Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

all those hostages. It was now I'm using different browser quit using Chrome works on Firefox. Oh, we're not going to do the thing up here.

Now we're talking. Okay, I'm showing it's 4:30. Let's call the board of zoning adjustments for October 2025 to order. Would you call the role, please? Ellis Farmer here. Here. Sedbury here. Portillo here. Wagman uh here. Floyd

here. We have a quorum I think. So, uh, next item is the consideration of minutes from our last meeting. Does anybody on the board have any comments? I'll make a motion we approve the minutes as submitted. Second. Second. All in favor of the minutes say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. The next uh there is no unfinished business, so we'll go right to new business. We have a uh public hearing on zoning variance 202561122. Uh, planner room.

Good afternoon, board members. Um, yes. So, this property is located in South Central uh, Bella Vista, uh, lot 8, block two of the tutor subdivision. The applicable zoning code uh is 109166C4, which requires that non-residential accessory buildings on the same lot as the primary residence not exceed 720 square ft. The um the applicant is requesting a variance of this code section to allow for an existing 768 square foot uh non-residential building. Uh there was a house that existed on this site previously um that was built circa 2007. Um however, the house and the detached garage were destroyed by fire in December of 2021 and demolished early the next year. uh code does allow for non-conforming structures to be rebuilt within uh 12 months of the fire. Um however, after that time period must be brought into compliance. Um the site did not pull a building permit until July of 2023, over 19 months after the fire, and a second warning letter was issued in March of 2024, informing the applicant that their permit was set to expire as the project has already experienced multiple delays. Um the project has yet to pass uh framing inspections as of September 2025. Um the site is currently only permitted for um the house to rebuilt to be rebuilt, not the detached garage. Um it was found through review and inspections that the garage did not comply with current code. staff does recognize that it is possible to reduce the size by 48 square feet and that the intent of the request is not residential in nature um as the R1 zone intends. Staff also recognizes the size of the structure would uh would be allowed on the adjacent lot uh lot 9 block two uh

thus finding a lack of hardship for this request. Um no ACC permits have also been issued um thus far. Um there was no public comment at the time of this report and all legal notifications have been met by staff. Um staff is recommending denial of the variance uh based on the analysis above. Okay. Do any of the members of the panel have questions of staff? Was the previous garage the same size or the foundation um I believe was more similar to the 768 square ft. now and but it was a non-conforming structure.

Okay. Were any efforts made to move it over a little bit? The garage the Yes, sir. Not to my knowledge. No. All right. So, one application, one review. This is the first time they've been through you all. Right. Correct. Is there space to adjust the design? the um the garage that's there that is there now is built on an existing foundation. So they want to reframe the existing concrete. Correct. It's already partially built.

Any any further question to staff? Is the applicant here? And if they are, would they come up and state your name and address? And if you have any uh thing you'd like to add to the staff's report, now's your chance. Sure. I think one item of correction he said it's not what is your name

Mark Heiner Mark Heiner um I first time so he said it wasn't used for residential is that correct because this is a it's a home right and so not asking to do anything that hasn't been done previously and the difference in variation it's like a a 2.1% % size difference like literally you would just cut off one and a half feet of one side existing slab um and and the gentleman asked you know is there has there been efforts made to move it to move it I'm just not quite so if you're looking at this image there so that's the that's it like on the right hand side all the the foundation work is existing I didn't pour anything I bought the house as it was destroyed. Um didn't didn't actually plan on on having the detached garage. That's why he referenced the like the change um in the the permit requirement because once we got there, just the it just made sense. Otherwise, you'd just have a an open slab there. So, um to me, it just makes sense. Now, if if it's denied, I think all I would need to do is just chop off one and a half feet and we're compliant.

Okay. Do any of the uh panel members have questions of the applicant? What was your response receiving the mailer about extending your permit so that you could preserve the the variance that was already in place? As soon as I knew I complied, um I I I think I did everything I was supposed to. I I don't know. To me, it just

there was not a previous variance. It the expiration warning he got was the building the building itself was taking the home was taking too long. You have to be making progress every six months. You have to be getting past inspections every six months. That's what the warning was because this project has been going on since July of 2023 and it still has not passed framing. The so that's what that was.

