Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

What's the date? The 9th. March, right? Yeah. Last I checked.

I know. Push your butt. All right, let's call to order the March 9th city of Bella Vista Board of Zoning Adjustments. Call the Call the RO please.

Ellis here. Farmer here. Sedbury here. Portillo Wagman here. Boy here. All right. We do have a quorum. Uh next up we have our regular meeting minutes from February the 9th. I make a motion to be approved as submitted. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second from uh I'm sorry, Lloyd. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? All right. Meeting minutes are approved. We have nothing under unfinished business. Uh only thing we have two items for new business. First up is the annual election of officers. Um we'll entertain a motion.

Can we motion them all? You can motion them all or motion one by one. I don't care which. I make a motion that we retain all three existing officers. Okay. A motion from Lloyd. I'll second that. A second from Wagen. Call the role, please. Wagner, yes. Lloyd, yes. Sbury, yes. Farer, yes. Ellis,

yes. All righty. We'll keep the same officers for another year. Uh, next up, we have public hearing uh, variance 2026 63349, an appeal request on the staff interpretation of what of what an electrical meter is for a house under construction at 30 Sanhurse Drive. Uh this will be a public hearing. So just real quick to go through the rules. Uh we will allow planning staff to give a 10-minute presentation to the the uh board on what the issue is. And then we'll give the applicant 15 minutes to come up and and present their side of it. And then after that, we'll hold the public hearing where anybody in the in the audience can come up and have five minutes to speak. and then we'll give the applicant an additional 10 minutes to rebut anything that they hear from the public. Um, and so with that,

may I add one thing, Mr. Chair? You referred to it as variance is technically is not a variance. Uh, this is one of those other rare circumstances that you have the authority to do and that is to provide an interp final interpretation of the meaning of your zoning ordinance and this is an appeal of the zoning administrator's determination. So, thank you for the question. A little bit different. All righty. And so with that, we'll go ahead and let staff uh begin their presentation. Um I'm sorry. Is that going to be Planner Robertson? Yes. Go for it.

Okay. Um as the attorney just stated, this is an appeal request. This isn't a zoning variance. However, the um permitting code, the ZVR is maybe where that's coming from. Um you can go ahead and keep it on my staff report, please, for the the public. Okay, great. Um so ZVR is where that's coming from. It's just our permitting software code, but it is an appeal request of the zoning code or chapter 109 of our locally adopted ordinance um that falls under my department's authority for enforcement and a state given right and ordinance a given right um gives the board of zoning adjustment the authority to appeal overturn entirely um adjust by interpretation uh at the request of an applicant if the majority of the board finds so to do that. So that is what this request before you is. Um, these are fairly rare. Uh, so it is different. If you've noticed from a zoning variance application, it doesn't have the the requirements from state law or a local ordinance on page two. Um, you'll see page two, which typically has your review requirements on there. It's just the authority given to you to do this.

One one second, Taylor, we need the timer started, sir. You've you've lost about a minute already.

Yeah, I'll be done. I'll be done way before 10 minutes, trust me. Um, but when when that hits one minute. Yeah. But I'll be done for that. So, um the nature with this request, it's different. Typically with literal um zoning variances, um it is the exact case that is before you. So, if someone seeks a literal provision variance of a setback that is for that site only, it's sight specific. Um it does not apply to development um elsewhere. An interpretation appeal um is not that in not that order, not that case. If you were to overturn um my interpretation of this, it would apply to residential development received on December 1st, 2025 and here on um the interpretation that you find um of what an electric meter is would be enforced. And so it's a little different than a literal provision uh variance. Um this is also our administrative cycle. That's why we had our um our election earlier tonight. So I thought just some extra explanation. And of course these are rare. Um, so I just wanted to give a detailed description of what we're looking at. With all that said, the site before you um that is causing the appeal request is R1, low density residential. It's a little over a third of an acre. It is surrounded by other R1 lots with nature preserve to the east. And our future land use plan shows this as a future neighborhood. It is just near uh Lake Anne on lot 17 block for the Burkshire subdivision. Currently the interpretation that they are wishing to overturn is staff interprets the term electric meter as the electric meter itself which we'll see in the exhibits here shortly that it is the portion that typically measures the amount of electric power used in a or by a structure. Um it's typically measured in kilowatt hours. They uh are seeking an appeal of this interpretation due to the zoning code requirement 109046

C2C which is requiring electric meters um to not be installed in the front uh or forward of the home. The request is to the board interpret the electric meter to include the bases or the pedestals so that the large green pedestals that are already installed or uh built for previously permanent homes that were uh applied for prior to 1212025 uh may be used for development um after that date essentially is the um the gest of their request. Um and of course they will come up here and they have um two times to expand on that. But with the application within this document um that is what I believe their intent of their request is. The pedestals that we um keep talking about began install December of 2018 and since then per electric car electric 2316 have been installed. Um electric meter is not defined in our zoning ordinance. Nor is it defined nor is electrical meter or meter comma electric um is defined in our local zoning ordinance. But our zoning ordinance also gives me the authority to refer to the APA or the American Planning Association dictionary for zoning terms. It's not in there either. So um that's why this appeals before you today. Uh since it's up to my determination as to what it is with the lack of a definition. um you guys have the ability to overturn that um on top of what has already been given you in the authority. However, that's why we're here. So, um since no definition can be found um in our local dictionary or the national dictionary, um we are here considering this request. And again, as I noted earlier, should the board reverse or change this, it would apply to all current residential projects received on 12125 and beyond and residential only, of course. Um and then just some data. No permit has been denied based off this

zoning um this new zoning code requirement. So there's no permits to present to you guys on uh denials for that 109046 C2C. Um had not received any public comment at the time of this report when we published it to you Friday. Not aware of any that I've received since then. Um since Friday we sent this out to you. legal ad was sent to the Democrat Gazette and published on Sunday, February 20 22nd. And then we posted a public hearing sign on the subject property on Friday, February 27th. And then for good measure, of course, we put all of our public hearings um in advance on our website. It is the first link on our main page. So now you can go to the exhibits. Thank you, Addison. So um just to put a picture to the interpretation or a bunch of words, uh this is what staff is interpreting as the meter. the portion that measures electrical um usage. And then uh to kind of break it down a little bit more, so the meter we just saw that is circled in red um on a pedestal here in the city of Bella Vista that was erected after December of 2018. The red shows staff interpretation and then the blue shows the uh applicants request of an interpretation of what an electric meter is. Um and this is just for your additional consideration as you consider what a electric meter is. Um this is just um it's actually interesting just make sure everyone's aware but um 811 only marks up to the meter typically as um common practice for most utilities. Anything beyond the me meter the property owner is responsible for um should they have projects and whatnot. So currently with these pedestals the homeowners that move into these or property owners that own these um after construction they are responsible for making sure they find the electrical uh connection or the wires underground from the meter to the house. And so that red is just a measurement um of where they're responsible. This is the um new construction checklist and application uh pulled from

Carol Electric's website. Next slide, please. You can keep going. Um they have some pretty helpful exhibits in there. I'm talking about the base um or pedestal install for the meter and the associated cost with that, of course. So you can stop here. Um so this is the base. Um It's without the meter. The meter is not attached in this next. And then of course showing um the diagram of it being placed away from the home. Um it's referred to as the pedestal on the base again. And so um even in the bottom right corner, you'll see meterbase installation guide. And so that that is essentially what the gist of the request is to include the meter base um in the definition of an electric meter, not just the meter itself. Um, I believe that's the end of mine.

