Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] I'm not going to see it.

Talk really good in the mics. Oh, that's right. They won. Welcome to the September 15th planning commission meeting. I will now call to order. Alexander, will we call roll for us, please? Absolutely. Lori Quinn, Ethan Reed, present. Mark Ferguson is absent. Me, Alexander Bainy, I'm present. Jensen Tilki, present. Jay Wimburn here. Brooks Davis here. Casty Cook is absent. Kevin Gamrell here. Perfect.

All right, we have a quorum. Uh, I will take a motion for the August 18th meeting minutes to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed?

All right. So, we will move into our public hearing items. As a reminder, the Conway Planning Commission makes recommendations to the city council on public hearing items. Items reviewed on this agenda will be considered by the city council as early as September 23rd, 2025. Items not approved by the planning commission may be appealed to the city council within 30 days of the date of denial. Staff will present and then the public will have the opportunity to speak for or against. Uh the first speaker for each for and against will get 10 minutes. All subsequent speakers will get three minutes. If you are with a group, please have a representative from that group uh be your speaker. Right Lauren to kick us off on item A. It's a request to reszone property at 124,130 and 136 Conway Boulevard from S1 to R2A.

Correct. So, this first item tonight is for three subsequently together platted lots that are addressed as Ethan had mentioned across three lots. It's just over an acre and it's zoned S1, which is our institutional zoning district. The applicant is requesting R2A, which is two two family residential as a part of a concurrent conditional use request, which we'll talk about next. The adjacent zoning to the north, east, and south is R2A, and to the west across Conway Boulevard is S1. There's no existing structures on the site. The overlay zone is the old Conway design historic zone for the suburban area. The comprehensive plan does indicate this area for single family. As the lot is currently vacant, any type of development will have a small impact. With it being residential, it will be smaller. as proposed off the conditional use permit, 86 trips for 12 units would be what would be proposed throughout a typical weekday. Um the current traffic counts along Conway Boulevard just to the south are 1800 uh trips a day. There's no FEMA flood zones. Any new utilities that will have to be con um coordinated with Comey Corporation. Ride ofway is Come Boulevard. It has already been dedicated. It is the major arterial and there are no street improvements planned here at the time. These lots historically were zoned R2A up until 2016 when Central Baptist College reszoned them as a part of a a large area reszoning for their baseball fields. Assuming as they have sold the property to the current new owner, I would I'm guessing that that is no longer the intent for these three lots. So, they have sold those recently. Um there are some multif family style developments that are zoned R2A to the east and south of this area. um along the block. Um there are the requests for the conditional use is for up to 12 dwelling units an acre that we'll hear next. Um the comprehensive plan as stated does require or is requesting single family for the area. Any development of this site will have to undergo historic district commission

review prior to any site development review. Questions for Lauren? Thank you. Is the applicant here to speak in favor of this request? Please state your name and address per the usual. Bobby French, 1021 Front Street. U representing Mr. Milan on this project. He just wants to do R2A and plus the conditional use. Anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

Questions about Thanks. Anyone else here to speak in favor of this request? Anyone here to speak in opposition of this request? Please state your name and address for the record. David Antonio, 1423 Garvin Street. We're really not opposed to like duplexes or anything that's uh not twotory multi-density. And I'm not sure that's not what we're talking about, right? Yeah. And so the that be in the conditional use, correct?

So the historic district commission will actually review the design of the site, what it looks like, how many stories and height and everything. Tonight, we're just voting on the use. So for right now, it's the reszone to R2A and the conditional use permit will be to allow a higher density use. They can't vote on any really design metrics that the historic district would set a precedence for. They're the ones who are going to be the design guidelines. Y'all can add conditions, but they will need to somewhat align with the historic district bras on the next item. We can't add conditions. Yes, this one is just for the resone right now. Okay. Okay. I'm just Sure. Absolutely.

We're just here. We live to the north, right? And it would be right in our backyard. That's the Stonegate is to behind us also. They're low level. They've been great. I mean, those are nice little apartments and it's been great there. If it's something like that, we don't have any problem. We just personally, my family, me and my wife, we just don't want multi-density right behind us. That's just not the area for it. I mean, it's all single family all around there except for Stonegate. You know, I'm sure there are a lot of college students in there, but that's been fine. So, that's Anything else, Kathy? That's all we got to say.