The reason there was a delay was because Dylan said that this planning commission was supposed to get back to me. Not this one, but um nice gentleman. I spoke to him over the phone. I want to say his name is Cody, but but he basically he didn't respond to my emails for four months. Dylan responded back on top saying, "Hey, where are we on this?" And I said, "There's been no response." And that's that's that escalated that to this. But if you look at like my email trails, they're all there. All right. Any further questions? Yeah. Can I ask a staff question? Yeah.

Um, so an attached garage can be any size, but a detached garage is limited to 720 square feet. Is that what we're saying? Correct. if it's attached to the residential structure, it the max coverage of the structure then applies. So, it can't be more than 35% of the lot. Um, and if it was on the adjacent lot on lot 9, it could be up to 12,200 square feet. Um, but yeah, if it's detached non-residential structure, doesn't have any residential attachment in it or attached to it. It is limited in size in the residential zone and a and a garage counts as nonresidential. Correct. Okay.

And that's why that's why you said it's non-residential. C could I ask a question of staff just for clarity? You brought it up and it's not our concern, but you said the ACC there had been no permits or anything issued by the Bellist Architectural Control Committee. No, there has not been. Okay. They don't know anything about any of this. They know about it. Um but they they said that they would be handling their process with him separately. Okay. Well, of course. and it's separate and and I'm just I I hear this a lot and so I I don't want I don't like to see people set up to fail even if you get what you need here because if you're not if if this is I'd assume it is in the Pel Vista POA and you don't have their permission to do anything they're going to sue you. That's a surprise.

I can't be any more clear. That's a surprise. Sure. No, it shouldn't be. But so um you got several hurdles even if you get over this one. Okay. is is is 48 square ft really a like on an existing structure existing poured foundation that's that's really a before we field that can I ask a staff question yes in 2014 was a variance uh extended to because it was non-compliant when they built the original structure right so did I hear that correctly daily

the home was built circa 2007 before our zoning code so this house has existed. We just gave you a 10-year reference. That's all this is. This is the house before it burnt down. This is a legal non-conforming structure. Um, this is just before the the house. Um, that right there. Yep. That that was it before it burnt down in December of 2021. Um, so we just wanted you to see it beforehand. And then the after picture, 10 years later, this is where it's currently sitting at. Still hasn't passed framing. So, this is a 10-year comparison. pre-fire, after fire.

Yeah. No, but point of clarification, like framing is like when she says hasn't passed framing. I think that every time the inspector goes in, there's a little bit of a different story. So that the house doesn't look like this right now. It's got siding all over it. It's it's com almost completely done. the the challenge is is that I mean if you look at the notes from the last time the inspector went in, he said, you know, none of the updates have been done, but every update had been done and he said he didn't even walk through it. Um I'm happy to be compliant. Like to me, it's not a matter if it's I'm just trying to build a house.

Um but there seems to be some mixup in communications from the planning commission to the inspector to whatever's compliant and like investigate the ACC thing, but like it's just an existing structure. Well, we appreciate your comments. Uh if we have no more questions, why don't you take a seat? We have to have a public hearing on this.

Okay, it's now time we will have our public hearing on this zoning variance. If there's anybody in the audience who would like to address the uh address us about this, now is your chance. Please come up, state your name and address. All right. If there's nobody to say anything, we will uh close the public hearing portion. Um and I will entertain a motion. Can we have discussion first? Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. this I turn it back over to the panel to

Well, I staff has pointed out that they're asking for a variance, which excuse me, a w is this a variance or a waiver? Varian variance. This is BZA meeting. Okay, that's what I thought, but the letter says waiver. So they're asking for a variance which requires a hardship and making the building the proper 720 square ft doesn't had he done it before he got to this point and properly permitted it at 720 ft. We would not be here.

So I don't see that there's a hardship other than he got the horse before the cart. Okay. Or the cart before the horse. Sorry, it was not permitted at uh this size. Is that right, staff? It was not permitted at this 768 ft. Correct. Okay. Thank you. You have to come back up to the mic. You have to come back up to the mic. You're not allowed to wait till you come up to the mic.