All right. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Yes, ma'am. The top the subject of this is interpretation regarding what an electric meter is. But when I read the applicant's letter, it appears that they are appealing that the pedestals aren't grandfathered, which has nothing to do with the definition of an electric meter. So, I'm a little confused.

Well, I can I can maybe if you grant me just a moment. So, the implication is it would be grandfathered. So, what and and I don't have that letter in front of me. So obviously what they're appealing is is is important, but you've got these situations where these pedestals are around town and some may be even for homes that are currently under construction. We adopted the new zoning code. And so they were planning on putting the gl the meter on on that considering it all part of one installation. And the interpretation has been well the meter is just the glass part with the dials on it. And so therefore, you can't put that and and and so therefore you may have a pedestal there with a base and because the zoning code has changed, you can't use that anymore because you can't put a meter in it. If it is it because if it was under partial construction or partially present before the change in the zoning code, it's grandfathered and they could use that to put the me there wouldn't be any question about it.

So if the base is counted as the electric meter, right? And it pre-existed the change in the zoning code, then it would be grandfathered. But it all depends on the definition of an electric meter, which is what they're getting at clarified. In a go forward state, the meter gets put on the house. Taylor, is that I mean, where do we put the meter? On the house. That's that's what our code calls for right now is for the meter to be placed on the house. Yes. It it doesn't specifically say word for word on the side of the house. It says shall not be forward of the home in the front yard. So, it's more of a visual. Y

it is it is a part of our front yard regulations. Um and so we have certain height limitations in the front yard that applies on the entire front plane. Um and so this just goes into that as well. Um typically you want to keep sight triangles clear for most of our development here is rear reverse on our roads and so our driveways are typically only 20 ft long. There's reasonings for that, but it is a front plane clarity requirement, not just um I just don't want to use the term visual or aesthetics or anything like that. Um just to make that clear. So follow question if I may. Will Carol electric continue to put these stubs in the front or are they changing their

they've been following the code. Yeah. Any other questions for staff? I'm not sure I know what to ask, but are you telling me that uh Carol Electric will put those pedestals beyond the front in back of the front plane of the house or will they put the meter itself, the glass meter on the house? Are you asking is Carol in still installing the pedestals in the front yard? What does our ordinance call for? It calls for it the meter to be in back of the front edge of the house. Is that right?

It says it shall not be placed in the front yard forward of the home. The meter there. So, Carol Electric could put the pedestal itself in the sideyard, not on the house. Is that what correct? Yes. So, what are we being asked to uh wave?

We're not we're not being asked to wave anything. We're being asked to overturn staff's determination of the definition of a meter. That's it. So, basically, staff has told us what their interpretation of a meter is. The applicant's going to come up and tell us what their interpretation of a meter is. We're going to decide who's right. Either staff's right or the applicant's right. That's it. Everything else is really not a part of this conversation. But are we going to decide or is it decided where the meter has to be? Nope. That the code just what the definition of the meter. That's it. Okay. Everything else the code is already addressed. All right.

And the applicant gets 15 minutes to

understand there just we're talking through your portion of it right now. Any other questions for staff? All right. If not, can we go ahead and get the applicant to come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and you will have up to 15 minutes to uh make your argument and your presentation. Hello. Thank you for taking the time to um hear me out on this. I'm Erikica Roen. I am with a We're builders in Northwest Arkansas um and heavily invest in the Bella Vista community as well and build many homes, countless homes in um Bell Vista. And um that is what brings me here today. My address is a Missouri address uh in Pineville, Missouri, but we build in Bel Vista. Um, so I want to read to you the letter and then I've got some visuals that I think might help uh bring to life uh the the circumstances that we are in. Um, so historically, as she mentioned, Carol Electric has installed electric meters on shared pedestals located at the front of the residential lots with single pedestal, one single pedestal serving two neighboring homes. So you've got the pedestal, then you've got the two meters that are on each side of that. And this has been a long-standing practice sounds like since 2018. And um so because of that, Carol Electric has thousands of existing electric pedestals already installed throughout the city. There's already been an investment made in that infrastructure is already in place. Under the current interpretation of this code, electric meters may no longer be placed on these existing pedestals. these it says meters have to be behind the front plane of the house but can be in the sideyard to your point. Um this interpretation

effectively prevents continued use of the existing infrastructure and instead requires installation of an entirely new electric service uh pedestal for the new home. Um but otherwise the previous the already existing infrastructure would have served the new homes. So this creates significant and unnecessary hardship, added cost and labor for builders, homeowners, and Carol Electric alike. Um, so I'm respectfully requesting that you all as the board review the interpretation of electric meter within the code as I believe that that interpretation should apply to the electric pedestal itself rather than the meter alone. Um, I think the original intent I know she said it was not aesthetics. it's about um originally even the mayor himself had said that it was aesthetics in one of the city council meetings. Um so I think that was an intent but I think there is also you know if if you're backing up there's a if there's things in your front yard you've got more risk to hit that and things like that I think is how Taylor has described it. Um but the situation is they're already there. They won't be removed. Um, and so by not allowing us to use those and requiring the meter to be placed behind the house, now we have two we have two pedestals in place. One at the front that's already servicing the side, the house already existing and now a new um pedestal and meter because the meter couldn't be attached to the current existing infrastructure that's already in place. Um, so I think that if we changed the interpretation of meter, then that would naturally allow for the grandfathering process to take place of using the current infrastructure that's in place. Um, otherwise what's already there is rendered useless. Um, and it's wasted resources and unnecessary expenses and there's absolutely no benefit to the public for that. And so I've brought

