Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, I show it's 4:30. We'll call to order the city of Bella Vista board of zoning adjustment. Call the role, please. Ellis, here. Warner, here. Here. Here. Portillo, here. Wagman, here. Lloyd, here. All right, we do have a quorum. Uh, next on our agenda is our meeting minutes from May 12th. Make a motion it be approved as submitted. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second from Clson. All in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose. All right. Uh, we have nothing under unfinished business. We have one item of new business. Public hearing. Uh, the public hearing is zoning variance 202559851. a variance request on a residential fencing requirements for an existing unpermitted fence at three carton place uh planner Laroo. Good afternoon board members. Uh yes. So the subject property is located in western Bella Vista uh parcel 166713 of the Cardinan subdivision. The applicable zoning code uh that we're looking at today is 109248B2 which requires that fences within the front yard shall be limited in height to 3 feet. The applicant, of course, is requesting to allow an existing 52-in fence to remain in order to screen an electric box and pedestal located just off or abuing the driveway. Um, uh, so a notice of violation was sent to the property owner on May 20th stating the reasons of the violation and the applicable code sections thereof. The variance request was subsequently filed. The stated purpose of the fence is to screen an electric box and pedestal located just off the driveway to help prevent any uh vehicle from potentially colliding into them. Uh Cardin Place is a dead-end culde-sac and is labeled as a residential street per the master street plan and is within a low density residential area. Staff finds that the placement of the electric box is not of the applicant's actions. However, strict

enforcement of the ordinance would not cause any undue hardship and the house would still continue to exist as the R1 district intends. All legal notifications have been met and there has been no public comment at the time of the report. Uh staff is giving a recommendation of denial as the analys as uh the analysis did not find that all three variance requirements have been met. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? you would come up, if you could come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and we will give you up to um 15 minutes to speak. My name is Diane Price and I'm requesting a variance on zoning 109248 on my property at three cardan place in Ma Vista. When my house was built in late 2022, the electrical company installed a 32x 24 box plus a 53in tall high voltage tower and meter on my property without letting us know when of the day or the place it'd be installed. Even though I was paying for underground lines for electricity to be run to my home, if the boxes uh both boxes had only been placed 10 ft further south towards the house where the lot widens significantly, it would have been much further away from the driveway and actually closer to the transfer box. If this had not if this had happened, we would not be having this discussion today and no barrier would have been necessary.

Instead, it was placed at the narrowest part of the lot and right alongside the driveway without any space in between. Because the propane tank and others had to angle along this side as well as anyone backing out of the garage, we have had to help direct the propane tank as he backed to the corner of our driveway. So there was a discussion about the safety issue with the tall high voltage tower. As a result, a safety screen was placed as a barrier between the electrical boxes and the drive. Since it was not an enclosure, was not across the frontage, and only one screen, there was no discussion or thought about it being a fence. It certainly was not intended to circumvent any codes, but only to prevent a hazard. It was made of cedar and matched the trim on the house to maintain the aesthetics of the area. I visited with the ACC on this. The ACC protective covenants at that time stated, and I quote, "Shrub plantings, fences, or walls shall be maintained throughout the entire length of such areas by the owner at their own expense to form an effective screen in order to protect and beautify the area. No building or structure except a screening fence or wall or utility or

drainage facilities shall be placed or permitted to remain in such areas. End quote. It indicated site elevations between two and six feet and did not require a permit. In 2023, ACC did a final walkth through inspection in February 2023 that passed, excuse me, and then the city of Bella Vista issued a certificate of occupancy on February 27th, 2023. The ACC recorded it in their records in March of 23. ACC told me that in January of 2024, new building standards were written and their policy and procedures manual was adopted last fall on November 20th, 2024. Their standards now for fences and screening heights are more in line with the city code. But the ACC also said that since my house was finished in February 2023, I fell under the earlier, more general protected covenants, as I've just read. I've also read in the city code section on screening that has an allowance for an opaque screen at a minimum height of at least six feet for single homes. This variance request takes into consideration one that strict enforcement could cause undue danger due to circumstances unique to the profit property traffic issues.

two, do not result from my actions. And three, we'll maintain the stated mission and goals of the city council and city codes of keeping focus on beauty and safety throughout the community. We asked the planning commission to take into consideration these items and that over two years ago in February 2023 it was in compliance with ACC and the city signed off with a certificate of occupancy. No neighbors have complained. In fact, they've been complimentary. Thank you. I appreciate your time and your consideration. Right. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. If you go ahead and take your seat for a minute, we'll conduct our public hearing. At this time, if there's anybody in the public that would like to make comments on this request, we'll give you up to five minutes to adjust the board to address the board. If there's so, could we come up to the podium and state your name and address, please? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment period. Um, I have one question. Fire away of staff. Was that fence there when the certificate of occupancy was granted? I'm not sure when the fence was actually put up, just that the notice of violation was sent in May of this year and that a permit had not been pulled for it. That is an unpermitted fence that never got study approval, but wasn't there when the certificate of occupancy was issued for that property? Right.

We can confirm that. However, it still wouldn't be permitted if they had. That's not what I asked. We understand. I wanted to know if it was there when the certificate of occupancy was granted. Is that a yes? Oh, no. I'm I'm agreeing with what he said. We There's not an inspector here. We can't confirm that for you, but we can look into it. But that would be if you know if this got tabled to further deferral or something like that, but we can't confirm that right here. There's not an inspector here. Is a panel considered a bench in your eyes? Is that a fence? Yes. Or is that a panel? It's a fence. Um, and then just a note, the opaque screening that was brought up, that is a requirement for whenever multifamily or residential or industrial is placed against single family that non-s single family use must screen that use from single family with a minimum of a sixoot screen, just to clarify that as well. Um, and we did check with the ACC as well on this. Uh, I believe the ACC, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, this is your project, Connor, but the ACC will be requiring this to be, uh, lowered to 3 feet. They'll allow it to stay, but it needs to be lowered to 3 ft since it's in the front of the house. How tall is that tower? Is it taller than three feet? Yeah, it's 52. There's a photo on the screen for you. as 52 in tall. Question. Yes, ma'am. Um, at first I thought that that was landscaping, not a fence, but our definition of fence

does say materials that are used to mark a boundary or a means of protection, privacy, screening. So that's where it becomes a fence apparently. And about the certificate of occupancy, according to the dates the applicant gave us, it was there before the certificate of occupancy and wouldn't have been a requirement of the inspector who granted the CFO to point out that that was an unpermitted fence before granting the certificate of occupancy. That's what kind of concerns me about this whole thing. I understand. It's just unfortunately if the inspector missed it, it doesn't bring it into zoning compliance. No, that's where we're at. I understand. Yeah. Um, any other questions or comments? I was trying to look at some area to see if I could tell if it was there or not. That's fine. All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 202559851? So move. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second from Sedbury. Call the role, please. Yes. Portillo. No. Wagman. Yes. Lloyd. No. No. Sbury. Yes. Ellis. No. You have to tell me what the total count was. 43. No. 43. No. Staff will get staff will get with you on next steps, ma'am. Thank you. Uh, next up we have open discussion. Anything for open discussion? Staff does not have anything at this

time. All right. Then we will go ahead and close our board of zing adjustments and move right into our planning commission meeting. All right, we'll call to order the city of Bella Vista Planning Commission meeting. Uh, call the role, please. Ellis, here. Farmer, here. Here. here. Portillo here. Wagman present. Lloyd here. All right, we do have a quorum. Uh, next on our agenda is our meeting minutes from June 9th. I'll make the motion to approve the minutes. We got a motion from Clen. Second. Second from Farner. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Meeting minutes are approved. Next up, we have our public input session. This is an opportunity for anybody in the public to address the planning commission. We will hold two public hearings later tonight on the revised ordinances. But if anybody in the audience would like to address the commission on any other item of business or any unpublished item, that will be your only opportunity and we'll give you five minutes. And if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Um if it's for the zoning that's we're holding public hearing later for the zoning. Okay. All right. Seeing no we'll go ahead and close the public input session. We have nothing under unfinished business. Uh first up we have waiver 2025 59726A and plat 202559124. Planner Grady. Good evening commissioners. This property is located in the central area of Bella Vista within the town center north commercial subdivision per code section 107-128