Otherwise, it doesn't get you. I could uh like so so when Dylan told me about the problem, I only submitted one garage with this type like so there was no like I didn't submit once once made aware of the challenge or the the variance the very small variance I submitted the right number. So, so that was permitted. I got a permit to proceed and it's been inspected with what's been submitted. Okay.

Was the original question the was the permit issued for the primary structure or the accessory the the garage? Well, I think the staff's going to have to tell us what was the permit issued for. What's the life cycle of the permitting process? Boom. So, the July plot plan from 2023 when this originally was issued shows a concrete pad where the where the garage is and it shows an attached garage. I think Addison actually has it up for you right now if you look at your screen. So, the proposed garage is attached and then the concrete pad to the which is now the detached garage on lot 8. That is from the July that's there's the 2023 an attached structure an attached structure

and it is now enclosed a part of the home and now there's a detached garage where the concrete pad and old garage used to be all right so there was never a permit for the detached garage is what you're telling us Taylor that's what she said that is the issue okay thank you and there's already there's already been building on the pad

yes but but that's also what I'm contesting like and if it's just a matter of moving dates, then what I'm saying is that it's been inspected prior like that garage has been there for over a year. I didn't build that just like it's been inspected like there's inspection notes on the detached garage. What what flag to bring it back to us? That's a good question though. It's the length of time. We we have to get the sir it's you're t you need to go back and have all they need to call you.

So so the issue is the length of time between the house burning down and now they have 12 months to reconstruct it back to its previous state and that 12 months has passed. That's why they need the variance for the garage. Yes. Because once it goes regardless of the permitting process, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about that length of time, right? That now requires him to have a variance for that size. Once it goes past that, you have to do the variance. You have to be So whether it was permitted originally or not, his time frame that he's been working on this has expired to build it back to like it previously was because it was nonconforming before and the time has passed to rebuild it as it was.

Rebuild it as non-conforming. Yeah. Yeah. But that that's the I think the first issue. But the second issue, which I believe is what we're being told, is that detached garage does not have a current building permit. That's what I believe staff just told us. He is clear to keep working on the house, but not the garage. Thank you. Until you guys have decided something, right? Okay. And then of course ACC as well. He needs to get permits for them before he does.

Whole another issue. Yeah. Well, this is a frustrating case because these are our neighbors and simply a mistake has been made and this is human and but it's going to cost because the rules are the rules even though they're smaller. However, the rule is 720 square ft on a detached building. It's black and white and fortunately with a there was a compliance period that unfortunately did not get realized. So, I guess I'd like to move make a motion, Mr. chairman that we uh deny the variance and move. We don't do that. We have to have a motion to approve it and then everybody has to be in the affirmative. Has to be affirmative. We have to phrase it in the affirmative. Yes. So, you want to make a motion that we approve the variance? Yes, I want and second.

I'll second. Second. All right. Call the roll, please. Wagman. No. Lloyd. No. No. Sedbury. No. Portillo. No. Farer. No. Okay. I guess uh then the applicant would need to get back to staff to figure out what their next step is. Okay, that's all the new business. Do we have anything for open discussion? Staff does not have anything. I'm sorry. I don't know if you're looking at me, but staff does not have anything for you.

Okay. Anybody on the panel have anything for open? Okay. Then the announcements. Uh the planning commission regular meeting will start immediately after this. Then this meeting is adjourned. Okay. Okay. I've called the uh Bella Vista Planning Commission uh for the month of October of 2025. Would you call the role, please? Ellis Barner here. Pleas here. Sbury here. Portillo here. Wagman here.

Lloyd here.

Okay. Uh the first thing on the agenda is the consideration of minutes for the last meeting. Does anybody have any comments or changes? All in favor of approving the minutes say I. I. Any opposed? Do we have to make a motion? A motion and a second. I make a motion we approve the minutes as submitted. We have a motion. A second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay, the minutes are approved. I'm sorry. Who was the second on that? Me. Hi. Yes. Okay. We don't have any uh unfinished business. So that we'll go right into new business. What about public input? I can't hear you.

Public. There's public input. Consideration amendments. That's right. For any items that aren't Sorry about that, folks. It's okay. I'm not used to this. Well, all right. This is the part where uh the members of the audience have a chance to address to address the commission on any items not on the agenda. So if you have anything you'd like to say, come forward, state your name, and you'll have time. Okay, now we can go into new business. The first item of new business is a waiver 202561024 planner high.

