Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm showing this 4:30. So, let's call uh the board of zoning adjustment meeting to order. Would you call the role, please? Ellis Barner here. Here. Here. Portillo here. Wman here. Floyd here. Okay. The first thing on the agenda is the consideration of the minutes for the last meeting. I'll make the motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Second. Sec. Have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? All right. We don't have any unfinished business. So the first item under new business is a uh zoning variance number 202560145 planner Laroo. Good afternoon board.

Yes. This property is located. Uh so the applicant is requesting a variance of code section 109286 to allow for an unpermitted monument sign within the P1 zone. Um the new sign uh was built uh without a permit by the city and had replaced a previously legal non-conforming monument sign. Uh the sign area measures 78 square ft, utilizes the same footprint as the previous and is internally illuminated. Uh a notice of violation was sent out to the property owner of on May 14th uh stating the reasons for the violation and a variance request was subsequently filed. Reordin is classified as a minor arterial per the master street plan connecting Chelsea Road with Bella Vista Way. Adjacent land uses include low to medium density residential as well as neighborhood commercial. staff finds that the city established conservation zone is not compatible with the historic use of this property and the surrounding land uses. Uh thus presents a hardship not of the applicant's actions. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would deprive a non-residential use of signage capabilities. However, a variance would allow a non-residential use to have a sign that does meet the spirit and intents the intent of the ordinance uh so long as the applicant does meet the landscaping requirements. There was no uh public comment at the time of this report and all legal notifications have been met. Staff is recommending approval so long as um that we confirm that the sign is not located within the right of way um and they meet the landscaping requirements.

Any of the commissioners have questions of staff? Okay. Is the if the is the applicant here? Yes, sir. if you would come forward and state your name. Um, and if you want to add anything to what the staff said, you have 15 minutes.

Uh, yes, sir. This I don't have anything to add. My name is David Brown. I'm the executive pastor at New Life Christian Church. Um, it was an error by our sign company basically and and uh we we we asked them to ask for the permits. I thought they had the permits and they didn't uh submit it. I guess they got a verbal from the uh the company or from the city or whoever approves those things and uh so we paid them to do that and they didn't get it done and then we found that found this zoning violation was mailed to us and we were like um we better get on this really quick. So um we didn't change the footprint of the sign or anything like that. Um that current sign had been there for 30 years. So, um that's we we basically um replace a sign in error. Didn't understand the the rules or the zoning that we were under at that time. So,

okay. Do any of the commissioners have questions of the applicant? Okay. If you take your seat, we'll have a public hearing on this. If there's anybody in the audience that wants to address this specific issue, please come up and state your name and address and you'll have five minutes. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on this. Um, do I have a motion to I'll make a motion to approve the variance. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve it. Call the role, please.

With staff's conditions or Yes, with staff conditions. I'll amend my motion. Farer, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagner, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Your zoning barance is approved. All right. The uh next U item is a zoning variance number 202560330 Planet Laroo.

All right. So this property is located within um western Bella Vista within the Sulk subdivision. Um the applicant is requesting to allow an existing 6 to 8ft wood privacy fence on their adjoining lots. Um the applicable uh code section is 109248B2 uh which does require that fences within the front yard uh should be limited shall be limited in height to 3 ft. Uh a notice of violation was sent to the property owner May 14th stating the reasons for the violation in the applicable code sections thereof and a variance request was subsequently filed. Uh Habville Drive is a dead-end culde-sac labeled as a residential street per the master street plan and is within a lowdensity residential area. Staff finds that the placement of the fence is forward of the primary structure and and is a result of the applicant's actions. Any fence at this location should be reduced in height or or align with the front of the primary structure. Uh enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not cause undue hardship and would keep with the spirit and intent of the R1 district. Staff also has visibility, safety, and maintenance concerns uh due to the proximity of the tall fence near the city rideway. Uh there was no uh public comment at the time of this report and legal notifications have been met. Staff is recommending denial as u as we did not find that analysis uh did not meet all three requirements.

Do any of the commissioners have questions of sand? Do I go ahead? Sorry. Do we have a fencing set back from the rightway? Uh front yard. Um any fence that that's forward of the front plane of the primary structure becomes the front yard and it's so it's limited in height to 3 ft. Right. So if this fence was 3 feet, would there be a setback requirement from the rightway? Only if there's a driveway and there's a sight uh distance sight triangle distance.

Okay, that's my question. Thank you. One more. The drainage easement. Is there anything in that easement? Is there any structure pipes or anything or is it just to accommodate the ditch that's in front? They've not disclosed any to us. Um I'm unsure if there's any or if there's any present utilities um other than the overhead line that's shown on there. Our code does allow fences in the drainage ement so long as it does not impede drainage or directed onto their neighbors. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from the commissioner? Is the applicant here? And if you are, would you come forward and state your name? And you have 15 minutes.