incidental subdivision reviews and section 107130 section 4 adequate rideway per master street plan. The applicant is requesting a waiver for a rideway of 50 feet for Highway 71 on-ramp identified as major arterial on the master street plan and the intent of the project is to clean up property lines for a previously approved large-scale development on June 9th, 2025 for Town Center. The precise nature and extent of the proposed property line adjustment remains indetermined. The materials provided do not currently include a depiction of the recorded property boundaries as documented by Benton County Perplat 2004 for the north of town center. Staff has requested the applicant to submit an updated illustration reflecting the official parcel delineations. Um the adequate sorry the adjacent land use includes R1 single family, C1 neighborhood commercial, C3 central commercial. The 2040 comprehensive plan recommends this area for type one neighborhood center hosting a mix of uses. Our master street plan labels Lashar Boulevard as major arterial town center as non-classified and is adjacent to a priority one bike lane and also requires a 50-ft rideway dedication for the Highway 71 on-ramp. The area is not affected by a flood plane. No public comments have been received. Um there are several outstanding comments and the applicant has waved their 60-day review requirement. Therefore, staff recommends tableabling this item. You recommend tableabling on both items. Uh, no, this is just for the waiver A. Uh, there is going to be um a next agenda item for waiver B. What about the plat? Yeah. Yeah, the plat tableling. Yes. Okay. Sorry. Any other questions for staff? Not at the applicant would come up to the podium, please. Simply simply put, are you waving your 60-day time limit constraints and agree to be tabled to the August meeting? Yes.

All right. We get a motion to table waiver 2025 597268 and platt 20259124. So moved. Got a motion from Patello. Second. Second from Farner. Call the roll, please. Uh yes. Wagman, yes. Floyd, yes. Clen, yes. Yes. Barner, yes. Ellis, abstain. Uh, next up we have waiver 20259726B, a waiver request of retaining wall setback requirements for proposed retaining wall. Planner Hyatt. All right. Thank you. Again, this is the the same town center property. Uh section 107-342E2 states, "Retaining wall shall be placed a minimum of seven and a half feet or 1.5 times the height of the wall, whichever is greater, away from all property lines. And in cases where the retaining wall is supporting an access drive, the wall shall be allowed up to the front property line. Uh the applicant is requesting a waiver of the retaining wall separation requirements uh from a previously approved large-scale development for the site reconstruction of the parking lot and retaining wall on the western side of the existing town center shopping center. Again, the subject side zone C3. Um, the applicant was proposing to reconstruct the parking lot, removing the existing remnants of the previously demolished structures and returning the area to green space while also replacing the retaining wall. Uh, with the proposed property line adjustment and reconstruction of the wall, property line setbacks would no longer be met, thus requiring the waiver request. The max height of the wall would sit uh just over 13.5 ft, requiring 20.4 4 ft of separation uh from the newly proposed property line. And as it exists, the wall will sit roughly 3.9 ft from the proposed property line. Uh again, town center is a private road and per the master tree plan, the site is surrounded by major arterials to the west and south. Staff

finds the applicant is creating the separation hardship due to the placing the proposed property line. However, the existing retaining wall currently supports both the parking lot and private Town Center Road as it sits. Uh granting the waiver likely wouldn't be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to other property in the area nor prevent the orderly subdivision of other land in the area. Uh but as uh with the previous item uh with tableabling staff finds that if the property line was to change, there's possibly the need to table this item until we know for sure where that property line's going to be. Happy to take any questions. So we are recommending to table this as well since the plow was tabled. Correct. Say that again. Is it recommended to be tabled? Correct. Okay. Until we can sort through the property line adjustment just to make sure we have it nailed down. Any other questions for staff? And I the applicant present could come up to the podium please. Yeah. State your name for the record, please. And who you represent? I'm Evan McMahon with Craftton. All right. Do you have any issues with tableabling this item and waving your 60-day? Yeah. All right. Can we get a motion to table waiver 2025 59726B? So moved. Got a motion from partner. Second. Second from Clelesen. Call the roll, please. Yes. Yes. Sedbury. Yes. Barner. Yes. Cortillo. Yes. Wagman. Yes. Ellis, it's named. All right, that item is tabled as well. That takes us on to or planning uh public hearing number one, ordinance, a proposal for a new section 109 of the municipal ordinance known as the zoning and development ordinance along with any accompanying zoning map

presented by director Robertson. Okay. Um before I invite F and Nichols up to the podium to give their presentation, um I did just for those that attended tonight want to give a direction of what this process is looking like moving forward. Um the options that may happen and etc. Just so everyone understands where we're at, what phase we're in, and how uh this works. So essentially, we are in phase four, which is the adoption. Um, I did thoroughly explain the timeline of this project within my staff memo to you guys that was published on Friday outlining the beginning of this project since um, mid 2022 to now. However, um, just for simplicity purposes, this is an ordinance. The map is an ordinance. 107 and 109 are both ordinance changes, which means legislative bodies give the final determination. So tonight, the planning commission before this public no um public hearing that we noticed the public on um this planning commission may only make a recommendation. Should they recommend approval tonight, that does not mean that it is approved. It still has to go through the city council for at least um three readings should they chose or should they choose to read it all three times. Um which means three months worth of uh more public engagement um at the city council level as well as any changes that the city council may see fit to do on their end. Um, so with that said, uh, on top of that, three months with city council and then if they don't change or extend, um, or minimize, which I doubt they would, highly doubt they do. I can't speak for them though, um, the enactment date would be 60 days from date of publication. So, um, the date that council approves this, that means that it would not take effect until 60 days from the time we notice the public that it was approved. So, we're still looking at maybe five more months, you know, before this this would become uh an an enacted ordinance. Uh should that follow that however the council could table it, you guys could table it. There's no, you know, whatever you guys decide to do, whatever the council decides to do, just at its, you know, uh what would you call

that? I guess that would be the traditional route should it go that way. We're looking at potentially five more months um before this would be something that staff could enforce. With that said, um Don is here and Jake is here. They have a presentation prepared for you tonight. Um we have that at the forefront of the packet. So, if you all would want to go first, um and then I can come in with the additional information. A lot of the information I provided to you before this weekend was how we got here, why we started this project, really big on the intent as to why council gave their blessing back in 2022 and we budgeted for this. um was to implement the adopted comprehensive plan of 2040 and the maps within it, the objectives within it. Um that is why we started this and that is how we got here because our current code that we are enforcing now does not speak to our adopted comprehensive plan. Neither does our zoning map speak to our future land use plan and the other maps within it. And so essentially just to summarize that um this is why we're here. We've had this plan on a shelf and we're ready, you know, that was that's why we're here to implement it. uh so that way staff can enforce it with legislation. With that, I turn it over to Don with Freeze and Nickels for their presentation. Thank you. Uh good evening, commissioners. Don Warick with Freeze and Nichols. And I know we've been I'm sorry. Oh, I'm probably just not standing close enough. I'll lean in. All right. Um some of this presentation I believe most of you were at the work session that was conducted on June 30th. Um, so I may move pretty quickly through some of those slides. We inserted some additional slides just to um, bring everybody up to speed as to what modifications we've made based upon the conversation that was had on the 30th as well as I know you had a pretty extensive follow-up discussion and we have received some additional comments. Um we've been working closely with staff

