Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are we good? Hello. Hello. Hello. Okay, we're going to call this meeting to order. We are about one minute behind. We're waiting on our mics so you all could hear us. And if Ethan if you can do the roll call please. Yes. Lori Quinn here. Ethan Reed I am present. Mark Ferguson Alexander Bainy present. Jensen Toki here. Jay Winburn Brooks Davis here. Tenisia Roundtree present. Cassidy Cook here. Kevin Gamrell. Okay. Thank you. And I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. Seconded. Okay. Motion in a second. Um, all in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Um, as we say in each meeting, the Conway Planning Commission makes recommendations to the city council on public hearing items. Items reviewed on this agenda will be considered by the city council as early as um 5:13. Um, items reviewed and considered by the city council on a few of our early items tonight will be considered as early as tomorrow night. Items not approved by the planning commission board of zoning adjustment may be appealed to the city council within 30 days of the date of denial. So, with that, we are going to move into our public hearing items. And Ryan, I think you're first up for us. Yeah. Well, I thought you wanted us to do Yeah. Okay. So, just so we know tonight real quick on um any of our public hearing items tonight, we would like for you all we'll have one speaker who will be the applicant who will let us know what's going on with the process and then we will ask I will ask for anyone to speak in favor. Um we will allow one person 10 minutes and two people three minutes each. So, if y'all talk to each

other, just don't have the same person saying the same thing or you're wasting your time on that. So if somebody has something to say that adds to or if questions are not cleared up with the applicant, they may answer the questions that you had. So if the applicant answers your question, you don't have to speak just to speak, I guess, is the way to say that. But um Lauren will be timing it. So unfortunately, we'll have to cut you off at that at that timeline or we're going to see each other tomorrow if we don't do that. So um okay, we're going to move forward, Ryan. So, with the um annexation on 39.5 acres on Loi Road, as was stated, um this is 39.05 acres, roughly um about 1,320 ft east of Loi Road and 940 ft south of Cooper Lane. Um the adjacent zoning to the north and to the west is A1 Agricultural District. to the south and east is outside of the city limits. The current zoning of course is not applicable because they're trying to come into the city. Uh we looked at a projected traffic impact and it really depends on what the facility is. Uh the requesting I3 which is an intensive industrial district. Um so it could be anything from a factory um to a data center to mobile home sales. So there's a wide range of what could go into an I3 site. Uh this is in the um floodway and flood plane. The western portion of the lot lies within the 500-year flood plane and the eastern portion lies within the 100-year flood plane. All utilities will be needed will need to be coordinated with Conway Corporation. Uh the the applicant did provide a petition from the court uh county county court of Faulner County releasing this land for annexation into the city. Uh documentation has been received from the department of transformation and shared services showing the applicant has coordinated with the city. Uh per the code of Conway

annexation guidelines and procedures. Uh the uh all areas to be annex must be contiguous and adjoined lands which are included within the city of Conway. this condition has been met and the city of Conway Conway's comprehensive plan states in section 8 annexation strategy annexation should be encouraged to square off municipal boundaries and to avoid islands within the county that are surrounded by municipal boundaries. Uh this condition was also met with this annexation request. I3 zoning appears appropriate for the area. Uh there's a portion of land zoned I3 to the southwest of the property. Um, and this is for annexation only and they're annexing in at I3. If there's any future resoning requests, that would require a new um, planning commission and city council agenda. All of our departments did review this for annexation and would recommend annexation of this property. Questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. That's what Jamie asked us. I don't care. The question is, do we want to go ahead and do item number two? Well, we know we have to vote separate, but Ann was saying, do we want to just Okay. Okay. Here we go. Um, is the applicant here to speak in favor of this request? That was quick. Thank you. Technology. I can take a hint. I can take a hint. It's It's a It's a We might could just do it on a phone if that's not working. I got it. Okay. We've got we've got two

up here. We'll we'll do it. Don't worry. Okay. Ann's got it. Okay. Ready? Yes. Uh thank you, commissioners. Um I do know that you have a very full agenda and we also have a number of items that are somewhat combined. What I will do is um if you can just state your name and address. Sorry. Yeah. It's uh Jamie Gates. I'm here on behalf of the uh Conway Development Corporation. Uh we're located 900 Oak Street. Uh I'm a resident of Conway at 5 Lexington Drive. Thank you. Um we have um three agenda items that are all related to each other. They also involve uh multiple parcels, but all of them can be wrapped up really within uh two different issues. So I was going to kind of lay that out right now and I'll be very brief. Um but am available to take questions as we move into the future agenda items and the issues may be different as you want to vote on those. uh separately. Uh the two issues before the planning commission tonight are annexation and a um concurrent reszoning uh with the land that's being annexed in. So to annex that in as I3 and then secondly uh to reszone a piece of property that's already within the city uh from A1 to I3. First on annexation, you know, my belief that as a rule uh annexation prior to development is a benefit to the owner eventual owner of the property developer. uh the city of Conway and the neighbors. Um the alternative is to have land that remains in this case unincorporated. Uh that offers no protection not only uh to adjoining land owners. Um unincorporated incorporated areas will not offer protection to the eventual uh owner, tenant, developer. Um there are economic benefits to being in the city. There are public safety benefits uh to having developed facilities protected by the city of Conways, police, fire uh easily

served by Conway Corporation utilities. Uh and so for that reason, you know, the annexations before you tonight, we think benefit every party um in this room. So, city government, future owners, developers, uh and the adjoining neighbors because it does provide um regulation, it provides a process. Um, it provides staff uh through the site plan review process as we work uh to see this developed. Uh, second is reszoning. Uh, just a a quick history lesson and I have provided um a map and we have some copies in the back. The two parcels outlined in black are owned by currently by the Conway Development Corporation. Um our uh activity in uh this uh part of Conway goes back to the development and relocation of the airport. Um over the course of that process uh we acquired property and we resone property. So in 2012 those were zoned as I3. Uh you'll see in between these two parcels uh is a section of A1. Uh we're asking uh that we eliminate that island of A1 and to make it um I3 zoning. This will all be um a contiguous site that we're currently uh working to develop. And so providing consistent zoning will provide basically a larger sandbox to configure the site plan. uh we won't have some portions of the property where some activities are permitted and then other portions of the property where other activities are not uh permitted. And the same argument would hold to the land bordering our the CDC's current northern parcel to the east. Um spoke to that on annexation that it be brought in as I3. I will say one thing to point out um on the the shaded area here, a large

portion of this parcel, uh that is floodway. It's about 94 close to 95 acres of floodway that won't be developed. Um and a large portion of this property is also in the 100redyear flood plane. uh the economics of developing that uh are likely um going to prevent uh it being developed, but certainly the the floodway won't. So, a lot of this property that's brought in and that is speaking more to the reasonzoning and some of the concerns uh folks may have um just won't be developed, but they will be part of the site. Anything else? No, but I I expect there will be more questions and so do do we at this point want to see if there's anyone else to speak in favor? Presented. So now you need to ask, right? That's what Yeah. Yeah. Okay. You're good for now. We're going to call you back though probably. Is there anybody else here that would like to speak in favor of this? Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition? Okay. Okay. With that, we Oh, sure. If you'll just state your This is just about the annexation. Annexation. Yes. Okay. Well, I'm in opposition, but with what I prepared ties into the second part of it as well. So, should I just speak to both now or if it's regarding the annexation, we will be voting on that next. So, if you if you have something to say that, now would be the time. Okay, perfect. And if you'll just state your name and address just so they can put it on the record. Uh Jeremy Rice, 1350 Liy Road. I'm actually bottom right of that picture in the house that y'all uh posted up