some visuals that I think might help you understand um what was happening previously and what's happening now as a result of this new code change in December as of December 1st. Um I don't know how well you can see this. I will try to to talk through it. The first one is this is an address drive. Let me speak in the mic. I'm sorry. Um 10 Chatam Drive. This is a completed home as of October 25th. This is the electric pedestal. This is where the meter was placed all in the front sideyard above in the front yard. However, aesthetically, if that is one of the major considerations, you already have electric poles in the yard. It's all in one corner in a uniform spot. I think aesthetically this looks nice. That's not what I'm here to refute today. It is solely based on the the meter. But I did want to point out to you that this aesthetically looks much better than the the next two photos I'm going to show you, which are the changes based on this um new ordinance that's in place. The second picture I want to show you is 28 Sand Ridge Drive. This is a job site that's under construction right now. One of ours um did not have a current pedestal in place. So what that means is we had to This is to your point. It's in the front of the It's It's behind the front plane of the house. It's about 20 20 foot further back than what we would have previously done. Definitely still has line of sight from the front yard. To me, it looks visually worse. Um, and it's going to be harder to grade around at the end of the day. You're going to have fence issues because it's it's on the property line. Um, and again, not hear what I'm refuting today, but I'm just showing you visually what you guys have approved and what what this is doing in real life for us. Um, yes, we could put it on the house, but what that does is allows us it it does not allow us to get electric in a timely manner. We need electric to frame these houses.

Um, we we can't do that if you got to put it on the side of the house. Um, so this is the quickest way for us to go ahead and get electric. The third picture I want to show you, this is the lot that's actually in question. This is what's on the plot plan right here. There is already a current pedestal here. There's a home that's over here that this meter is servicing. If you guys change the interpretation of the word meter, we can now put the meter up here on the already existing pedestal. If not, this stays regardless. It's there. And now I have to add a new meter right here about 15 to 20 ft back. Now we have two meters. That makes the situation worse. There's no benefit. there's a significant cost, there's a significant labor work, and also it's it's harder to grade around at the end of the day, and you got to work around another u obstruction in in the middle of your your yard line. Um, so those are three visuals and, uh, just something else I I want to share with you. If you really are caring about aesthetics of Bella Vista, which I think is important, I think you have bigger fish to fry than this. We have many lots and our investors have many lots that um unfortunately have houses that have all kinds of decorations included on them and we have uh we have called and um they've said there's nothing we can do because decorations are um okay as long as they don't have lights. So you've got situations like this where you have yards full of skeletons and you've got junk, right? which does not aesthetically make Bella Vista look nice. You can drive around and see that everywhere. So, if we're doing this, then I think we need to consider this, too. Just something for the future. Um, anyways, that that's what I have for you today.

All right. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir. Okay. Um, I'd like to clear up a few things. This is not about aesthetics. This is about public health, safety, and welfare. And that's all that this is about because anything after the meter is not located by 811 when somebody goes out and decide to disturb their yard. And so that's what this is strictly about. I wanted the meters put on the house when I voted for this, but we were told by the electric service commission we could not require that.

And so be very clear, this is not about aesthetics. I also will say Carol Electric took it upon themselves to do this without communicating with the city or staff and they just did it for years. But to say that that's historical is a pretty big stretch because for 40ome years before 2018 the meters were always on the house. So this is something that's fairly new, not something that's been long-standing in the city of Bella Vista. So that's where I'm personally at on this. I don't know where the rest of the boards at.

I think that's helpful. But us as builders and investors in your community have bought lots over the last 10 years based on current practices, right? And when we're told that we're going to uh because of this change and because of this new interpretation and ordinance now we have to spend supposedly you guys aren't able to, you know, talk numbers here. But it is significant on top of it just it's there's no common sense in it. There's no common sense. There's extra labor resources. It's it it doesn't make sense. You've still got the same issue you're talking about if you're putting it in the front sideyard.

Like I said, we we're not allowed to consider finances. We're not allowed to consider aesthetics. Like I said, it's for us. It's just purely a public health safety thing was the only consideration that came with that.

Got it. I just think also though, I mean, if we're still talking about public safety in all three of these lots that we've had homes on, and we have many, many more. These are just examples. You already have current electric poles sitting there. I would think it would be of better health safety to have everything in one centralized location than scattered across the lot. The the problem that you have is 811 will not locate anything past the meter. The meter is the demarcation point between public and private. And the closer the meter is to the house, the less unknown that there is that can be located by 81. So why not leave it as it was because they can locate it there, right?

But they can't locate anything beyond the meter to the house. So now you've got 40 ft of line buried that nobody will locate. That's that is the whole impetus behind all of this. Yeah. And this is why Carol Electric what they did was they applied rural application. They tried to apply rural application in an urban setting without talking to anybody at any municipality when they did this and lol Rogers Bentonville and Bella Vista have all adopted this policy. So this is not just a Bella Vista thing. Got it. Well, I I still think you've got the same circumstance, right? You still got the same risk. your your change didn't help what you were trying to solve.

It will with any new house built cuz wherever the meter's placed at, Carol Electric is responsible for that up to that meter. So the meter is 10 ft closer to the house. There's that is 10. She still showed you the line though. That is the respons I think that's what you were trying to show that line that is responsible of the homeowner. The homeowner is only responsible after the meter. The closer the meter is to the house, the safer the safer it is. Period. Got it. But there's still the risk there even if it's a smaller area.

But it that section will be painted and located by 811. So when somebody goes out there to dig, they'll know it's there. The meter, if the meter's all the way out there at the pole, even if it's for both houses, anything after the meter will not get located by one call. Got it. So like I said, it's purely a public safety. This is not about aesthetics. And I if if somebody had said that, that was a misunderstanding. Okay. Well, like I said, it was it was quoted in a city council meeting, so was unfortunate to hear.

Any other questions for the applicant? If we do have to conduct a public hearing if there anything else you'd like to add, I think you have a few more minutes. If not, we'll go ahead and if not, we can go ahead and have you sit down for just a minute. We'll go ahead and conduct the public hearing. If there's anybody in the public that would like to address uh or speak to this particular item, if you would come up and state your name and address for the record and you will have up to five minutes.

Hi there.