All right. Thank you. This property is located in the eastern area of Bell Vista city limits and is lot 11 block one of the Lincoln subdivision. Uh section code section 107-380F regulates maximum driveway slope percentages. And the applicant is requesting a waiver of this section for an existing driveway. uh the primary residence under constructions undergoing inspections and at the August 12th structural/co final uh it was discovered that the driveway did not meet the maximum allowable 14% slope. Uh staff was alerted and the applicants submitted their waiver request on August 26th. Uh the residence is essentially complete. However, a note has been added to the project file that no CFO can be issued until the planning commission takes action on this waiver request. Uh per the applicant's letter, during the final phase of construction for the home, the concrete contractor experienced equipment problems which resulted in the garage elevation being lower than the approved plan. Uh the result was a driveway with a slope of 21.4% downhill for the first 20 ft. The last 8 ft then slopes upward into the garage. Again, code section 107-380F allows a maximum of 14%. Um, Grandanthm Drive is a non-classified residential street per the master street plan that experiences low to minimal traffic and per the future land use map, the homes within a low density neighborhood area. Happy to take any questions.

Anybody on the commission have questions of staff? Is the uh applicant present? Would you like to come up and I believe I have a question? I do have a question. So, sorry. When it was originally permitted, the driveway spec, it was in spec, correct? Okay. Thank you. So, it wasn't built. Wasn't built back. Yeah. Okay. Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Henri L. Gabe, would you like to add anything to the staff report?

No, I think he got it right. You know, the problem was during the construction, our concrete contractor has some issues with the level. So when he poured the driveway didn't came right as it was shows on the initial plans. Okay. Uh we can fix it but we will need to demo the whole driveway and do like a new uh drainage by the entrance of the garage but we are trying to avoid that if it's possible. All right. Can can a car actually get in the garage? Oh yeah. Yeah. I've been there several times and my customers. So no problem at all. And your role in this? You're the general contractor or you the owner?

I am the general contractor. The owner is investor. He lives in Ohio. He hasn't been here. Okay. He knows about everything that's happening. Okay. So, there is an alternate to approving this waiver.

Yeah. Uh we we I've been discussing with my concrete contractor and we can pretty much demo it. We can raise up the slope a little bit and do it all the way through the to the edge of the garage. We will need to add a drainage by the garage door to drain all the water out. And that will help with the slope. It will actually make it 14 or 15%. It will be a little bit less. But you know, right now it works. All the water is draining towards the left side of the property. So if we can keep it like that, it will be good. Okay. Anybody else from the commission have questions?

Yeah. Can you mention why you weren't here at the work session to discuss this with us? Oh, because they called the homeowner. He didn't answer the phone. I didn't know it was that day. So, that's why I couldn't be here. Okay. You know, and then I sent an email to Chris. respond back and here I am. If there are no questions that you'll take your seat, we'll Thank you. Thank you. Back to the commissioners. Anybody have comments or

Well, I think we find ourselves again in a position where people want forgiveness instead of doing things the way they're supposed to. And since the applicant has just told us there's a fix, I think they should fix it. Any other comments? Well, I will entertain a motion. I make a motion we approve this. Second. Second. Call the roll, please. Lloyd, no. No. Sbury. No. Portillo, no. Wagman, no. Farer,

no. Okay. Uh, and the next item on the agenda is a waiver request 202561502. Uh, Planner Grady.

Good evening. Thank you. This property is located in the west area of Bella Vista along Highlands Boulevard on the edge of the city limits. It is located on parcel 18-12513-009. Uh tonight we're going to be discussing section 107317 for access management regarding minim minimum separation distances between access drives. The applicant is requesting a waiver to this section for a 200 foot minimum separation requirement between driveways. Their proposed driveway placement falls within approximately 100 ft center of line to center of line to the Carol Electric service drive. The POA water department is working on a new site for a 500,000galon tank. The subject property falls within Bitten County, but due to legislative changes to the extr territorial jurisdiction, the property no longer falls within the Bella Vista planning area. However, a review is still required by Bella Vista Planning due to the access drive falling within Bella Vista city limits. The purpose of this review is to examine the access drive. The development property has no frontage along Highlands Boulevard, which restricts drive driveway placement options and makes full compliance with the required 200 foot separation distance for a roadway with a posted speed limit of 400 or sorry 40 miles per hour um unachievable. According to the applicant, the existing access easement from 2023, which was negotiated, purchased, and re recorded prior to the current development design, um, which represents the only feasible point of vehicular entry. Relocating this access would require significant site reconfigurations and acquisition of additional property. The proposed access drive will utilize the existing easement and will not hinder the public health, safety, and welfare or be interest to future development in the surrounding area. Uh no public comments and no um technical outstanding comments.