there. Uh good evening, planning commissioners. Uh my name is Jerry Rice. 11 1350 Li Road directly touching the proposed data center site. I'm here to respectfully oppose the resoning from A1 to I3 as and the annexation as it threatens my family's quality of life and violates the city's own zoning principles. My p primary concern is noise. My home is feet from the site and research of Reddit forums, lawsuits, news, and videos with decibel readings shows data centers produce constant disruptive noise, especially from backup generators tested monthly or running unexpectedly at night due to power surges or inefficient grid power. If no measures are taken, this noise will be unacceptable. I've shared links to sources um to the commission's email and to the city council showing that data center noises complaints are common. Despite council members and large corporations upfront assurances that their project will be different, these issues persist in other data centers across the United States. I'm not asking to break NDAs, but I respectfully request the city arrange visits to comparable facilities so my neighbors and I can assess the noise ourselves. Have any of you under NDAs visited such a site or reviewed impact studies? Have the noise study requirements of ordinance number 0-23-55 been completed? If not, how can we trust assurances from a Fortune 100 company over real world evidence? How can we move forward with reszoning, annexing, and planning steps without this basic information? Conway zoning code section 307.1 is clear. Industrial districts like I3 are meant to protect residences from objectionable activities insulated by barriers. My home directly touching this site has no such barrier. Section 307.4A1 prohibits noise that exceeds levels of adjacent residential areas. A data center's noise will likely violate this, making I3 ren zoning inappropriate and contrary to the code's intent. I'm also deeply concerned about a bald

eagle's nest across the street protected under federal law. Construction and operational noise could disrupt the nest, risk legal violations and harming our uh local ecosystem. Has the city studied this impact? If not, I urge you to do so before moving forward. Beyond noise, I worry about rising utility cost, traffic, and resource stream. No studies on these impacts or health concerns have been shared with me or anyone that I know. I ask for transparency, provide impact studies, or conduct them for this specific Conway site. Unproven and speculative economic benefits should not outweigh residents right to peace. I'm happy to compromise. I'm open to compromise, but need hard data. No promises, not promises to believe coexistence is possible at this time. Please deny this annexation reszoning to our to protect our homes, our wildlife, and our community's future. We simply do not have enough information concerning this project to make permanent decisions like this now. Thank you. And I have pictures of the bald eagles if anybody wants me to email them to you. I can share the nest and all the uh lawsuits and citations. I I sent most of all that to the to the planning commission, but I can forward forward the rest of it at a later date so you can see. Okay. Okay. Hold on just a second. Does anyone have any questions? 1350 1350. So the property that's being proposed to annex, I'm right I'm with the pond right here and then my two neighbors are right above that. I currently tie the city in to the city limits to go on to the airport. Yes. I had one one question too. Was this when I don't know the date that your house was built? Is it already zoned I3 there in front of your house? Yes, correct. The one this one down here is

not the not any of the other. Not the one requested tonight, but the the two surrounding that were already I3. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Anybody else have a question? Okay. Is there um anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? And this person will have three minutes. Okay, with that we will bring it back into commission and um let's talk about it and anybody have any questions about the annexation. There it goes. You hit the little talk button. I'd make a motion to approve the annexation into the into the city. Second. Okay. Um, all in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. And we're going to move into the next annexation. And just a reminder to the public tonight, we are only talking about land use. And there's a lot of questions that were asked just now. Those things will be addressed as you move through the process. the some of those answers aren't even available right now, but there are many many many steps beyond tonight. So, we're literally just looking at land use tonight. So, if with that, Ryan, if you will come up for the 294 acres. Yes, ma'am. I'll speak on the 294 acres and I also want to speak on um the sound levels that could be caused by a data center. Um again this is 294.74 acres to be annexed um into the city as I3 intensive industrial district. Uh staff concurs with the resilient request. To the north you have A1 agricultural and 01 general office. Um the west is where the annexation runs concurrently with

annexation 0047 and the applicant seeking I3 zoning of this parcel. South and east is outside city limits. There's no structures. there's no overlay in the area. The traffic impact would be projected the same. Uh again, this meets um all of our annexation um request procedures. Um the county has released it to be annexed into the city. Uh so it's very similar to what was just um said. Uh we do have an ordinance uh ordinance 02355 that deals uh with noise attenuation and the requirements um for data center specifically. Uh there is a study that has to be done prior to construction of a data center along with notification of miles within um with neighbors within a half mile. Uh they have to take steps such as soundproofing walls, buffer yards, other no noise mitigation measures. I mean, this has to be done through a report through a thirdparty acoustic engineer. And then once the building is constructed, another report has to be done by an acoustic engineer showing um the levels and what kind of sound is out there. So, there are things built into the ordinance that should deal with any noise issues for any sort of center that goes out there if it pertains to a data center. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. if the applicant would like to add anything to what you've already presented. Uh nothing other than that this is the U parcel further east that includes the the floodway and the just speaking to the annexation, you know, the benefit of ordinances uh like the 02355 is one of the reasons that we we're advocates in favor of annexation protections like that. that there's a reason that um operations data centers like this one are comfortable locating inside city limits and operations like crypto mining

typically operate outside city limits. It's to avoid the protections um that are offered by this ordinance and you know we will make our assurances. We will work with the neighbors and we will work with the company, but people should take faith in the ordinance and the power of the city to enforce it. Um rather than, you know, relying on any kind of handshake agreement or anything like that. Thank you. Just just because this is a different item, can you state your name and address one more time? Sorry. We have to write that down over there. Well, we'll go Jamie Gates, 5 Lexington Drive on behalf of the Conway Development Corporation, 900 Oak Street. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else here tonight to speak in favor of this annexation of the 294 acres? Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak in opposition? Sir, would you like is there anything else you want to Can I Can I give him this ordinance? Okay. And I didn't know if you had a copy of that noise ordinance, but I'll give you that just so it might make you I know that was one of your concerns, but we had them provide a copy of that. So, and so the public knows, we had several people who sent us letters um or emails. We read all of those ahead of time. Um and also, if you see us looking down, we have a 100page um packet for tonight. So, we are some of us have it on our phone, some of us have it on that. We're not on our Facebook. So, I just want y'all to know we're we're trying to keep up as we move along. So, if you'll go ahead with anything else you would like to add, that would be great. And just state your name and address. Jeremy Rice, 1350 L Road. Thank you. I had read through most of this uh noise ordinance before um before the meeting. My my main thing is is why are we reszoning it before any of the things in this ordinance are even even begun to

been studied or um looked at? um we're zoning some we're trying to reszone something that we don't even know if it's going to be. So that's that's kind of where I feel like it's a carp for the horse. So uh that that was my biggest thing with this is um there's also a section in there about complaints um that it would have to be uh uh redone by an engineer somewhere in there about complaints. Um, but once again, why are we reszoning something that's uh that none of these things even been begin to to be done before we're reszoning it? Ryan, can you speak to that, please? Yeah. Right. But he's asking why why we would be doing this at this stage. When you annex into the city, um, you're required to annex in with a certain zoning. You can't just annex in as a piece of property. what the applicant has chose to uh annex in as is I3 um given the I3 in the area and whatever uses they may propose. Um the city's looked at the area, we concur with the I3 reszoning, but they are required through annexation to choose a zoning to annex into into the city. Okay. I don't know if that helps, but just wanted to try to address your question. And once we get to, you know, say things pass and it moves down the road, once we get to site development review, that's where we actually look at the site, right? Um the noise, the lighting, um the structures that are built, the materials that are used, that'll actually be done internally um by staff, right? We are at base level stage one right here. So, okay. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Okay. Thank you. And with that, we'll bring it back in to commission. Does anyone have any questions? I'll make a motion to approve annexation. Second. Motion in a second.