Hello. My name is Wendy Nickel and I live at three Avaton Lane out by Mville. I am a um builder also and also I'm a board member of the Benton County Cemetery Preservation Group. So I have deep roots in this community uh of Benton County. Um I've been here my whole life. My parents were born here, my grandparents. I've been a long time. Uh so I didn't understand. So, when I was originally told that it was an aesthetic thing and then you're saying it's a public safety thing, which I understand that, but I I'm here to ask that we grandfather in the pedestals. Um, because the pedestal is already there. Um, this is uh I know we're she wasn't allowed to talk about cost, but it is a $3,800 charge to the consumer, to the custom client, to the builder, whoever is building. It's it's an additional $3,800 for Carol Electric to put the additional pedestal behind the plane of the house. So to me, that is that is a we talk about affordable housing out here. The Bittenville area is getting so congested and so expensive to build in and people are coming to Bella Vista saying thinking this is economical value. It is no longer becoming I mean no longer economical value. I mean, we're adding costs to um the water meters are now 6,400. They're they're adding 1,500 for recreational buyin. Um so that's added to the cost. They're they're also talking about raising the impact fees. The city is about like $1,100. I mean, we're talking almost $10,000 in additional fees just to build a house out here. And we have people struggling. I mean, oil is up, gas prices are up. The houses are sitting. We have 260 houses every day on average on the

market. They're sitting. They're not being sold. So, what are we doing as a community, Villa Vista, City Ba Vista, to help impact get these prices down on houses? Well, we're not doing that. So my my question to you is I would like to see us grandfather that in where the pedestals are already there. We just connect to them and any new pedestals or any new houses that don't have already have a pedestal then we can go ahead and put them behind the plane of the house. So that was my thought process. Wendy Nickel Nico Kel an address. Sorry there was a mic bump. Three Abbit e lane. Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to ask or with public comment. We don't take questions and answers. Thank you. No, I'm me. If you have questions for me, we don't we don't take Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, good evening. Um, thank you all for being here. Uh, Chairman Ellis, Director Robertson, I need your name and address. Oh, Travis Harp, 10 Kindle Drive, Bellist, Arkansas. Thank you.

I'm a city council member. I represent Ward One. You may have heard about my take on this, but if not, I would just like to encourage the board to do what I believe is the common sense application of this. And I fully respect the idea that we shouldn't allow any more new pedestals. However, if there's a current pedestal and the lot next door has to put another pedestal in, then we're really doing a disservice to the homeowner, to the developer, and to the public in general. uh definitely understand and concerned about the safety aspect uh with the 811 dig. However, there is companies that the homeowners can hire to do underground location. They just have to pay for it out of pocket. It's not a public service like the 811 dig. So, there's definitely things in place that would prevent uh accidentally hitting the line. I think it's also noteworthy to mention that the water meters are still far away and you could still have a public safety incident there. So maybe we should require them to put the water meter closer to the house and then the homeowner's responsible for less damage if there's a leak because the water company would handle it from the meter or to the meter and the homeowner will be responsible to the house. But this is just a common sense thing that I would encourage you all to take a look at it in that aspect. Um because there's already a pedestal there so let's use them. Uh I know it's not aesthetics. I know it's a public safety issue. However, since aesthetics were mentioned several times, it's less aesthetically pleasing to have multiple pedestals installed than just one. Um, so that's my take and that's my encouragement to the board. Then again, thank you for your time and hearing this matter tonight.

Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address the board concerning this request? All right. If not, we'll go ahead and close this down. And the applicant, we do have give you another 10 minutes to come up here and you can speak to anything additional you would like to uh that you heard from the public comment. Um there may be some additional questions uh if you like. And once again, this is really just a a as much as we want to talk about aesthetics and everything else, this is really just about the definition of an electric meter is all that we're being asked to consider tonight versus a specific variance or waiver request. So yes, ma'am.

Yeah, I think I would just reiterate that. I just that's that is the request that we would um take a look at the definition of meter and hopefully change that to pedestal because and when we were initially having conversations with Taylor and and whatnot trying to figure out what the best approach forward, this is this is the avenue um that we were told that you know makes sense the most was to talk to you all about the interpretation of that word. um which would result in in this common sense fix of a problem that would help us builders and home buyers and um uh utility providers and and you all as well. So, all right. Thank you.

I appreciate your time and your consideration at this. Okay. Thank you, Taylor. What what specifically does the uh building codes define as a meter? What is that definition? I do not have that handy. I mean, we don't have that handy. I don't have that handy. So, we But we haven't defined meter in our code anywhere specifically.

No, not in the new code. It's not defined and it's not defined in the national definition either for uh planning reference. Okay, go for it.

I I remember the meeting where we talked about this and at no point during that meeting did I think that there would be a that the meter would be anything other than the pedestal assembly with the meter, right? because that that was the purpose of us talking about it was to move those pedestals um not specifically the meter portion of that pedestal. So it doesn't make any sense to for these purposes for me to define those separately. Right? So the pedestal or B or whatever they call it the the meter assembly and meter are the same thing to me for these purposes. I mean, they don't even work separately. So, I don't know for us, why would we define them separately if we're talking about this specific portion of the ordinance?

Yeah. So, can I say one thing just for clarification, please? Um the the real import of this are for are pedestals that existed on December one and connect and potential connection of the measuring devices to those pedestals. It has not changed anything about the future requirements right

uh anything about where you know obviously the whole assembly is going to be have to be you know not in front of the home. So that you know that's a policy decision but that that's clear that so it has to do with why that definition is important and and the the the scope of what the of what that will mean if you determine that the meter includes the pedestal.

Right. And I think for the purposes of why we passed why we had that in the ordinance was the pedal assembly and meter. I mean, I'm not aware of any metering system where those are separate. So, the goal was to move that assembly further away from make sure any new ones that got new installed behind the front plane of the house, closer to the house. Yeah, that's what I meant,

right? But I don't think in terms of a definition for that purpose. We don't need to define those two things separately. I would say a meter is the pedestal assembly that includes the meter. Yeah. Yeah. The transformer itself is located on the pole or is so this is the so switch gear basically. So what are you saying that? Uh I say for our definition for this purpose we define the electric meter as the pedestal or base assembly. That's the meter in a pre-existing

pre. Yeah. Well for anything because we have the we have them that are grandfathered in. So we don't need to define them separately. We just need to make an interpretation of what the meter is. And in my interpretation based on the discussions we had and the goal u that we laid out when we passed the development code was that getting big ugly green box getting the big ugly green boxes out of the front yard the whole thing that that was the goal but once the big ugly green box is there I mean we can't quite frankly we can't make them build or move it right so what's happening I guess from what we're hearing what we're understanding is that we're getting two big ugly green boxes built now.

Yeah, we'll ask the public to refrain from responding during this this discussion between the board. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Yes. When I voted yes for this, it was would never have remotely occurred to me that a builder would solve this new requirement by putting a second pedestal instead of just putting the meter on the house. I've built dozens of houses. All the meters have been on the house. And if you have to frame for a while with a generator till you get service, that's what you do. having putting a second pedestal I think is an atrocious idea. Um, and I agree with the safety issue and 811 and digging and all of that stuff, but I would also suggest that our definition of electric meter should include the base pedestal because it makes no sense not to use what's already there. That's my feeling. Okay,

any other comments? So, the the the decision you have to make is either to affirm the interpretation of the zoning administrator or reverse the interpretation of the zoning administrator either in a whole or in part. So your vote if if there's a if there's a desire to reverse that decision according to what you've been saying then that would be a motion to reverse that decision and to uh provide that definition and then have a roll call on that.