over the last couple of weeks just to ensure that um they've you fed us the material that they believe um is reflective of the comments and discussion that's had that's been had and um we've kind of collaborated on making modifications to um bring chapters 107 109 and the map uh to where what we're talking about today. So, the posted documents are still the ones, if I'm not mistaken, that reflect um what was discussed and posted for that June 30th uh date. Um so, there may be some additional amendments that we would like to present and recommend based upon kind of what's happened in the past couple of weeks. So, um I think that gets us like technically where we need to be. Um Jake Lane is with me but this evening. Um Jake has done the heavy lifting in the last couple of weeks because I've been on vacation. Um so we may drag him up here to help with some of the clarifications, but he and some of the other staff in our office have been like I said communicating with your staff uh on the regular for the past several days to get this pulled together. Um the first few slides really this is just to kind of refresh the diagnostic report that was generated um was sort of an intensive review of existing codes as well as policy documents adopted by the city including your comprehensive plan to ensure that we had a good understanding of what the um policy situation is um what guidance the city has with regard to future growth and land use and um where we needed to uh go in and start making adjustments. So, the diagnostic objectives here are very similar to some of the um project goals that staff mentions in their memo for today um but that have sort of been a recurring theme throughout the course of

the project to u really align your regulatory um tools with your policy document which is the comprehensive plan. uh the way that the ordinances are organized. Uh chapter 107, this basically gives you sort of the overall structure. Um we retained the um articles. The series of content um sections include general provisions, subdivision design standards, performance gear, guarantees and maintenance procedures, administration definitions, and then some appendices that are adopted by reference um or referenced as um supporting materials. This sort of shuffles some of the uh organization of your existing content. Um, but we felt like the flow of this is uh it sort of follows the questions that people tend to ask. What are the requirements? Where can I do this? How do I do this? Um, who's responsible for making decisions on these types of actions? And then definitions and other references. Similarly, chapter 109 dealing with zoning follows a very like similar uh structure. um where you know what are the zoning districts, what uses are allowed in those districts, what are the development standards that apply to all general de uh development applications as well as those that are specific to certain types of uses. Uh what are the procedures for de uh zoning related development applications? What happens when there's a nonconformity? Who's in charge of enforcement and what are the processes related to that? Uh who's responsible for administering the regulations? And then of course definitions that are specific to zoning. Um in the zoning chapter in particular, there are two sets of definitions. One is general terms and the second is use types. So all of the uses that are

listed within your new uh updated permitted use table are specifically listed in the use um the use type section of your definitions um piece. So changes that um we feel like have been integrated and again this is prior to this is sort of reflective of the June 30th uh content things that we updated that um are like general in nature. So access management connectivity those are things that were identified as uh challenges for the city. Um that includes parking facility design standards. Um, we know that retaining walls are something that you all deal with on a regular basis and needed a a closer look. Um, water and wastewater and sewer facilities, uh, storm water drainage and management, erosion control, a lot of these water things kind of fall together and um are most prevalent in um the subdivision section. But one thing that all of this is um referencing when we've made these changes and they're specifically content items that are currently located in chapter 107, we've shifted those to 109. And the reason that we've done that is that the majority of Bella Vista is fully platted. There's not a lot of new subdivision activity. There's some. And so you still need a 107. you need to know, you know, the procedures for creating new subdivisions and creating new lots. Um, but the actual design and development of those lots primarily happens um at the building permit stage, at a site plan stage as opposed to kind of fresh through the platting process. So these um pieces of content have shifted over to 109 and really apply to any application that is going through um zoning site or site um plan approval. So

all of these are have been updated kind of brushed off and moved into the uh 109 chapter. So 109 got really beefy and 107 got kind of thinner. Same amount of content. um the procedures within 107 um we sort of moved those around a little bit to uh better define the subdivision types. And um so there's a little bit of a shifting in where contents listed there relative to how to act uh how to move through um the procedures for uh creating plats and um lots of record. All right. So other updates and this is specific to chapter 107. Uh there was a se a statement in 107-04 that provides some kind of went into depth about the various types of easements that um are applicable that this that the um provisions of that chapter apply to and um we took the we kept the statement for the most part but we took the spec specificity out of it. So it's now states any right ofway or easements as opposed to listing a variety of different types of easements. That just means that all easements as opposed to the ones that we tried to not have any gaps in. That was really just a a meaning a means of us fixing and making it more flexible that all easements are are applicable to the legal provisions of chapter 107. Um also there was a typo. We fixed that. Um there was a reference to a different um mapping terminology relative to survey standards. We updated that to reference the Arkansas state survey standards. Um in the general improvement standards um we made a few adjustments. There was a reference that needed to point to the city engineer as a lot of the things

within the subdivision criteria do point to um updating to ensure that there is the um that the city really only wants to accept electric copies of plats and other types of development applications and then also expanding the radius for the requirement of pedestrian facility connections. So those were um updated since the June 30th conversations. Similarly um the width of alleys the minimum width was up uh increased to 12 feet. Um let's see a pre-application conference is required for preliminary plats and plat vacations. And there was also um language added or clarified to ensure that applicants can submit a site plan and a plat concurrently so that those are going through review together. Um clarification on approvals for a certificate of occupancy and the enforce in in the enforcement section of chapter 107 was also provided. Um we do have the red lines. They're very small. I don't know that this is super helpful. Um, but if these the red lines within the document that I'm going to flip through really quickly right now reflect the changes that I've just sort of outlined for you. Um, we can look at them specifically if y'all have any particular questions on that. So, let me know um if there's anything. And this, um, I think gets us through, yeah, chapter 107. Are there questions or concerns relative to where we sit and what we've adjusted um, to chapter 107? They did get a copy of the They got a clean copy published and then they also got a redlinined. They got a change tracker copy as well on Friday. Cool. So all those tiny word pages that I just flipped through should be part of

your packet. Okay. Um the zoning districts uh in this moves us over into um chapter 109. This uh there's an equivalency established so that proposed districts and um existing current districts side by side. So you have the opportunity to sort of see where we've made adjustments, where we've proposed combining um existing districts and referencing those into a single district and vice versa. So that's what this represents. Um we we intended we wanted to do this to ensure that we have the ability within your new menu of districts to address the type of uses and the um sort of development patterns that the community has identified through their comprehensive plan through our stakeholder conversations as desirable. So that's the intent or the purpose of making adjustments to the districts. Um we also tried to streamline those where we could and um again in the residential districts in particular we we wanted to be sensitive to existing development patterns but also understand that you all are pressured with regional growth and some new options are desirable and will hopefully be useful to the city moving forward. Um this is just a kind of graphic description, but um each of the new zoning districts, these are the colors that align with the updated zoning map and the purpose statements that you find within the text of um the new chapter 109. So um this one obviously is very small scale but the zoning map has been updated utilizing those equivalencies that I mentioned two slides back and also using specifically the uh future growth map that's identifi or that's part of your comprehensive plan. So it

has um a variety of different nodes and those nodes identifying the different centers. So, community center um and other types of destinations. It also um created the trailside stop overlay uh concept. And so, you see that reflected here with these green dots um for areas that are applicable or that apply to that um to that um concept to that development pattern. The trailside stop is also established within the zoning district as an overlay so that the underlying um zoning designation applies. However, there's an overlay on top of it that provides different opportunities for properties that are approximate to trail heads. And then Don, one point of clarification. I'm not sure I saw some looks up here though the exhibit that she had up is from June 30th. Correct. That is not the revised map that you got in your packet. So that that's that's her exhibit she's discussing. That's not the one we're going to talk about later. Yeah. I'd be surprised if you could see the exact changes, but I saw a few and I was like, "Oh, I better address that." Eagle eyes. All right. Um your updated use table uh looks like this where the use uh types are running along the left side, all of your districts along the top. And um something new is this use specific standards section where if there are specific standards that apply only to particular uses. There is a hyperlink and a spec and a dedicated part of this chapter that provides those clarifications and basically those guard rails for the type of development that is identified. Um, parking ratios are also included in your table now so that sort of at a glance you can see what's allowed where and if there are additional requirements that need to be considered.