Yeah. And so you'll have obviously there's the reasonzoning, the conditional use, and then when it goes through historic district, it will also be open in a public forum to speak at that. All right. Well, we've been there for a long time. We were there when they put those in. So, thank you. Yeah. And so when they do the historic review, they'll put signs. Do they send notification as well for historic? So, similar to this where I'm assuming you probably got the letter. Yes. Yes. So, for historic review, when they go to develop it, they will have to do the same thing because of where it's at.

Okay. All right. We haven't done this in a long time. We've been there 41 years now. And uh it's a nice neighborhood. It's older, but and I know things change, but let's keep it low. We appreciate you. Is anyone else here to speak in opposition? Please state your name and address for the record.

Sure. It's John Perrick and my personal address is 2955 Craig Head Circle. And uh I I appreciate this gentleman's uh comments because I'm the owner of the Stonegate Apartments to the east. Um and my concern is not uh likewise it's not with the reszoning to multifamily because obviously that's what is right to the east. My concern is related to the density of it. 12 units in essentially one acre and also design and drainage. Um, and you know the it's showing building right up to 20 feet from the line and I will not be happy if I have water issues that I don't have now subsequent to this. Um, and uh, the design concerns don't have to do necessarily with what's proposed, but uh, I certainly don't uh, appreciate the properties that were approved to be put in at 1420 and so forth on Robins, which really do not look good at all. Um, and that I assume was a similar type of request, the ones that are seven units that are put in there. So um so for design if it's in the historic district the historic district commission does design planning commission is just land use

right and so your concerns about the drainage that will go through city planning review and the city engineer will review that. Um and if any new developments that you've seen around town they do they do a really good job now uh looking at those drainage in the past you know maybe they didn't go through the review years and years ago. Um but the drainage concerns would be addressed during site development review. Okay. At what point would that happen then?

So this is the reszone is step one and then we'll hear the next item which is conditional use for the density and then as they go to develop it they would have to go through historic development review which is also a public form. So we would encourage you to come out and speak and share your concerns at that you know pending these items passed. Um and then also passed city council. So there's another public forum at city council. Then it would be historic development review. Then the staff would review it in the engineer, fire department, Conway Corporation. So there's it is kind of a long process, but it gives you as the public the opportunity to speak as much as possible.

Yeah, the density is the certainly is probably actually my largest one because 12 units uh is a lot in that size. That's a lot higher. That's higher quite a bit higher density than what Stonegate is in terms of units per uh per acre. So the reasoning to the R2A, you're not opposed to that. It's the density which we'll hear next. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh just for clarification for our audience here, um both of the developments that they have spoke to, one was developed before the subdivision regulations. We didn't have the zoning code in any metric like we do now. So a lot of that is pre-development code. Another one was kind of the same way um a lot remember we're in historic district 2. So rags have changed many times in the last 20 years when these sites were developed. So we have to take that into consideration. And he is correct. We um we are not looking at detention on this site plan. There has to be detention. You know, there's metrics, things that you're going to see in site development review that the public won't see, but we will be reviewing as staff. Lot coverage, dra drive accesses, things like that that have to be mitigated lot coverage that we're going to handle in site development review. Thank you.

Is anyone else here to speak in opposition of this request? We will bring it back into commission for discussion. Make a motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion. I'll second it. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Any abstensions? All right, the motion passes. We'll move on to item B. It's a request for conditional use permit to allow up to 12 dwelling units per acre in an R2A zoning district for the same property located at 124,130 and 136 Conway Boulevard.

So, the site demographics are pretty much the same. I do really want to re reiterate, we are asking for up to 12 dwelling units. Does that mean the site can hold 12? We don't know. So, based as it's shown right now, we are asking for up to 12. when we get to site development review, they may have to lose a structure to accommodate drainage. So even though we're approving up to 12, that may not be the actual 12 number that we're going to see finally developed. That will all come out through side development review and things of that nature. So I just want to clarify, we're not getting 12 units tonight. Um it'll really be out of HDC, which is going to determine a lot of the lot coverage and green space requirements on top of the green space requirements required from site development review. Um, and that was really the big change in points between um, the two items when it comes to just the density. I don't want everyone to leave here tonight thinking we're getting 12. That's going to probably be subject to change. There are 13 conditions proposed as a part of this. The number one being they have to go through HDC. So, if they get approved here tonight, they get approved at city council. Their next application will be a historic district guidelines where they will have to provide a correct dimension site plan with building elevations showing how they're be going to be able to accommodate all of these structures on the site. We really like to see when an HDC application comes in that we know has to go through site development review, have a really good site plan because you're going to kind of be doubling down on the work. So, we always ask the applicants to really show good in HDC what you want to be seeing in site development review. But outside of that, no other additional comments. There are 13 conditions proposed to include landscaping and fencing that has to align with the suburban zone standards um for green space like Mr. Perrick had pointed out that is um a condition here

for the audience. Can we read those conditions?

