Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, hold on, Bobby. I have a question. Yeah, go ahead.

I have a question for staff. Tonight, we're just voting on the zoning, correct? Correct.

So some of the questions... Just for the Baker track.

Right, so some of the questions the gentleman asked tonight about right-of-ways and roads and all those things... traffic count, all those things will be studied? With the subdivision review.

Because we're going to look at detention. We're not going to get 36 houses on this lot. We haven't seen a subdivision layout. We know the land does touch Madison and Nutter Chapel. There has to be so many access points for major subdivisions over a certain number of lots. It's just phased right now because that's what the developer has proposed. But tonight we are just talking about the six acres. But I do understand the majority of his concerns, yes.

And so is this Going from A1, this is the least restrictive, next.

We are going from R1.

Oh, sorry, yeah.

It's fine. To R2. This subdivision as a whole, and I've seen a very long-ago preliminary plan. It's a mixed-use northern R2, southern R1 subdivision because we do get into some floodplain to the south. Bobby can definitely speak to that. Later phases and designs. I know the intent is to develop the majority and have all of those street furnishes to the east and west and be bound by Old Moralton and Madison Road.

That answers my question.

I don't know if this is appropriate for you to address, but can you just talk about the difference between what we as a planning commission and a planning department are able to regulate and what we're not? Like, for example, we look at zoning. We don't necessarily look at the use of what the property owner wants to do, i.e. rentals versus owners or buying and selling.

When we look at properties in R1, that's single family. We can only look at how you're using it in the manner of density and lot coverage and size. If you want to rent it, if you want to Airbnb it, if you want to ADU it, if you want to own it. We can't regulate that outside of what you're doing and using it as. It could be permitted a separate way. But for the zoning aspect, planning does not get to regulate those items. No, ma'am.

Thank you. So my question, in the comprehensive plan, it has this listed as single family. Correct.

Duplexes are considered single family uses.

And so moving it to R1, no matter what they use it for, would be considered single family. Correct. So if we did rezone to R1, that's still... It's currently R1. Oh, so if we moved to R2, I'm sorry. Is R2 considered a single family zone?

R2 is still considered a single family zone because it's two families, even though they're in the same building, they share, it's a single family per unit. Okay.

So R2 still aligns with the comprehensive plan of what this was planning to use? Correct, yes.

Anything higher than two becomes multifamily. That's the over-under.

That was what I thought, but the duplex thing was... No worries.

Excuse me. Any other questions?

About 70 questions? Okay. Can you come up to the mic so we can hear you?

Yep. We've got some people at home that are watching live. So if you come up to the mic, they'll be able to hear you too. Sorry to make you come up.

It's already R1, and they're taking it to R2. Now, what she was just saying, that you can do the two units on an R1. That wouldn't be single-family. I mean, you can develop it.

She didn't say that. Oh, she didn't? No, no.

I got confused. I misspoke and said R1 instead of R2. She was saying that you could do two-family on R2.

If it was moved to R2, then you could do... Well, I was going to say, okay, because that...

But she was saying it was still considered single-dwelling as per the planning code. All right. Thanks.

All right. Thank you all.

My bad. All right.

All right. Does anybody else have any questions before we bring it back into commission? Bobby. Come on, Bobby.

I did want to say, the plan is, this is going to be phase two. The plan is for it to go, this phase, there will be a road built out to Nutter's Chapel. This next phase part of this will be done. The bottom part will be R1, but that road that's over there starts on the west, will go all the way through and go to Nutter's Chapel. The next phase of the subdivision will go all the way through.

Okay.

And to the north, directly north, is the school property. So that's going to be, you know, who knows, but the school plans on doing something directly north of this R2. That's right.

So this is phase two.

This is phase two of Foxridge.

Phase one was R1 already.

Well, part of it was R2. The north part of phase one was R2, and our plan the whole time was to extend, you know, the road that's going to the west over with Duke.

So it's the property next door that's already R2.

Yes. Okay.

All right. Thank you, Bobby.

Can I ask one more question?

Yes, absolutely.

And I know we don't regulate roads and transportation here, but has there been any discussion about any changes happening on old military that anyone is aware of?

I'm not aware at this time that doesn't mean there's something not in the cooker. A lot of times when large scale developments like this come into the area, the developer will do the internal streets and the city will see, as we've seen with like Clayton Homes, as infrastructure goes out to areas, the city sees the need for the institution of better streets or newer streets or improvements of those. So that most likely will be coming up. But I just I can't speak for the street department. I'm sure at some point we'll probably see a roundabout at the Donald. I figured.

Thank you, Lauren.

Perfect. Okay. If there's no other questions, we'll go ahead and bring this back into commission for discussion or a motion, one way or the other. No questions. Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve. Can I get a second?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed?

The item passes.

Okay. Tonight, now we're moving on to item number two. Or rezone?

Sorry. Second item is another rezone. This is a property located at 32 Eve Lane. It is lot 30, block 2 of the Golden Meadows subdivision. We are far down Tyler over here. It's a historically platted subdivision out of Conway City limits. It was annexed in in the 80s, and you'll kind of see what we're looking at tonight. So it's a .67 acre lot, currently zoned A1. The entire subdivision minus the lot to the north is zoned A1. Right now, there's a 1300 square foot single family home with an outbuilding. It's not located in any overlay zones. And our comprehensive plan also indicates this property for single family. A single family use is going to generate 10 trips a day. There's already existing home. Are they to replant another 10 trips? Right now, there's not really any good traffic data. The closest is at Tyler and Salem at that roundabout, which is 7900. That's very far away, so those numbers aren't great. The site is not located in any FEMA flood zones. There is currently electricity all around the property. Just the extension to any new lots will be at the discretion of the applicant. Eve Lane is a local residential. And within the last 10 years, the street department has gone in and widened and improved the east side. I don't know if y'all went out there, but the west side is very narrow. So the plan is over the next few years to do the same thing on the west side of Eve Lane, which is where this new lot, if they replat, will front. So like I said earlier, it's zoned A1, the entire area is, but none of the lots conform to A1 standards, which is one acre, 150 feet of the building line. It was annexed into the city in 1989. So this is pre-subdivision regs and pre-zoning code. So it's not going to conform. So it's considered legally not conforming. Most likely the intent is to replant like the lot did to the north in 2017 to create a second lot and to build another single family home. I don't know that for sure, but if I saw this, that's what I would assume would be happening. But like I said, the request conforms to the zoning and any plotting will have to meet subdivision design regulations, which will be an internal staff review because it's only a two-law subdivision. Does anyone have any questions?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right, is anybody here speaking in favor for this one? Welcome back, Bobby.

Yeah, you've seen me a bunch.

Name and address.

They've been mad at me. I turned all this stuff in. Yeah, my name's Bobby French, 1021 French Street. That is the plan is for to just make another lot there on the west side is what they're wanting to rezone, and then we'll come in and replay it. I know we've got some issues with Conway Corp that they're going to have to work out, but hopefully we can do all that.

Okay. Awesome. Any questions for Bobby? All right. Thank you. Anybody else here speak in favor? All right. Anybody speak in opposition tonight? No? Okay. So we'll bring this back in. If anybody has any questions for staff, I'll take a motion.

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye.

All those opposed? Item passes. Thank you all. Okay, now we're up to a rezone of property on South Boulevard and Conway Boulevard.

Hello. Okay, so before I get into this, I actually want to touch on just the fact that the next three items are all rezones on one block of Conway Boulevard. So if it's okay with you all, I'm actually going to cover some of the shared details that they all have in common. That way I'm not just doing it three times.

Perfect.

