're saying." Well, if they're already preparing and they're doing these studies, the people is protected because if you got the certain studies and if something ever goes wrong or something ever happens, then you have that certain protection or certain language. So, I'm I'm sorry, madam. Could you please hold that? You

we we just can't have uh anybody stay up. If you just give me a little bit and then I will uh I'm sorry. Well, what I'm Well, did you fill out a card? Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No ma No. Well, actually letting people come back up. We had a time a lotment. So, we have up to 20 minutes. So what I'm doing now or what I what I've been doing here in the meeting, it's been more of a courtesy. It is not the norm. So because normally we have to follow guidelines and rules and so I want to make sure that we can follow those. So what I've been doing extra has been more of a courtesy letting people come up and things like that is not part of the normal procedure outside of the time limits. Um, I just wanted to add that currently, just for the additional context as we think about development, the the current land that we're talking about is in the unincorporated area. Any development that typically goes to the port right now goes to the county for review and then and then we are asked to annex it in. This is annexation first so that when it does happen and it is developed it goes through our additional review processes which are typically a lot more stringent than county processes. So I just want to additionally point that out in the context and this is for another staff. I have a question actually when you just made that statement. Uh I don't know if you want to make it or Brad you want to make it here and Brad you said we have voted uh on uh the port issue and that's been approved before. Uh was that under still under annex land or was that okay? That's what I wanted. Thank you. Okay. But the planning commission does not set precedent by vote, right?

When we vote on applications, do we set precedent? The the planning commission is quasi judicial, I guess, is the way that we would put it. So, no, I mean, we don't set precedent. Each each application is considered individually. uh per the guidelines of the zoning ordinance or the annexation ordinance or or whatever it is that we're we're considering. I mean, if if if there's uh a pattern or practice, right? Um that's or I maybe that's probably the wrong way to put that, not pattern of practice, but but if there's if there's something that the the commission does that is is inconsistent with prior applications, that's not always an issue if there's a rational basis for it with the current application. Now, if if this body, you know, has a has a record of doing something five or six times, maybe the seventh application, if there's something different about it, um land is unique, real property is unique, that's the whole reason why uh these things can get really complicated. But if there is a basis for for a different decision, that's that's that's fine. Um but just because you make one decision on a similar application doesn't necessarily and you down the road. That was a long way to get there, but sorry, it's the curse of my profession. Mr. Chairman, u I think one of the things that we really haven't touched on is the the port itself. We we sort of talked about the port like it's not part of us. This is um the port has a board of directors uh made up of citizens of uh city of Little Rock. And I'd like to read the members the members who are on the the Port Authority board right now. I if it'll

take just a second. Clay Mc George is the chair. Stan Hastings vice chair. Tamika Edwards treasurer. Melissa Hendricks, Bobby Brown, Keith Harvey, Dexter Doyne, and Mayor Frank Scott Jr. are current board members of the Little Rock Port Authority. So that gives me an extra level of of um of comfort. the the the port is not some economic engine that's just willy-nilly um trying to recruit businesses whether it's in the best interest of Little Rock or the residents or that it's regulated by citizens some pretty heavyhitting citizens um who were appointed just like we were right um and and maybe elected I'm not sure how the Lorac Port Authority board members get maybe they're appointed So there there is a regulatory board there just another level that is watching over uh that part of our community. No, thank you, Commissioner. And that's that's basically what I was saying um is because once I found out just all the details that made me feel more comfortable for the people as long as I know the people is protected, that's what I have concern about because at the end of the day, if if these studies wouldn't put in place, then that will leave the people vulnerable. And if they're vulnerable, then I can I feel stagnant stagnated and I feel at a standstill. But now that I understand that you have certain levels of protection in there that we can go back to, that's what changed, you know, would change my mind and say, "Oh, okay. I can get behind this because I see that the people can protect it." And if it ever comes back to that case, then that lets me understand I can rest tonight and say, "Okay, then the people at this

point, they had a form of protection." So that's why, you know, this concept that I liked. So, I'm I'm sorry, ma'am. It it it's I would take one question, but I'm I don't want to take all of the questions. If y'all have one question, if you had one question and you wanted to get I'm sorry, ma'am. What is your name with the glasses on back here? You You filled out a card, right? We both have glasses. I'm sorry. Miss Wilson. No, not not you, Miss Wilson. Miss Lancaster. Yeah. If you want to take a question to come up to the podium so we can give that whichever question that you have. Could you come to the podium, please? Thank you. So it's our understanding that the the studies haven't been done um and Amazon is not zoned as heavy industrial. So where are the studies? And um I just um I just I don't understand even with that did that study that supposedly was done by Amazon does it include data centers? Um was it done for a data center? I mean I'm I'm trying to understand that. Um because this isn't making sense. You're saying a lot. He's saying stuff and I'm just not it's not clicking. And so I I understand you're trying to be for the people and that you can sleep at night based on hearing that there is a study