I absolutely can. So there are 13 conditions. The first one is the historic district commission shall uh review the item. Number two is the development shall be subject to site development review in accordance with article 10 of the Conway zoning code. Number three, the fronts of all units shall be oriented to and take access from the internal access drive. Four, garages, if included. We don't see any right now. I just want to reiterate that. If they include garages, they shall not dominate the front facade of any structure. That's a historic guideline. Five, building exteriors shall be composed of brick, rock, or cement, fiberboard products such as Hardy sighting. Six, vinyl siding shall be prohibited. Seven, no accessory structures shall be permitted. Eight, enhanced landscaping shall be provided along all property lines and shall be required to screen parking, mechanical equipment, and any andor any dumpster trash enclosures visible from public realm. Number nine, privacy fencing in compliance with the old Conway design overlay district. Suburban zone standards shall be installed along all interior property lines. Number 10, all signage shall conform to the Conway sign code and old Conway design st uh district standards. 11. The conditional use permit shall become null and void if construction for the use does not commence within 18 months of the date of the approval of this permit. Number 12, any changes to or expansion of the approved use shall require an amended or new conditional use permit. And number 13, the conditional use permit shall expire if the use ceases for a consecutive period greater than 18 months. And those last uh three conditions are standard out of the zoning code when it comes to conditional use permits.

Thanks, Lauren. Thank you. Any questions on any of those? I had a quick question. Sure. You have item number eight here about enhanced landscaping. Uh, is that lifted from the code?

Yes. So, if you're looking at the site plan in article 10 of the zoning code, when it comes to any development that abuts a residential district, which this absuts it on all three sides, they have to have a 20 foot green space buffer. So, so the north and south, they will be required to have an additional 10 foot along those property lines. And when it comes to enhance, I also you're typically for the interior property lines to do a canopy tree every 30 feet or an understory every 15t. So a higher density than just that. They can we kind of left some interpretation. Maybe they want to do additional shrubs, but that is just why it's enhanced. It kind of leaves them some freedom to do some a little bit higher, but we haven't set a hard number on it. But you guys obviously can amend any of these conditions. I would just possibly want to discuss with the commission adding some language to the end of public realm and perhaps add some you know and surrounding residential uses. I don't know if that's overkill

but it might be an additional layer of protection. Okay. Um but that's for discussion purposes. I do want to point out um when it comes to mechanical equipments parking and dumpster and trash that's also called out in the overlay standards as well. So they have to do the screening on those as well and they kind of overlap on some of these higher commercial type uses um in these non-residential uses in these zones. So to confirm since there was a concern about the 10 foot shown it will have to be 20 foot.

The zoning code indicates it has to be 20 foot when abuing any residential zone. And like I said if you look at that site plan we don't see any detention. Um there's going to have to be an approved fire apparatus turnaround. So there's going to be some changes to this site plan. Um they they have to provide an exhibit for us to look at and review. But like I said, I tell folks, don't fall in love when you see a CUP site plan. It's probably going to change in some capacity. Anything else for Lauren? Thank you. Right. The applicant here to speak in favor of this request and name and address again for this new item.

Bobby French, 1021 French Street. Yeah, this was kind of just a rough idea of best case scenario. They know that It's probably not may not end up with 12 units. We're going to have to get some detention. You know, we have to have engineers look at the design and all that. Um, you know, but this client they build around Conway, Mr. Mson. They do his wife is interior design. They do a good craftsman style. It will be kind of town homes craftsman style uh building you know which will meet any kind of requirements from the historic district of course but u I mean they're well aware that there are some few challenges on this that they'll have to work through like the 20 foot you know instead of 10 ft and stuff like that will be some design and when they get to historic district they'll have all those plans a little better worked out. Any other questions?

Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in favor of this request?