Okay. So each property here falls within the single family designation of our comprehensive plan. None of these properties are within a floodplain. Each of the three properties is within the old Conway design overlay district transition zone. That means that the construction of any new primary structures will require historic district commission approval. Each of these requests is to rezone to R2, which is our low-density residential district. Tonight, you will hear me mention both R2 and R2A. Please bear in mind that these two are similar in terms of uses allowed, but R2 permits a slightly higher density than R2A. All three properties were until recently owned by Central Baptist College. All three are now owned by different individuals who are seeking the reasons independently of one another. But Central Arkansas Professional Surveying is the authorized agent for all three of them. So you'll see Bobby each time. The historic zoning of this area was R2A. All three of these properties were a part of a large rezone to S1 by CBC in October of 2015. I will say that because it was a swath rezone, none of these lots meet the requirements for S1 because they're supposed to be one acre and they're not. Most of the lots on this block were historically plotted as 11,150 square feet with 50 feet of street frontage. This is comparable to the current zoning standards for all uses in the R2 zone and for single family lots in the R2A zone. The zoning in this area is mostly S1 and R2A. The nearest R2 zoning can be found at the diagonally adjacent block to the southwest. A rezone to R2A would be more consistent with the zoning in the area. However, for duplexes, the R2A zone requires a larger lot than R2. For single family, R2 and R2A are identical in their requirements. And lastly, development in this area has trended toward higher density to family residential developments. With the adjacent block to the east, there are three developments under conditional use permits allowing between 12 and 18 units per acre, one of which development has not yet started for. Okay, so now I'm just going to focus on each one individually, just the things that are different about each one. So right now we're at that top lot, that corner lot. So that is 141 Conway Boulevard. It's at the corner of South Boulevard and Conway Boulevard. It is just under one acre. It's 0.93 acres. Its current zoning is S1. Right now on the property, there is one single-family dwelling. It is just under 1,500 square feet. A rezone to R2 would allow the possibility for the property owner to subdivide the property into five lots, allowing a single-family residence or a duplex on each individual lot. With five duplexes, the development could generate an estimated 72 vehicle trips per typical weekday, and those would be distributed primarily onto South Boulevard. With five single-family homes, the development would generate an estimated 47 vehicle trips per day, and that would depend on how they would place them on the property, but most likely they would go onto South. And lastly, it appears water, sewer, and electric are all present on site. The extension of any new additional utilities will require coordination with Conway Corp. That's all for that one.

Awesome. Thank you. Does anyone here speak in favor?

Bobby French, 1021 Front Street. Welcome back. Yeah, I believe... He's wanting to keep the house on this. There's an existing house on the south side. He's wanting to keep that and then develop the rest of R2 is his plan. But he is wanting to keep the existing house. So we would plat it on a lot and then do the other lots for new places. They may even build a house on one or two of them. I'm not 100% sure.

Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Any questions for Bobby? Thank you, Bobby. Does anybody else here speak in favor or opposition?

I live on the south end of Oliver Street. You don't have the photo up there now, but there's that duplex, triplex, and I'm on that street across from them. I've lived in the neighborhood. I've moved away to go to college, came back, moved away, then came back again. But I do live in my home where I grew up, went back to the same home. So I'm very familiar with everything around there. And part of this property or side of it used to be a trailer park. So I'm glad it's gone. And then the elementary school is on the other side of that. What I have concerned about, and I know I'm kind of confusing all the zoning, but it pretty much says it's going back to what some of the surrounding it already is. And of course, we always like to have houses instead of duplexes. And that's just the way it is. They can build either one. but it's the density that so many of us are concerned about. And it looks like it's, I'm not sure if y'all just make a recommendation or voice some of these concerns at the next meeting, but it's the density and there is the elementary school and then there's the ballpark there. Traffic-wise is kind of concerned about that, but we'd like to maintain a neighborhood instead of a, duplex city there so but uh i i'm assuming if you can voice those concerns is this what absolutely yeah that concern yeah and um we did have trouble a lot of trouble with having to call the police and partying, that's calmed down in those buildings there. But I live catty corner to a rental, and there's another rental. And it's just not the same when you have a permanent family living there. So that's the concern. And drainage wasn't thought out that – lot, that parcel there that built across the street from me. The road will flood during a heavy rain. But anyway, it was that, the density, trying to maintain a neighborhood. So that's about it.

Can you state your name and address again, please?

Sharon Walter. It's 116 Oliver Street.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Anybody else here to speak in opposition tonight? Any questions, y'all, before we bring it back into commission for staff?

I have a question for staff. Yeah. So on this one, it was R2A prior, and then it was rezoned inappropriately, it seems like, and then now we're going back to R2. Everything around it is R2, or a lot of what's around it is R2A. Why R2A versus R2? This one's, like, why was it R2A previously and everything around it's R2A, but then this is R2? Just some clarity there.

R2A allows them the option to do a smaller lot. So R2 only requires a minimum lot width of 50. And for a duplex, for example, it would require a 7,000 square foot lot. I don't know how they're wanting to develop this, but I would assume that they would want to do the highest density that they are able to do. R2A for a duplex requires 100 feet of street frontage and a 10,000 square foot lot, so I assume that they are just wanting to be able to maximize the amount that they can develop the lot just through subdividing. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I mean, is R2, I guess is R2 a

there or would r2a be more appropriate for that a lot that size or is that something I can ask stuff okay um so I would say that based on the zoning in the area r2a is probably more appropriate the nearest r2 zoning is to the southwest it's the it would be the block adjacent yeah do we well it wouldn't be visible on our um on our map unfortunately but yeah it would be the block to the southwest that's that entire block is almost r2 so yeah i think she might be able to show you where it is yeah absolutely

A little history lesson. A majority of historic overlay downtown, like what you see here, was zoned R2. In the 80s, prior to the zoning code, it was already zoned R2A for large lot duplex construction. That's why you see a lot of duplexes in the downtown area that are not in zones for duplexes appropriate or fit the size of those zones. So this is more of a bringing cohesive single family development back to a lot where we just haven't had it in a long time because it was zoned for a college use that just never got developed.

Perfect. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for staff? Okay. Bobby, do you want to make a comment?

We kind of talked to staff about it a little bit when we came in about this area and they were kind of say, well, let's do R2. I mean, I think the land, I mean, they were kind of asking us. But the more on this lot in particular, it's real deep. It's almost an acre. It's 175 foot deep. So... I mean, nobody wants a long skinny, so the, you know, the plan was to make some lots on the north and then cut the house out on the corner and then have a lot on the south side to try to. More about just trying to do what we felt like with the best because you can see those are existing lots that are there. No, I don't know if they can build on, they might be able to get a permit on an existing lot and. I'm not sure. But that's kind of where it all started.

So those were the original lots?

Yeah, the lot on the bottom would probably be like, you know, 75 foot, you know, or 60 foot or something, and then have some 120 foot deep lots, you know, instead of having 50 by 175 feet. It's just kind of how those old lots got platted. It's kind of an odd shape. We felt like that was, at the time when we were asking for it, we felt like that was the best way to kind of clean it up and fix it, really.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you for the clarification.

Give that in. Well, just as an aside, I think that entire S1 block there is probably going to be rezoned. Because CBC's selling all of it. Yeah.

Yeah, I was just confused. You know, just everything around there is R2A.

It previously was R2A, and so I was trying to understand the difference between since it was... To get the right amount of street frontage and all that kind of stuff, I think R2 was... What are we going to? R2A. R2. R2, yeah. That was... My bad. Because, like you said, it was kind of funkily plaited way back when. And so to get proper street printages and stuff. That's appropriate. Yeah.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Did I answer that?

I feel better.

You can ask me a question. Yeah, she's got one.

Again, Sharon Walter, 116 Oliver. I couldn't see who said that about the different rating, what it was previously. All these things get mixed up.

It was R2A. Which would be bigger lots, correct? Bigger frontage, right? 100 versus 50? Yeah.

You'd have to have more street frontage in R2A than you do in R2.

Yeah. And it is deep. For duplex, yes. And it is deep. You know, my yard's almost an acre, too. But again, that's the concern about squeezing so much into... I didn't know that was an option about the other rating that would make larger lots. On Robin Street, just around the corner... they had duplexes, but in another meeting, unannounced meeting, they approved a house to be put back in the back, another rental. And, you know, and they plotted for the duplexes, according to the city, but the lots were so long, they went ahead and did a amendment or whatever to allow them to build another house and it's accessed through Robbins Street so that's kind of my fear again with this sometimes it goes on trust that these things won't be done but if it's zoned it's zoned but that's again another concern about that that would be good to go to the very to go back to what it was and you know Conway Boulevard you head toward um college you know it's those yes historic large houses too so if we can keep it along those lines that would be great well the good thing is that it'll all have to go through the history of the downtown historic district no matter what happens so that's better like your recommendation or your question on that if that can be a recommendation instead of

Yeah. And I think the understanding of like the funky size of a lot makes sense because sometimes like those parameters don't work with the lot that you're looking at. And so that's kind of part of what we have to do is look at like how the land is used and like what zoning makes the most sense for the piece of land, trusting that it's going to be done appropriately because we can't, you know, control that part. Okay. Well, thanks.

And there's a lot of lots in Conway that are like super deep like that, like you were talking about. And we are trying to fix it to where some infill can happen. Like you said, that house going in behind another one because people want housing.

But the people that are established homeowners want a neighborhood and that are peace and quiet, hopefully. You know, you can read the police reports about some of the places. But again, that would be just my, that's what I would wish it just go back to the old way. And a lot of those were old alleyways that go in the back that were closed, long gone closed. I don't think they exist on paper anymore.