Um, all in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, with that, we are going to move on. Ryan, I think you're up again for reszoning the property at Lai Road from A1 to I3. Yes, ma'am. Same area. Um, it's already been annexed into the city though. So, this is an Izzoning or excuse me, a resoning from A1 to I3. Uh, this is currently roughly 160 acres. Uh, to the north is the I3 intensive industrial district. Um, outside and outside the city limits. To the south and east are outside city limits and the west is A1 and I3. Uh, there's no structures on site. This is not in any overlays. Um again the projected traffic impact would be the same as it was with the annexations. Uh portions again lie within the 100-year flood plane that will have to be dealt with during development. Uh the reszoning to I3 is consistent with the zoning in the area due to the I3 that's adjacent. Um and is consistent with the uh annexations that just passed. Um, it looks like it is appropriate area and shouldn't harm any adjacent property and traffic impact for this would likely be minimal. Um, given what we're looking at. Any questions for me right now? Anyone have any questions? Okay. Mr. Gates, if you would like to stand back up and state your name and address, please. John Lewis Jameson Gates, uh, five Lexington Drive. I actually have enough names to do several more items, but um uh here on behalf of the Conway Development Corporation at 900 Oak Street, um the reasonzoning um you see from the map provided that the the land to the north and to the southwest is already I3. This is just providing a contiguous site. I think the benefit um not only to the project and to the city

but to the the neighbors is this like I said gives us a larger sandbox. Uh it gives flexibility to um the owner and to staff uh city staff to prepare a site plan that minimizes um impact. Uh the you know first factor among equals uh for any concerns with regard to noise uh is distance. And so this provides um a buildable site that will let us accommodate that. Um I do want to mention just because we are talking about an I3 reszone, um the property to the north is currently uh zoned I3. The only permitted use in an I3 zone that requires additional sound modeling and sound mitigation is a data center. So all of the other uh heavy industrial uses that are permitted by Wright and I3 do not require or offer any of those protections. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Is there anyone here um anyone else to speak in favor of this? Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of the resoning? Sorry, just state your name and address again. Jeremy 13. Feel free. This is why we have a public forum. Jeremy Rice, 1350 uh Lolly Road. I just basically want to walk back up and oppose on record uh for this portion as well with the stating the same thing that I stated earlier. So, okay, I'll repeat it all if you want me to, but no, we we appreciate that. And we also wanted to make sure that whatever happens tonight, you know, with this approval, if this is approved, it will be at city council tomorrow night. So, anyone who is in opposition

is welcome to be there as well tomorrow night. So, thank you. Okay. Anybody else in um would like to speak against tonight? Okay, with that, let's bring it back into commission. Anyone have any questions? Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, we will move forward. We are now say this real quick. I think a good portion of the room is here for those three item agendas. You're welcome to leave now that those have passed, but we ask that you hold your um comments to each other until you get out. We do have to move on. Thank you. Thank y'all. Okay. Okay. Lauren, you're up. Reszoning property southeast of the intersection of Donald Ridge and Old Military. Yes. So, the property in question is almost 7 acres. It's about 120 ft south of the intersection of Donald Ridge Road and Old Military Road. Currently, it is zoned R1. The applicant is requesting R2, so a slightly higher density. Adjacent zoning to the north is A1. South and east are R1. West is A1 and multifamily. Um that MF1 is a proposed duplex development we're currently in review of. Right now, there are no existing um structures on the site. It's not in any overlay zones. The comprehensive plan does indicate it for transition and single family use. Um, with the applicant requesting the reszone to R2, we know it is for duplex development. The highest density that could be achieved would be 36 duplexes or 72 dwelling units, which would generate 518 trips per typical

weekday. This is a portion of a site that we um annexed into the city not very long ago uh back in the February city council meeting. Um this is the north western portion of that larger annexation. So right now it's just a small portion. Later phases will be developed as R1 subdivision. Um right now um any subdivision or any utilities will need to be coordinated with Conway Corp. This portion of the site is not located in any FEMA flood hazard zones. Um there are traffic counts just to the southwest corner of the site at 2900 um a day. The comprehensive plan uh does indicate like I said a transition and a a single family use at this section of the property. So that is appropriate I think for duplex development. Ab budding land uses are predominantly rural agricultural or single family and there is that higher density as we indicated across old military proposed as a duplex development. Any questions? Anybody have any questions for Lauren? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here to speak? Howal, if you'll just state your name and address, you know the deal. I live 4980 Tyler Street in Conway. I'll be glad to answer any questions if there are any. Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Thank you. We may call you back up. I'll be back. Okay. Okay. Is there anyone else here this evening to speak in favor of this? Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay. Thank you. We will bring it back into commission. Anybody have questions? Everyone's read their packet and done their drivebys and know what we're talking about. Okay, good deal. Okay, I will entertain a motion.

Second. Motion in a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, thank you. We will move on, Lauren. Next item is a reszone at one Laura Lane. It is lot one of Countrywood Edition. Currently, it's zoned R1 single family. The applicant is requesting a reszone to R2, which is like we stated last time a slightly higher density. Um adjacent zoning to the north and south are R2, south and west are R1, east is R2, and we have multif family uh 18 units of 18 units an acre across Hubard there. There is an existing um 1600 foot home with a 192 foot outbuilding. The property is not located in any overlay districts. The comprehensive plan does indicate this area for single family. Um as requested for R2, the highest density they're going to get on this lot would be one more duplex and they'll have to be subdivided. So, it'll be on two separate lots. They can't put two duplexes on this lot with the existing single family home. Um, as that means, if if they were to get two duplexes, four units, that's 29 vehicle trips a day. There's not any traffic calculations anywhere in the vicinity of the site. The nearest is um 400 ft east of the intersection of Hubard and Bruce, and it's 2,000 a day. The site is not located in any FEMA flood zones. If there are any needs to increase in capacities for for utilities that would need to be dealt with with Conway Corporation, the intent of the of the reszone is to construct a higher density. So, most likely a second um either maybe another home or two duplexes on the site. If they are doing any subdivision at the site, it'll have to go through the subdivision regulations and meet all provisions of the zoning code. The comprehensive plan does indicate single family. Um there's duplexes in the vicinity um to the north, to the south, to the east, to the west. There's multif family as well. There are R1 homes um further to the