I was going to say can it can it be something along the lines like I said I always like to do the motions and the affirmative so that a yes means yes and a no means no. Mhm. Is it is it simple enough to say a motion to define the meter per the Carol electric diagram shown on page 16 which identifies the entire meter base and to therefore reverse the decision. we get we need to refer to it firm or reverse because that's the way the the statute I understand but I mean that they're asked I mean they're the applicant is asking for a clarification that aligns with what is shown on page 16 of the Carolina

and that is that's that's fine what you're saying is fine but it this example if we're going to specifically reference it does not have an actual measurement device on it the what what it doesn't have the meter inside the case and that doesn't have a pedestal yeah it doesn't have a pedestal either So, page 16 doesn't show a pedestal. It shows a meter base, which would normally go on a house. It would I thought the the the uh Well, yeah. Okay. Somehow we're going to have to get this clarified. However, you all want to get it clarified so we don't voting should include the base slash pedestal and pedestal. Correct. Base slash pedestal

or pedestal. I I I like where you're going. Pedestal. So we you are you are suggesting that base and the pedestal aren't the same thing. I So the base is what you see. Some places it's called a base andor ped andor pedestal. So Carol Electric's application defines it as a meter base. Meter base. So well if you look at page pedestal install. Yeah. They called a meter pedestal on page 17. Yeah. page 10 it says meter base fee $45 and then right above it it says standard pedestal installation. So they define it both ways.

So if I could say this the the the appeal is for the the determination um of the definition of meter as it relates uh to the circumstances that were presented at 30 Sandhurst. Obviously your interpretation will have broad impact. It'll impact across the whole city. But if you look at that picture you which you had at one point that showed the the blue box and the red box. Oh yeah. Go back to that that. Yes.

So what not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I'm going to try to help. So, you're you're wanting to uh reverse the someone wants to reverse the decision of the zoning administrator to say that all of that included in the blue box is within the definition of an electric meter. Yes, that is what the applicant's requesting. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. So moved. Okay. Is that clear enough for you, Mr. I think if we can get it in the minutes correctly. Can I just revert it to make sure the minutes are correct? Um, we're defining an electric meter as the base and pedestal. Yes.

Yes. As depicted in this photo right here along with the measuring device. That's also part of the meter. Yes. Yes. I think that was the motion that has been made by Lloyd. Can I get a second? Second. Second from Sedbury. Um uh call the roll please. Wagman. Yes. Lloyd. Yes. Yes. Barner. Yes. Ellis. Yes. So with that the motion approves. We have our twothirds that's required for this type of a thing. Is that correct?

Correct. Correct. Okay. So, the the motion is approved. I take it staff can get with applicants out there and kind of get the word out on what this is. Um, and this is we have not changed any code. We've just clarified a definition. Correct. So, some That's right. And so, if someone's got a vacant lot with no infrastructure on it at all, they're going to have to put those installations behind the front of the house and completely follow the code as presented. Now, we just know what meter means. Very good. So we would need to amend the ordinance to put this definition in. This would just set the precedent for what that

No, you don't have to. There doesn't doesn't require any def amendment to the definition. It could be, but because you're really talking about a very limited application, this really isn't going to have an effect for those that were before December the 1st. It's pretty clear that it includes anything moving forward. So, um I mean the precedent you have set would apply across the city and that would be known and yeah. All right. Thank you. We we've actually done this a handful of times and had to clarify an interpretation or whatever with staff. So, it's pretty part for the course. All right. With that, uh anything for open discussion? Staff does not have anything at this time.

Okay. Uh announcements. Planning Commission regular meeting will start immediately after this meeting. And with that, we stand adjourned. All right, let's call to order the March 9th city of Bella Vista Planning Commission meeting. Call the role, please. Ellis, here. Farmer, here. Sbury, here. Wagman here. Lloyd here.

All righty. We do have a quorum. Uh next up we have our consideration of meeting minutes from February the 9th. I make a motion to be approved as submitted. Second. Got motion from Farner, a second from Lloyd. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Meeting minutes are approved. Next up we have our public input session. this be an opportunity for anybody in the public to address the commission uh concerning any published or non-published item. I don't think we have any public hearings tonight. Nope. So, with that, is there anybody in the in the audience that would like to address the commission concerning any published or non-published item?

All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close our public input session. We have nothing for unfinished business. Uh new business starting off, we need to elect our officers for the planning commission. I make a motion that we retain the three existing officers. Got a motion from Lloyd. Second. Second from Wagman. Call the role, please. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Sbury, yes. Barner, yes. Ellis, yes. All right, motion carries. Uh, next up we have lots 2026 63153, a loss split request near the intersection of Compensate Drive and Kickwell Drive. Planner Grady.

Good evening. Thank you. This property is located in the southwest area of Bella Vista along Copenay Drive and Kirkwell Drive. Uh this property was previously part of a parent track 2 which contained approximately 28 27.8 acres. The previous minor subdivision was approved by this body um August of last year. The applicant is currently requesting to split the remaining track two which contains 9.1 acres into two individual parcels. Uh the parcel is dissected by an existing section line as illustrated on the plot map. Track five would enclose 3.5 acres maintaining a 200 foot u 200 ft of road frontage. Track six would enclose 5.6 acres with 382.82 ft of frontage. The proposed tracks are uh dedicated with required minimum 20 foot front setback, 15 rear and 7.5 side utility easements per this plaque. The subject land is located within the city limits and is designed as or designated as a neighborhood area per our future land use. Our master street plan uh classifies Copenay Drive and Kirkwell Drive as residential streets and maintains 60 ft of rideway exceeding the required minimum. Uh no new streets are proposed. Uh nothing's being vacated. All tracks have access to public street. Uh there's no increase in uh city public services. No substantial lots are created, nor does any track uh require a variance or waiver. Uh granting this lot split would not negatively impact the public health, safety, or welfare of the other properties. We've not received any public comments, no outstanding technical comments, and based on this analysis, staff recommends the approval of the slot split request.

Any questions for staff? Not. Can we get the applicant to come up to the podium and state their name and who they represent for the record? Jody Laam, Cooper Communities. We are just taking this 9 acre track, splitting it into two more marketable and affordable tracks. I'll take any questions. Any questions for the applicant? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve law split 2026 63153? So moved. Got a motion from Farner. Second from Lloyd. Call the role, please. Lloyd, yes. Sbury, yes. Barner, yes. Wagman, yes.

Ellis, yes. All right. Lot split is approved. Staff will get with you on next steps. Thank you. Uh, next up we have waiver 2026 63439, a waiver request associated with SPR 63265 on pedestrian accommodation requirements for proposed parking lot planner high.