Thank you. Okay. Planning Commission, what say you? We'll bring this back in. Can we get a motion? I have a motion to approve.

Is there a question, Cassidy? We're good. We're good.

Okay. Motion to approve. Can we get a second?

I'll second.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Adam passes. We'll move on to the next property on Conway Boulevard.

Next time she'll yell.

I had a lot of questions. I get it. It did light up though.

Okay, so for this next one, we're popping just one down. Again, if you do want me to repeat any of the information for the entire area, just feel free to ask, okay? But for this particular piece of property...

We're at 125 Conway Boulevard.

It's approximately 330 feet north of the intersection of Conway Boulevard and Robin Street. It is just over half an acre at 0.59 acres. On the property presently, there is a 1,125 square foot duplex. A rezone to R2 allows the possibility for the property owner to subdivide the property into two lots with one duplex or a single family home on each lot. I do not know if the intention is to keep that structure there or to demo it. If developed to that density, being four dwelling units total, the development would generate an estimated 29 vehicle trips per typical weekday. Other than that, it appears that water, sewer, and electric are present on the site, and any extension of new or additional utilities will require coordination with Conway Corp. Well, thank you.

Does anyone here speak in favor?

Bobby French, 1021 Front Street. Whatever I say will go the same thing. Perfect. Do you all have any other questions?

Are they planning to keep the existing structure?

Can you go back to that? I've got so many of these.

You're fine.

I forget which one I'm looking at. I'm not 100% sure. Okay. I think if possible, they would like to. Okay. But I'm not sure. Looks like it'd be pretty tight. It would be, I don't know, 100% if she's got 50 foot, by the time you get a side setback and stuff like that, it would have to be, looks like at 50 there, it'd be close. I'm not sure it would, I'm not sure if it will or not, 100%.

Okay. Thank you.

Perfect. Anyone else here to speak in favor? Anyone to speak in opposition? Yeah, come on. Name and address again.

Sharon Walter, 116 Oliver Street.

Thank you.

All my comments were about all three, so diddle them.

Thank you.

And just so you know, there will be opportunities through the Historic District. I think Grace mentioned that. Where are the details? Because tonight all we're doing is zoning. And they may know more about what structures they're going to keep at that point and all of that.

Oh, I feel that I've teared up all those because they're...

not in good... That was a general question I had for staff, and maybe this is what Historic District does, but I know these are all three separate properties, but since this area is kind of a hodgepodge right now, in my opinion, that little area, the goal would be that if we're building new things, there's some form of consistency. I know there are different property owners. Is there anything that can be done, especially hearing the neighbors' concerns? I know it's not our job, but how does that work to make sure we don't have all these different structures going up and they have no continuity.

Okay. Well, Tara Jackson was staff. With the continuity aspect in the historic district, it's actually often discouraged for things to look overly similar, right? Because the historic nature of the neighborhood is oftentimes diversity in building materials and design. And so as staff, if I saw something where every single duplex, if we saw a whole block that looked exactly the same, I would speak, I would not recommend... that that um be approved um however what we would be we would not be looking at density that is just something that would be looked at right here we would just be looking at the design and also the we wouldn't know exactly when the the application is going to be made right so there could be an application made um following the approval of the rezone and then on one property and then we may not see anything for years

They don't play over there. Okay. They do the work. They're pretty serious. Yeah.

I know nothing about it.

Okay. Any other questions for staff or public? Okay. Well, we can bring it back in commission. Anybody have any comments?

I make a motion to approve the rezoning.

Okay. We have a motion. Can we get a second? Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Adam passes. Thank you all. All right, on to our last one on Conway Boulevard, I believe. Welcome back. Thank you.

Okay, this is the last one of mine on Conway Boulevard. This is 113 Conway Boulevard. It is also just a little bit over half an acre at 0.53 acres. Its current zoning is S1 and R2A. It's actually split zoned. Okay. Here we go. So you can see that this one is split zoned S1 and R2A. This is rezoning that entire portion in the yellow square to R2. R2 allows the possibility for the property owner to subdivide the property into two lots with one duplex or one single family home on each lot. Currently, there is an approximately 923 square foot single family dwelling on the property. Likewise, with the previous one, I am not sure if the intention is to keep the structure or to demo it. I think that it depends on what the applicant is able to do in terms of subdividing the property. And the same thing as before with Conway Corp. There are utilities on site, but if they need to extend them or anything, they will have to coordinate that with them. If you have any questions, let me know.

Thank you. Is anybody here to speak in favor?

It's the last time y'all get to see me. Bobby French, 1021 Front Street. The plan is on this one to leave the house. I believe it's sitting there where it can be left and subdivided and then duplex on the north lot.

Perfect. Okay. Thank you, Bobby. Anybody else here to speak in favor? Anyone to speak in opposition? Okay. Planning Commission, do you have any questions before we bring it back in? Okay. Well, we'll bring it back in. Can we get a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. All right. We got a motion to second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And the item passes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Up next, we've got a rezone of a property on Dave Ward and Donaghy from S1 to C2.

Good evening, Commissioners. This property is located at 800 South Donaghy Avenue. It is on the corner of Dayboard Drive and South Donaghy Avenue. Those are both major arterials in the master transportation plan. And then it also abuts Silver Spring Circle, which is a local residential street. It is actually what is considered double frontage. And I bring this up because we are looking at multiple reviews right now with this property. The project that I'm talking about right now, item 1F, excuse me, is for the rezone of the property from S1, which is the institutional district, to C2, which is neighborhood commercial. The applicant has also put in for review an application for a conditional use permit, which we will hear after this presentation, as well as there's a minor subdivision replat that is in review for a two-lot lot split. Okay. The comprehensive plan for this is multifamily. And in this area, this area is multifamily underneath the comprehensive plan. However, over the last couple decades, we've actually seen a transition from multifamily and residential use to commercial use. We, across the street, across Dayboard Drive, we have C2 with a conditional use permit on it for a service station, and then we have C3 across South Donaghy, O1 with conditional use permits on it for mixed use development, and then the R2 to the south. This institutional area of the property that we're looking at, as well as the R2, were rezoned This in 1987 was when they were zoned their designations and then the other rezones have been happening since 1987. With a rezoning to C2 and a two-lot subdivision, the traffic impact will be significant. Right now, as an institutional district, it has a church or it had a church. And between the time of writing the report and going out to do site photos, the church has been demolished. So there is no longer a structure on site. The highest allowed by right traffic generating use in the C2 zone is a restaurant or medical clinic. A sit down restaurant could generate around 107 vehicle trips per weekday and a medical clinic could generate an average of 376 average daily trips. There are utilities available at the site and the applicant will need to coordinate with Conway Corp to get those connections. I think I've covered a lot of the details regarding the different zoning districts. And then regarding specifically the neighborhood commercial district, going from institutional to neighborhood commercial, is that according to the zoning code, commercial districts are designed to encourage stable and efficient areas to meet the needs for commercial goods and services and shall provide sufficient space at appropriate locations near established residential areas for retail and service trade and provide sufficient and appropriate space for anticipated future needs. And so the staff interpretation of these requirements for the neighborhood commercial is that you have basically a node, a commercial node, at major intersections that can accommodate both vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. And with the mixed-use development across South Donaghy, having some C2 to the north and residential to the south, this seems an appropriate zoning designation for the site. And I am available for questions.

Can I ask a clarifying question from my own understanding? So the C2 would be obviously for a car wash or whatever they decide to put there. But then when you say two lot subdivision, that means two like residential lots could be built there.

So no, what the C2 would encompass that entire block. So as it stands right now, so we could even say if the subdivision didn't get filed, if commission was to approve the C2 at this moment, it would encompass this entire portion of the property and then anything allowed by right. Would be able to go in, and then all that would be seen is staff would then look at site development review and the development there. Now, then there's the other uses that require a conditional use permit, which are the automotive uses as well as a restaurant with a drive-thru. That would not be allowed by right in a C2. A restaurant would be allowed, but not a restaurant with a drive-thru.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, is there anybody here speaking in favor of this? Go ahead. Name and address, please.

Well, I feel like I ought to say Bobby French, but I'm going to be a lot. My name is actually, for the record, Kurt Daniels. I think I'm good on it. Oh, no, this is the fourth one up there.

Oh, well, then I should have done that one.

You do need this.

Get it on?

There it is.

Okay. And I was going to ask that. Yeah. Yeah. This is for the rezone. That is what we're here right now. The next part is conditionally used.