out there, but can we get access to the study? And I would like to know if it also includes data centers because again like I said an Amazon um that that is not zoned for heavy industrial. So, um, can we just get some answers? If it's out there, I don't understand why it would be an issue with presenting the information. Okay. Is that a question or a comment? I just want to make clear. Uh, I said, can we get the information? That's the question. Any information that's being divulged to the public and it's public information, obviously. And of course, you would be able to get that information. When can we get it? if it's done, if they have a study that's done. Well, we well we we haven't even voted on anything or any information. If you if you have any other information that's that will be made public, of course you are a citizen. Okay. You can be made. But I'm just wondering because you're you're you can sleep at night now and you're okay with things, but you haven't seen anything. So that concerns me respectfully. Okay. Is that is that a more of a comment or did you have a question? Because you said you said the question. You heard the question. Please don't play games. Please thumb that. I'm not playing any games. We not playing any games. And as a matter of fact is I was letting you come up for a courtesy. You mean and I appreciate that. I I understand. Yeah. You are an authority. You have whatever. Thank you for allowing me to talk again. All right. I will address your question. Thank you very much. So I guess she was making a question or comment with studies. Um there I don't know if Uh, I'm I'm not the applicant, so I can't I can't make any I'm not the applicant. I sit on the board in this capacity. Uh, Attorney Tims, you can come back up here again. Um, Miss Lancaster said, is there is there a

study or have studies been done? And she asked about was there a study in particular with the data center? Uh even though there's not, you said that there's may or may not be the data center on this particular property. Is that correct? As of right now, the property is owned by the Rat Cliffs. Um under contract with Willow Ben with proposed use being a data center, but uh I know that many of their conditions to acquiring the property involve these studies. Um they are in process or complete. Um but I I do not have copies of those with respect to the data center. Now with respect to Amazon again those studies the phase ones um the endangered species report um things like that those are property of Amazon um but as mentioned by staff when they go for their to have approval of their site plan those studies will be presented to staff vetted by staff and at that point become public information I would assume and and that's what I care about I'm speaking of factual base I'm not speaking of hypotheticals or if so or if they build it and so I understand concern and everybody I know that this is a high emotions when people hear something they get nervous or they get upset or they get angry or what have you. What I care about is factual basis. Yes, you have stated for the record and if those were false statements then that's something that we have to deal with. Obviously I don't think you're here representing your client or whoever or even yourself of making inaccurate statements or false statements. That's that's what I care about. I'm looking at this thing from a just a fact point. And the fact point is is you're telling me that we have the studies out there which lets me further understands that hey now we have grounds or basis if and when or if or if

necessary that there are issues that come about in some part of the future if or when or even if it's hypothetically. Did you have a question? Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'm going to engage one final line of inquiry and then I think afterwards I'll be ready to uh propose a motion. And this is for both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Timus. And the first thing is if we if we zoom in and again Harper Road and Gates Lane which I guess would be the southwest border in terms of if if we go forward and we recommend approval and this is reszoned I3 or annexed and reszoned I3. Has there been any sort of provision in the development plans for buffer zones so that these people who have been here for more than a century won't have 80, 90, 100 dB in their backyard 247? Right. So, or is this something that potentially would become Mr. Jordan, Mr. Moore, is this something that would become one of those studies for staff noise pollution? because I just I I just feel we're continuing and I get it the annexation, the I3 zoning, but what about these people here? 100% for economic development. I don't think there's a single person here or in this room that doesn't support economic development for our city and for our state. But what about these people who've been here a lot longer than the people who are buying the land? Absolutely. Nope. So, with respect to future development, um I'm not sure that the port having not acquired that southern portion of the property has contemplates a buffer zone. But what I can say, and I' I've got a copy of it here in the binder. It may have been attached to applications, but

if you look at the there's an illustration of the 783 acres, and if you look at the property that Amazon purchased, uh, is it possible to go back to the survey that was pulled up previously? I think it's going to be the uh A350Z one two three fourth tab maybe. Yes. Yes. So the red outline is the 783 acres contemplated or proposed to be annexed. If you look at the Riverport Road and go right where it's spelled out and go just a little bit north of that and draw a circle that encompasses 107 acres, that's the Amazon property. The remaining portions were retained by the port. And so Amazon intentionally put their development in the middle of property that was otherwise owned by the port for the purposes of secluding and having that property without being bordered by the port without worrying or without impacting adjoining properties or joining neighbors. Thank you. Second question, linear distance right now. I know the good folks, the Wilsons, right now on Harper, correct? Right on Harper. So, next on Gates. So, you all be next door neighbors. What's the current linear distance from where they're at to the other I guess I3? Do we know this? Because I know there is a quarry to the west, correct? Got it. I mean, obviously, it's going to be with within within 350 ft of the proposed