Um, in chapter 109 um we have created some caps on the um residential uses that may occur within a non-residential district specifically the C1 and C2 districts. This is new from so these these that I'm going through right now are kind of changes since um June 30th. So there is either a 30 or 40% cap on residential uses um within those commercial districts. There was a concern that allowing any type of residential use as a permitted use by right within a commercial district. could end up with those districts and those properties only developing as residential as opposed to either a mixeduse or a strictly commercial activity. Um, which is kind of why you have commercial districts. You want to be able to promote those um other opportunities. And so that's that's uh the purpose of that. Um, within the use table, there were some additional changes. is um emergency and rehabilitative housing is now um a conditional use in C1. Indoor entertainment and amusement venue is also now a conditional use in C1. Private parks and recreational facilities are permitted uses in the NP district and s uh cemetery is now permitted in the C1 district as well as conditional in all residential zones. Uh so those modifications to the use table are post June 30th. Um we talked a little bit about use specific standards. They're listed within the use table. Um there are two different criteria. So development standards are really things that apply to any type of development. Um those include parking, landscaping, signage, um other types of uh architectural um characteristics for for non-residential or non-s single family residential activities. Um those apply like I said

universally to all developments. Then user or excuse me use specific standards those are things that apply to select uses and are identified through the use table and also within the text of the um chapter 109. Um in some cases they they restrict hours of operation. In other cases, they may um require additional setbacks or screening to mitigate um you know adjacent uses. So those those are um very specific to certain uses as stated. I think that's a good spot on um but this was a good point on the July 3rd work session we talked about um was this article specifically the youth specific standards. One of the questions was um you know the size or scale of development in the C1 zone. This article is what addresses that. Um Jake provided some great examples to kind of address that specifically. But for example, the proposal of 109-018 limits uh any retail adjacent to residential to 15,000 square feet which is about the a third of a size of a standard box store. So, we have there are size limitations built in here that produce an actual scaled uh retail or commercial depending on what kind of use it is. If it's adjacent to residential, it minimizes the impact through all of those bullet points that she has up on the screen. The the size limitation is just a good like a good example that Jake provided before this meeting. But, um that's a lot what we talked about um on July 3rd. So, I just wanted to bring your attention that is what addresses those concerns or the adjacency um issues and limitations. Excellent. Um so retaining walls, uh we now have proposed only one threshold for requiring engineered um drawings for getting a permit for a retaining wall. Um so basically we selected the highest

standard that was previously applied. Um so this is going to apply to um retaining walls that are four feet or taller from the um natural ground to the top of the wall. um outdoor sight lighting. These regulations, what we wanted to do with the outdoor sight lighting was ensure that you can provide lighting to accommodate safety and make sure that people can see where they are and what they need to see in order to be safe in their surrounds, but not to shine light up upwards um and provide limit. So we don't want to pro provide any or cause any light pollution or light trespass from one property to the next. But again, we wanted to ensure utilizing fully shielded lights, you can still provide lighting for safety. Uh there are architectural design criteria included for non-residential and mixeduse developments. Um multif family developments are also subject to these standards. So that's basically anything three units and larger. Um and so what we're trying to accommodate with these standards is a um a development aesthetic and also uniformity with regard to the type of um design criteria. There's still plenty of flexibility within these criteria for architects not to be completely hamstrung in the way that they design these projects. Um but also having some parameters that ensure that there are not large blank unarticulated wall surfaces for instance and not undesirable materials utilized that um reflect generally the type of development that we see currently um in in the majority of the city. uh the sign regulations. This was um a fairly substantial update ensuring that um first amendment and content

neutrality requirements are now reflected within your sign criteria. Um it provides a way to um measure the guid and provides guidance for applicants as to how to measure display surface area of new signs. Um so the intent there is to ensure that you're compliant with um state and federal laws but also to minimize or limit um sign clutter and vis visual clutter along your roadways in particular. Um steep slopes. This is also an area that has been addressed um and is kind of is new to your code. Um what we wanted to do was ensure that basically as the steepness of a site increases the amount of impact and the amount of development that that occurs on that site needs to be reduced. So there's a scale here that identifies a range of slopes. Um we understand that there are some very steep properties within the city. Um so we tried to make sure that we were not um causing any property to basically be completely um hamstrung with regard to the amount of development that can occur. Um so 55% or steeper is really the only area that would be fully restricted with regard to development opportunities. um as a dimensional criteria. I think that's something that could be varied under consideration if it if there were special circumstances and hardships. Uh so with regard to chapter 109, some additional um changes since June 30. Uh size limitations on taverns and bars are part of the red lines. Um outdoor mobile or temporary vending is now allowed on vacant and undeveloped property. It had been restricted prior. uh dimensional regulations. This um it was updated to

prohibit electric meters along the front plane of residential buildings. Uh bicycle parking uh that was uh found to be a little unclear. So minimum of two spaces are now required and um with regard temporary signs um those uh criteria were adjusted uh because it turned out the way that it was originally written it would have allowed a temporary sign with extensions to basically be there for a year and that's really not temporary. So we provide some better clarification with regard to how long temporary signs can actually be utilized. Um okay so then on the procedures side uh this table is kind of what leads and guides the procedures section of chapter 109 and it identifies of course the type of application uh whether or not a pre-application conference is required what notice is required and then who has approval authority over those types of applications. Um so whether it's a review, a um decision or a recommendation or an appeal, that's what the letters in the far right columns within this table indicate. So that was um an update just to give an at a glance um understanding of where different applications um how they move through a review process. Oh, and that's a closeup of it. I should have looked at that. Should have shown you that when we were talking more specifically. Sorry about that. Um site plans. So site plans uh site plan approval is required for any new construction or expansion of buildings increasing the floor area by 10% or 2500 square f feet. Uh new construction or expansion of parking lots. So impervious surface paved area also same expansion 10% or 2500 square feet. And then new construction within an approved planned zoning uh district or planned zoning district, sorry. Um

those are the categories of development activity that would go through the site plan approval process. Um site plans themselves would also include parking plan, landscaping, lighting, a facade plan uh and steep slopes plan as applicable to ensure compliance with those development standards that are all universally applicable. there could be other things that need to be shown on that site plan if there are use specific standards that also apply that need to be demonstrated on the site plan. Uh the way that this is currently written is that approvals for site plans are administrative with the exception of those within a planned zoning district or um industrial uses or those that are identified as conditional uses. I think this is something that's been discussed quite a bit. um we're happy to continue that conversation, but that's the way that the draft is currently presented. Um so we also looked at a few changes in this section of chapter 109 and um referenced specifically village wastewater standards by uh by reference. We we identified that by reference as opposed to duplicating those requirements and embedding them in the chapter. um notice by certified mail to property owners within 200 feet for site plans was also added to the um criteria for chapter 109 for site plans. These are the red lines that we've kind of just talked through and again since they are so tiny and you guys have them in your packet I will move through them quickly. And could we Yes, that slide you just had back up. Um, since this was a I want to make sure we capture the comment on this specifically with the percentage because the percentage wasn't discussed at the work session. Um, so I just wanted to make sure the ones that FNI and staff is proposing uh for each district is what

you guys were meaning when you wanted this comment. We've got 40% residential cap in the C1 zone and then a 30% cap in the C2 zone. Yeah. Everyone shaking their hands. Okay. No outright objections or questions. Just to make sure that doesn't mean that I could buy the site and put 30% of the site into residential with no commercial within any one development in a C1 district or a C2 district. No more than 40% for C1, 30% for C2 of the total finished floor area shall be occupied by residential usage. Finished floor area, not site. Great. Correct. Not sight. That Yeah, that's good. Any other thoughts? Oh, sorry. Yeah. All right, moving on. Sorry, Don. No worries. All right. Any other questions, concerns, or discussion relative to the modifications to chapter 109? Excellent. Well, I'm at the end of my presentation. I'm more than happy to take questions, um, facilitate conversation as you guys deliberate on this. We have any questions for staff for the um we're freezing nickels at this point. Out of curiosity, the electric meters. I like that. Love that idea. But has anyone like talked to Carol Electric about that and like what's their feedback on that? We did not solicit comment from Carol Electric on that. Um we basically just went with a previous city that had done