Could you say your address real quick? Sorry. I got them to me.

They're like eighties, main street, Winsfield, Missouri. However, I am married to a lady that came from Van Buren, Arkansas, if that helps me. I don't know. No, this is right now, this portion of the meeting is just for the zoning from S1 to C2. However, in my opinion, and I'll do whatever this commission requests, I think it's always good to know a little bit about what we're wanting this rezoned to, and that's the portion I'd show you a little bit about the car wash at this time, if that's appropriate. And if you say just stick to the C2, zoning, I will do that.

Since we're going to see them both, you can go ahead.

Perfect. What we're bringing before you tonight is the portion, and I think it was the Emmanuel Lutheran Church is what it previously was. That building has since been demoed. Part of the rezoning that we're requesting tonight, it's S1, which I think was rezoned in 1987. We're asking for the C2 zoning. The access point on Donahue, Donahue Drive will be eliminated. We will not be accessing there. We will access Silver Springs Drive to the south and also David Ward Drive to the north on this. The one to the south will be moved a little bit further to the east. uh as they said i think they did a really good job and i don't want to belabor any point up here because i think she did a marvelous job of presenting but you can see the corridor here we're in the red uh but as the corridor that kind of seems to have gone commercial over the last couple decades as as was mentioned i think we fall within that corridor the red area is what we're looking at we would be the The western 1.57 acres of that tract, 1.52, there's actually a portion that will be on the east side of this tract, which will be 2.57 acres. So this just gives you a little idea and a little exhibit of what is all commercial today and how we're trying to fit into it. The Club Car Wash, the proposed zoning for C2, it is conditional use, which will come up next. But in part of your C2 zoning, it says the site is designed to encourage stable and efficient area to meet the needs of commercial goods and services. So we think we are a good service in this area. The Club Car Wash on the opposite side, and I'll go into that. I'll leave this up here. And I'll go into that more in the conditional use, the uses of that. But you can see here the club car wash. We would actually have the building at the northwest corner. Required stacking, and I'm getting a little out of the zoning, is 10. We provide 17 car stacking. We have 25 bays. And if you've seen a club car wash or know anything about a club car wash, we've been working with them since 2012. They're an impeccable organization. They are very detailed. The owner flies around once a year in the spring and does what they do. I guess off the record call a sod survey to ensure everything looks good, looks nice, trees are alive, so on and so forth. But there's on David Ward Drive, you have 31,000 cars a day. We're not attracting new cars. We're using what's there. So without jumping too much into the conditional use, and I will go a little bit further if there's any questions on that, but this is kind of the plan we're looking at bringing before you and the reason we're asking for your favorable recommendation on the C2 zoning. I'll answer any questions.

Perfect. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? Okay. You got off easy. Anybody else here to speak in favor? Name an address, please.

Brent Rohrer, 63 Kings Highway, Conway, Arkansas. I'm the property manager for Peace Lutheran Church. So we are the current property owners, and we've been trying to sell the property for more than 18 months. Had some hiccups along the way. We're very excited to partner with Club Car Wash. Sir, can you point... i know i'm sorry okay i'm short i forgot nobody said that i didn't wake up like this one um no we're very excited to support club car wash in this efforts and anything that we can do to help this along in the process uh we will do whatever you guys desire us to do. As far as the property next to it, I can't say exactly who it is. We've signed a deal, but it's most likely going to be C2 requirement as well for the property next to it.

Thank you. Anybody else here to speak in favor of the project? Hello. Name and address, please.

Carolyn Lewis, 1001 McNutt, Lot 241. I'm in favor of it. I'm a member also of Peace Lutheran Church. However, we don't have a car wash like this on our side of town. We have to go to Tommy's car wash on the other side of town. So I think it would be an improvement for the area to take your car to wash a nice car wash and get it cleaned up.

Thank you. Anyone here speak in opposition tonight? Come on down. Name and address, please.

My name is Joshua Draper. I live at 826A South Donaghy, which is practically across the street from this proposed car wash. First of all, I want to say that this is a residential and church area. Yes, across the street to the west and to the north there is commercial areas, but to the east and to the south, this is a residential area. And I'm not sure this is appropriate for now or for the conditional use permit, but an entrance on Silver Springs Circle, which is a residential area full of families with children, I think is dangerous. They should not have an entrance on a residential street. If they want an entrance on South Donaghy, that's fine. That's a high traffic area. Silver Springs is a very low traffic road. I'm kind of annoyed that the guy didn't know what church was there. He didn't know the name of the church that was there. And the map he showed that showed commercial development to the east is inaccurate because that shows there are churches there. There's a Mormon church there. There's the, what, Four Winds Church, the brand new Peace Lutheran Church where they moved is to the east. So I'm against the rezoning. And I thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Come on down.

Name and address, please. 2035 Foster Drive, Conway, Arkansas. A couple of concerns I have. One property that was not mentioned, was just mentioned, is the church right next door to this property. I've been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for quite a while, and a member of that congregation for well over 30 years. I served as bishop there for a number of years. I don't really want a car wash right next to our church. It is zoned for churches in that area. We would like to maintain that. Now, I don't speak for the church. This is me speaking personally. Also, there are five car washes on Dave Ward, an 11-mile stretch between the Walmart down at Hogan. and the sam's club two of them are tunnel car washes almost identical to the club car wash club car wash can say they're better they're all the same there's a take five you walk outside of our church right out the front door you look to the right there's a take five car wash right there an identical setup to what club car wash will be providing in autumn or a tunnel car wash to get pulled through and then they have vacuum cleaners you can use free now i know they'll each say they're better than each other but to the general public it's mcdonald's and burger king So more than likely because of the free market one of them probably go out of business and then we'll have an empty abandoned business right there across the street and that's not good for the town. Like I said, five car washes on day board. This will make six. That's a lot of clean cars. That's wonderful. But these are the two concerns I have. I like having a quiet lot next to our church, and I don't want to stop. I mean, I'd love to see a windfall for our Lutheran brothers and sisters next door, you know, a cash windfall for them. But at the same time, I really would not like to see a car wash built next to our church.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in opposition? Okay.

Welcome. My name is Richard Steven Morgan. I live at 2319 Hermes Drive in Conway. I'm the owner of two duplexes, one that faces Silver Springs And I'm very concerned about the traffic flow out of Dave Ward into, it looks to me like it's coming from Dave Ward and out Silver Springs. Silver Springs was not built for that kind of traffic. The headlights and stuff will be hitting. I don't think that hit my duplex, but it would hit some other duplexes in the area. And there's also a concern with Conway having such a water issue now that we really need another car wash. I think that's all. I oppose the... the plat like it is right now for sure. Thank you.

I have a question maybe staff can answer. Is there a reason that accessing Silver Springs, which is residential instead of South Donaghy and Dave Ward as the

Sure. So I'm happy to get into that now or more in the next presentation.

Now we need to stay strictly on the land use.

I think maybe we should have done that from the jump.

Are we even approving a site plan tonight? So right now for this item that we're on right now is a rezone from institutional to commercial neighborhood and It can be, this can stand on its own. The rezone itself can stand on its own. It is not contingent upon the CUP. The CUP that will be heard next is contingent upon approval of the rezone. Of this. Okay.

Can I ask a question?

Absolutely.

Can you, sorry, can you clarify what is allowed by right for the people that are here in a C2 zone? Sure. If we were to rezone this, what could go there, even if it's not a car wash? The highest use.

The highest use would be a restaurant sit-down, not drive-thru, but a sit-down restaurant or a medical clinic. That is the highest intensity use by right in a C2.

Perfect. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Okay.

So do we need a motion to approve the zoning at this point?

Yeah, if we're ready. You guys ready to make a motion for that? Absolutely.

I don't have issues with the zoning. I'm more concerned about... that have come out, just for the record.

Yeah, and we can hit those on the CEP, ending this approval. Yep. Okay, so if there is a motion on the rezone, we can get a motion?

Yeah, I think the C2 is fine for that area, the C2. But I'd make a motion to approve that.

I'll second that.

Thank you. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? That passes. And now we're going to move on to look at the CUP for the lot just rezoned.

It would be.

But I mean, it might, the rezone would make it easier for them to sell either way.

Right. Yeah. And it's definitely commercial.

Yeah. I mean, I think it's C2 makes sense to me. Okay.

Welcome.