development or what will be reszoned I3. Um, and again, I'm I'm going to go back to this one more time. I mean, I think for future projects, consulting the residents more than just notice, even though that's what's strictly required by the law, we can always do more than what's required. I think that would be extremely helpful. So, just a little point of information there. And then my last two questions, the current area of the port, what's in terms of acres, how large is our port at this point? Don't know off the top of my head, I believe we're in and around 5,000 acres. Got it. And okay. And then of that of that current acre current acreage of the port, any idea how much is vacant or how much is available of that 5,000 acres? Again, I don't have that number. Um, unfortunately, Brian Day, executive director of Port, couldn't be here tonight because he's actually traveling on port business. Um, trying to bring more businesses to the port. Um, so you guys, you guys got stuck with the attorney. Um, but I know Brian would really wishes he was here. Um, would certainly be able to provide u better answers to some of your questions as far as the port's vision. um the proposed impact discussions he's had with prospective businesses for these properties. Um so I don't have an answer to availability within the port and I think you know attorney to attorney sometimes what we have to ask questions and we have to engage this process and I know we all want to be out of here but this is our volunteer this is our job and we are wrapping up I think on this but I'm going to ask one more question and this one will be of Mr. Thomas in terms of again our good neighbors right here who have been here for 100 plus years. Is there any sort of assurance a covenant as it were that can be written

into this or some sort of thing where where you know Mr. Timus on behalf of your client obviously you'd have to speak with your client first Mr. Thomas on behalf of the the Little Rock Port. Is there any sort of assurance that can be given these folks that development when it comes in because if we do do this annexation it comes in I3 not cart blanch obviously but it's going to be very easy to develop I want to make sure that these people are looked out for anything that can be done in terms of covenants a certain distance from their homes noise ordinance anything of that sort yes sir Mr. facture. Absolutely understand that. I think as it pertains to the question, what was your original question about development between Harper Road and Gates Road? Is that is that correct? I think I was just trying to triangulate specifically where Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and Miss Lancaster and how it relates and how close they're located to the boundaries of the future developments, future planned developments. I I don't think there's any future planned development between Gates and Harper Road. Right. Well, the I3 going to be east of Harper. Correct. And that's going to be be the boundary. The boundary is Harbor. I'm talking directly east of Harper. Yeah, directly east of Harper. Go west of Harper is where it's going to be annexed, but obviously the development is going to be east of Harper. I'm not the the developer, but I can tell you in in what I know about the project that the company wants to absolutely work with surrounding neighbors to make sure that they're mindful of their experience. Again, the the port is zoned at I3, but the company has pledged to meet or better any noise ordinance for light industrial. All right.

Yes, Mr. Yes, please come to the please come to the podium. Just for uh noise, we already had a shooting. Got a shooting range right directly behind us. Nobody even knows it comes in there. We hear this shooting all morning, all night. Well, not all night, but up until dark, early in the morning, 6 o'clock in the morning. Now, and and it's moved in. Nobody even know of information. Thank you, M. Sir, one thing about the one about the shooting range is once becomes part of the city of Little Rock, that'll go away because shooting ranges are legal in the city of Little Rock. So what now? If there's a shooting range out there, that'll go away real fast because shooting ranges are illegal in the city limits of Little Rock. So only if it's in the area of the annex. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. M Miss Wilson, did you have Oh, you talking. All right, Miss Wilson, I want to let you uh speak because I know you didn't get a chance to speak. So, if you wanted to make a comment or or a question, you can. I understand what each and every one of you are saying. I understand what you are saying and this other gentleman here. But you got to understand us. You have to understand us. We have been there for years. We have been there more than Miss Mson. Miss Wilson, could you please speak to the mic so we want to make sure we can hear you for the record. Can you you can bring it down. There you go. Thank you. Please address the commission. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I understand what you all are saying. I understand