Anyone here to speak in opposition of this request? Same. It's uh there's a lot that's a lot. And there's only one way in and out. That's kind of dangerous. Uh, and I hope they stick to that 20 ft from our property to the apartments because we're just directly north of that. Uh, that's a lot you guys for that. If you never I don't know if y'all been over there. That's not very big. That's one way in. If someone gets stuck or car breaks down or whatever for a fire, it's dangerous. If you need circle, in my opinion, circle in just like the stone gate, you can come. You got an entrance from one road to another or just a circle or whatever. That's just my opinion.

Could you state your name and address for the for this item? Uh my name's David Antonio. Uh 1423 Garvin Street. Thank you. And uh Okay. Thank you'all.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in opposition of this request? Right, we will bring it back into commission. And just a reminder, this is very preliminary and we'll go through site development review, historic district commission um and likely to to change based on fire department and other codes. And if the setbacks were changed, they would have to get a variance. Correct. If they were requesting to reduce to not meet the 20 foot requirement, they would have to submit a waiver to the design review standards to an and she would have to approve it before they could do it.

But as of now, they are they are not requesting that. Correct. I would like to say the site plan approves nothing for the CUP, just the conditions. So, Commissioners, any comments, discussions? The maximum 12 units um in the in the conditional use. Is that the maximum density for this zone class that we're that we just asked them?

So, they are requesting up to 12 units because so that would be MF1, which is one acre and they are 1.03 03 acres. So if if you were to develop, let's say, a one building apartment building, you could probably get 12 units because you have a lot less ground space. Um, but when you're putting multiple structures, that's when your space gets eaten up quite a bit. They could have requested MF1, but we couldn't applied any conditions to MF1. Yes. if they just reszoned to MF doing an R2A with a conditional use. Now, we're able to add further conditions and really make it more restrictive.

And even in the S zone that it priorly was before voting, they were still going to have to have a conditional use permit to do up to 12 units. And staff, you know, we talked returning it to its zoning where it's more residential in nature is is a it's a much better um good faith effort for bringing the zoning back um to the area. in the event they ever do decide to redevelop it, someone then could go in and put some S1 allowed use that could fit on the lot. So, this at least brings it back to a residential zoning even though we have the CUP. With that, I'd make a motion to approve um with the 13 conditions as proposed by staff.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All of those in favor? I I Any opposed? Any abstaining? The motion passes. Just a reminder for those here, it will go on to city council which will also be public and then when development does occur, it will go to historic development commission and notifications will go out for that as well. Moving on to item C. It's a request for conditional use permit to allow mobile food vendor in an 01 zoning district for the property located at 2285 Moes Boulevard.

Good evening. Um, as you said, this is at 2285 Mo Boulevard and is to allow one mobile food vendor in the 01 zoning district. Uh, because it is 01, it is required to get a conditional use permit to put any food vendors uh any mobile food vendors on the lot. Um the site is currently has a mixeduse building with both lofts and commercial space. Uh the conditional use permit if approved will amend permit number 1288 which currently exists for this lot. The current existing uh the existing conditional use permit allows for multif family units and retail. Um, the idea of adding a food vendor to creating community space appears appropriate for this area and as conditioned it should not negatively impact any adjacent properties. Uh, I've listed 13 conditions. Uh, one being that this only allows one food truck on the lot at a time. Um, you can see the space on the site plan there that they have marked in blue. um where the food truck would sit and then I think he has some picnic tables and maybe a stage that they're proposing which we'll deal with inside development review but this is just to allow that one food truck on the on the lot.

So I remember in the past food trucks have to provide permanent restrooms. Is that still in the code? There is and there will there will be the building that's on the on the property there. It is a commercial mixeduse and with commercial on the bottom floor. Any questions for Ryan? Not to that end. The access to those restrooms if they're not offered separately, right? They'll have to have access to the restrooms. That would have to be part of the condition for

right. They'll have to their hours of operation will have to coincide with when the restrooms are open and available. Any other questions for Ryan?

They have to do that to get a permit. It aligns with the mobile food section men of the code. So, in order to get a permit, they'll have to show proof of bathrooms available on the side. Does this need to go to staff for a revised plat for revised site development plan review or for revis? Excuse me. Like with the the lot that's there now, it doesn't have those proposed improvements on it. So, for instance, access to the trail, is that going to have to go through technical review?

I don't think it'll have to go back through uh plat review. Um I think the plat as it stands should be okay. Um access to the trail may, but we'll have to look at that, but that wouldn't have to come back through planning commission. That would be done internally. Yeah, it will have to go through site development review, but the plan review would be done internally with staff. Thank you. Anything else for Ryan?