Do the commissioners have any questions of staff? So both of these drives are two utility facilities. Yes, that is correct. So after construction there's very limited traffic. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Is the uh applicant present? If he is, would they come up and state your name? And

uh Charlie Hull, director of water for Bellis POA, 51 Huntley Lane, Bella Vista. Do you have anything you'd like to add to staff's report? Uh just to reiterate, uh yeah, this is a private gated utility access point. um you know shifting this driveway uh would you know could cause conflict with you know the Carol Electric property and their primary power poles that are along that property line and then also to move this driveway any further north would require additional easement which would require a landowner to split their property with the easement and I you know I can't speak on their behalf but I wouldn't think they would be interested in doing that. Okay. Do any of the commissioners have questions?

Okay. If you take back to the commissioners or any comments or Well, I I can mention that the Benton County Planning Board will be taking this up on Wednesday. We've already reviewed it at the tech review stage. Okay. And it seems to me with minimal ingress and egress that there's no reason to not approve this, I would think. Is this property in the county? The property is the driveway isn't. Oh, okay. All right. Right. But okay. We're only doing that part. We're only dealing with those parts that are in the city of Bella Vista.

Correct. That's for clarity. Okay. Do I have a motion? Make a motion we approve the waiver. Second. You call the role, please. Yes. Sbury. Yes. Portillo. Yes. Wagman. Yes. Floyd. Yes. Farer. Yes. Okay. Okay, the next item on the the new business is it's two things. It's a waiver number 202561092 and a uh preliminary plat 202561139 planner high. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, if we could just have the minutes reflect that Miss Lloyd has stepped off the DEAS and I didn't hear you. If we could just have the minutes reflect that Miss Lloyd has stepped away from the DEIS and she is recusing from this as she is the applicant. All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Uh, this property is located in the southeast area of Bella Vista City Limits and is lot one block six of the Duxford subdivision. Uh, section code section 107-250M regulates maximum sidewalk/trail slope percentages. And section 107-71 through77 establishes the approval requirements for the preliminary plat process. Uh the applicant is proposing a preliminary plat creating 23 residential lots and seeking a waiver on 107250M. Uh following the approval of the planned zoning district for Al Commons. This proposal takes the existing singular lot and establishes 23 new lots. The new lots will provide for 23 single family units complemented by two community building spaces. The proposed plaque keeps the existing drainage and utility easements along the outer perimeter of the original property boundary and creates new drainage easements between the outer residential lots. The PCD established zero lot line setbacks and utilities to be determined by the utility companies. Uh this request will establish a new private road known as al loop to be maintained by the HOA that includes 50 ft of access easement with 24 ft of paved surface. The proposed 50-oot easement will also serve as a utility easement. A 5- foot wide sidewalk will be established along the outer edge of Al Loop and will transition to an internal layout around the interior community spaces uh of the development meeting the intent of 107250M. Uh the fire chief and city engineer has approved the street grade. Uh Carol Electric had no additional comments at this time. Water will be served via the POA water and village waste water will serve the sewer needs. And I did send out an email with the latest revision. There was a mixup on my part on the dates for resubmitt. So it came as we were uh prepping the staff reports and everything to send out to you all. U but we did start review of the latest submitt. Um I believe there are still uh a lot of grading and drainage concerns

uh with our staff engineer um just with uh things like flow rates and um the grade and how water is going to be directed on that site. Uh so without saying technical comments uh I think we there are still a few areas being confirmed and worked through. Um we did meet with the engineer uh last Tuesday had to talk through some of this and we're still working on those changes but um due to all of that we believe that recommending to table would be best per staff recommendation but you repeat that last part