Okay. So for this item, item 1G is for a conditional use permit to allow automobile wash service in a neighborhood commercial or C2 zoning district. I'm not going to go into a lot of the details that we just went into about the comprehensive plan. And then the traffic impact. An automobile wash service is estimated to have an average of 71 trips per typical weekday. The applicant has indicated that 350 cars per day are anticipated at their business. Per the applicant, since the car wash will be gaining its customers from existing traffic, the impact to the traffic in the area will not cause any negative impacts. That was the applicant's statement. And services are available at this site. And as stated, this is on two major arterials. And an automobile wash service is not allowed by right in the C-2, but it is allowed via conditional use permit. So at this point in time, can we go to the plat, actually? That might be on the ReZone. That's the one that was on the ReZone application. Yes, thank you. So this property right now is a single, it's actually never been plotted, and it's a single lot. And the applicant with this conditional use permit is having, requesting to split the lot into two lots. This conditional use permit will be tied to Lot 1. That is the one that is adjacent to South Donaghy Avenue. This conditional use permit is not going to be tied to Lot 2, which means that if they do not final this plat, the CUP, which is one of the conditions, will become null and void because it is tied to this prospective lot. Now, the reason why traffic flow is a little complicated on this site for multiple reasons, one of which is that we have the Dayboard Drive Access Management Plan. And what that states is that is something that is adopted via ordinance. And what it states is that you cannot have driveways within 300 feet of other driveways along Dayboard Drive, and you cannot have them within 300 feet of an intersection on Dayboard Drive. The property along Dave Ward Drive is 190 feet. So what the applicant is proposing via the platting, and it is embedded in the conditions of approval for this project, is that they will maintain an existing access that is on Dave Ward Drive, which is on proposed lot two. That lot will be a cross-access. There will be the cross-access agreement over to lot one. Lot one is the one that will serve the car wash. So they will have to amend the Dave Ward Access Management Plan in order to do that, which means they will need to coordinate with city staff, they will need to coordinate with RDOT, and they will need to coordinate with Metro Plan to get that approved to even utilize this existing driveway off of Dave Ward Drive. Now, then we have South Donaghy Avenue. Along South Donaghy Avenue with Article 9 from our zoning code is that you have the intersection, the driveways need to be 250 feet from intersections. So we have two intersections. We have Silver Springs and then we have the one on Dave Ward Drive. And at their frontage of 347 feet, that cannot be accommodated. Then that is also one of the reasons of pushing some of the traffic onto Silver Springs, because one of the stipulations in Article 9 is that when you aren't able to meet some of these criteria, you do the joint access, you do the cross access, which is what they are attempting to do at Dayboard Drive, and you also use the street of a lower classification, which is the Silver Springs. So with this plat and then with the conditions of approval, the proposed conditions of approval, what staff has provided as a recommended condition is that they close the Donaghy and then they utilize one curb cut off of Silver Springs, but they would only, in the platting process, there would be a planting easement that would run along the southern portion of proposed lot two, which would bar any future curb cuts along lot two, and then have cross access from lot one to lot two along Silver Springs. That is an option. or if there are other considerations for closing or keeping South Donaghy. That was not something that staff had looked at, but I have heard that mentioned by citizens that that may be an alternative as well.

Hey, can I, before we get too far, can you go back over the numbers again? Because I didn't think I heard the right number. From Donaghy, I mean from Dave Ward to the subdivision, how many feet is that?

That's 347. And it has to be how many from? 250 from an intersection.

So why couldn't they put one off? Silver Springs is considered. Yeah.

Oh, so it has to be 500. Yes, exactly. So because this is what's known as a double frontage lot, this is why it gets so complicated because we have the frontage along. It's actually kind of like triple frontage, right? You have on a major arterial, major arterial and then a local.

So how does like the entrance to First Security Bank and Starbucks the back way? That's that's way above. Like, why does that one have it?

So this is from Article 9, our new Article 9 that we adopted last year, is where we started getting into the very specific in terms of street classifications and the distances between curb cuts. Now, Dayward Drive, that access management plan has been in existence for quite a while.

So was this added to prevent what we have now where we got Starbucks, we got Ferris Security, and then we got 500 turnoffs? Right.

Right. It's for safety purposes, right? When people are going on major arterials, they tend to be driving a lot faster, right? And then this prevents that many access points. Got it.

Thank you.

Are they allowed exceptions for those rules? Like we allow exceptions or no?

Yes, so what it would have to be is it would go to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. So when people go through site development review for the access points, say, on South Donaghy, then they would need to request a variance to the zoning code, and then that would be heard by the Board of Zoning Adjustment or Planning Commission acting as Board of Zoning Adjustment.

And to clarify, only if there's a curb cut on Dave Ward, they have to deal with Dave Ward Access Management, Metro Plan, and RDOT, but not for Donaghy? Or is it for both?

They would still need to. For both.

It's like Silver Springs is a city. It sounds like none of them fall under any of the rules. Yeah.

Silver Springs Circle is like a residential circle. It's a neighborhood. Yeah. So we're funneling a commercial into a residential.

Yeah. Okay. Could you... Could you clarify just a little more? So in my mind, I know exactly where this is and it's residential. And so I think about what we did on Prince Street where we have all those new things and there's a road behind it on that person's property. It doesn't access like Adamsbrook or another neighborhood. So I guess my question is, gentleman's concern that has rental property in there and and residential people when you've got all that high traffic like why would why would we not do is it because the curb cut can't go before i guess i'm just confused if we're going to make an exception why wouldn't we make the exception to be on south donaghy cut versus let's just use a road that's very

Or can you funnel them back out to Dave Ward? I mean, I know they probably don't want to buy that whole lot, but, like, instead of, I mean, like, you could funnel them back out if you had.

Or if they had a shared job between the two.

Yeah, I mean, there's plenty of land there. Like, you know, I get not wanting to buy the whole lot, but before we funnel it into a residential area. They're talking about. That's. Yeah. Yeah. That still funnels it to Silver Springs.

Right, and then we would have double the traffic into that subdivision.

Yeah, that just puts more traffic into Silver Springs, not less, right?

Yes.

Yeah.

If there's, yeah.

And I pull out of there every day. I go to Starbucks. And so for me, I watched it tear down. I watched all the things. I 100% agree this is a commercial corner. I mean, it's not going to be anything but commercial. Like, there's no doubt. But to me, if we're riding on this tonight as far as conditional use, I just have trouble when we know things aren't already going to work or it can't happen, then what are... It's not going to be good for the residents there if there is another option to explore. And I guess what I'm hearing you say is all of the things they're wanting to do are requiring some kind of exception. to what is existing. The other two things are on busy, already commercial roads. This is a neighborhood. So for me personally, I would love to see what we did on Prince Street where it went in behind the property, not in the actual residential neighborhood. And that's just my opinion. And I'm all about new businesses. to this business. If we're looking at use and we already know this is not the best access, I mean...

The only way you can cross access is if you come off of Donaghy. And that's what I think it should be.

Personally, I would rather them come off of Donaghy and not be on Dayboard or the residential road.

But you would have to go back. All you would have would be like, what, 75 to 100 feet from Silver Springs, and you've got an entrance.

But that's better than their own road.

Or a business, or maybe this lot isn't. Is it made for a business that needs an in and out? You know, like maybe that's the answer as far as like this lot and its use case. I mean, I just think I mean, going on to Silver Springs feels like we're trying to put a square peg in a round hole as far as like making this specific use case work for this property. And I just feel like we are going to be putting kind of a bit of an onerous on those residents. Yeah.

And I got to tell you, that's what killed it when it came to council before.

Also, that intersection, I mean, we all know, like the turning and we're right there by UCA. You've got, you know, college students and that come and go is, I don't know if you've ever seen that come and go on a Friday night. I guess it's not come and go anymore. They're rebranded. But that place is crazy. And so not wanting us to have more

accidents and if you're trying to turn left there and then whip into the car wash just seems like traffic and wrecks to me i mean i agree it's a commercial plot and i agree i mean i don't have an issue necessarily with a car wash person i have no like personal issue with a car wash being there as the use case it's more like this if we're approving it with this site plan knowing it goes into that residential area i just don't know that i can get behind that well it hasn't

this site plan is, is speculative at this point. It hasn't gone through SDR. Yeah.

I, I feel what Gray said.

I do too.

Yep.

So, um, we, should we hear public comments? Probably before the whole discussion. Yeah.

So, I mean, I just have a few more conditions that all I'll go over that may pertain to this. I do want to point out before I exit, but that, um, conditions can be modified by planning commission at this meeting. Some of the other pertinent conditions of approval are that the car wash and vacuum shall only operate during business hours while employees are present. And then existing mature significant trees over eight inches in diameter at breast height shall be incorporated into the landscape plans to maintain the existing street canopy. There are a lot of significant trees along South Donaghy Avenue. So that is something that is often encouraged in site development review and there is a proposed condition that it be implemented in this instance. And then the other conditions we touched on during the discussion. So I'm available over here for questions should any more arise. I apologize that we hijacked you. Sorry.