Right. Is the applicant here to speak in favor of this request? If you would please state your name and address for the record. Hello. Um, yeah, I'm Brent Salter, 201 Lee Andrew Lane. And so we're the developer of virtually everything from the creek to Donnagy. Um, you know, from Moes towards Dave Ward. This is the last piece to this development. And um, a portion of the of this property is is in the flood plane, so it's really unusable for buildings. And so we're trying to figure out what can we do to enhance our development and also give an opportunity for for recreation for the city. And so we've decided to build um a park, if you will, um along the pedestrian overpass in this green space. And we felt, you know, what a better add to a park than than a food truck opportunity. So that's what we're trying to do. Then I found out we had to get a conditional use. So we'll just add conditional use number 17 to this property, I think, is what it is. And do you have any objections to any of the conditions? You can follow those.

I do not. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in favor of the request? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of the request? There being none, we'll bring it back into commission for discussion. I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions. Second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Any abstaining? Motion passes. That will conclude the public hearing items for tonight. We'll move on to announcements and additional business. The first item is the development review regulations draft amendment presentation.

Just for the people at home, I want to make it clear, we've been working on uh some zoning code revisions. The zoning code as it stands right now has not been updated in about 20 years. So, we're we've taken that on. We've gone through u several we've we've put together an advisory committee. We've been working on this for several months. Um we we're starting the very first part of this um with what we call article 10, which is which is the uh development standards that we use for commercial buildings in the city of Conway. and we're uh updating that. Like I said, that's the first bite of this elephant that we're that we're doing and Terra's got a nice little presentation to to give us all.

Thank you, Ann. Yes. So, as an acknowledged, we have been working on this with an advisory committee and we um last about almost two weeks ago on September 4th, we had a public input meeting. So, we were, you know, we're having multiple instances in which the public can hear this presentation, provide feedback. Um, what I'm doing here tonight is just giving the presentation of the um draft regulations that we as staff have been working with a consultant um over the last few months as well as that advisory committee. Um, please feel free to interrupt me as I'm speaking if you have a question, if you want me to stop, if you need me to explain uh some terminology so I don't get lost in jargon, which can happen sometimes. Um, and with that, um, it actually works out really well because we brought up site development review a lot during the meeting today and that's what this is all about is the site development review process. So, when people members of the public express concern about materials, uh, landscaping, the spacing, the circulation, how many driveways is this going to have, drainage? that is all in the development regulations which is housed mainly in article 10 of the um zoning code. So currently what we have is um I'm going to not go through it piece by piece by piece. I'm going to go through a lot of the big ticket items the reasons why we came to the development regulations first um and that is materials. This is something that we um over the last 20 years materials have changed. The integrity of building materials has changed but our zoning code has not. And the way it stands right now is the requirement is to be 50% masonry on these commercial buildings. Um and of that 50% the majority needs to be brick or brick-like units. And then there is also an allowance for some metal siding. And that's about it. We don't have a lot of

uh diversity in terms of building materials that are allowed here which um has led to a lot of uh feedback from developers saying that you know they there needs to be a little bit more um uh discretionary review for the types of materials that are out there. Um also one of the items that we're going to discuss is the parking our parking minimums and maximums. Right now we have it based upon use and the lot area and that's something that nationwide is starting to change and we are proposing to change with this trend. And then we've also noticed there's discrepancies as planners when we're going through the code. We'll notice you know things change and then we're like that doesn't you know jive with this other part of the code and then we have get into a lot of interpretive discussions and we're trying to make it a lot more easy over time for there to be a consistent interpretation. And so that's something that we are also addressing in this update. So, um, the new parts are lot coverage and building coverage. That has to do a bit with, um, that's just some cleanup. That's having to do with some discrepancies in the amount of lot coverage versus building coverage. Just making that very clear. And that's an article three. Not really a big part of development review, but just something that needs to tie better into development review. Um, we flipped article four was parking and we've now made that article nine just so that a developer when they're looking at the code they see article 9 that's parking that's access management. The very next chapter development review just keeping them close together. Um, then article 10 that's the that's the big one and then that's the materials landscaping application procedures and process. So what we are proposing is this class categorization as opposed to having that uh 50% masonry and then a little bit of metal. Now um we're propo proposing uh class categor categorization and it is

