Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music]

Newport. Okay, guys. We're going to go ahead and get started because it is 5:30. Alexander, we're not sure. We haven't heard from him. So, um, we're just going to go ahead and get started. So, let's um call the meeting to order and roll call, please. Lori Quinn here. Ethan Reed, present. Mark Ferguson, present. Alexander Bainy. Jensen Toki here. Jay Winburn here. Brooks Davis here. Denisia Roundtree present. Cassidy Cook here. Kevin Gamrell here. Okay. And um as we read 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 city council as early as 527 2025. 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, um, let's move forward and I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I make a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Now, we're going to move into the public hearing items. Old business. Um, Lauren, I think you're up for this one. Hey, everyone. Um, so this item was tabled at the last month the 421st or 42125 planning commission meeting. Uh, just due to the applicant not being present by the bylaw standards, we had to to table it. It is, as just a refresher, a reszone from R1 to R2 at one Laura Lane. It is a platted lot in the Countrywood Addition subdivision. The applicant is intending to, I would assume, remove the 1600 foot home, and I did speak with them regarding the

construction of duplexes. If that is the intent, you would be able to put no more than two duplexes on that site. Should they choose to orient Laura or Hubard, they both have to face the same direction. A lot of the area is single family and duplex development. Um, no road works proposed at the time. Any extensions of utilities would need to be dealt with with Conway Corporation, but outside of that, it's the same request as last month. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here to speak in favor of this request? Okay. If you'd like to step forward and if you'll just state your name and address um for the record, please. Yes. Hi, my name is Ellie Brcell. I reside in Mamel um Arkansas, but I am a realtor and a property manager here in Conway. Um I did talk a little bit about Yeah. I mean, if you want to We got your packet that you presented. So if you just if and also have you reviewed the staff's suggestions? I did. Yes. Um so the the photos that you're looking at or some of the photos to the right side are going to be the proposed ideal look of the property that we're kind of going for. These are to show that our intent is to keep it in line with some of the other upgraded homes and properties that have been done by the Massie Group and Central Arkansas Construction. As you can see, they've taken some homes that were in desperate need of repair and um created some really nice quality properties. On that left side, you'll see that we have a proposed idea of what that duplex would look like. Um and the entire area really is duplex oriented. The home on its own really doesn't offer much value. It was built in 1947, so it is a much older home. Um, and does need some repairs.

Unfortunately, some are um just construction-wise, it would be really hard. We have a brick fireplace that's causing flooring issues. We have some rotted joists. Um, just things that, you know, over time, an 80 plus year old home desperately needs to be redone. um we can't really get a great property value out of that because of those kinds of repairs. So in getting a duplex that would be modern um and you know bring up the value of the area. I think that's what we're hoping to showcase here is that the quality would be um excellent and the intent would be to give more people a place to live in that area where it's very commercial, so close to medical, restaurants, the colleges. Okay. Thank you. Does if does anybody have any questions? Okay. Thank you. We may call you back up, but thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else here to speak in favor of this request? Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this request? Okay. Thank you. Um and we'll just pull it back into commission now. Make a motion to approve the resoning. I second that motion. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Motion passes. You're welcome. Okay. We're gonna move on to the second item which was also in our last meeting if you guys will remember and Ryan if you will kick us off on this. Yes ma'am. Good evening. Um again this was tabled at the last meeting. Um this is a request to for some live work units at the southeast corner of Prince Street and Rey Street or excuse me Ready Road. Um it is north