Me and Grace are powwowing over here.

Yeah, we were like, that was our bad.

Just good conversation.

Alexander, you got to. I liked it. It was good.

It was needed. All right. Can we get anyone to speak in favor tonight? Name and address again.

Kirk Daniels of Cochran Engineering, 80th Main Street, Wentzville, Missouri, and we can probably use the plan that's up there. I do understand, and we hear your point about the residential drive. We really do. Just looking at the lot and the access point is how to get somewhere else, whether you go on Donaghy Drive, the site plan. I don't know that we can make it work and realize that. It's probably tough for me to sit here tonight and say this is the percentage that's going to use David Ward and this is a percentage that would come out. I can't do that. I'd be fibbing to you if I did, and I won't do that. There are going to be some silver pines. I mean, there are going to be some traffic on there, there's no doubt. And, you know, one option is, I understand the man with the church next door, he doesn't want to see a car wash. Remember, this car wash operates from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays and 7 to 8 during the week. We're closed at night. There could be a lot of other things. There could be a convenience store, anything like that operates all night long. As far as a neighbor... I think everybody would be welcome to have a Club Car Wash with the impeccable sites they keep. We have two of the managers here tonight from Club Car Washes, and they can speak at the guidelines they're required to follow for cleanliness, checking receptacles, there's no trash that flows out of the site, anything like that. So they do an impeccable job. That's why we still work for them, because they're easy to sell. But as far as the church saying, well, I don't want a car wash that's been for sale for 18 months, and I understand not everybody can afford to buy something, but the Peace Lutheran Church does have the desire to sell. And if it was this commission's desire to... And we hear the other conditions, and we're glad to work with staff on those. But if the conditional use would be approved tonight, and you put a stipulation that explore other avenues or condition that... Forces us, and we're glad to do it to look at other access points, but I know 1 access point on the north side of David. Uh, David Ward would be tough for us to accomplish and I don't know. I think that's a deal breaker force, but if this. Conditional use was approved with the contingency we work with staff and try to find an alternative. Secondary access, we're glad to do that. The site we're proposing to you tonight, we know that it works. There will be access onto Silver Pine. We understand that. I believe that a significant amount of people are going to come off through Ward and exit back on. But that's my opinion, just how I would access the site, because that's how I look at a lot of sites. I'm impatient. I want the quickest in and out. I don't want to go through a stop sign. I'm going to do it on my travels. I'm going down east on Drew Ward. I'm going to pop in, get my car washed out, and I'm going to go back east. But I'm an impatient person.

I have a question. I don't disagree that more traffic will come in there. I 100% agree. And I wouldn't want to drive further back to go back around and back to a light. I get that. But for the residents right now that live in a very... No, it's residential. There's no traffic and cut through. Would you be opposed if we amended one of the conditions to... explore other options or look at another access point. Is Donaghy a possibility?

It's tough to stand here right now. You can see that our traffic, we come in on Drew Ward, we come in, we go south, we hook a right, we go through the car wash, we come out, whether we use the VACs or not, get back on Drew Ward. The other option is somebody can come in on Silver Pine, access that point. For us to shove something over, I think one of the commissioners said, well, you're going to have another access point 75 to 100 feet away. I think that creates significant traffic congestion. But would we explore options? We would. We like the site. We think it's great. We think it offers the church and avenue for a solid buyer who's going to buy it and who is going to have a very good business. He has 260 of them now, and there's not one of them that has failed. He will make a success of this. But... Your question back to if there was a condition put on it that we explore other avenues, we would explore those other avenues if that's the commission. Because we like it the way it is. That's the way we'd love it. Yeah.

So for y'all's business, all of your car washes have an entrance and an exit like that? Like two?

Is that like your model? We always want two. Yeah.

So all of them have two.

Yeah, because... I can't say all of them have to. I'd have to go through a lot of memory. I've been doing this, unfortunately, a long time, the older I get. But with Drew Ward, we would be right in, right out. And that's something that I know would not work.

Yeah. I just, you know, I think about like the Tommies on the other side of town. You know, it's one way in, one way out. And it, you know, it's on like a... And it, I mean, you know, it's got like that little weird kind of curb thing you have to go around. I may or may not have curbed my car on it a couple of times, but like, you know, it's not, yeah.

Someone across the street has one way in and one way out. I can't remember the name of it.

I don't know if that's. There are ones that do that. Those are not models we like. Those are not successful models in our opinion. We have a strict guideline and two accesses are very good, but I don't, there's not a left turn on Drew Ward, right? There's not. So we would basically be right in, right out. And I don't know that we'd move forward at that point. That's fair.

I mean, I understand why you guys did what you did. I just hope you understand where we're coming from.

Most definitely.

Mark, did you have a question? It would be possible to flip your site plan, put the building on the east side, put the vacuums on the west side, and that might allow more stacking room.

And if it's something that we can get off Donahue. Am I saying that right? Donahue.

Donahue.

I was going to concentrate on that, and I didn't do it. Dave Ward. Dave Ward. Dave Ward is Donaghy.

How do you say this?

You know, it's something we would look at. It's an option. And like I said, if it's this commission's desire to approve or to vote for the condition of use with the condition that we explore options going on Donaghy, we would absolutely look at that.

So how long would that take you? If we tabled this for 30 days, would that be enough time for you to reevaluate? Yes.

Yes, we'd have to do it. Okay. Is it something that you could vote for it with that condition?

No, because we'd have to see.

We can modify the condition, or we could table.

We could modify or table, but we can't modify because we don't have – I don't think we can modify it the way we would – Hope to modify it without.

Can you give some clarity, Ann?

Okay.

But we can't do a CUP that says go figure out your access points.

No, we can't do that.

To me, we've given guidance on our suggestions this evening, and if you're okay with tabling it. I would request we table.

Okay. Perfect. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll keep it going then. Does anybody else like to speak in favor of this tabled item? Anybody speak in opposition of this tabled item? Come on down. Name and address, please.

Sheila is B1985 Springwood Drive, Woodland Springs subdivision. I am not opposed. I think with most of my neighbors in regards to the C2 zoning, the problem that we have is the plan and the use that we are looking at. I think we realize that this is going to be a C2, But Silver Springs is a residential neighborhood, very small street, so to put additional traffic on that, and I know, Lori, you had mentioned traveling downtown. Donaghy, I travel that not as much in the morning since I've retired, but that is a nightmare. I walk in the mornings and even at 6 o'clock going across Donaghy to try to get to the other side to go to the trail. So it's up to you guys. I think you could possibly look at the rezoning, but the CUP, I think...

is a no-go for me thank you name and address please james james dylan 1940 springwood drive woodland springs i am uh against this um conditional use for the car wash because number one they may be closed but are they going to close off their entire plant so people can't come and go Number one. Number two, as Sheila mentioned, 8 o'clock in the morning, especially when UCA is going through, is a madhouse. And last but not least, as you have to turn in because you have to take a left at that slight and come back around, You're asking for more traffic problems and wrecks because of all the way people are turning left, going straight. People are turning right and not paying attention to people making a U-turn into that facility. So that's why I'm against this.

Thank you. Thank you for your time. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Welcome back.