west through that subdivision um that Country One estates. So I think that's everything. Does there any questions? I had one. So um the maximum is two dup. It could be a single family again or two duplexes. They could construct probably another single family home. Um, but yes, for if we're going max density, two duplexes across two individual platted lots. Okay. No, they'd have to tear down the home and build two duplexes. Okay. Anyone else have questions? I had a quick question. If you go to R2, does that affect the orientation of how that lot would be split? So, I I look both ways. Um, the way it's plotted, it is a larger lot and the way the home is built, it looks a lot smaller than it is. But they could either do two lots fronting on Laura or two on Hubard actually just because they have a lot of frontage on both sides. But they will have to front and orient the same direction. They can't have one off of Hover and one off of Laura. The math would not math. That's important. Okay. Any anybody else? Okay. Thanks. Is the applicant here to speak? Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor who's not the applicant? I don't The applicant has to be here. They have to have a representative or we'll have to table it till next month. That's bylaws. Okay. Sorry. If you're if you are here to speak in opposition to this or for it, we'll have to wait. So, table this tonight. Okay. To the May meeting. Okay. I don't Okay. Can I have a motion? Make a motion to table till May. Second. Okay. All in

favor? I I Okay. Thank you. Any oppose? Sorry. Thank you. All right, Lauren. Okay. Next, we have a reason request from R1 and C2 to R2. So to preface really quick, the lot that we're looking at is five acres about it is currently splitz zoned. So we're looking at a portion of the southern half where the northern half is C2, but the current bottom half is R1. And they're looking to reszone all of that to R2. As we've kind of stated the last few items for a higher density. I know it's proposed for duplex development per the applicant. Um this is at 2011 Meadow Lake. There's currently that single family home and that barn. Um the part that you see that's C2 there was proposed as a comeand go that never was constructed. So that CUP is currently tied to those two lots on the west shaded portion there. So the reason is going to do a little bit of changing and I'll I'll talk more about the CUP in a bit. So north of the proposed side is C2, east C2 and R1 and west and south are R1 proposed. Um there's nothing currently on the lot that's requested to be reszoned, just some old mobile home um concrete pads. It's not in an overlay and the comprehensive plan indicates this area for single family. With the way it's configured and configuration um for future development of platted lots, they could get up to six duplexes, which would be 12 dwelling units, and they would all front on Donnie Avenue. Currently uh just south of Village Court Drive, which is to the north, there are 9,900 annual daily traffic trips. The site is not in any FEMA flood zones. Um the coordination of all utilities will need to be um talked about with COM Corporation. Right now, there are no street improvements planned in this area. So, as we talked, the intent is for duplex development on individual

platted lots running along Daveboard Drive. We have talked about further development right ofway dedication with the um the proposed land developers. So they're very aware of kind of what would be the next steps from here. Um abuing land uses to the south and east are single family. Uh North Market Plaza PUD which is a mixeduse development with multif family and commercial uses to the north. There's a vacant bank and then we have a church at Meadow Lake and the Pleasant Valley subdivision to the west. As to the subdivision, that was proposed for come and go. That was passed back in December of 2012. It's clearly not come to fruition. So, we have been in talks with the current property owner and the adjacent property owner to have that CUP revoked because it's no longer being used. And since the zoning is being affected and it's no longer going to be C2, we've reached out to them. We follow the processes outlied by the zoning code. And hopefully by this Thursday, it'll be the 30-day notice. And at that point, if this gets approved by council, we'll just go ahead and revoke that CUP. and it's just no longer a CU fee that's living that's not being used. Okay, does that make sense? Anybody have questions, Lauren? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here? You'll state your name and address, please. Jason Jones, 2435 Peabody Drive, Conway, Arkansas. Um, I'm in favor of R2 development. y'all have any questions? Okay. Just anything else you want to add or you were good with the staff comments and all that? Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay. With that, we'll bring it back into commission. Motion. Second. And a second. All in favor?

Any opposed? Okay, thank you. We are going to move on to our next which I think Ryan, are you up for this one? This is a PUB major modification denial. So, you're going to explain to us why you guys denied this? Yes, ma'am. This is a major modification PED request. Uh, it's at the corner the southeast corner of Prince Street and Rei Road. Um, it's got a private drive called Essex running through it. um adjacent zoning and this is to the entire plan unit development. Um to the north is R1, south is R1 and the Conway country club. West is A1 and then to the east you have the terrace PUD which is not developed at this point. Um the existing structures the area south of Exit Strive currently has six town homes. Uh two twotory with a garage on the first floor and then four threetory with garages on the first floor. There's no other development to the site. Uh the comprehensive plan lists this as single family. Uh based on the proposed uses, the average daily trips are approximately 21 for the residential uses proposed. The live work component for the four units to the north can expect approximately 88 uh average daily trips. Uh this is not within any floodways. Utilities are on site. Um there's no street improvements scheduled at this point. Uh the planning de development was originally given approval in August 1985 and allowed for an MF1 density uh due to the age of the PUD. All additional supporting documentation no longer exists. Uh so what the applicant is proposing is a live work concept to the north and and and a continuation of the established development pattern of town homes to the southern parcel. Uh when we looked at this um the proposal would allow for mixed use development to the north parcel and

town homes to the south. As I said the original PUD allowed for MF1 density. MF1 density allows for no more than 12 units per gross acre in density. Uh this was followed during the initial phase of this development. This was initially sent to the plan to the planning director um to review and who denied the request. The request was denied due to the age of the original PUD and lack of documentation. We felt it best to send this back to planning commission for a decision on uh basically what's a new use that's going to be going on at this site. Um this development will face multiple challenges in site development review. Um there's some drainage issues that will have to be worked through and um there's some parking issues. Uh if you look under staff recommendations, if this is approved by planning commission, staff recommends the following and I'm going to read these. Now, the site shall be limited to four live work units on the north parcel and two town homes on the south parcel as proposed. All standards and uses other than those defined shall be governed by restrictions of the MF1 zoning district. We tried to define live work a little more narrowly than typical. Uh live work means a dwelling unit that is also used for work purposes provided that the work component is restricted to the use as a professional office, artist workshop, studio or other similar uses and is located on the street level and constructed as separate units under a condominium regime or as a single unit. The live component may be located on the street level behind the work component or any other level of the building. a live work unit is distinguished from a home occupation otherwise defined by the city of Conway zoning ordinance and that the work use is not required to be incidental to the dwelling unit. Non-residents uh employees may be present on the premises and customers may be served on the site. Uh any use beyond professional office, artist wood shop, studio, salon, or other similar use will require a modification to the planned unit development. The development shall meet applicable standards for article 10 of the Conway zoning code. Uh the building shall be

constructed of brick, stone, cement, fiber board, wood or other materials as approved by the planning director. Vinyl sighting is prohibited. Um all landscape must meet guidelines found in article 10. No exceptions will be granted on landscaping. An operational plan with expected parking needs will be required for each live work unit and will require planning staff review before being approved. Uh the setbacks are as followed as what was requested from the applicant. Uh you'll see that the north and south parcel are a little different there. Uh the applicant uh shall plat the property in accordance with the subdivision regulations. Uh they shall return a signed copy of the final development plan prior to the issuing of building excuse me the issuance of building permits and a property owners association or improvement district shall be required to be formed and operated in perpetuity prior to filing of the plat to maintain all common areas and improvements such as private streets, sidewalks, and drainage. If an existing agreement exists, the section of the plan unit development shall agree to join the existing agreement. No existing maintenance agreement shall be violated by this development. Questions? Anyone have questions for Ryan? Okay. Um, is the applicant here to speak in favor? Okay. If you will state your name and address, please. John Pennington. Um, office location is 306 Salem Road, Sweet 104, Conway, Arkansas. Um, one of my companies is in Lance Capital LLC and we have uh indeed and filed for the amendment and they I'm sorry they're saying they can't hear you back there. Just speak just you have to get kind of close to these. Is that better? Yes. Yes. Um, we've obviously split the parcel into two pieces. Um we feel the south parcel is just pretty consistent with the current town homes and town homes that's been built there