it um recently. I believe LOL has LOL and Rogers has both adopted that. Yeah. I just didn't know what they're obviously they don't they don't like it. They don't get they don't get a choice but it sounds like they're gonna have to adjust. Yeah. If Well, I just want to make a couple of comments. I don't want to intervene on your time though. You're they may have more for you, but I just if if it's an appropriate time, we're going to take public hearing on both of these. And uh I don't want to feed back, but I want to make sure Doug can hear me because he gets angry at me when he can't hear me. Um two things that that have come up in the past rel related to zoning changes and I'm just saying it for the benefit of everyone. I think this is well known to the planning commission council members and staff of course, but for the benefit of the public. Number one is we know that well over 95% of this city is governed by a set of restrictive covenants that say what you can do on property and how you need to do it within the guides that they provide and we are not changing that. Uh those rules apply and so uh we have a sep separate set of rules which has been designed to to not contradict unnecessarily with those rules. But to anyone who thinks, well, wait a minute, my covenants say you could never do that and and this that the other. Well, you still have that protection. We're not saying that you don't anymore. So, I I want to I can't stress that enough that so many people think that if the city says you can put a fence that's 10t tall and my covenants say you can't, now the city said that I that everybody can do that. No, we have not. And so, I want to make sure everyone understands that that's that's hearing this. Number one. Number two, as it relates to the map and the particular zones that that are being assigned to the various lots throughout town, the the point of any zoning ordinance is to implement the master plan.

That's the the plan that we've talked about, the 20 40 plan uh that we adopted a few years ago, and that's what the city's looking at because that's what the city has said. this is what how we want our town to develop between now and 2040. And so we're going to implement rules that implement that that make that happen. We would we will invariably hear people say, "But I don't use my property that way. I I I have a a a fast food restaurant there, and you've zoned it where I can't have a a fast food restaurant." Yes, you can have a fast food restaurant there. your pre-existing non-conforming use. You're allowed to continue to do what you're doing there. Um, so we don't go through the whole town and zone everything the way it is currently used. That's that entirely defeats the point of a zoning ordinance and to implement planning at all. So you may hear people request that. And so I just want to make sure people understand that the goal of the city is to ad is to try to make the master plan happen. It's planning for the future. And if people think, well, wait a minute, I'm doing something else. It needs to be zoned the way I'm doing it. That's that's that's not the point. That's that's you can continue to do that. And it could be if you want to change what you're doing in the future, the city's certainly going to have some say about what that is because we want to make sure that our plans are adopted or are exercised. And that's why you have the whole reasoning process and variances and and all of that. So we and and all those rights are guaranteed. So I just wanted to make that point uh for the benefit of everyone during the discussion uh to the extent that it's helpful. So thank you. Any other questions for staff or the consultant? Yes. I have one question. Yes. Yes, sir. I'm still not clear under the new plan

who de who approves largecale developments. staff. Staff large scale developments are now referred to as site plans. Are you telling me they will not come before the planning commission? Correct. The ones that will come before the planning commission are those that require a conditional use are part of a planned zoning district um or um industrial. Industrial. Thank you. Neither are three. Yeah. Or if they need to wave. Yeah. If there's another action associated with Exactly. If it meets the code, meets the code, staff can approve it as written. However, if it just we're not stripping you, only you as the planning commission and BZA can approve variances, waiverss, exceptions, things of that nature to a degree. So, none of that the cup still come to you like re uh ordinances and plans still come to you. That is the reason for your existence um is for that. But the just the site plan, if it meets the code as written, since you have to approve it anyway, you can't deny something that doesn't meet codes, then staff's just going to approve it as proposed. We did we did add in the requirement to notify within 200 ft, correct, of a of a project. Well, I still had the issue I still had the issue of while I know the staff does a good job and all that sort of thing. I think the citizens would like to have some uh independent people look at some of these site plans before they get p large scale developments and I think it's uh inappropriate for the staff to have complete approval on them. Isn't this what we talked about at the last meeting that uh with that concern is if you're unsure or if you feel like it needs to come to us, you will because isn't that part of the new rule now by the state or am I thinking something totally different? Uh we're all on the same track, but I

think a few things are getting mixed up a little bit. Um, so yes, FNI proposed to create a deferral that if if if it's something staff feels uncomfortable approving, then we could defer it to the planning commission. Um, if if it's not industrial, CUP or PCD. Right now, what we were talking about at the the last meeting is that the new state law act 591 that goes into effect August 5th, that you guys are no longer the appeal board for staff. You guys were the appeal board of these people sitting right here. So when I deny a site plan or you know Christopher denies something whatever it is a signed permit um those used to come to you and starting August 5th that will now go to city council. So, anything that staff approves and or denies can be appealed to city council now or a secondary board. I can't quote what it is. I think it's a business business type related uh board. But, um that authority was removed from you guys. And so, that is if if staff was uncomfortable with approving something and we thought that this is vested, this is a planning commission approval, then there is a deferral written in there that would go through a planning commission route. Am I correct? Um it was presented at the June 30 meeting, but is not in that draft. So, it would need to be adopted. Okay. So, that would be if we guys wanted to do that. I thought we written I thought we'd written that in. Since the June 30th meeting, you wrote in authorization. That's what I thought. Yeah. Okay. Um, one of the things I wanted to add on on Doug's question about going ahead and having a review potentially by the planning commission and that is if it's compliant, if the staff says it's compliant, then then if you deny it because people are upset, you're violating the constitution. I mean, that's not some that's not an action you can take. So the key is to make sure that the requirements and that's what this process is right here to make sure the requirements are what you can live with. And so um you know that's that's

the importance of this process right now because if we're saying there could be a compliant development site plan that that could be in full compliance but it's so odorous and and and distasteful to everybody we couldn't stand it. then we got to look at the requirements and and and but we can't just deny them if they are compliant and then and just one more thing I want to add if the staff says no it's not compliant then they still have process they can go through to to have that further determined if you know so that is uh a process that still exists so there's due process there I don't want to uh get into a big argument about it but it seems to me to be appropriate that an a committee appointed by the city council should review all largecale developments before they're agreed to. and and I understand this being in compliance with the ordinances and that sort of thing, but there are times when the it needs to be discussed in the open and I'm concerned that we that stuff will get approved and people won't know about it and won't have a chance to talk about it. To what end though? If it can't be denied, if it's compliant, that that's the that's the legal issue. And and I don't want it's not for me to argue. I don't want to get in an argument with you, but And let me tell you something. I have learned a long time ago attorneys can figure out how to do stuff if you want it done. I I think I think that I'm going to put a pin in this conversation for now if that's all right. Um are there any other questions for staff? I do want to allow the public a chance to to uh uh offer their two their their uh words of wisdom to us and what their opinions are before we get into too much discussion. Leave that there. Um I still have one