Name and address again. 826A South Donaghy, practically across the street. I've been a resident of Conway since 1987 when I moved here at six years old. This is my hometown. I have lived at this location since 2004, so I've seen a lot of changes in the last 22 years. I'm not necessarily opposed to the C2 rezoning, something like a sit-down restaurant or a medical clinic. would be appropriate for the area. However, I am very much opposed to this conditional use permit. Not just the traffic, which adding 350 cars a day to Silver Springs Circle, not Silver Pines, is ridiculous, I think. which they mentioned earlier. They said they can add up to 350 cars per day. There's already enough traffic backing up from Dave Ward onto South Donaghy that it's a problem every morning. I can hardly leave my driveway when UCA is in session because traffic backs up so far in the morning. If I want to go across the street, it's pretty much impossible. I have to go down, turn right, loop around on Dave Ward, come back, and then go across the street. And other car washes in town, plenty of them, including the former Take 5 car wash just down the street, have single entrances and exits. I do support the condition to save the trees, though. I'll say that is a good plan. I'm kind of disappointed that somebody who wants to invest in this town has not figured out how the name of the streets around the location and the church that owned the location. But more than this, I'm opposed to it because of the water restrictions currently in Conway. The average American uses about 80 gallons of drinking water per day. The average car wash uses about 40 gallons of drinking water per vehicle, according to the National Institutes of Health. So every two cars is one person's water per day. A car wash that reuses water, only uses about 15 gallons of drinking water per vehicle. But that's still five cars for every single person's water per day. And admittedly, it's 100 gallons to wash your car at home, so it is more efficient to use a car wash. But nobody needs their car washed. And if they do, there are already at least 15 other car washes listed on Google Maps in Conway. There are plenty of other places to go if they need their car washed. I go to the car wash on the north end of town, off 65, because it's locally owned and they do my oil change. I get a discount for using the oil change, or getting oil change there, excuse me. So it's, I mean, I get my car washed, but I go to a place that's already here. Brewer Lake is currently 11 feet below full. Common Corp reported today that it is down 2 1⁄2 inches from last Friday, just three days ago. 2 1⁄2 inches doesn't sound like much, but that's almost 300 million gallons of water. Droughts are already becoming longer and more frequent in my lifetime. The community's already concerned about water use with the data center coming in that is, may or may not come in. admittedly, and now is not the time for the car wash. We need more water for the people of Conway and not for the car wash. So I'm going to leave you with the thought that if this is approved and if further water restrictions are required, the people of Conway will remember that you approved this. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

I just would like to clarify, we obviously would, any business has to follow Conway Corp's guidelines on water restrictions, and we have nothing to do with that. There could be a business that wants to use way more water than a car wash. So just for the record, everybody in water restriction issues, we're all abiding by that now if you live in the city limits. So just wanted to put that out there.

I would also like to say that we, this commission, have not approved the data center or done anything with the data center.

Yes. All right. All right. So that item has been tabled. We appreciate y'all's time and comments on the subject. Can we get a motion to table, please?

Motion to table.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All right. The item's been tabled. Okay, now we're moving on to our last item, another CUP over off South Bay Ward.

All right, last item tonight is another conditional use permit for retail high impact located near the intersection of Sutherland Road, South German Lane, Dave Ward, and Bayer Lane. The site is 3.46 acres. It's currently zoned RU1. There is adjacent zonings of... A1, RU1, and C3 surrounding the property. There are no existing structures. It's not located in any overlay zones. And the comprehensive plan says single family for the area. And just to speak to that quickly, the East Stablewood Corridor is no longer feasible for single family use up to the intersection. It has been zoned commercially ever since really the institution of the Lewis Ranch development and further developments subsequently over the last few years. Projected traffic impact, if we are looking at just off of, let's say, Building A there, that 10,000 square foot building, the highest intensity use in RU1 is going to be a clinic or an office, which of a building that size would generate 376 trips a day. Those are going to be distributed onto East Dayboard Drive and Sutherland Road. Right now, average daily traffic is 18,000 right at the southwest corner of this site. It's not located within the FEMA flood zones. There are utilities currently being provided to the site with coordination by Conway Corp. The Master Street and Trail Plan does designate East Dayboard Drive as a 100-foot right-of-way major arterial and collector for Sutherland Road, which is 60. The street improvements will be the future improvement with RDOT and the street department for a roundabout at that intersection that we just talked to the east. So the big thing tonight is this site currently has an existing conditional use permit for mini storage. And let me grab some. So that conditional use permit was approved January of 2025 with 15 conditions. And the most important thing about it is all modern conditional use permits expire after 18 months if building permits have not been applied for. So specifically for this site, building permits have not been applied for. Site development review was applied for for this site back in January of 25, but by May of 2025, we had kind of gotten down through some conditions and the applicant requested to withdraw that site development review at the time. And based off of that plan, there was four buildings running north-south and there was a 30,000 square foot interior, heated and cooled, facility for interior storage. What has come back today is still four buildings running north-south, but specifically for RV storage and a proposed 10,000 square foot flex space, as you see right there, fronting on Dayboard Drive. So we went from a 30,000 square foot heated and cooled interior storage to a 10,000 square foot flex space. That's the big difference in what you saw for the approved mini storage versus the one proposed now. So as we talked, conditional use permits expire. The one that is currently tied to the site expires literally next Tuesday because we have not gotten site development review approval and pulling building permits. The project, like I said, has been fizzled out. We have a new application in. If the conditional use permit is approved tonight, then this conditional use permit will replace it, the one that we're talking about right now. The storage units will be accessible 24 hours a day. The flex space will be Operational from 7.30 to 8 p.m. daily. The only change of use for the site is it's still mini storage, but the flex space use. Based off what the applicant has requested, they are requesting specifically retail high-intensity uses only for that 10,000 square foot space. The mini storage was already approved via a conditional use permit. Just real quick, the RU1 zone, which is what it is zoned, allows restricted manufacturing for clean and quiet industries that are in proximity to residential development. The regulations are intended to provide structures and operation that completely confine noise, proximity, odor, and dust within an enclosed building. And then I also want to point out that retail high impact is defined as a facility in surrounding yard providing sale of retail products of personal services to the general public. They are typically located along major highways and are designed to serve people and automobiles. Special display and outdoor storage requirements may be required. So like I said earlier, we had a prior conditional use permit with 15 conditions. Staff has came back today. We have proposed and looked at their new site plan. They have actually resubmitted for site development review. We have gone through one round of review as of June 12th, and staff is tonight proposing 13 conditions. I would like you specifically to look, even though we're allowing retail high impact, one of the allowed uses of retail high impact is mini storage, but we are explicitly saying there are uses that are not going to be allowed in the retail high impact zone, and those are all automotive uses that are going to generate noise, scents, require a lot of space. Based off of the 10,000 square foot building with seven spaces, the units are only going to be 1,400 square feet. So a majority of the uses in the retail high impact zone are going to require 10,000 square feet, and he's asking for seven suites. So these suites are going to be 1,400 square feet. They're not going to be able to fit, you know, lumber yard in there even though it's allowed under that use the building itself is going to be used as lease space for tenants to use maybe for startups or some type of ancillary use until they have a larger space but that is what was proposed to us we are requesting those 13 conditions does anyone have any questions on the conditions not yet thank you thank you okay is there an applicant here to speak in favor

Welcome. Name and address, please.

Thank you. Mark Rickett, 1425 Victoria Lane, Little Rock. We are representing the applicant on this project. I don't have any comments to make other than if you have questions, I'm available for that.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions?

Are you good with the comments recommended by staff? Yes. Thank you.

Anyone else to speak in favor? Anyone to speak in opposition?

I'm in opposition, but I do want to speak to it, so I just want to make that clear.

If you can come up to the mic. Yeah, come to the mic.

Name and address, please. My name is Greg Smith, and I live at 28 Sutherland Road. The southeast corner of my property would be exactly Caddy Corner from the northwest corner of this property. Okay. We bought 15 years ago, the area crowd across the street is all agricultural zone. This has been agricultural, but we realize it got changed and we appeared myself and some of the other neighbors and area appeared here a few years back when this permit was approved. We didn't oppose what was going in, but what we are asking for is that you guys help us protect our property from what we see from across the street, whether it's a tree screen or a positioning, a fencing, or whatever that might be. That's what we're interested about. This is the first time I've had a chance to see the actual layout. A friend of mine lives right next door, William Simmons. The driveway looks like it is literally just right across, going right into his driveway. I might suggest that you look at maybe shifting that driveway so that they didn't line up just exactly. That's one thing, but I want you all to understand the biggest thing that we've got concern about is the buffer zone of vegetation across on the south side of Sutherland. The reason I'm concerned about this is you all approved a permit for apartments about a little less than a quarter mile away last year. You got a permit. The dirt, almost 4,000 yards of dirt, was moved from that site over across my house. If you look at your pictures now on your GIS, you'll see that was a completely wooded area. Within a matter of a couple of days, those trees were completely gone. I wasn't too upset about that because there's still a 15-foot buffer zone along the street. But within a matter of a couple of hours, I come in one day, and even that's been taken. And that's on city property. So they encroached across their property line over into the city right away and took those trees out. The property that's on this RU1 has the same buffer zone. And I'd like to make sure that you all recognize the importance that is to us and residents who have lived there for this many years. That's my main concern. I'm not against it. I'm not for it. I'm not against it. But I do want to ask you to help us protect our views outside. Our homes are up on the hill, kind of across the street, and look down, right down. So any kind of just fencing or small little shrubberies is not going to prevent any kind of view in here. so it's going to take some case or leave existing vegetation which is nice in front of mr simmons property right now because it's still there mine is completely gone so if you ever do anything over on the next one i'll be here yeah did you see number eight and then on there can y'all staff can you explain that it addresses the fencing and trees on the frontage but what about he's talking about the back side right

Is there any buffer plan for that or?