since the mid9s. Um there is seven actual lots on that plat. Uh currently um only six town homes have been built. So the south parcel actually includes the seventh lot of the town homes. So, um, by right, um, there could be an additional townhouse that could be built now, uh, without any additional permission. So, we opted to merge those two pieces together into one larger tract and then separate a 10-ft separation between the existing town home and the new building. Um, and then, uh, that that building there to the south, which backs up to the country club. Um that would be just two town homes uh separated with a normal firewall separation. Um no live work in that particular building. Um and what is allowed by right currently is MF1 density as Ryan went over. So um we're not asking for any additional uses um as it relates to that south parcel. The only thing we're asking for would be a reduced setback and that was in the table that was provided. So, um focusing our attention there to the north, the northern parcel. Um there are four units there. Um and it is a live work concept which is new to Conway best I can tell. Um we have obviously mixed use around town, but generally those are apartments above with storefronts below. Typically those are leased out um to individuals and then corporations on the bottom. But that's not what we are proposing. It's live work is if you just kind of envision a a just an envelope, there's four separate envelopes there. And

whoever uh owns the envelope owns that whole vertical space. So, um the work the work unit and the garage which would be on the first floor and then the next floor up would be the residence for that same person who's working in the first floor. Um and then um these are going to be at least um two and a half story tall and maybe three story um depending on um and I did go over this with fire marshall um so he will dictate the height of the units. So, um, we're thinking the units closer to REI will be taller. Uh, the re the units further away from Rei will be shorter, uh, mainly dictated by fire code. Um, but all of them will be at least two and a half story, which is a loft. The half story is the loft or a full third story. Um, so generally these will not be leased. Um, these will be available for sale. Um, and the benefit for live work is is tremendous. It's had success in other areas of the state and certainly around the country, but we've never tried it to my knowledge in Conway. So, this is kind of a test market. Um, so, uh, just kind of to lay out a hypothetical, say a psychologist is coming to town and they're wanting to open, uh, their business and move to Conway. They would be looking for an office space as well as a place to live, either to rent or to buy. Um that would be our target market. Um that person would come in, the pitch would be that you would set up your clinic uh your operation in the first floor uh and then live above. Um and it cuts down on obviously with utilities, you won't have to pay rent at your, you know, your leased office space and then at home. All that is together in one unit. um cut

down on commuting time, commuting um fuel um and additional benefits of of just living and working at the same location. Um that is that is the general pitch for a live work unit. So um with it being a test market, we're not quite sure um if this concept will work in Conway. So it's always a little apprehensive when you're stepping out there doing something new in a market. But um we we do feel that um Conway is probably right for it. Um we feel that this location is appropriate for this type of um setup because um we're keeping with the residential look of the you can see by the architectural renderings we're we're maintaining the residential look. Um so uh that kind of maintains the residential pattern obviously with the residences above. we're we're maintaining that. But taking into account the 8,000 cars that go down Prince every day um at this particular location, it's it's hard to it's hard to say it's a serene residential area anymore with that many vehicles going up and down Prince. So, um it's kind of a mix, if you will, of best of both worlds with with live work is is what our opinion is of the site. So, um, I don't want to take up too much more time. If you have any questions, we can I know parking has come up and I'm I'm welcome to try to address that as best as possible. That was the question I had is I don't I couldn't see how anybody could park here if you were going to have businesses. There was four parking spots, I think. Yeah. So, if you I I don't know if Lauren or whoever can pull up the site plan, but um there are they're on the north. So, there are five parallel spots

there on the very eastern side. And then there are four just traditional spots there to the north. I'm assuming that one next to the hatch mark will be a handicap. So, that makes nine spots for just work space parking. And I think in preapp meeting planning and I kind of talked about this is your general parking ratios are are can be flexible as it relates to live work because your practitioner is living above the spot. So you the when you're counting parking ratios you should be able to count the parking that's in the residence because they have a garage because they have a garage. So there's eight additional spots four times two. So, so the total parking for the north is what 17 um if you count the resident, you know, the parking in the garage plus the additional parking. So, live work is kind of its own animal as far as parking goes. Um so, that is kind of our thought. And then another thing we were discussing is obviously we don't know who would occupy these spots. So, it's hard to, you know, pinpoint how many vehicles they'll need per day and all of that, but um our target market, and we're even going to build this into covenants, um with the with the POA, and you guys could also build in a condition as it relates to the PUD if you wanted to address it specifically as far as parking goes. Um, but I think Lauren or someone mentioned if if a yoga instructor came in there and they wanted to have 20 people join a class, um, that wouldn't work here, um, because there would not be enough parking. So, those that they kind of self-eliminate, if that makes sense. Um, when they're looking at the spot,

they'll know that, um, I don't want to get into reserving spots, per se. So, each live work unit has two spots. Um, you know, I don't I don't want to get in the police parking business, but um I'm open to flexibility as far as language that says something to the effect of um you know, at no time can can one live work unit occupy more than four spots in the visitor parking for more than an hour or just give me some flexibility, but then still give me some guidelines where, you know, we can still police it adequately without having to just sit out there and just totally monitor it all the time. So, um, but that's that's the best answer I have for the parking. Perfect. Does anyone have any other questions? I had a quick question about on the right side of that drive coming in off Prince Street with that apron. Yes. Um, adjacent to the parallel parking spots you see there. Um, okay. Is that supposed to be a two-way? I'm imagining a situation where folks parallel. Yes. They're not doing a three-point turn to go back. So, so just to clarify, we're talking about the end of Essex and then headed north on that private drive or I'm imagining the folks that are using those as parallel parking spots going to have to continue south to Essex to get to actually leave the side, right? As it's drawn, none of it's one way. Um, so all of it's birectional. Um, 20 foot lane is obviously the minimum we can get by with with for a two-lane directional. Um that turning radius, it's hard to point out here, but there's a turning radius there where it turns off of EX6. Um we're actually going to have to meet fire code as far as being able to turn a fire engine around, that kind of thing. So um there's a turning radius that's involved there. Um that that Chief Weedor and I have been over. So um and then as far as the apron on to Prince Street, that will be a

birectional april as well. you can come in and then exit from that same curb cut as it's currently designed. So that 20 foot width that's intended to be two-way throughout. Yes. Well, there you can see it kind of widens there as it turns. It kind of widens to 24 feet there. So the most the most narrowest area there is the 20 ft there on the eastern that eastern lane right there. And that would be a private drive. It's not a public street just like Essex is not a public street. It's a private drive. So, okay. Does anyone else have any other questions? Um, Lauren, thank you. We may be calling you back up. Lauren, if you could I know we have new commissioners and this is not an item we see all of the time with um modification of the denial of the appeal. Could you just kind of you or Ryan one just speak to that? I feel like that's a generic question. Um, yes. So, kind of like Ryan relayed, there's a lot of old PUDs in town. A lot of old PUDs don't have any conditions. They don't have site plans. They have nothing. So, when John brought this up, this is probably the fourth site plan we've looked at. Um, so I was like, you know, we're establishing in an existing PUB actual rules that this phase will have to follow. Um, so as like Ann wrote the denial because we just didn't have a lot of regulating power. The PUD as it set was for multif family one which is 12 units an acre. As this is sat with the the proposed dwellings, it it meets the 12 units an acre. Um but there just we had to actually institute some plans and regulations for the new development and that's why you're seeing it as a denial with the request with these new proposed conditions for the six proposed units. Anybody have any questions for Lauren about what we're doing on this? and we'll still have to go he'll have to plat go through site development review meet all the provisions of building code