Thank you. Uh, this request pertains to the parcel to which we're currently sitting. Uh section 107-0102G provides standards and guidelines for pedestrian accommodations and section 109-139 sets forth review and approval requirements for developments other than single family residences and duplexes. Uh the applicant is requesting a waiver from the pedestrian accommodations in order to place a short-term parking/impound lot at the subject site. Uh the Bell Vista Police Department again is proposing an approximately 18,215T parking and impound lot to be located behind the existing street department development. Uh you'll likely recall before bringing this proposal forward, uh CI and the police department requested a variance from the surfacing requirements with a sunset clause of 5 years as well as a variance from all perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping requirements. Uh these requests were both approved at the January 12th BCA meeting. Uh the lot provides for a ribbon to contain the proposed gravel and is fenced in and fully screened from view as it sits behind the street department building that currently exists. Uh additionally, a burm and forested area shields the lot from the residential subdivision located east of the site. Uh drainage will flow to an existing pond located directly south of the proposed lot. And again, due to the size of the expansion, pedestrian accommodations would be required along the frontage. However, a waiver has been requested. Uh planning commission must find all review requirements uh to be met for approval and the applicant's justification for the request includes the lot being a secured municipal facility with no public access retail or service component therefore not generating pedestrian demand. The subject site is zone C2 local commercial for the future land use map. It sits within a type 2 village center node and the master street plan shows the site to run alongside a major arterial with Forest Hills Boulevard. Uh we have no outstanding technical comments and staff recommends approval so as so so long as planning commission approves the waiver request

and staff did want to provide a note new code. Um we do have new requirements. So you'll see that the page two for waiverss is significantly longer than what it used to look like. There used to be only four requirements for a waiver. Now there's 8 to 10 looks like without counting it specifically. But all of those have to be found um in order to approve it. Also, the code requires um five of you to vote yes to approve a waiver now. So, that means everyone um up there today since we only have five in attendance would have to vote yes to approve the waiver. So, there was a rule change in the code and there were new review requirements. So, just wanted to make sure you all were aware of that as you do uh your review.

All right. Uh any questions for staff? All right. If not, if the applicant would go ahead and come up and state their name and address for the record or who you represent would be sufficient, and then we'll let you go ahead and make your presentation um concerning the waiver request and the specific site plan itself.

Good afternoon. My name is Lieutenant Scott Vanett. I'm with the Bell Vista Police Department. I'm currently assigned the long-term storage facility expansion project. Um we're currently uh in front of you guys today asking for a variance waiver on the sidewalk uh requirement of this uh project. Um what we're asking for the planning commission is to look at the long-term storage facility and the public safety facility as two separate projects. Um the public safe or the long-term storage facility um currently if we were to have to put a sidewalk out there um it's kind of in a hazard area where the street department maintains all their uh heavy equipment where we maintain all of our equipment. Um it is a evidence storage facility. We currently uh fence this off. We don't want the public back there. The public cannot go back there because of some of the larger items that we house. Um, we currently have a camper there that is being housed. It is a part of evidence. Um, so the public can't go back there. For us to put a sidewalk back there would be very difficult. Um, I think the sidewalk portion for uh this requirement would be more for the public safety facility uh along Highway 279. Um, and if we uh had to do that right now, that would substantially push this project back. Um, along with the logistics, we'd have to go back to city council and request the funding of this. Um, that would be substantial. Uh, we'd have to redo the landscaping out front. The, uh, Walton Foundation just put the trees in. The bike trail would have to be removed uh, and relocated. The, uh, bike crossing would have to be, uh, relocated. There would be a lot of logistics to this to put a sidewalk in for this project. And currently, um, I have a photograph. Is it okay if I come around and show you

guys or I have one for each if you guys would like a copy? Sure.

Um, this just shows our current state of what this facility is. This is right now. We just flew one of our drones over the top of it. So, you can see we are needing to move this project along and expand this facility. We are currently what's not evidence and what's not important and what does not uh need immediate security uh is outside of the fence. What is evidence and larger equipment uh that needs to be secured behind fence some requirement by law uh is you can see how much we have. We need to expand this and then the sidewalk to put a sidewalk in. I just logistically we don't see how we could do that um out there. So

we just ask you to take that into consideration. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Uh go ahead.

Question is the argument for omitting sidewalk simply to reduce the proximity of police business with the wandering public. I mean seems like more it's kind of an access control. It's it's both. It's access control and the public the public can't even go back there. I mean, as you can see from this facility, uh when you guys walk out and leave today, you'll see the fence going all the way across. The public can't even access 3/4 of this facility. You can't. It is fenced off. Um and back there we have so much heavy equipment. We have tractors, vehicles, conxes. I mean, it would tear up a sidewalk and the sidewalk wouldn't be utilized back there. Um, we keep gravel back there, SP2 gravel. They just had to redo some of it, um, to give us some more expansion for some of our, uh, police vehicles back there until we get the storage facility or until we get the, uh, lot expanded and the fence moved back, the trees removed. Um, a sidewalk just wouldn't it would disrupt some of the stuff, especially with the street department moving some of their heavy equipment. A sidewalk would just disrupt their area back there. So if I'm just summarizing, you don't want to encourage public uh public walkthroughs will elongate your project timelines and overall costs.

Correct. Yes, sir. I I got to follow up with that question. What What is the waiver being requested? Is it the sidewalk along Forest Hill Boulevard or is it the sidewalk going back to the facility? The sidewalk request or the sidewalk requirement would run along Forest Hills. It wouldn't go back just along Forest Hills any ride of way. So ju it's just the it's just the public sidewalk that that parallels Forest Hills Boulevard. Correct. Okay.

So, and and that's another reason I stated that we would like the commission to also look at this as two separate. I apologize because I thought some of this was they were requiring a sidewalk back there as well. um any public access to this is uh we were wanting a waiver for whatever um to put a sidewalk logistically out front. Uh the public safety facility that's was a separate project from this this facility was built long before this building was even here. Um and we were just needing to expand that if the sidewalk is requested for this logistically for us to do that. Um it would take a while for us to plan that, do that, fund that and get that done before, you know, we could even move where we currently are. We would have issues and we need to expand now.

Thank you. We're going to need some help from staff because, as you know, Mr. Attorney, we're not allowed to consider cost or schedule in granting a waiver. We are prohibited from doing that. And this is a city request of a city body with city staff. Understand this. The applicant has to meet the the standard that anyone else has to meet.

is I mean I think the site plan approval and stuff is easy for us to deal with and we understand the necessity of that. Is it is this something where we can get them under construction and have them work on designing the sidewalk and getting that in place at I tell you right now the the planning commission doesn't grant that waiver. We haven't to this point today. We would rewrite the code with this one tonight.