also based upon facades. So, what we'll have is uh you'll have a primary, a secondary, and a rear facade. And then there's a specific percentage of a class that will need to be on each facade. So, with your primary facade, that's where you're going to want to see the higher um class materials, the more durable materials. And there will be a requirement um it breaks down into multi-sections, but it'll be 50 at least 50% from that class one. Um, and then for class two, you need at least 30% from class one. And it just goes on um like that. If you want me to go through all of those numbers, I'm happy to do so. And um with this because we Oh, I do want to point out that this material list was based upon a council initiated study that was done by my predecessor um the previous long range planner and it was presented to council. Um this was also has been vetted in other cities. Um our consultant um brought this to us and he works throughout the the southeast and has seen it in other communities. So this is um what is trending for um development standards for commercial and multif family development. Um what oh and one of the things about this is that it's written in the code that it's adaptive. So instead of this is your only choice for the next 20 years, right? Because we don't know when we'll be back here. So now there is a a clause that we'll provide for if a developer presents information as to the durability of their cla their material, then we will have the uh discretionary um review to determine if that is in fact a class one, a class 2. If it's something we've never heard of, we will of course, you know, not um take that

lightly. We will need to see how it is proven to be that class of material to be sufficient for a primary or secondary facade. And this is just an example of articulation and differing materials and what we would um anticipate seeing with this update to the material classification in the zoning code. having the mix, having the change in the roof line. Um, we don't want and we don't have this now, just a plain blank facade. Um, as I said, it's just now going to be more um differentiated through those different class of materials. The other big ticket item is parking. Um, as I stated, right now it's just based on square footage and lot area. And what is being proposed in this amendment to the zoning code is to have the same table serve as a guideline. However, the applicant if they provide sufficient evidence as to why they need less parking or more parking, they can do so. And so it's providing more flexibility instead of just having that very strict minimums and maximums because different development, different um types of restaurants need different parking. It's not always the same. And this will allow some of that flexibility. So circulation that um is didn't change much from our current code to this draft amendment. The major thing is just the amount of curb cuts. So the amount of driveways on a street um will be based upon the street classification as opposed to it just being across the board the 100 ft between the driveways. Now it'll be based upon whether it's a major arterial or a minor or a collector. Landscaping um also that did not our landscaping was pretty good. So we didn't really have to go in and do too

many adjustments. Um they I think we just got a little bit more specific about screening a parking um what we want to see there. Um how tall it needs to be at time of planting. Um and that's pretty much the major change that we had in landscaping. Um and then just making it a little bit simpler to understand, a little less like percentage of the the front um perimeter, just keeping it as a simple number of um 10 ft. So something that has definitely um changed is the or is being proposed for changing is we are going to have different types of development um for the applications. Small scale versus large scale. Small scale being a primary structure of 1,000 square feet or less or an addition 750 square ft or less. Everything else is large scale development. And what that really means is whether someone's going to need to uh provide a drainage report. Then we to be in conformance with state law, we will also now offer the local um there's local fasttrack that would be administrative review what we've always been doing. But then or then there's also the statutory review which is people can now hire thirdparty consultants to do the review for them and then planning staff has to check off on that. So that is like I said state law and um we are required to add that. Then the minor and major waiverss right now we have what's known as the exception process. When people um are not going to they have a reason to not be in conformance with the development regulations then they pres uh propose an exception which an reviews and then inform city council. And now there will be two different classes and one is the minor and one is the major. Minor has to do with one uh

waiver which is numerical and within 20%. Whereas major is multiple uh waiverss to the requirements and over 20%. And this was uh just an example of people with the new code we will have uh this is called a scope of compliance. So as it stands right now when we get an application for site development review we you basically just have to come into conformance with everything that's in the code regardless of what type of development. This allows for a little bit more flexibility if someone's doing a much more minor um addition or change to the uh the site. And then um I forgot to mention this, we've also changed the fee schedule. Um it won't actually change the really we we did a a test of like the way we currently measure fees and the way we're proposing and there was a difference of about $1,000, but it's just going to make it more simple. Right now we do it on lot coverage and then we're going to now be doing it based upon either small scale or large scale development and the amount of acreage that's being taken up. And do we have any questions? I know that was a lot.

Said the fees the difference was $1,000. It was Yeah, it was about a thousand beneficial to um to this the new up. Yeah. How do these fees compare to our neighbors in central Arkansas? So, let's bring it up to standard.