exhibit to go over with you guys before we open the public hearing. Um yeah, I was waiting for her to get finished. But um based off the conversation, you have an exhibit in your packet u before we get in here. And of course, hopefully you read all this. It's so nicely outlined for you. Um this was from phase one public engagement. Um we can go through this but again this is what we were talking about uh during phase one the over a thousand comments we collected based off the comprehensive plan and the stakeholder engagement that is what initiated the first few drafts and how we got to where we are. Um but this is what I wanted to talk to you before we open the public hearing because when you vote this is this was the hot topic we talked about June 30th and you sent me uh or you told me some more comments for this. So, this is requiring preservation. This is not in the uh current draft before you tonight. So, if you wanted to do this, you would have to vote uh to amend it uh before you send it to city council if that's what you end up doing tonight. This adds the preservation requirement for uh septic lots. Right now, we do not have a preservation requirement for septic lots. However, they do have to plant two native shade trees in the front yard. this based off conversation and talking with our city engineer um from July 3rd at the work session uh kind of taken the two that the two options I gave you on July 3rd and kind of meshed it into one um so nothing is changing for sewer still looking at 25% preserving the natural vegetation canopy and whatnot for sewer served lots administrative modification still allows up to 5% for those however entirely new is for on-site wastewater systems or septic systems for low density residential development sites So your single family homes, your duplexes, uh 10% of the existing natural vegetation and tree canopy shall be preserved. Areas of preservation per the conversation we had shall include the sideyards behind the rear plane of the structure as well as the rear yard to make up that 10%. Um and then staff is

providing another administrative modification since something funky or the topography or the journeyman or utility or something's going on that would reduce that down to 2%. So that or I mean by 2% down to 8%. If they needed 7% they'd have to come to you guys. It would be going through a formal waiver. Um so that is my proposal based off the conversation and talking with engineer and looking at our GEC reviews for you guys to discuss and vote on uh to be added should you choose should you so choose to. Does this give you the most amount of flexibility uh to meet the goal of let's put the house there? Design flexibility. this strikes me as giving you probably the most amount of flexibility. I just wanted to confirm that. I mean, essentially, yeah, it gives us, you know, 2%'s quite a bit when you're talking about um, you know, a third of an acre lot, but the 10% we did a rough we did a rough pull on a few equals about to the the rear like building setback. Um, so it's still an unbuildable area that they can't have. And then including, you know, promoting the sideyards as you guys talked about. Um but yeah, 2% um is pretty equivalent to what we got um in terms of the 5% to 25% for sewer lots. So, uh anything greater than that, you know, feel like planning commission should make that call. So, did this make it into the red lines or do we need to make a motion? These will be amendments, but we'll get to all of that after we hold the public hearing. Yep. Got it. And then we'll start working through the actual voting on everything. There will be two hearings. Yes, there will be two public hearings. Yes, because we have two different ordinances. So, the the bigger of the two, of course, was 109. That's what we're dealing with first. Can you bring up the revised zoning map that came out of our July 3rd conversation, please? So, the changes based off the 73 and 630 comments include um the trailside overlay and R2 change designation to

where the old PCD was over there in Houston and Commonwealth. I believe um it's not going to let you zoom in. That's fine. I could see it better on this screen than I can in my packet for that. Um, we reduced the there was a comment about a C1 lot that needed to be residential that was flipped to residential 2 to be more aligned as a transitional use in the C1 zone near the village node. Um, it's along uh 340 just north of it that Commissioner Sedbury had a comment on. Um, there were some churches in the node that we changed to C1 as well in that village center. The simple pleasures along the major arterial near our gateway on highwasi um was reduced to a transitional zone and R2 except for where the actual use exists uh is C1. So it has a buffer of residential or R2 moderate uh residential around it between it and the R1 to provide a buffer. There was some commercial along 340 on that connector from the two nodes. Those were reduced to residential or R2. Again, a transitional zone still giving us a moderate density along a major arterial still meeting the intent of the future land use plan which shows as a future neighborhood. Of course, residential meets that. Um and then we had some node nodal work of the neighborhood center on the west side um to meet that intent. Um the very western portion within that node, it is pink. It is now C1. It was R2. And then we had a commercial wreck on the northwest corner that is shown as a future neighborhood. So we reduced it to R2. It is now orange as well. Um let's see. We reduce or we didn't reduce. We made equivalencies as a better word in the community destination node. If it was C4, it is now C3. Um there were some that were C4 that were reduced to CR. We after further review of the comp plan, um we gave an equivalency zoning to those. Um so the

C4s are now C3 in this proposal. The Rogers Road, a lot of comments, I shouldn't say a lot. Um but the comments that we received about this and the future land use plan both say this node should have mixed use in it. Uh so we put mixeduse zoning in the Rogers road to along 279 uh with some mixed uh or with multifamily. The comprehensive plan has a really cool exhibit showing a proposal of a layout what kind of uses and so um staff pulled from that and that's what we provided on this map is multifamily with mixed use along that east side of 279. Uh we had a reduction of R3 to R2 again that large um I think it's believe uh low or underneath goodness lock lmen um there was R3 in that large track of land it is now R2 again transitional it's right next to R1 so we went ahead and followed that recommendation of transitional uses and I believe that summarizes um the changes that have been made between 6373 and today. All right. Thank you. Any comments on the zoning map from commissioners? I know this is coming later, but we did talk about updating that plan after we finish with this. This is a big job. The next big plan is to Hey, maybe that 2040 isn't applicable anymore. Well, we should you should always update your plans every 5 to 10 years. So, that was already on the radar. Okay, good. because that's going to make everybody feel a little better, I think, if we get that up to date. Correct. It's our It's Yeah, I mean, it's up to date, but you know, a lot a lot's happened to me in the last 5 years, but it's best practice anyway. Um, but yes, that is definitely on our radar. Um, as our next project along with the 71 planning study and greenway master plan update as well. So, we've got quite a few in the in the bin

for 2026. Real quick, would you define PZD plan zoning district? Just what's the talking point on that? Anytime that you have a development or that a property owner cannot fit the intent of what they're trying to do into the uses or the zoning districts that we have provided you, there is a way to provide or at least request the city to have what the devel developer is trying to do. So, if the R1 doesn't allow it, C1 doesn't allow it, none of them allowed what they are trying to build and develop, then that is the route that they um that we offer them to go. So that way you guys are involved and city council's involved. It's an agreement between the planning commission and the city council and the developer as to what the zoning uh land uses will allow for as well as like specific use standards, landscaping, things like that. And the looking at the development at the same time as the zoning designation. Thank you. Did that make sense to you? Yeah. Sorry, I guess I can slow down. It's it's a custom zone for a specific piece of property. All right. With that, we'll go ahead and conduct the public hearing on section 109 of the zoning ordinance and the uh proposed zoning map. If there's anybody in the public that would like to address the planning commission, you will give be given five minutes to speak and you must give us your name and address for the record, please. At this time, we'll go ahead and open the floor to the public. My name is Tom Strugg and I live at 26 Sullivan Drive in Bella Vista and I just want to yield my time to Peggy Lucas and just uh say that I'm in support of her comments. I'm sorry. Say that again. I said I' I'd like to yield my time to Can't do that. You take your five minutes. She can take her five minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] Good evening everybody. Uh Peggy Lucas. I live at 23 DeWerry Drive. I've been a

resident of Bella Vista for 17 years. Um so um my concern is around the building of commercial in residential areas. Um it's that zoning map right there. And so um so two things about it. one the building of commercial and residential areas but it's also do residents know about this and so there's a lot of information on the site and if you go to the site you can see it all it's it's uh it's difficult to understand it on I'll tell you so um you know Taylor's been living in this world for years and and our consultant groups been living in this world uh for years but now the it's it's all coming down to how is this going to affect me and and where I live in my neighborhood neighborhood. And so, um, I've I sent a couple emails out to you guys, one on Thursday and one today. You can send more out in an email explaining yourself than you can up here. I I remembered three minutes, but so it's five minutes now. And that was the reason for the email. So, I do want to appreciate you any of you who read the emails. And um so another point is uh when you don't see residents in this meeting, it doesn't mean residents don't care. And so case in point and I and I hate to bring this up to you who have been around for a while, but I was walking along the greenway one day and I saw a red sign public hearing on the dollars. I we call it dollar general site because that's what we all know it by, but it's the parcel owned by Cooper on Houston and Commonwealth. So that all of a sudden prompted all the what's going on here, the phone calls, and then people got engaged and thousands of people came forward. They wouldn't have all been in these meetings, but they were there because the sign provoked the conversation and many people were passionate and we sent uh people showed