um follow all these conditions. So there's there's additional metrics. It does stop at planning commission tonight if it is approved. It doesn't go to council because it's a modification. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this? Okay. If you'll step forward and state your name and address, please. My name is Renee Reigns. I live at 5263rd Avenue. I came into this meeting blind tonight. Had no idea this man was going to speak, but I have heard about these developments before. They seem sensible. They're very successful in other places. Conway seems to be a very forwardthinking town, and I would just hope that you would really consider and support this man's endeavor. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? If you'll state your name and address. Hi there. My name is John Rhodess. I'm at three Essex Drive. I'm the skinny one in the middle. So, we stand opposed to this project. Um, a couple of clarifications. Um, I believe there's some misinformation. There is actually a PUB document that exists. All of us owners have a copy and the Sharon Carter who's the estate uh exe or the owner of the estate who's deceased. She her family wrote it. So, they built all of those buildings. So, the PUD document does exist. We all have copies. We also have an HOA and we also have covenants and restrictions for our properties. So most of what they're proposing I'll go through some of the highlights here.

Um you want to look at let's see so couple of things. Um he mentioned about no issues with water. The if you go to the let's see that picture will do. If you go up the hill west from Rei, go up Prince Reedi Road to the top of the hill. Um, go to page, if you don't mind, go to the very first document page, page 39, like the geographical map top and blow that up. Okay, so Rey Road right there. Perfect. See the red vehicle turning left? Follow that up and see the that blank space was sold by Miss Carter to Thornberry, I believe. But now there's a big gas weld thing right where the dividing line is. Right at the corner is where the water connection is. And the Starky family had to pay the city to run their own private water line into the Essex Drive property. So there is no water resource available for number seven, number eight proposed and those four in the front. There's no water on the south side of Prince Street. So that's going to be a problem. They'll have to connect water on the far far left side up the hill. That's one just FYI that they may not have thought of, but I' we've owned the property for 23 years. We're this we're 23 years this month that I've been there or my family. Um so that's just an FYI. So that's going to be a problem. Number under our CCRs, the minimum square footage of a dwelling is 2400 square ft. If the building's only 24 feet wide, it's got to be 100 foot deep, there's not room to do that. So our CCNRs for our PUB state, 2400 ft²

minimum dwelling. He's they're representing a business underneath and a dwelling on top. Okay. The dwelling the business part's new. I understand that. But the dwelling according to our CC CNRs says 2400 ft. So unless he goes three stories tall, it's not going to work. It's against RCC CNRs. Um the other thing is the setbacks. He's asking for a 10 foot setback. If you'll flip uh to page 45, please. Nope. The map page 40. Sorry. Page 45 in the in the packet right there. Perfect. So, the existing one when you first come in Essex Drive, that first unit is number six. Number seven, he's proposing a 10-ft gap and then two buildings with an outbuilding garage. So, the building number eight apparently will have two garages. One of them is just a standalone garage. As part of our CNRs, standalone buildings are not allowed. It's against our covenants. So, the other thing is on the setback, they're proposing kicking their buildings 10 more than 10 ft forward to the property line, which is a golf cart path for the golf course. If any of you play on the country club, that's hole number four. What that's going to do, all of our units are set back 10 feet each to allow our views not to be obstructed. And that's going to be a problem if they push those 10 feet forward. Not to mention, no picking on the golfers, but we pick up three to four golf balls a

week that have broken windows, broken pottery, hit our cars over the building, and that area where the green is is just due southwest of that area. So, that's going to be problematic for them as well. Um, of course, land use building type lot is to be used only for residential. No structure shall be erected, aured, placed, or permitted to remain on any other lot other than a single townhouse residential unit with a garage part of our CNRs. And this is again a 40-year-old PUB that we have. Um, some quite a few other things are just let's see. Hey, can I stop you one second? This will not affect your time. I'm having to pause it. Um, does that impact if we do have a copy of the PUD that we did not? And then I don't know, Ryan, if that's something you can speak to and then the city and the applicant need a chance to review it. I I would think so, too. And if it's a copy of the actual uh plan development plan, uh, yeah, we would need to review that. If it's just covenants and restrictions, that's a civil matter that we wouldn't look at. And that was my second question. So if it's something that goes directly against the covenants and restrictions, it can that would be a civil issue between the builder and the and the homeowners in the area. So could uh I believe they are I I don't have a copy of that with me today. I had it this morning in my hand. It didn't break. I will Yes. Um so does she have a copy of the PED? Is that Do you have a copy of the PED? I don't have it here but you have a copy at your residents or somewhere. I do have it. Yes, we all do.

We all of us have copies. Is your HOA incorporated? Uh yes, it is uh Country Club Estates LLC. I can. And then there was another one called Essex Estate that was also incorporated. So when Miss Sharon passed away, it created she managed everything and was the president of all of the associate took care of everything. Since she's passed, it's caused quite a few issues. Well, I guess my question is before we even proceed if this I don't know that we need to continue tonight. So commissioners, if y'all if we want to just pause right here and then if anybody would like to speak to this, Sure. Okay. Sure. Make a recommendation at the table. I think so. Of course. Arkansas. Okay. I And I believe I know and I I I believe that is true. I'm not trying to misrepresent facts. I believe my understanding that is true. Right. And if you have seen that then I I feel like at least at a minimum we need to There's two other Oh, here's Do you all have copies? don't have them handy. Okay. We don't we we were unprepared. I apologize. That's okay. That's okay. We we bring a lot of stuff up here that you don't necessarily think about, but we're happy to provide that. Okay. Then my suggestion would be let's pause this for tonight. And um if you guys can get that to staff, um copies of anything you have. Um there are lots of older PUDs and covenants and restrictions that have not been recorded that every homeowner has a copy of. So again, let's just let's see where we are on this and then if that's okay, we'll table it and move forward. Sure. Okay. Do what's fair. Just a reminder, covenants and restrictions are only civil enforcement. They are not us. The reason why I brought I'm sorry. The

reason why I brought those up was our PUB references. They reference each other. Right. Right. We Yep. Yeah. One calls for the other. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate your Okay. Ryan, can you get them some contact information? All right. So, I'll make a motion to table this. Yes. Second. And I think we can just table it, right? We don't have to vote. No. Vote. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Next, just for a minute for those of you in the audience, we are going to close the public hearing for one item and then we'll bring it back in. Um Oh, oh, we're not doing it. Yeah, we need to do it. It's public hearing. Oh, okay. Gotcha. You got you. Sorry. Sometimes items change on our It's been a lot of changes for sure. Yes. Okay, Lauren. Conditional use at 9ine Water Oak. Yes. So, Nine Water Oak Drive, which is currently lot two, block five of the Oak Forest subdivision. It is just on the west side of Salem Drive. Um, and that subdivision back there, the entire subdivision is an R1 subdivision. The applicant is requesting home occupation to allow a beauty shop services in um her home. Currently, it's an 1820 1,825 foot structure. There is an out building on site. It's not in any overlay zones and the uh comprehensive plan indicates it a single family. Typically, a single family home is going to generate about 10 trips a day. Um, and I have spoke with the um, the homeowner just to kind of gauge some more information from her on her specific business. And we kind of talked about um, clientele and how many folks she typically sees in a day. Um, these are I to me I'd rather give you higher numbers, but 30 to four 30 to 40 clients a week. So maybe six to eight a day would generate um, 30 to 40 trips um, throughout the work week work week. There's not any traffic vicinity since