My name is Heidi Jones and this is my husband's Allan Jones. Um, we thank you all for the opportunity to be able to um to describe to you why we feel like it would be beneficial for us to be able to keep this fence up. Um, our house does sit at the end of the culde-sac, which is, you know, down at the bottom of the road there. So, um the fence, um we have two adjacent lots and they are on an incline. Um the purpose of the fence is because my husband owns a boat dock business. So, he owns a boat trailer, a 20 foot, um trailer, as well as, you know, a big welder. And so, these things have to be out of sight. And so, um, with our house sitting back further, um, we would be losing a good portion of our, um, our lots there. Um, so, um, our fault completely for not pulling a permit. We deserve a citation for that. We take full responsibility for it. But, um, however, um, if the fence was three foot, it would defeat the whole purpose of even having it because you would be able to see all the things behind it. So, um, he's a contractor. You know, we we upheld it to where to the standards that it should be. It's a, you know, our neighbors don't seem to have any kind of a a grievance of it or anything. So, um, we have lived here 15 years. You know, I wrote a letter just of our character, who we are. You know, we've never been cited for anything, but, um, basically that's that's what I have to say about it. It just, um, just where our house is. And if we back it up, it just is we're losing property. And um and then if it's a three-foot fence, there's just there's no way it's going to even serve a purpose being three foot.

Any of the commissioners have questions of the applicants? Uh I have one. When was this fence put up? Uh see, it was this summer. Yeah, it was summertime. This this summer? Yes. Okay. So, that's all I have. Yeah. All right. Uh If you take your seats quick um part of it is six foot. Yes, ma'am. And part of it is 8t.

Yes, ma'am. The back corner there, um that is 8 foot and then that first part is 8 foot, but as the the road starts to go down the land, so he dropped it down. Okay. And another part of um part of the violation was it wasn't connected to the the house the adjacent which we we of course do um intend to do that as well. We just his company we really just started collecting a lot of um trailers and such like that that we needed to get something put up. So yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If you take your seat. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now have the public hearing on this variance request. If there's anyone in the audience that wants to address the commission about it, please come forward to state your name and address and you'd have five minutes. All right. Seeing none, we'll close the uh public hearing. Do I have a hear a motion? Are we going to have a discussion? Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to? Yes.

Well, I just want to remind everybody that we have three criteria that have to be met in order to approve a variance. And this particular situation does not meet those three findings necessary for a variance. Okay. Just for the record, let's say what those three requirements are. That strict enforcement would cause undue hardship that the circumstances do not result from the applicant's action. In this case, it's clearly the applicant's action and that the granting would be in keeping with the spirit intent of the zoning ordinance, which the granting would not be.

Just so that everybody knows. Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion? Do I hear a motion? So moved to to to approve it to yes to approve the variance. Do we have a second? Second. Would you call the role, please? No. Wagner. No. No. No. Yes.

Farmer. No, then the zoning variance is not approved and you can get with the staff and work out what has to be done. Okay. The next uh one we have is a zoning variance number 202560320. Planner Grady.

Good afternoon board. Um thank you. This property is located in the western area of Bella Vista city limits along County Road. Uh section 109166 C4C2 which requires non-residential accessory structures to be located behind an accessory structure building setback and also section 109166 C4C3 states the building footprint area for all non-residential accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance for two proposed and one existing structure uh that exceeds a cumulative footprint of 1,200 square feet or more to be located forward of the accessory structure setback on a lot that contains four plus acres in the residential estate. The specific property um has 19 acres. Uh this request is to reapply for a previously previously approved zoning variance request from 2024. They're here before you today because their um approval expired in May of 2025. Uh County Road is labeled a subcollector per the master street plan. Uh the single family dwelling uh or sorry, the proposal includes a single family dwelling. Uh 912 foot non-residential structure and a gravel driveway were built prior to the city being um established by the previous owners. Um the applicant proposes a 1,200 foot structure for private use such as tractors and one 1900 foot structure for hobby woodworking which is a permitted use by right. The 4,812 ft cumulative footprint does exceed the limits set by the code. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of the accessory building setback for utility and tree preservation. The dwelling faces west with utilities being located behind and to the south. Uh without the utility relocation, entry removal, meeting the setback requirements would be difficult. Based

on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of this request so long as the applicant follows the approved plans within this application. And then the sidewall height will have to comply as well. Uh yes. Um I believe those measurements uh were sent to us in an email. The sidewall did not exceed what was it? It's in the packet. Um we have a staff note in the packet for you guys. Uh just noting the sidewall of one of the structures. Um and I believe the staff note that was put on there shall comply with the sidewall height or seek an additional variance.