of Essex Essex Drive which is a private street. Uh just a reminder um based on the proposed use the average daily trips would be 21 for the residential use 88 for the live work component. Uh the comments uh proposal would allow for a mixeduse development to the north parcel and town homes town home development to the south. Uh the original PUD allowed for MF1 density. MF1 density allows for no more than 12 units per gross acre. Uh this density was followed in the initial phase of the development. Uh basically the reason this is here is to modify the uh plan unit development to allow for that work uh that live work uh component. Uh there's 13 conditions that we've conditioned it with that you guys have read over. If you have questions about that or anything else, just let me know. Okay. 14. Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here to speak in favor? If you'll state your name and address, please. It's John Pennington and my address is 306 Salem Road, Sweet 104 in Conway. Um, and obviously we're here from the tabled agenda from last month. Um, and I took this opportunity to send uh the council, sorry, planning commission a a letter. Um, I hope you guys were able to receive that and review that. Um, we did our best to kind of outline um our basically our pitch. Um and uh I do want to iterate um reiterate that you guys are volunteers and I do appreciate the time that you do come up here and spend um and to help developers and Conway move Conway forward uh with your decisions. We recognize it's not easy sometimes especially when there's um you know opponents that are versus you know an applicant who's trying to request change. So uh we recognize the difficulty in that. So, uh, to speak

briefly on just to reiterate some of those points in that in that letter, um, it's I believe it's important to for you to analyze what's allowed by right at any location, not just this agenda, but any location, um, versus what is being applied for and requested. Um, it's unique at with this particular parcel. Um, I believe this is one of the oldest PUDs in Conway. It was in 1985. I can't find one much older. Um, and with that with the absence of the conditions and your site plan, your PUD plan, none of that exists with this property. So, it's really more appropriate to refer to this as MF1 with the disguise of a PUD label. Um, and when you consider that, um, you have to consider all uses that are allowed under MF1 by right. Um, and the the letter that I sent you, it was essentially worst case scenario. If you if you move to deny, um, you're you're leaving the any opposition or any of the neighbors open for, um, potential, uh, degradation of value. um because any of the architectural controls or the oversight that you would normally have with the site development review process would not be available if we used a single duplex lot. Um and so obviously we're not requesting that. We're just offered that as a counterbalance to what we are requesting. Um, and it's kind of counterintuitive. If we're wanting to protect uh the property values and protect the way of life of those nearby owners, you have to amend agree to amend the PUD so that you can put in place um constraints um on the developer whether it be me or someone else um because this

certainly could be sold at some point. So, um, speaking to the project itself, it's it's a live work space. Um, four units max on the north parcel. Um, that is what max density is currently allowed by right. So, typically you would see a developer um asking for a more dense project than what's allowed by right. That's pretty normal. It's certainly normal for me, but uh in this case uh four units are allowed by right and that's what we're asking for. The only additional thing that we're asking for is the live work component and reduce setbacks. Um the south parcel which I referred to that that lot there to the south of Essex. Um that's allowed by right. What's uh currently not allowed by right would be the reduced setbacks. So um just speaking strictly to the live work unit. It is an innovative use which I mentioned last time to to the commission. Um, we feel that it has a potential to be successful in Conway. Um, and we think this site is probably best served as live work because when you take into consideration Prince Street, as I mentioned in in the letter, I mean, the character of Prince Street is evolving. Um, 8,000 cars a day. It's a very busy road. We can all admit to that. So um we I would say the character of Prince is shifting more towards a residential collector to a thoroughare that accesses you know east west corridor for Conway which is going to over time kind of evolve more towards commercial use. Um that would be an appropriate land use in my opinion. So a live work at this location is is almost the best of both worlds. you are getting the live component which is the established residential pattern. Um but then you overlay that with um tapping

into more commercial use of what I feel Prince should should ultimately be. Um and we purposely designed the live work, the north partial to um front everything on Prince Street as a buffer to those town houses to the south. um that was on purpose um and and direct that curb cut onto Prince Street so to minimize traffic flow through the current Essex Drive. Um that was the intent of the of the design. Um, I think in one of the writeups I read that there was some site development issues and there is, I will be the first to admit, especially when you're dealing with infill projects such as this, when pre when land is a premium, um, you're going to have, um, conflicts with potential utilities and finding enough available area for on-site detention and so on so forth, parking. Um so but those again are all development issues I believe we can work through uh with planning staff uh and other departments. Um I did speak to Chief Wori which is the fire marshall. He he and I I think we're pretty much on the same page um that that we feel that the live work is doable within the fire code at this location. Um so based off this site plan that that I provided here. So I feel pretty comfortable about that. Um, so I'd be happy to answer any questions that you guys might have. You may have any questions with the staff recommendations? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I don't think there's anybody else here to speak in favor. Um, but if there is, come forward. Um, okay. Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition tonight? And I don't think we have anyone here for those of you watching.