we're in the middle of a subdivision. Um, the closest count was just north of the Salem and Prince Street roundabout, which is 14,000 a day. The site's not located in any FEMA flood zones. Utilities are currently there. Um, there are no street improvements planned for Water Oak at this time. So, as earlier indicated, the applicant intends to develop um the property for a hair salon. Um, her plan is to enclose her carport and make that section of her home the the salon. based off of the math and the area and the map she provided, it does meet the 25% gross floor area. She knows she does have to enclose her garage to operate this use. She has been in contact with the building permits department and understands that she has to do that prior to her C being valid. Um, so when it comes to the zoning code definition of a beauty shop, this does it here. She can't see more than one person at a time. She has to live in the home. She's aware of all of the provisions of the home occupation provisions. Um the last big thing is um with parking that patrons will use the driveway or they will park on the street. Um bless you. But typically as we see with hair salons, you know, there may be two people there at the same time just for someone being there currently someone leaving. Um but as conditioned, she's provided her hours of operation and typical work days. Um and we have conditioned it for the home occupation specifically for a hair salon with the enclosure of the carport um really needing to happen. So the actual use can commence from there. But there are proposed 12 conditions very standard um for what she's wanting to do as a part of as well um the conditional use permit regulations. Okay, perfect. Anyone have questions for Lauren? Thank you. Okay, is the applicant here to speak in favor this request? Thank you. You'll come forward and state your name and address, please. Dana Hamilton, Nine Water Oak Drive. Okay. Are you good with the conditions that the staff is there

anything you want to add? Yeah. Well, since you know COVID happened, you know, five years ago, so I revamped my whole business for that. I, you know, I work out of a suite now, so it's just me and my clients and I'm in a small salon, so we can't overlap clients. So, I only work on one client at a time. And, you know, I'll have a client coming in and leaving, but there's not a lot of traffic u because like I said, it's a small salon. And so I'm used to doing that and I'm used to having buffer time in between clients. Um so it even if someone's late, it's not going to overlap and it's not going to cause a problem. So if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer those. Okay. Anybody have any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this request? Okay. Anyone here to speak in opposition to this request? Okay, good deal. Let's bring it back into commission. A motion to approve. Second with the 12 listed conditions. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, good deal. Now, we are going to close this for one minute. This just means you can't talk during this item. It is not a public hearing item. And we will be looking at um Lauren, you're going to present this for us. Yes. Um, so this is a subdivision waiver request. These are not things that staff can review uh and administratively grant. It is for a minor subdivision, which typically you guys do not see, but due to the requested waiverss, that's why you're seeing it tonight. It's located at 1550 East Aore Drive. It's currently lot 3 Mayor's Place Replat, and they're looking to um further subdivide that existing one tract into three individual uh tracks of land. Uh lot 3 A, B, and 3 C. Um, as I said earlier, it's 10 and a half acres. The zoning is RU1. You guys

saw this a few months ago when we got a CUP for mini storage um, proposed on that center lot that's proposed. The waiver right now is for the request to wave the allowance for double frontage lots and the need to not have a planning screen. Um, which is things, like I said, I can't grant, but you guys as the commission can. The subdivision regulations state that double frontage lots other than corner lots fronting on two streets and we're looking at three major streets right here um should not be platted unless under extreme circumstance uh have to be approved by the planning commission and y'all are going to establish those lines as well as the need for a planning screen. The site is a very odd shape. It's bound by a collector street and a major arterial and a minor arterial which is a lot of problems that typically don't exist. Um when they do go to further subdivide that tract, a large portion of lot 3C will be dedicated as rideway. Um as we all know that the future street improvements proposed along East Award are a roundabout and widening of that section of land. So the need to not I want to say kneecap additional future development is they may not have the metrics to leave that site as easily as a typical lot that only has one entrance. That southerntherland road will be a good release valve for traffic that could travel further north and west without getting back on Dave Drive, but then still gets them to Middle Road. The need for the planning screen is to be waved is we're looking at development here that needs especially lot 3C probably to access the site off of Southerntherland Road in the future. And that keeps anybody who would like to install any fences, it's not going to allow them um any heartburn there to use their site to the fullest potential. So that is why staff, you're seeing this administrative waiver request to wave the double frontage creation and the planning screen to not be um enforced

for lots 3B and 3C only. Okay, perfect. Anyone have questions for Lauren? 3A still has to meet the planning screen. 3A is No, that well they only have access off of Southerntherland. To the south is Dave Drive and there's two other lots. So, it's only for 3B and 3C. Creation of the two double frontage lots that still be committed to one ingress and egress off of one of those frontages. Correct. As proposed, um the middle lot is looking to have a a lot frontage off of Dave Ward and Southerntherland Road. And with lot 3C, I don't know future development plans for that lot, but they're going to lose a large section of that corner. um because Southerntherland Road and East Sabbore Drive really taper down there. Um so they're going to have to radius way more than probably they're usually required. Um so they're going to lose a lot of space and it may not be feasible to access off of Daveboard Drive in the future. I just don't know at this time since but 3B would but 3B you're anticipating that be split and then the north part of it getting access off Southernland and the south part getting access off Dave Ward. Yes. So right now we're looking at development plans for 3B and they're proposing an access off of Dave Ward and an egress off of Southerntherland Road as well. Thank you. Which down the road we did not allow. Correct. in the where the Clayton Homes currently is. We made them put the planning screening up on Dave Warden and they cannot access Dave Warden. Yes. Because they're building an internal street system that's going to be used for all of those lots to access off of Dave Ward Drive. Do you have more questions? No. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Thanks. Is the

applicant here to speak in favor or to present I guess? Bobby, state your name and address. Bobby French. Uh my address is 1021 Front Street representing the applicant and I'm just trying to do a reflat and I guess we get in situation with double front lots and nothing really major here. Everything Lauren said, I approve. Any any questions? I'd be happy to address them. Anybody have any questions for Bobby? Okay. Thank you. And so now, since this is not a public hearing item, I will entertain any questions or a motion or I'd make a motion to approve. Second and a second. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? One in opposition. Okay. Thank you. Now we will move back into public hearing items. We will convene the board of zoning and adjustment. So I think Ethan has to do another roll call, right? We need to close out commission first. Sorry. Um, okay. Let's adjourn. I need a motion to adjurnn. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Now, we will move forward. And Lauren, I think you're going Do we need to do roll call first again? Yeah, we need to do roll call for board of zoning adjustment. Okay. Uh Lori Quinn here. Ethan Reed I am