That is correct. Um and I believe the measurements can be found on page 11 and 13 of your packet. Do any of the commissioners have uh questions of staff? Yeah, you mentioned that. Oh, go ahead. I mean, this is kind of a weird layout. How did you determine that it's what the front of the primary structure was? I believe the front of the structure or front of the property was established previously. They're literally applying for the same exact thing as what was approved before. Yes, that is correct. I know. Okay. I just I don't know. I can't see where the front is, but

Yeah. Okay. Cuz just because it's a weird layout. Yeah. And and we did confirm making sure that none of the other um accessory structures had cooking abilities, things like that. So that way they weren't violating anything. Um but we did also confirm there are no changes from what was previously approved by this board last year. Okay. I'm sure y'all talked about this in work session and I wasn't here. So, thank you. Question, do I? Oh, we don't have work sessions on variances. We didn't miss anything. Yeah. Well, see, that proves I wasn't here. So,

all right. Is the uh applicant here? If you state your name, you have 15 minutes. Brian Fast were the architect of record for the project helping the owner um office is located in Bentonville, Arkansas. So, uh everything the staff said is correct. Uh the one thing that we've updated since that time is that we are going to comply with the 15t eve height. So, we'll get that documentation to staff um if if it's approved. So, what I would ask is contingent approval that we get that documentation for compliance. Hey, does anyone have questions? The applicant. All right, you take a seat, please. And we'll now have a public hearing on this item. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to address the commission, please come up, state your name, and you have five minutes. Well, I don't see any. So, we'll um close the public hearing. Is there any discussion by the commission? Do I hear a motion?

Uh motion to approve. Subject to staff comments. We have a second. Second. Okay. Call a roll. Who got the second? Okay. I'm sorry. We can fight over. It doesn't matter. Wagman. Uh yes. Yes. Yes. Sbury. Yes. Portillo, yes. Farer,

yes. All right. Your uh zoning variance is approved. All right. All right. That uh ends the new business. Is there anything for open discussion? If not the uh the regular meeting of the planning commission will start immediately after the close of this. Uh and we are adjourned. I'm going to call uh the regular planning commission meeting for uh August 11th to to order. Would you call the role, please?

Ellis Barner here. Bless here. Sbury here. Portillo here. Wagman here. Lloyd here. Okay, we'll now have the consideration of the minutes from our July 14th meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. All right. Um, we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Minutes are approved. All right. This is a point in the planning commission where we have a chance for the public to address the commission on any items that are not already on the agenda. So, if anybody would like to uh speak to the commission, please come forward and state your name. Okay, we'll close the input. Uh go to unfinished business. First item is waiver 202560319 planner IAT. This also accompanies the property line adjustment uh 60141. Uh but

two yes two together. This property is located in the eastern area of Bella Vista city limits and is lot 18 block 15 of the York subdivision. Uh section 107-249F3 states that no no lot shall be more than four times as deep as it is wide and section 107-126 provides four options for incidental subdivisions including property line adjustments. The applicants requesting a waiver of section 107-249F3 along with the proposed property line adjustment of the previous lots 18 and 19 of the York subdivision creating new lots 18A at roughly.88 88 acres and lot 19A at roughly.166 acres for block 15 of the York subdivision. Uh the adjacent land uses include single family residential, common property and lake an and the comp plan 20 240 recommends lowdensity residential for the area. Various drainage and utility easements have been dedicated to the public per city requirements and rideway width requirements have been previously met for DeW Circle. Uh easements again have been dedicated to the public along the front sides and rear required. Lot area requirements of the R1 district have been met as the lot exceeds as both lots exceed 32 acres and they're more than 50 ft wide more than 100 ft deep. Uh due to the layout of the existing lots, however, the applicant requests the waiver from 107249 F3. Uh since both lots 18A and 19A uh their lengths measure more than four times their width. Uh, Dudesbury Circle is a dead-end culde-sac and non-classified residential street for the master street plan. It experiences low to minimal traffic. Uh, staff did have a note that this property line adjustment may be subject to additional review and approval requirements from the developer and any changes they may have would or may require additional approvals from the planning commission. Uh, we've received no public comment at this time and staff recommends approval of the property line adjustment so long as the planning commission approves the waiver request. Is anyone on the commission have

questions of staff? Do the current the current lots don't meet this requirement, right? Of the 107249. Correct. Okay. Yeah, the it's just changing that middle property line so that the links are all staying the same. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Is the applicant here? And if if you are, would you come forward and state your name? And if you'd like to add anything to the staff approve comments, go ahead. Uh Brendan Hayes and nothing to add. Um we feel like we're basically flipping with that middle lot, so we're not really changing anything too much. So,

okay. Anybody on the commission? No questions. The applicant. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I think we have the vote on the waiver separate from the lot adjustment. So, uh, do I have a motion on the waiver? So, move. Second. Okay. Call a roll, please. Lloyd, yes. Yes. Sbury, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagon, yes. Barner, yes.