uh just due to the analysis and you know the pending review of this third we still have drainage questions so we would recommend to table and I'm a little confused what's the actual ask for us today. What's the ask? I want a Oh, the preliminary plat the There's the waiver request. All waiver request to then bring that plat Yes. Uh to approve to begin establishing those 23 residential lots and

so this is a preliminary plat. So a preliminary plat is a construction permit. So this essentially would if it's approved it gives the applicant the right to construct utilities and roads and sidewalks basically transportation uh services. It also it's basically the plat actual does not come until the final plat. So I don't want that to get confused. The preliminary plat is not establishing the 23 lots. It is establishing the plan for the 23 lots which would then be approved in the final plat. This is a construction permit for utility design and street design just to be clear. And then there is a waiver request associated with the pedestrian accommodation uh designer criteria. But permit is construction document or design document.

This is a construction permit. All right. So they're going to build this once we if we were to approve. The applicant is proposing to build sewer facilities, water facilities, and electric for a residential subdivision that you would approve via a final plat. This authorizes the infrastructure to be put in, but she can't sell the lots yet because they're not officially been subdivided, but you have to have the waiver approved in order to in order for you to in order for you to approve the proposed preliminary plat, you're going to have to approve a waiver because she's requested a pedestrian accommodation waiver.

One more staff comment. What What's the gap you were recommending? I would like a little more design debate. Can Can you shed some light on that?

The uh initial submitt did not really address the runoff through the site. My comment was they needed a clear plan on how they're going to carry the water through the site. They have made changes. These changes still still do not address that comment. So, they have issues with areas that are draining off the site um onto adjacent property, not into the lake as they had proposed. They have areas where they have concentrated flow that they're releasing down the side of the slope that's going to cut a rut down through it. So there just issues that still need to be worked out. I mean, they're they're going in the right direction. They're not there yet.

And I'm assuming the staff is providing the necessary guidance to help their design team. And I just I mean I I got it this morning. So I have drawn up comments and I will work with their engineer to address those comments. Okay. All right. Okay. Any other questions? today tableabling it still will still still meet our review requirements from statutory review requirements that the period of time we have to review a document.

Um yeah so we have 60 days uh to review or to deny um or approve or is essentially our code is actually more strict than um the state statute when it comes to this because the state statute only addresses local or staff approved. Our code says we that you guys have to take action within 60 days of receiving a complete submitt. Um that would be within our time frame. However, uh if Linda so as the applicant wants to wave that just as of a precaution, um then I would defer to her because it's ultimately the applicant's choice if they want to wave that 60-day review requirement. Well, if the applicant's here, would she like to come up and address the commission?

Linda Lloyd, 102 Fairway Drive. I think the first question would be the pedestrian accommodation variance. Um, we've done the best that we can to work with the existing topography to maintain trees. This being an eco-based community, the pedestrian accommodation uh ordinance specifies it cannot be steeper than 8%. What we have is the vast majority of the proposed sidewalks are zero to 10%. There are some sections that are 10 to 15% and a very very limited I think it's about 6 feet that would exceed that. So for all but six feet we are below what we currently allow for driveways. The other option for us is to redesign the entire community, push everything out further into the trees and into the steeper topography or to put steps on our sidewalks, which is not something I want to do in a 55 plus community. So that that's the the pedestrian accommodation variance. And I believe anybody who has walked the Branchwood Walking Trail would agree that there are large sections of the Branchwood Walking Trail that also exceed 8% slope.

Okay. Do anybody on the commission have questions of the applicant? I have a staff question. I can't hear you. I have a staff question. Okay. Well, I guess it doesn't matter. Well, I don't have any questions for you, Linda. Uh since the roads are private, roads are all the sidewalks are also private. Correct. Okay. The um the intent of this is when the final T comes there will not be a rideway dedicating. There will be an access easement for those within the community to use these and the applicant is going to be maintaining these roads and sidewalks herself. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I I have one question for the applicant. What what is your what are your plans and dialogue with engineering within the city to address some of the the service runoff the drainage challenges the gap that it seems to be still existing.