I understand. Uh I would have to defer to the I think our planning staff needs to address the your technical question about that. If you're wanting to put um our current code, we wouldn't be able to final anything until the sidewalk was in. Um if you were just to deny the waiver and approve the site plan review so long as they met the remaining comments would be to comply with current code and put in the sidewalk. Um but I but I also understand the urgency here from the photo. So, is there a way that they can be granted their grading permit while the consultant figures out what to do with the sidewalk or the the side path or whatever it is?

It may be a discussion of a condition of approval of the waiver. You can impose any conditions that are suitable to the to the request on the waiver. We currently have a five-year uh portion to do the paving back there that you guys just granted the first waiver. Could this be that was a variance the variance? So could we do the same thing? We have five years. That could be a condition they can consider condition and then it's still going to be done but gives us time to get that done.

We we really need help from you all. Well, I'll just I mean, it's very difficult when the city itself is seeking to wave its own requirements. It just creates a real problem. Yeah. You're you're putting your volunteers or not your volunteers, but your planning commission in a very a very unique position which which we have this has been one that we have unilaterally denied or accepted a fee in lie of, but it doesn't make sense for the city to pay a fee in lie of to itself. and and in the rare cases we've accepted the fee in lie of was with some real, you know, true property hardships, i.e. topography, stuff like that. I mean, we're we're in a this is we don't know what to do.

I don't know what to tell you to do other than to tell you that it's governed as any other application. Don't let your don't let the position of the applicant change the decisions that would otherwise need to be made. Yes, sir. You can impose any conditions on the waiver should you approve it? I have what? Two questions. One is is the police tracked and the street department tracked. One parcel or two parcels? It's one lot. This is all one lot. One big lot. So, it would have to go across the entire front. Yes.

Okay. The other thing on page 10 of 25 of our packet, the top part under waiver review requirements, it says four affirmative votes must be necessary. Then at the bottom of that same page, it says 75% which is five and a quarter, which is correct. It's 75%. It's five. So the fact that it says four is wrong. That was a typo that needs corrected. The code says we need five. Okay. Yep. Thank you. That may have not been transferred over from the old report from the old code. Okay.

Okay. Not to I do want to when and Taylor may have some of the knowledge of this. When the building we're in was approved, there was a sidewalk waiver granted for that. Was there not? There's no sidewalk. Not by this planning commission. That's right. Well, it got done some kind of way. I it there was never an official approval. It just happened. That's right. And that was actually brought up in one attempt to get a waiver from this requirement. Well, the city didn't do it themselves. And I said, well, that I said, this board never approved that waiver. I don't know the answer.

You can put a condition on the waiver. So, uh, any appropriate condition. It could be anything that you think would solve your concern. Why can't the city pay itself? Gets us off. Think about the waiver requirements would still need to be met for a fee in L of Yeah, there there's no we've we've approved it as as accepting a fee in lie of instead of granting the waiver. Can we put a time limit on it? on the way

out of the city. I don't know. It's all I'm It's Pandora's box. Anything you do tonight, you're going to do you're going to do forward forever and ever and ever. It's going to apply to everybody. Quite frankly, dominoes could come back and say, "What about me?" People could come back and try to unring blef that we've done in the past. This this sets a dangerous precedent for this for us. This is a wave. Yes, waivers do go to council, correct? Waver can be appealed to council. Yeah, they're appealed to council. Question,

what what kicks this into the category of having to comply with current regulations. I thought it was a percentage of change or percentage of addition to the existing or something like that. It is over the non-conformity increase. Say that again, T. It's over. The expansion is over the 25% increase allowance. 25% of what? The existing development that's there right now. Size. Yes. So, the overall development is being increased over 25% for that existing parking lot. Okay.

I mean, I Scott, I I don't I would just say one thing. We had a lot of discussion about the the access to the back, but we're talking about the highway. Is there any safety issue regarding that? I just want to make sure you have an opportunity to address any particular unique to that runs parallel to the highway out front. There's no safety issues. It's just the time that it would take to redo all that. You know, we had the Walton Foundation come in and do the front of that and You know, we would have to do that before we can do what you're currently looking at.

We we can we can grant you an approval based on that you will have come up with supplemental plans to put the sidewalk in so we can get you under construction. Now, we can put a stipulation on it like that, but to unilaterally grant this waiver or even give it a five-year thing, we've basically struck everything we've tried to do with sidewalks and pedestrian safety in the city of Bella Vista, which is a police officer. I know you understand we would undo everything tonight if we grant this waiver. I mean, it it literally will rewrite the code, rewrite the policy for the city of Bella Vista. It's a tough position for us to be in

we understand your your position and you know I get it. We just wanted to be heard out on the predict predicament that we're in and we wanted to give you guys a visual you know. Yep. And I just want to confirm too just for the record waivers don't set um precedents like the appeal of the interpretation that was discussed earlier today. I I understand but it it does there are practical concerns that the sorry you you can say whatever you want Taylor but it absolutely sets a tone and it's hard for us to say to private citizens you have to do it when the city doesn't do it. Didn't we deny a waiver request just up the road?

Yes. I think we need if the city is applying for a variance or a waiver, there needs to be a real concrete justification that meets the requirements in the ordinance. And I'm not hearing this being directly called out as a public safety challenge. That's that sidewalk out front. It's not a public safety challenge. Uh it's unfortunately undue burden on the cost of the project as taxpayers. No one likes to hear that. um you know slows you down if you have objectives to meet certainly sensitive to that but I I think that the Pandora box scenario our chairman has brought up is probably what comes down to my decision

this is that I can't sadly because it's a waste of resources council's adopted a code and we're charged with enforcing that I mean that's that's that's the position the council has put us Yeah, yes, sir. John Stanley, CI Engineering. If I may, uh, to Miss Lloyd's point, um, can we review the section of code that talks about, uh, the 25% requirement and how that's calculated? Can we can we talk through that? So, that that would be like between you and staff. I mean, I Okay. Yeah.

Before we vote on this, I mean, we can table it potentially. I'd like to speak to staff on how that's calculated. That's all right. It's also It's not just the percentage too, but we can definitely meet about it. It's generation of trips, increase of use. There's multiple things for different sections of code. I I think we can we can take this tonight and if we can approve it with conditions and if if you can work something out with staff where those conditions go away. Yeah. Um then it becomes an in-house review only and you don't even have to come see us.

Yeah. Um, but I I I mean I don't think you want to be delayed another month. It's building season. I think we can give you an approval that even direct staff to go ahead and issue your grading permit while you still work on getting this resolved or we can do that as a board because I mean I completely I mean looking at the aerial image, yes, you need to get more storage space, sir. So that's that's we we we're sensitive to that. We understand that also but it's Yeah. So your rationale is approve.