All right, the waiver is approved. So, now we deal with the uh property line adjustment. Uh, and I think staff's already covered it. Does anybody have any questions about it? Do I hear a motion to approve it? So moved. Lloyd. Motion. Second. Second. Portillo. Call the role, please. Yes. Sar. Yes. Portillo. Yes. Wagnus. Yes. Yes. Warner.

Yes. Okay. The line and the property line adjustment and the waiver are both approved. All right. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing on a proposed ordinance. Director Robertson.

Okay. Um at the request of Mayor Flynn, the recommendation of our staff attorney, we are proposing a permit requirement for small cell uh cell towers. These are most commonly identified as monopoles along the road. Um, sometimes they're metal, sometimes they're wood, sometimes they're a different more blending material that the city requires through an ordinance like this. We currently do not have one in our current code, nor does our proposed code have a section for it. So, this is written as if it is going to be accompanied into our new code. Um so 109-032 miscellaneous uses is in our proposed code that is currently in consideration with the city council. Um item G or provision G does not exist. So this would be a new provision to that section of code. This would basically require a permit for any small cell tower that's 50 feet or less. That's the most common height for these small cell towers. They're typically for cell phones um cell phone providers to reach valleys or crevices that their traditional towers of 199 ft or less do not reach. Um the state law requires that we have a specific ordinance that is for small cells. We already have a miscellaneous small miscellaneous facilities for communications towers, but it cannot apply to small cells because of the state law. Um and so that is what we're proposing tonight. It is a permit requirement um and as well as aesthetics requirement. We are proposing to require um that it is blending into the area around it and that we have some natural appearing finish on the pole itself. Um we're asking if they can we're not requiring it that they colllocate so we don't end up with multitudes of small cells within the ride ofway in a specific area. And then of course uh safety concerns such as sight concerns in the rightway. um preventing them being so close with the intersections, etc., and things like that. Um, if you

guys do recommend approval to this to council, this will go forward to council as an ordinance with a supporting resolution to set a fee uh for the application schedule since it doesn't exist. There isn't one right now. Other than that, I'm happy to take any questions. Will you elaborate on the collocation language? We are advocating for first exploring colllocation or we are against that. We are asking them to colllocate if possible. Excellent.

Right now we don't have any that I know of that exist um in within our city limits. It's the conversation is starting now um with cell phone providers and so that is what is causing this need today. We don't have anything to require permit and so it's kind of highlighted the lack uh or missing piece to our ordinance as of late. So, um, which which piece is that? 6A. Where? Oh, this whole thing. This whole thing. Yeah, that was going to be my question. I thought I remembered you saying we don't have any right now. We're preparing for future. Correct. And as development continues and as our population grows, as more cell phones are in our city limits, and we are not a flat city. Um, we are preparing that these will probably exist. So,

now to put any of these in, it would require a permit. Yes, it would require a permit from city staff. Okay, any further questions? Where are we using? Where are we getting the language? This was referenced heavily off of Fateville and Springdale's existing ordinance and then of course the state law. Good. Thank you. On this page here under placement says 18 inches from the road surface. Is that like a standard? It is a standard and it's actually I always thought it was Bella Vista's own unique standard to our city equipment but um the other cities as well because that's what our overhang is off of our street maintenance, our sweepers and our ice scrapers. Um but turns out it's actually a standard in other cities. So kind of learned something as I did this.

Okay, if there's no further questions, we want to have a public hearing on this ordinance. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to address the commission about it, please come forward and state your name. Okay. Any open any more discussion on it? Then uh do I hear a motion to send it to the council? I'd like to move to move that we approve and send this to the council. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second. Class, would you call a role, please? Yes. Portillo? Yes. Wagman? Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Okay. Send it to the commission to the city council. Next item is uh any committee reports. Do we have any? None at this time. Do we have anything for open discussion?

God, it's quiet today. Okay. Announcements. The city council work session will be Monday, August the 18th at 5:30. The city council regular meeting will be Monday, August the 25th at 6 o'clock. The planning commission work session will be Thursday, August the 28th at 4:30. The board of zoning adjustment meeting will be on Monday, September the 8th uh immediate at 4:30 immediately followed by the planning commission. We are journ. Thank you. It seems like it was just summer.