Okay. Um my my understanding I'm not notice I'm not the engineer the that is that the engineer met with the city engineer last week. I thought he had completed everything that the city was requiring him to do. This is the first I've heard that he did not. And I think it's happened many many many times in this organization here that if there are minor things to be addressed that things don't necessarily have to be tabled for a whole month that we can have the two engineers get together resolve everything to the city's satisfaction because obviously again this is an eco community tree retention I don't want to cause any kind of erosion or drainage issues in this project. That is that is not my goal. As far as tableabling it for a month, there are a lot of reasons why that would cause a big problem for our commons. First is that the city approved this uh PZD June 23rd of this year. That started the timetable ticking. As of June, we have three years to complete everything or we lose the PZD zoning. The other reason the month would make a big difference is contrary to what everybody thinks, winter is really coming. and putting this off till November means that I cannot this month accept my site work bids then take those site work bids to my lender and get our financing for the

site work so we can get this going as soon as possible. Uh I paid Carol Electric their $1,000 for engineering in March. if I don't have the electrical work done by next March, Carol Electric can redo all of their estimates. So, from a financial standpoint at it's important for me to get the site work financing done. At this point, I've got Let me get the number. $169,000 per personally invested in this project with no approvals yet. $93,000 of that is in engineering. And with what we expect our uh site work and other costs to be right now my costs are $69,000 per house.

Is your understanding of the gap currently with engineering? Is it surface water runoff or is it grade of walkways? I was a little No, I don't think it has anything to do with the walkways and and Chris can clarify that. My understanding it has to do with some of the grading and perhaps the drainage channels andor drainage easements which engineers are wonderful. I thought was resolved when they got together last week and if it's not resolved I'll make sure it gets resolved

immediately. I understand that that they're asking for a waiver on the uh sidewalks and then the preliminary plat approval. It would seem to me that we could vote on the waiver, but we could also vote on the the preliminary plan with staff comments with a right subject to subject to engineering signing off on it. That that would be very helpful. And we're not trying to do anything that the city doesn't approve. Yeah, we want that done. Are we Are we okay with that? Could staff back up to talk?

I think the staff is needs to figure out I think legally you probably could, but I I haven't conferred with the staff. There may be things I haven't thought of. Is there So, just to be very kind of depends on what would need to be changed. Well, this that's to be very just flat about it. If we do a if we were to recommend a condition of approval to you guys, that means we have comments lined out in bullet points that is ready to send to her. And you don't have

we don't even have that right now because we're still reviewing it. So like we just know there's comments and we know the gist of it based off the meeting we have with them Tuesday. Um, and the meeting we had with them Tuesday is due to the amount of comments that we had on their second submission that more time would be needed just generally speaking. Um, but yeah, since we got this Friday, Chris Bracket, our engineer, does not have a bulletoint list, which is what we normally have should we recommend conditional approval. In theory, you could and then staff could just figure it out, but like that we don't even know what what meets and what doesn't meet to the fullest degree right now. That's the issue, right? Could we vote on the waiver one way or the other and not vote on the preliminary plan?

Yes. Does commissioners understand what I what I'm asking? Yes, clearly. Okay. Uh I I do have a question. I'm thought Chris just said he had lined out what needed to be fixed. Can we ask Chris? Wait a minute. Go ahead. Let's get this solved. Get Yeah, come on up.

I reviewed this for about two and a half hours this afternoon. I'm not all the way through it. I'm not I mean, I haven't had enough time to I It came late Friday. I didn't get it till today. So, I'm only part-time. I was only here this afternoon. So, I'm not completed with my review. I don't know all my comments yet, but I do know that a lot of it doesn't meet my original comment is that they're still not draining this properly. Okay, fair enough. So, I have a question for Chris. So, is there the potential for the drainage improvements to alter the site layout? Yes.

Okay. right now, especially right there to the where that red is to the they do not have that worked out. Okay. They added a wall and they added a cover with a bend in it and it it doesn't work the way they show it. Um they're going to have to do something different, lower things or change. I mean, that just isn't working the way they have it. With that unknown, I would be more comfortable voting on it after Chris has gone through his thorough review because we approve a site plan that then changes later on. It's going to have to come back anyway. Correct. Staff. Well, I mean, we we could vote on a waiver. Correct. One way or the other.