I I think we we approve what we've got before us. You you know we can we can we can we can couch that. We can we have to vote on the waiver first, but then we can couch the approval in such a way that direct staff to go ahead and issue a grading permit in some form or fashion so they can get started while they work to resolve the sidewalk issue out front. Talk about the site plan in in a way that's keeping with the code. That's right. and have it in place. So, in fact, we're splitting them. We're trying to we're trying to make everybody as happy as we can, but nobody's nobody's going to be 100% there. Okay. So, but working within the confines of what council was set for us.

All right. So, how would you verbalize that motion? Well, first off, um we have to take motion on the waiver request specifically because the applicant has asked us to do that and they're not withdrawing that. Um, so we have to take action on the waiver first and then we can take action on the actual uh site development plan after that. So that it's going to be two separate motions unless Mr. Attorney tells me differently. All right. So we have a we have a a request to wave the sidewalk along Forest Hills Boulevard. Uh if I can get a motion to approve waiver 2026 63439. So moved. Got a motion from Sedbury. A second. Second from Farner. Call the role, please.

Sbury. No. Farner. No. Wagman. No. Floyd. No. Ellis. No. So, the waiver is denied. Uh, can we get a motion to approve uh site development plan 2026 63265 uh on the condition of staff going ahead and issuing a grading permit? uh once all the other comments addressed uh and allowing time for the uh determination of the sidewalk placement and construction. So moved. Got a motion from Sedbury. Second. Second from Wagman. Call the role, please. Farmer, yes. Wagman,

yes. Lloyd, yes. Sbury, yes. Ellis, yes. All right. We've given staff some pretty clear directions on how to work with y'all to try to get this thing moving forward and keep the police department um moving in a positive direction. Appreciate you all being here. Thank you. Uh with that, our new business is finished. Do we have anything from committee reports? Not at this time. All righty. Anything for open discussion?

Um quick question. Um I know at the work session um and I think I've mentioned it at the last regular meeting too. Uh well, I gave you guys the end of year update, but we're currently working on a audit of the new code. Um I would love to get that to you guys um in May at your May regular meeting um pending everything goes smooth and we can work through what we need to, but um that's our goal is to get that here. Um but this this request tonight has kind of opened our eyes a little bit with the we weren't aware that um our consultant had changed the numbering from four to five yes votes. Um so that one when preparing for this report kind of caught us off guard a little bit and so I kind of wanted to talk to you guys. Is that something um because the intent I'm not sure of. I can't speak to that. Um like I said that was a a consultant recommendation um that was not discussed at length. So curious Would you be open to keeping it or changing it back to four? Um, how do you feel about the five versus the four? Um,

because I mean, so you're talking about specifically for waivers or are we talking waivers only? Yeah. Yeah, it's the only one they changed. I thought waivers used to be just a simple majority of voting members present since it's just a waiver. It's not a variance or reszoning. We're not modifying the code. Um, old code says specifically for Does it have to? We could rely on your bylaws, but it's nice to have um if the process in there just Sure. But I mean could it could simply say simple majority and then just defer your bylaws. Yes. On what a simple majority is instead of spec specifically saying four or five. I don't it's on a waiver.

On a waiver only. Yeah. because I don't want to get into a situation where we have five people here and hopefully we don't get a lot of you know the overall philosophy of course is if we're getting a bunch of waivers we need to fix the code but

it's I mean I guess I could see I mean waivers traditionally in planning practice are supposed to be very hard to get um the development code is supposed to be true and true and that's what you enforce that's the local law so like I get it and that's why we increased our waiver review requirements from four to eight um but it's the only review that you guys have that says five. Everything else is four. And so it just doesn't make sense um logistically speaking from staff's point of view when we're preparing reports anyway. All of them are four. This one's five. So just um curious whatever making it match the rest would be staff's recommendation. Well, we have staff recommendation to make Okay. You need us to like

No, I just it's open discussion and I will throw it on the spreadsheet if everyone if no one objects. No one objects. Okay. I don't think nobody's nobody's objecting at least of those who are present. Okay, that's all I've got. And another just a reminder um we are working towards an audit for you guys for the main meeting. So

what's the objective of the audit? Um, so now that we've been able to practice it a little bit, um, making sure that the, you know, the intent is being met by the practice overall, um, if there's any items, um, that need clarifying, um, no large changes. It's not the goal, like this would be one that would be a change. So, that's why I brought it up. The rest are just clerical, um, clarity cleanups, um, that we're bringing forward uh, to make sure things are matching basically. um make sure we're we we are interpreting the same way the staff is interpreting. Also found just some um items that just need removed or changed

things that we paid the consultant to make sure was done right that we found were incorrect. But our constituents uh so I was going to say the inspections isn't really housed within like building inspections. feedback your code is creating this.

Yes, there is um the intent is to put together also a um a review committee um of local developers um especially single family um to make sure that we really target them um because during the big code reform all developers were um targeted. This group would specifically just be builders, not just the broad general. Um, yeah, we've sought we've sought comments, um, things that we're getting on the phone, we're writing down, we're keeping a spreadsheet of, things that, um, people are complaining about, we're taking note of, um, if that if the complaint isn't meeting the intent of the change, things of that nature. Um, but we're not the only city that has gone or is going um, through an audit. Rogers has gone through multiple audits since their big code reform. I expect Bittenville, too, will do that once they're able to get their first draft of their code adopted from their new plan. um that they've adopted. I'm not sure of Springdale, but we've met with Rogers since they're the most recent. That's kind of they're we're following a very similar timeline. Um the time they took it to council the next summer, they brought an audit um after staff was able to practice it a little bit. So, it's it's good practice.

Yeah, Rogers has a practice. They do an audit every year. So, they do a revisit of their code every year in September, if I remember correctly. And so they come back to their planning commission every year and say, "Here's the things we've run across and here's a clarification. Here are the things we need you to clarify." And I think it's a good practice, too, because it should be treated like a living breathing document. So that's that's kind of the goal. And there periodically every few years, we may come back and say, "Hey, look, we need to we need to revise a section of code for one reason another because things do change." So, and what's your date? just the May regular meeting is what we're aiming for.

Um well that would be the public hearing. So um 10 days before that you would get a report and then I'll probably also bring it um in April as an open discussion item as well to kind of give you a high level view um next month and then the May cycle or the cycle five you would have the actual proposal pending everything goes okay and we don't get um entirely swamped. Things are staying um numbers are staying up. So, we're staying pretty busy, but that's the goal.

Anything else for open discussion? All right. Uh, announcement. City Council workfest will be Monday, March 16th at 5:30 p.m. with the regular meeting on Monday, March 23rd at 6 p.m. Planning Commission will have a work session on April the 2nd at 4:30 p.m. And our board of zoning adjustments will be held on Monday, April 13th at 4:30 p.m. directly followed by our planning commission meeting. And with that, we stand adjourned. Thank you all very much. Appreciate the staff.