So I know y'all can't see it. I'm holding their site development review plans that we've reviewed. So all site development review when it comes to landscaping, and we don't have a tree retention ordinance in the city. If I own property, I can go in at any time and clear it. That's what it is.

We're working on it, though.

If it's in city right-of-way, I don't know if it was done. I couldn't speak if it was an appropriate right-of-way permit.

It wasn't done initially, but it was done in the amount of about two hours. I understand.

When it comes to landscaping plans for new commercial development, they have standards in Article 10 of the zoning code when it comes to planting back. And like Tara mentioned with the prior CUP, with retention of existing trees, we always Love that. We don't always get it because we can't require it. But if we condition it as such, we can do so. But as Lori just mentioned, there are I know fencing is proposed when speaking with the applicant. And so there is a fencing condition and requirements of materials being masonry or ornamental. And we have to approve the location. And then number nine rolled over from the prior conditional use permit requiring 15 canopy trees every 15 feet along Sutherland, which 30 is the usual requirement every 30 feet. So we're requesting 15. If additional plantings are requested by you guys, you are more than happy to add those. Those are what is conditioned because that is in excess of what the Article 10 section has required. um the same thing has been done like i said i'm looking at their landscaping what they proposed for the most recent version does meet all requirements of the basic sections of landscaping of the zoning code

And a canopy tree would be a taller tree.

These are new planted trees. They are on their property. If they're on their property, there's going to be a 15-foot buffer. Correct. So could you help me, if we wanted to make a condition to have a buffer stay...

like a retained eight-inch diameter. I would basically, let's go back to her condition for the car wash, and y'all tell me if y'all are happy with that because we can bake that in here as well.

So her condition for tree retention, let me get to it.

Number 10, existing mature significant trees over eight-inch diameter at breast height shall be incorporated into landscape plans to maintain the existing street canopy.

So we could say along, so like, like, give the caveat of a long southern road, what you just said.

Does that address a little bit of what you're asking, sir?

Yes, I think so. Like I said, there's 15 foot. If they won't go across their property line into the city right away. There's already a healthy vegetation there now.

The issue with right-of-way becomes they're required to install sidewalks, and they will have to remove trees for sidewalk construction.

So it would be better for us to make the condition on the property?

Within the property. Because we would have to do that anyway. They're going to have to remove certain trees in the right-of-way to install sidewalks because we want those sidewalks. And I do, real quick, while I have you, because we did mention the driveway access issue, this is going to be moved to be shared with the property to your west. So this driveway is going to be moved about 60 feet to the west, so it will no longer be straight across from your driveway.

Okay. It'll be lined up more with my driveway.

Yes, it's going to be lined up.

Well, I think you just robbed Peter to pay Paul.

You thought you were doing good.

They're going to share a driveway access.

You just advocated for your neighbor.

Good job for your neighbor.

That's what happens when you try.

And obviously, in my experience, any of these storage facilities, they have excellent fencing. Like, there would be a barrier of some sort to protect the property in there. And so, if the tree situation could be addressed in the right way... As far as I'm concerned, it could be. Yeah.

Having a car or a... Orange facility there is better than having a great other thing. Yes, it's great perspective. But again, we are just concerned about. You guys help us protect with whatever means you've got to get those trees either planted back if they're disturbed. Or something that's substantial enough that at least breaks up the view. So, we're not just looking right at the back of of, uh, buildings.

Okay. Thank you.

Pop up real quick. 1 more time.

Tara made a good point in the event that we do add the... I can't put it any closer to the intersection. We just talked about that.

He's a good negotiator.

They are proposing right now 15 trees along Sutherland, and like Tara made a good point, if we do retain the 8-inch diameter, we do need to make sure that it does not encroach in any access requirements off of Sutherland Road. So everywhere else. So when we talk about conditioning, remember that.

Okay.

And I'll watch for the property next to mine, so when it comes up, I'll be back.

Yeah, so who knows how to word the condition properly.

Lori does. Lori, can you word a condition to add for them to make a motion on? Yep.

Because we're taking something from something else and moving it and modifying it.

Well, because my question is, will they be able to retain any of that vegetation if they have to put a sidewalk in, or would it make more sense for us to focus on the trees on the property?

So it's only vegetation on their property boundary. The property, the trees in the right of way are going to have to be removed for a five foot sidewalk with six and a half foot green space. So they're going to have to remove at least 11 feet of trees in the right of way. Okay. That is a requirement. They cannot be saved because they have to be.

We're talking about from the right of way on.

For everything south into their site. Yes. Anything that's an eight inch caliper tree that y'all want, breast height, certain species that exist. If they want to propose it on their landscaping plan, they can do such if you condition it as such. But it cannot get in the way of where we need to have that driveway access. Or utilities. Or utilities. Thank you, Mark. Always think of the additional 15 trees on their property. Yes. And I can pass the site plan around if that would help before you all condition it as such if you want to see it.

I'm fine as long as it says that.

I think as long as we get the wording right, I think we're good. Sure.

And I'm going to read that condition again. Even though we're not stealing it, we can change it. Existing trees mature, significant over 8-inch in diameters at breast height, shall be incorporated into landscape plans to maintain the existing street canopy.

That sounds appropriate.

We want that along Sutherland Road.

Along Sutherland Road.

Mm-hmm. And do we want to say within a certain amount of buffer, like a 20-foot?

I think it needs to be a depth. I agree. That's the whole point, me, inside of the setback.

Yeah. What depth?

20 feet sounds good to me.

Do we have to give the exception of utilities, sidewalk?

Right now, they have proposed about a 20-foot green space buffer already from their property line, which is a requirement. So they already have about a 20-foot green space. So we're not messing up their fence plan? No, it's saying 20 feet. It's already what they've shown, so we know that anything within that 20-foot boundary needs to be saved should it be a canopy tree of 80 feet.

Can you just word it to... no 20 foot or anything, just what the landscaping shows on the site plan? Yeah, but we wouldn't want it to be less than that.

We wouldn't want it to be less than 20 feet deep.

I mean, because it could change.

That's what's on the site plan right now, but it's still an SDR, so it could change, so I'd rather just go ahead and say 20 feet.

So, we had a place to propose that, or we wait until we get to it?

I think we still have some public comment. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay.

All right. And just as a reminder, all subsequent speakers have three minutes. So do we have anybody else in opposition? Oh, OK. Perfect. Well, we can bring it back to the commissioner unless you have any questions for.

Can we ask the applicant if they're good with the conditions?

Absolutely. You like to bring the applicant back up?

So just to be clear. Because we're so clear. Right. We're talking about the north property line along Sutherland. That's correct. Retaining any tree eight inch caliper. At breast height. Or larger. Yes. 20 feet. In that area. 20 feet from. I think we've got that anyway as far as green space or buffer area. So I don't see that being an issue.

And you guys have fencing already planned, obviously.

Typically, yes. I wish I knew an answer to that. That's okay. I know we did on the previous version. I don't know.

I feel like if we keep the vegetation and have 15 trees every 15, even if they didn't have fencing, that's a pretty good cover.

Fencing is not required. It is proposed.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Okay.

Perfect.

Do we do that now?

When we're ready for a motion. Okay.

Yeah.

Perfect.

Well, we're about to say it.

We're about to find out.

Do you want me to make the motion to modify number 9?

You got it.

I'm going to make a motion to approve with the modification to number 9 that states existing mature trees of 8 inch in diameter and more within 20 feet of the landscape buffer be saved. Along Sutherland Road. Along Sutherland Road.

Perfect. Good job, Lori.

Hey, good job.

Can we get a second on that? Okay. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Item passes with the modified condition. Thank y'all. Okay, I think that brings us to the end of our meeting. So, Ann, is there any other items for discussion?

I just wanted to let you guys know that Brooks Davis has resigned from the Planning Commission. I don't know yet whether there will be anybody in his seat appointed for the remainder of his term. Before we take normal applicants in October, I need to speak with the mayor's office about that. But worst case scenario, somebody will serve out the remainder of his term starting in January. Okay. Perfect.

Thank you. Okay. Well, it's 726. Can we get a motion to adjourn?

A motion to adjourn. Second.

All right. All those in favor? Aye.

Yeah, we might be banned from sitting by each other. Yeah, we just come back and move back and forth. Separated. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I watched it and I was like, oh, really?