Yeah, I understand the waiver part. Yeah, I'm talking about the the preliminary plat. Um because, you know, we can only vote on what we were presented. I think you're right about that. So, I mean, I have no doubt it's going to be taken care of at all, but if the site plan changes, we we've got two approaches, which is let's deny it and send them back the drawing board. I don't want to deny it. Well, table, right? Sure. No forward motion at this point. Are you talking about tableing both the waiver and the No, just the uh the final plat. Yeah. uh or put the burden on the city engineering department to negotiate it out. Okay. Well, um

I I don't I don't think it's good this we know everybody who's involved that's making this difficult and it and and what I would just remind you and and we're all friends here, but we have to treat this like we would anybody if it's contractor X and if contractor X came in with the very same set of circumstances, don't let that change what you think ought to happen given a different circumstance. Am I making myself clear? And no one's going to think otherwise of of anything being slighted or or you know, just just do what we know we need to do, whatever that is, and and you'll be in the right. All right. Why don't we deal with the waiver? Yes. First,

I'll make a motion we approve the waiver. Second. Second. Okay. Would you call the role on the waiver, please? Sbury. Yes. Portillo. Yes. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, no, excuse me. Yes. Barner, yes. All right. Your waiver is approved. Now, back to the original uh block plan here. May I make one comment about Okay.

Okay. I just want to point out that I received an email on this I received an email on the 2nd of October from senior planner Hyatt asking us to resubmit things by Friday and that's exactly what we did. That's all. Okay. But as I understand the engineer has not had a chance to review what they submitted. That's what I'm understanding. and more work is required and it may affect plat design which would bring it back to us. Yeah, I think these are all relevant facts. So

there I just do like want to make sure I'm not sure if Chris mentioned this earlier while I was out helping the previous gentleman, but um this plan has made significant strides to comply in the very short almost less than a business day's worth of time that we've had to get this ready for you guys. Um since just today alone or this afternoon, we've worked with electric, water, um two utility companies, which usually takes a long time to get approval to get the approval. So the applicant is very forward in making sure that this is compliant and will be compliant. Um it's just simply we can't move that quick. This is a very large proposal and so um and like he said, our engineers only part-time and he doesn't get here on planning commission days until 12 um because the meetings are late. So um we do recognize that but I do the applicant is putting in a very serious good faith effort to comply with code with the comments that we have.

Okay commissioners do I uh do I have a motion? How do we do this to approve it with table? It's either a motion to table or a motion to approve. Which you which you what motion do you want to make? I don't know there's I I don't ever recommend you approve a plan that you know is not final as not I don't mean final plaid I mean there are deficiencies in that you cannot specifically address so the motion would be to table it

if that's if you want to put this off give them more time come back next month then to move to table it to November meeting would be what someone would need to do I'll make the motion to table this until next month do we I have a second. Second. Would you call the role, please? That's on the motion to table till next month. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Yes. Sbury, yes. Barner, yes. Okay. Did Did we capture Patillo's vote? Yes. Okay. Is your mic on? Yes. Okay. And then Miss Lloyd recused.

Okay. that that uh then the next thing uh on the agenda is the committee reports. Do we have any? There's none at this time. And for the minutes, Linda. Okay. Returning to her chair. Do we have anything for open discussion?

No, just a reminder. Um I don't know if you saw the press release and the emails that I sent, um but our new code goes into effect on December 1st. That is the 60-day requirement from publication. Um it is on our website so that way you can view the current code and compare it to the new code and um there will also be which hopefully everyone got the news release. Did everyone get it to their email? And then just a reminder if you still can't get in your plan commission email, please reach out to it if you still can't get into that. I did. They did not respond.

Okay, we will help put that together for you. Um but yeah, our new code goes live December 1st and so applications received on December 1st and forward will be applicable to that new code. Applications we're still reviewing now um will be applicable to our current zoning code. So your cycle one of the development calendar for 2026 will formally be on the new code. So just wanted to send that as a reminder.

Okay, with that I'll do the announcements. City Council work session is Monday, October 20th at 5:30. City Council regular meeting is Monday, October 27th at 6 o'clock. The next planning commission work session is Thursday, October 30th at 4:30 and the board of zoning adjustments will meet November 10th at 4:30 followed by the planning commission. With that, we're journ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. the cloud.