up and we sent petitions and all of that. So, uh, I say all that to say the second point is residents being informed of that zoning map right there and what's going on with the project. So, um, I likened it in the email, the example of, uh, the POA, uh, the emails that are going out about the rate miss rate assessment. Everybody knows about it. It's controversial, but everybody knows about it and they know everything about it. the flyer went out the Tom Judge had community meetings. So, um, they all have the information to vote with. And so, I asked the same of you, you know, given the scale of what we're doing here, do we not owe it to residents to get information out there to have community meetings to push information out there to them? Um, so lastly, the Dollar uh general parcel and the many others like it. Um, I know of about eight area. Taylor did tell me that some of those went to R2, so I have to look at that. Um, but those going from residential to commercial, um, is a pretty big deal to a lot of residents. It affects where they live. So, I'm asking four things of you. I am asking to table the vote until you can do more due diligence on this. I'm asking to go parcel by parcel. You know, if not all, but on the ones that are going from residential to commercial, people need to understand how they could wake up one morning and and their world will be different based on what's in the parcel next to them. So, I'm asking that for uh to divert the vote in order to go do due diligence and go parcel by parcel and to also create a zone that restricts commercial use in residential neighborhoods. So you're talking R and you're talking a C. C is cart blanch. You know, you could have a Bape store here. You could have a Darling General there. There's nothing restrictive about

a C in a commercial area based on what I know understand. Um so I'm asking you don't reszone vacant parcels from residential to commercial without a public hearing and vetting with residents and pushing information out to the public on those changes. So that's all I have. 45 seconds left. So, I there's a lot of work that's been done on this project and there's a lot of good things going on, but uh at the end of the day, you don't want people waking up saying, "What just happened to me?" And so, I appreciate the work you're doing, Taylor. I appreciate the work you're doing in the in our consultant group. I would just say that we're at a point where you need to bring residents in. So, thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the public that would like to address the commission concerning the changes to chapter 109 or the zoning map? Seeing now, we'll go ahead and close the public input session and take it back to the commission. Um, as I've seen it right now, we have two things that we need to consider um as amendments to the code. If if so, uh, Commissioner Farner would like to change the site plan approval process to be by the planning commission versus by the staff. And then also we have the preservation requirements. We'll have to take those separately. Um, unless I'm missing something else. No, I I did want to get clarify before the the administrative. This is what I wanted to add at the end of that is currently our current code staff can approve certain things. uh every development gets one administrative review by staff. So like not all large scales come through the planning commission right now. Um so that's just one thing if we did change everything to planning commission that would be a reduction in staff authority uh than what we have currently have. Um, so if that's something that you guys wanted to talk about amending, uh, then my question would be would be to reflect

what we currently have, which is every developer gets a one-time administrative review from staff up to a certain point up to a certain expansion up to 50%. They can increase the building up to 50% as with the current code, and they get one one staff review from us. Or would it be just a strip of all staff authority and have planning commission approve everything, even increase or expansions to the building? Um, that's that's the only thing I would add for that conversation. We would just need clarification in that. I I have a question. Yes, sir. If our obligation is to accept that which is by law, why do we want to review something that is going to be approved? I think I know. Yeah. I think in what is the use case that that that I may be missing because I I'm completely sensitive to your your your view here. But if we have to approve it, then what is what's the administrative value of that extra step? Well, the first thing is I think the public has a right to know what's being approved. Period. And I don't mean 200 feet or whatever, but the public has a right by bringing it before the planning commission that happens. And and that's way I feel about I don't think the staff's going to prove something wrong, but I think the things as big as largecale developments need to come before this planning commission. I'm not talking about putting an addition on a house of, you know, a few hundred feet. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about, for all intents and purposes, a Dollar General kind of things or somebody trying to put a 7-Eleven somewhere. Um, it needs to be out there in the public, but

and I think by bringing it before us, that would happen. And I just want to confirm too, so like you guys still control the zoning map, which would dictate what goes where, which would tell us what we can approve. So if if there was a site, like for example, if someone wanted to put a Casey's on an R1 corner lot, it would die immediately. Staff wouldn't even accept the site plan review because you guys zoned it as R1 and said, "No, we want a single family house here." Yeah. They would not be compliant. So we couldn't even accept the large or the site plan. So like you guys will still determine what goes where by this tool right here. We can't override this. This is you guys. You Well, you guys in council, right? You guys recommended council. And you said there was a a way if somebody really truly objected to what you did for them to be able to take that somewhere to Well, if it's legally compliant, yeah, then it would then not necessarily if we're talking about the development stage. No, I know. If we're talking about zoning, you know, reszoning No, I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying does the with his concerns. Yeah. Well, I just I want to get this because this is a conversation between commissioners. This is not a conversation between staff and commissioners, right? Um, and what I'm hearing is is this is all about public notification. And I think we can handle this some way. I mean, I understand with notifying the public in 200 ft. And it may be just as simple as saying, "Hey, we need to we need to notify on the city website or whatever. These are the projects that are under review this month by staff. I don't, you know, I don't care how we do it, but we're requiring public submittals. But I mean, I can tell you right now, the public does not review our agendas. They don't look they don't come to our meetings unless there's a public hearing and they get notified specifically by that. And and so I'm I'm not really sure. I understand the concerns, but I'm not understand I'm not sure that we're accomplishing anything

by making everything come before the planning commission other than for us to say, "Yep, staff did it right." Could it be called um oh, what did we used to call it? I can't remember now. Uh consent consent items, but it it's still adding time to the review process. For what purpose? I mean, we could we could ask staff to give us a report every month and said, "Here are the projects that are under consideration for review by staff right now." We could have staff give us a a a uh a rundown of what they're looking at if that's what we want, a report of what what but nothing on the agenda for the meeting. I I don't I don't know what we're gaining by making an applicant wait an additional three weeks for to come to us and us say yes. I mean, because we cannot legally deny something So what what are we doing? If it's all about public notification, there has to be a way to accomplish that without adding initial three weeks onto the process. Yes, ma'am. And I just sorry, I just wanted to provide more clarification. I'm wondering if there's some confusion on what our current process is. If a large scale development site meets the code, this there is no public notice that goes out right now. We don't notify, we don't put an ad in the paper. The only notice that is is the media or whoever subscribed to us on civic clerk that an agenda has been published. Um if they meet the code then if it meets the zoning if it meets the zoning code the 107 the lane use everything is good to go. There is no public notification. There's no sign there's no uh certified mail there's no legal ad. The only time we notify the public is when they are requesting a variance or a use change or a conditional use. That is whenever the notices go out and a PCD of course as well. I and I personally think that what we're doing now with requiring any site plan approval, the applicant has to notify everybody within 200 feet is actually going to be more productive

because that will get the people that are neighboring uh interacting with staff in the process. I don't know what the commission adds to that process. I think it will be better. We're making it a little more flexible for the developer, but we're also engaging the public more just in a different way. in a different way. Yeah. What's the language on the 200 f feet? How how do we notify? They just by mail by certified mail. The applicant is required. The applicants required to do that just like they were with a variance or conditional use. Now they've got to notify for anything that they do anything. Anything. Do we have any criteria for site signage? Application has been made on this location. Site site site sign. No. No. I just the certified mailer would would be sufficient. Yeah. So I think we require it's the green return receipts and the sent receipts is what our code requires all within 200 feet of the property boundary. Um they have to notify them they have applied for an a site plan review for staff and what it is. Um but yeah we require the green return receipt and the scent receipt uh to be compliant with that and and I would say as far as all the cities in Benton County, we will be the only city that does this and engages our citizens in this way. Say that again. We are the only city in Benton County that is going to engage our citizens this way when it comes to a development. None of the other cities notify the public other than with a published agenda. So they don't have any idea what's going on. We're the only one that's going to do this by certified mailor county. So I feel like we're ahead of the game still exceeding expectations. I I think we're we're we are doing better than most my opinion with this. Yeah. Yeah. But I do say that we do unless you want to withdraw your motion. We technically have a motion from Commissioner Farner to add site plan