Um there's no one here to speak in opposition. So with that, um let's move it back into commission. And I wanted to do a couple of things. Um I talked to Ann today. one remind you guys that the reason we tabled this was um some of the residents the neighbors that will connect there thought they had a copy of the original PUD and they had the covenants and restrictions not the PUD so the original intent of the subdivision through a covenants and restrictions would have to be something discussed civily that would not be a matter for us um and then Ann if you can just also noting that we are um this is the PUD. So, we are voting tonight to for his plan to do something that is outside of what is there currently. So, we are voting to have live work units here. I'm just going to do a quick rundown of how this all works. For anybody that doesn't know, when a PUD is established in Conway, it's done it's done with a a use in mind. It's we have residential PUDs, we have high commercial PUDs, low commercial, all those things. So, it always is going to have some sort of zoning attached to it, even though the zoning is PUB. This particular one, given what's there and everything, we're fairly certain it's an MF1. And I think there's some documentation that we found that says MF1. So by right he can develop MF1 in that place. So what you're looking at is the live work that is the one component of this that was not predised pre agreed upon or anything like that. So that's basically what you guys are looking at. Can you allow a live work? Um there are things that Mr. Pennington can do on

this site by right as long as and and again the PUED governing document does not exist. We can't find it anywhere. It's it was pre computer era and save and all that kind of stuff. So it doesn't exist. The only thing that does exist is uh covenants and restrictions. That is not something that the city or you guys need to take into consideration. um that is something that if Mr. Pennington wants to bite this off then that as Lori said that would that's a different matter that's a civil matter that they would have to deal with. So that being said, you guys take it away and decide whether live work is there and and if you deny it'll go to city council. If you approve it, stops here, but then he has to go through the site development review. Transportation will look at it for drainage, fire us, every I mean he all of all of those um what what are they called? recommendations on there will have to be met. I lose my words sometimes. So, basically, we're deciding tonight, do you want to allow office space and living space there in in that part of Prince Street? And that's that's for us to decide tonight. Typically, we don't sometimes we don't even have plans. We don't go this far. But tonight, we are voting on what he is wanting to do right there with the live workspace. So, with that, I know you guys may have some questions or and Ryan will be happy to answer it. Yes, Ryan will come right back up here and answer any questions. Um, in the staff comments, it says uh multiple f challenges related to site development review. I assume the staff

recommendations are kind of trying to help address some of those. Uh, they are. I mean, what we're going to see when we if this passes and goes aside development review, um, there's going to be a parking exception that's going to be required, uh, which will have to be approved by council. Um, we'll have to review drainage and there's going to be an access because of the spacing between the two access points. Uh, drainage will be addressed by our engineers. So, there are things in the site development review process that are still going have to be looked at beyond just the decision that you guys make here. And the by right use that's there now the MF1 that we report that that what is the highest intensity residential use it's 12 units per acre 12 units they do not that's gross right that's not net correct thank you per acre what.39 okay since the PUD document does not exist exist. There are no conditions where tonight we can right condition it, you know, we're creating conditions for this. Correct. And I believe all that was found were maybe some minutes from the 1980s. That's how we found out what we know about this is from the minutes from the uh council meeting or planning commission meeting. Okay. Anybody have anything you want to discuss in commission? Anybody have any questions for staff? Okay. I will make a motion to approve with the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. Second. Okay. Motion second. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay,

Lori wanted me to give an update about the legislative stuff. Ryan and I are going to a APA roundt on Wednesday in Russellville to get definitive answers on all of it, how it's going to affect planning going forward. Um, so at the next meeting I'll have I'll have some good notes for you. Okay. Anybody else have anything to add? Okay. Good work. Good night. I make a motion to adjourn. All in favor? Bye. Okay.