what the lawyers are saying, but they the lawyers, Amazon, the company has to understand us. We have been there longer than their age. And we are continuing and we're going to fight to stay there. I think it was so wrong. And I know it's it's the law and and it's written that we only got this one notice that this was going on. I can't understand why we were not brought in on it. We are right smack close to the Ratcliff's land and then our land starts. So, you can't tell me that there's not going to be any repercussions for us. Something has to be done. As far as documentation, I cannot see how you all can really have a honest vote without seeing the documentation. I'm not saying he's lying, but if you don't have it in front of you, how do you know it's documentation out there? How I ask you all to really think hard and honest about this. Think of the residents. Thank you, Miss Wilson. And I want to bring back up um I'm sorry, give me your name again. Yes. Staff, but yes. And basically, you're saying this annex land is being brought back into our jurisdiction. Is that correct? Uh yes. I just wanted to make a clarifying point. Um the concern over the the gun rage, it is in it is in the

county and it that that is not part of the area that's being annexed currently. Um, so when you get annexed into the city, you have to follow these city regulations. You have to follow city zoning code. It is historically and currently way more stringent than county. Um, so I just wanted to make the clarifying point uh on that that you know when annexing into the city, you're not going to continue to see that that sort of activity and it would absolutely go through this board for the you know something like a a shooting range. So this is just a clarifying point. Yeah. And and that's thank you for that's my whole point and that's why I want to you know bring staff into this is I want to know the facts right I you know if we're being brought back into this jurisdiction where we do have say so where you do have protection where you do now have some entity to fight for your behalf and that's all we were saying and and we're not saying this to say oh well it's a bad thing because when I first hear this when all this was coming at at me I was like wait a minute I'm at a standill deal and tell I'm I'm a factsbased person. If I can get the facts, I can work out everything else myself. And what I'm saying to you is if we once we get this because I don't think anybody like I think uh co-chair Baxter said everybody's about for economic progress, bringing more jobs, right? you know, people making our city better, but at the same time, we don't want to see our people brought into something uh hazardous that may affect them or affect their livelihood, right? But now we bringing something back into our jurisdiction that now we have control or some say so over. So now, if we got some control and say so over, we want to make sure that we can protect and fight for you. But if we have no jurisdiction on it, guess what? We can't. So only thing we're saying, D, that I

see it because I I can dissect things pretty quick, Miss Wilson. I can I understand I put things together pretty quick now that there is studies out there and we have jurisdiction on it. So now we can go and fight for our people that that's in our jurisdiction. So now if this company did something wrong then guess what there will be justice served and if if anything happens then you are going to be the first to get served because you all are the first impact. So that's my position and that's why I say oh that's why a light went off of my head to say oh well wait a minute if this this is outside our jurisdiction it's going to be just like that gun range they can shoot to 6 in the morning and we can't do nothing about it but guess what if it's under our jurisdiction now we can so that's why I was like wait a minute let me have a change of heart of this and that's why I now support it because I said wait a minute we can't help you if if we can't help you but if you're in our jurisdiction we can so I'mma rest with that. Uh, does any other commissioner have any other comments? For staff, is Harper Road and Gase Lane within the city limits. No. Thank you. All right. So, at this particular time, uh, if I'm going to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation of annexation and zoning classification of the area to I3 heavy industrial district. Second. I have a motion and a second. M, please get a roll call vote. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Point of information. One last question of staff. In terms of the noise ordinances, those will apply. So for any future development, I heard Mr. Tim just mentioned north of Riverport Road. Where's the where there is the proposed

development from Amazon? But noise ordinances once we annex this those will come into play and so any and all development obviously environmental with the state plain and simple but noise ordinances that will be with the city and we will have jurisdiction. Correct. Yes sir. That applies across the city. Yeah. Once we have jurisdiction then we can you know we can be able to make sure that our people get protected. Okay. Let the motion stand. As roll call vote please. Commissioner Brown. Yes. Bill only because I trust our staff. Bernard, yes. Hart, yes. Hodes, no. Macdonald, can you come back to me? Yes, ma'am. A person? No. Russell? No. Samad Treble? Yay. Backter. Yes. With stated reservations. Vicers. Yes. Coming back to Commissioner McDonald. I'm going have to say no. One, two, three, four, five, six. We have six votes. Motion is approved. All right. Well, thank you very much, Apple, for coming in. Thank you for the community coming out on this. And uh thank you definitely to our board which we deal with a lot of task every each and every month. So I thank you all for your efforts. Uh do we have any other uh business or new business? I do have one statement I would like to make. I always get uh people send in emails to me for uh what our esteemed board to do and uh we have a very talented board. Uh Commissioner Andre Bernard he received the 40 under 40 award. So I want to give a round of applause to uh our

commissioner uh Mr. Andre Bernard who's representing uh himself as well as representing the board. Uh so with that said, if there's nothing else, this meeting is ajourned.