approval to the planning commission. So we need to we need to either you need to withdraw that or we need to do a motion and second and vote on that one. I'll withdraw it. Okay. that that uh that one is withdrawn. We also have the preservation requirements that was presented to us by staff. Um we do need to adopt that as an amendment. Um if I could get a motion to adopt the amended proposal for uh preservation requirements. So moved. Got a motion from Wagen. Second. Got a second from Lloyd. Any other questions, comments, or modifications? No. Seeing none, call the role, please. Yes. Sedbury. Yes. Yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Floyd, yes. Ellis, yes. All right. That that handles all of the amendments that we had for the section 109 and for the zoning map. Are there any other questions or comments from the commissioners concerning the 109 revisions or the amended zoning map? I'm I just wanted to like get the planning commission's thought on this given Mrs. Lucas's comments and thank you for being here by the way. Um it in looking at the map, I've looked at the map quite a bit and it seems like we're changing a lot of vacant properties to commercial and I'm just curious as to how the planning commission feels about the timing of that and the appropri appropriateness of it right now as opposed to letting those individuals come in when they decide they want to develop that property. that gives the adjoining property owners that notice or that sign that goes out there and notifies them that hey, something's going on and we'll get that more feedback from the community. So, I just

wanted to throw that out there and get the planning commission's opinion on it. Yeah, I I understand those concerns. I think over this planning process with the consultants, the public was given many many opportunities to give input and to come to public hearings and sessions that were held in various areas of the city. And I think the changes that were made based a lot on what Clayton brought forward, the changes that have been made in the last three weeks have addressed a lot of these the necessary amendments that needed to be changed to the parcels. And I think when you're doing a a mass reszoning like this, it would be a near impossibility to go parcel by parcel. As legal has pointed out, this is an instrument to help realize the vision of the of the plan and we have process to appeal if you are adversely affected. So I think the intent is meeting the goal and that we've got a process that if there is undue hardship by the actual individual property owner that there is an appeal process. And so to me it feels like we have a nice balance. That being said, I was also very pleased to see the feedback from the community. The the appeal to table this for further study is exactly the kinds of questions that should be posed. But let's not slow down the process. I think that we've got a step between approval here all the way for the next five months prior to the city comm the council approving it. That is a beautiful window for further community

input. So I I'm I'm I'm supportive of its current state and recommending it. I I'm a big fan of C1 Joone and and being nestled in the residential areas, especially when we have architectural control and, you know, form requirements in order to be in those areas. a C1 zone does not allow for a lot of things that we would we would deem contradictory to a residential nature and feel. Um, and that's that was been one of the biggest pushes for me. And I appreciate staff adding in my trailside stop overlay for me. That was that was a pet peeve of mine that we didn't get in there. I'm glad that it's in there now. Um, personally I I don't think there's a big issue with it because of the form the form requirements that we have with commercial zones adjacent to residential zones. I know the one big controversial one has been removed from what I understand. Look, at least looking at the map, it doesn't look like it's being shown to be C1 anymore. So, that's been reverted back to where it was at. Most of the other ones we haven't had a bunch of controversy on. So, and I I'm kind of I know we have council members here in the audience tonight. They're they're going to get a long time to digest this and I know that their their citizens that they report to will be contacting them. I know that some of the council members hold public uh input sessions on their own and neighborhood meetings, which I I'm very fond of. So, I think there's plenty of opportunity for additional feedback on this map and ultimately we just recommend council, right? they're going to review and adopt. Yes, ma'am. And I forgot to mention that just because something is zone commercial doesn't mean something commercial is actually going to happen there. There's

a lot of other steps that have to go through. The topography might not be appropriate by the time you do the setbacks. It might not be appropriate for commercial development. So just because the zoning is there doesn't mean something horrible is going to happen. to you or your neighbor or whatever. Just add one thing at your No, you may not. All right, Mr. Yes. I was just going to say getting back to my prior comment, people don't know that. It's it's known to us, but it's not known by by the regular folks that haven't been tainted by all these rules that were tainted by. But if you live in Bella Vista and you live in a residential neighborhood, the the the Redford subdivision or the Trafalgar subdivision or whatever on the plat those those lots are are restricted to residential use. No one could put a commercial thing on there if if they wanted to. So there there there are these underlying protections that we have nothing to do with that a lot of people get upset and think they're about to have violated which are not. And and of course I can't speak to any one particular parcel or one particular neighborhood, but just people I would encourage everybody to keep that in mind that all those rules, all of that. Keep in mind before there was a city here, that's the only thing that protected people in Bella Vista from there being a gas station next to their house because those laws are restricted and they still restricted. So anyway, thank you. Any other questions or comments from staff? We are going to take this one under two separate votes. Um, so are there any other questions or comments? If not, can I get a motion to approve uh section 109 of the municipal ordinance code known as the zoning and development ordinance? So move. Got a motion from Cleen. Second. A second from Lloyd. And this will be a

recommendation to city council. And that's with the amendment. That's with the amendment. Yes, ma'am. All right. Can we call the role, please? Uh, yes. Barner, no. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Floyd, yes. [Music] Yes. Ellis, yes. Can I get a motion to approve the proposed uh zoning map or recommend the proposed zoning map to city council, please? So moved. Got a motion from Portillo. Second. Second from Wagn. Call the roll, please. Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Yes. Sedbury, no. Ellis. Yes. All right. The uh section 109 and the zoning map will go on to city council with the recommendation to adopt. Uh next up we have ordinance section 107 uh dealing with the subdivision code. Uh any questions or comments from the commissioners? If not, we'll go ahead and conduct the public hearing. This this is an opportunity for the public to address the commission on section 107. if you would state your name and address for the record and we will give you five minutes. All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public input session. Um, I think staff and the uh consultant addressed all the questions and comments we had of 107. Are there any additional questions or comments from the commissioners? All right. If not, we get a motion to approve section 107 as edited and revised. So moved. Got a motion from Lloyd.

Second. Second from Sbury. Call the role, please. Sedbury. Yes. Farer, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Yes. Ellis, yes. And that will move on to city council with the recommendation to adopt. Uh that ends our new business. Do we have anything for committee reports? No committees at this time. Uh anything for open discussion? I do not have anything at this time. All righty. I will I will add that I will not be here for our regular meeting in August. Uh I will be out of town for my anniversary. So I I do have one quick thing. Yes, sir. I like the idea that Gail said about letting us know what projects are working. I think that's a good idea. And it doesn't have to be anything fancy. A sheet in our book something. Absolutely. Yeah. During during committee reports or whatever, if we could get a report on Yeah. what's working Yeah. What's working through the city would be awesome. Yeah. I mean, we also when this thing just gets rolling or if if council ends up approving it down the road and whatever, we can we can do like a monthly or like bimonthly or whatever you guys want to check in on how administering it is going. Um, you know, just to give you an update on what the code does itself on top of the site plans, which we would absolutely report to you. Yeah, I think there'll be opportunities once we get there for Yeah, I just say the open door for discussion. Absolutely. Thank you. Anything else for open discussion? All right, with that, uh, city council work session will be on Monday, July 21st. Good luck if you're all still in here. I know you got a lot to take care of. Uh, and then regular meeting will be on July 28th at 6:00 p.m. Uh, our next work session will be on July 31st. I will be here for that. Uh, with the board of zoning adjustments meeting on

August 11th at uh, 4:30 p.m. directly followed by the planning commission. Thank you all. Thank you.