present. Mark Ferguson Alexander Bainy present. Jensen Tilki here. Jay Wimburn here. Brooks Davis here. Tenisia Roundtree. Cassidy Cook here. Kevin Gamrell here. Okay. Lauren. So, the first item for the BZA tonight is a reduced lot width requirement. Um, so if you look real quick at the site, just a quick reference, there is a single family home on the western portion of the lot and a duplex that's facing Clifton on the eastern portion. By current zoning standards, this would not be built today. It's been there for a long time. The site is 044 acres. It's zoned MF3, which is multif family. The home is 1555 ft² and the duplex is 2100 square f feet. It is a part of the old Conway Design overlay district suburban zone. They are requesting to um have a reduced width for the corner lot which is going to be the duplex lot going forward. This is all coming forth out of a replat. So the applicant submitted for a minor subdivision. Um and as it sits both of these uses and homes or structures are legally non-conforming. meaning as they sit, they're great, but the second they go to modify or expand or subdivide, they no longer can conform. But splitting the lot in this instance by granting the variance allows both the home and the duplex to become conforming because they can both align with the Conway old uh old Conway design overlay district setbacks and guidelines. So, a part of the subdivision is lot two, which is the duplex lot. All subdiv or all corner lots have to be 75 ft wide. This one with the way it's configured to meet both rear and side setbacks for the home and duplex can only be 63.80 feet. Um that is a 16% amount of requested need that I can't grant. I can

only grant up to 10% numerically. So that is why you're seeing a minor subdivision before you guys as a request with the variance to allow that reduced lot width for lot two here. Um like I said earlier, there are three conditions proposed. They're all strictly for lot two. Filing of the plot will make this both lots and both um structures legal or now conforming. Um and then in the event the duplex is ever removed, it will have to whatever is constructed conform to those old Conway design standards. So in essence, granting the plat or granting the variance is what's going to let them plot the property, split it, and then use them two independently and appropriately. Anybody have any questions for Lauren? Okay. Thank you. And is the applicant here to speak in favor? If you'll just state your name and address. My name is Aaron Bristster uh 60 Haley Circle Conway. Okay. And in a favor. Okay. Hey. And uh we bought we bought the properties uh me and my partner and um we found out that they were not separated and you know we're flipping them and getting ready to sell them and those kind of things and that needs to happen for us to keep going forward. Okay. I really don't plan on moving in there. So Okay. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor? Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay. Thank you. We'll bring it back in. I will entertain a motion. Second. Motion and two seconds. Whoever wants to claim that one. Um, all in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it. And we're moving on to the next one. I believe the last one's a rhymes. Okay. Okay. A little more spring cleaning. Um,

this is 290 Old Moran Highway. Uh the side area is currently 0.57 acres. What the owner is trying to do is split this lot into three separate lots. Uh when that home was constructed, which was in 1951, um it conformed. Now the uh ride ofway on Old Morton is larger than it was then. So that puts the house in the rightway. Um if this is approved, the variance granted would be specific to the home located at 290 Old Moralton. The variance allowed would be 19.6 ft. This will place the home 5 point 5 5.6 feet from the front setback. Uh the variance permit shall become effective when the filing with the filing of the plat. And if this home is ever removed um any new development shall conform to all city of Conway codes and ordinances including uh the proper ride rightway setback. Questions? Nope. Okay. Is the applicant here to speak in favor? And you know the drill. Just state your name and address. My name is Patrick Hagman. I'm here on behalf of the Tyler Group and Mr. Postino. Uh 20 or 240 Skyline Drive. Uh he's just looking to It's an old house about 70 years old. The highway is kind of creeping up on them with us refiling this flat. We want to make sure the house is Okay. Anybody have any questions? Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else here to speak in favor? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back into commission. I will entertain a motion. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed. Thank you. Motion passes and we'll move on to our next to last item.

We can do them both at the same time if you want. Sure. Okay. Um, this is at 515 Center Street. The applicant is Brian Brian and Don Jackson. Um, basically what we have here, um, if you look at the lot split request, can you pull that up on the screen, Becca? Why? They will be two separate properties. Okay, we're gonna do them separate. First one, uh, 0.28 acres. Um there is an existing structure of a 1752 foot um single family home. There is a 480 ft and 190 foot outbuilding. Uh the applicant is requesting and allow uh reduce out building side setback from 5T to 1 and 1/2 ft. Uh the side setbacks in the old Conway design district is 5T. So this would be a variance of 3.6 feet. Again, this is a garage that's been there um for a very long time. Um it's required to bring this into um the ne necessity for the variance is to bring this lot in conformance and allow for the replat like we've been seeing with the others tonight. Uh the variance allowed is 3.6 ft. This would allow conformance with the old Conway design overlay district. Uh it would be specifically to 515 Center Street. It would become effective with the filing of the plat and in the event that it is removed any new development will have to conform to the old Conway design overlay district standards. Questions? Anyone have any questions? Okay. Is the applicant here to speak in favor? If you'll just step forward and state your name and address, please. Good evening. We're the Jacksons. I'm Dawn Jackson, my husband

Brian. We own uh 515. We bought it uh in 2018 and as you'll see on the next agenda item, we also own 511 next door. Okay. So, we're here to request the variance and appreciate all the hard work of the planning staff. They have really been champions for us. So, good. And you're good with everything. They We are good. Okay. Perfect. We will we may call you back up, but right now we're we're good. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor? Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this request? Okay, perfect. We will bring it back into commission and I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Motion second. Jensen. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. more of the same from Ryan. It is more of the same. Excuse me earlier. This is a separate lot. It is 511 Center Street, but we're looking at the same issue. This is to allow reduced uh outbuilding side setback from 5T to 1 and 1/2 ft. Again, the suburban zone calls for a 5ft side setback, which would require a variance of 3.6 ft. Uh this is in uh accordance with the replat. Um if it is granted, it is specifically to 511 Center Street. The variance allowed would be 3.6 feet. Uh the permit shall become effective with the filing of the plat and if the out building is removed, any new development will have to conform to old Conway design overlay district standards. Okay. Thank you. And for formalities, is the applicant here to speak in favor? State your name and address again. Sorry. We're Brian and Don Jackson. We live at 515 Center Street. Uh we also

own 511 Center Street. Uh and we're asking for approval of the var variance on the uh out building on the south side. Uh that's been there probably 100 years. I don't know. Close to it. Okay. And anything else you want to add? You good? We're good. Okay. Perfect. Is there anyone here? Um y'all can take a seat and we may call you up if we need you. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this request? Okay. Is there anyone here? Oh, sorry. I meant in favor of this request. I've said it a thousand times tonight. Is there anyone here to speak in favor? Okay. Anyone in opposition? Perfect. Bring it back in. I will entertain a motion. Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you guys. We checked the list. Do we have any additional business items or announcements? record time for this agenda. I will say, do we have any updates on the legislation going forward about that today too about zoning? We have a meeting on Thursday to kind of do an overview. Um, the one that did get signed that will probably move forward is the planning boundary. So, we won't we won't be looking at subdivisions outside of the city limits. That's basically all that means. used to. You could look at them within what? Within a mile. Within a mile. So, um, and that's been passed. What? Yeah. We'll we'll be able to give you an update and we'll send it all out in an email. We're going to have a a meeting on Thursday about all of that. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have any additional business? Thank you guys for doing great work tonight and I will see you all next month. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion second. Um, I'm assuming

all in favor. Okay.