Are we 10% low? Are we 50% low compared to our neighbors? And our neighbors as in North Little Rock, Cersei, Bryant, Russellville, who are we talking about? Um, who all did we look at? We looked we looked at pretty much everybody around us. And I mean, it's not a huge discrepancy, but it's we haven't updated our fees in a really long time. So, I mean, we're And when she says $1,000, like it's it depends on the size of the the development. I mean, for instance, the data center, as huge as that is, their whole feed thing wouldn't going to be over about $3,500. And that's the probably the biggest development that we have coming. But then, you know, something small comes in, it's 350, something like that. I don't I don't know all the exact numbers.

Either way, it puts us pretty much on par with these neighboring,

right? Is that right? Yes. And basically when she's talking about minor and major waiverss, we're trying to bring just a few more things in to do administratively. Just as an example, the lady out on Ready Road was trying to add the daycare was trying to add 650 square ft. And you cannot believe all the things that it triggered. I mean, bless her because it she had to plat, she had sidewalks. I mean, so much stuff came into this woman trying to add an office, you know, and so we're trying to make it a little bit easier on um people to get things done and not be so tied up in red tape.

That's good. Um, I had a question about um is there anything in our code about roundabout um construction or do we encourage on large developments um roundabouts inside the inside the developments not necessarily on the streets? So, that's reviewed by transportation and that would be something that would go um come up for a subdivision. We may we right now and we're not to the subdivision or regulations yet. It is on the list um for traffic calming to slow traffic down. Um that is definitely we don't have anything at this point in time in the site development regulations is that's um for the circulation throughout a large scale development. We do not have anything like that. No,

I can tell you that Kurt's a big fan of traffic calming. He he tries to put it in there anytime that he possibly can. Yeah. Over there like in St. John's, whatever that street is, that long straight stretch. Yeah. Okay. That Well, they've put they've put one there and and I would expect probably some more stuff like that going on in Big Development. They feel safer when when you're on a bicycle. Um, you know, because you you don't have the stop signs and cars trying to figure out whether to go or stop or wait for you or whatever. So, right. Um, we try to be back friendly.

Yes. And then with our landscaping uh regulations there are in the article 10 that is an aspect of traffic calming has to do more with like the landscape islands and making sure that you just don't have the long stretches. The maximum length of a drive aisle is no in um like a large like a development. Yeah. like like the continuous

you're widening it to 24, but I may have misspoken there. I had a quick question for you. Uh you you spoke to how the um access management and how it's going to be triggered based on the function class of the road in the master street plan and not so much distance and can you speak to how that might vary between like a major versus a minor versus what does that look like with these rags?

Oops. And then the follow-up question to that is I'm assuming the access management plans are still on their own merits and that doesn't necessarily alter them or does the access management plan that the one that we currently have is Daveboard drive and that will stay the same.

So it's this is going to help when you get to really where I show in this picture. The access management plan for Daveboard drive stops at this. So this would allow so for major arterials it'll need to be 250 in between curb cuts. So those driveways will need to be 250. The Dave Ward management plan has a 300. Um but this will be throughout the city. So um and then we have and then also not within 125 ft of a property line on those major arterials. So another major arterial is Salem Road. And then minor arterials and collectors will be 100 ft from other driveways and at least 150 ft from an intersection and no more than 50 ft from a property line. So think college is a minor arterial and then Ferris is a collector

and we're still requiring cross access. Correct. Yes. Okay. That did not change. The other question on landscaping, I believe the old code had if you're planning during the winter, you could hold off on planning until the spring. Is that still in the code?

Yes, that is still in the code. Um, we also, and I'm glad you brought this up, the we also have um have made it a little bit more clear about getting uh TCOs. So, that's the temporary certificate of occupancy. So, we have the one for a nocost TCO for landscaping when you you just can't plan, it's not the the correct time. And then also making it so that if you are developing a um multi- uh structure site like a multi- uh building apartment complex that you would go on to a it would be a single you wouldn't have to get a separate TCO for every single building. Um because we we got feedback from the advisory committee that that can get overly complicated. So this will, you know, as Ann had pointed out, just trying to make things a little bit more streamlined, efficient, and less complicated for everybody. Is there any more questions? Okay. So the the next step is we're going to present the the same thing to city council and then depending upon whether there's any feedback and feel free to reach out with any feedback if you go home and you're like you know what I should have asked this question and I don't know if this was addressed where you know maybe you know this should be considered as well. I don't think if you look through the code and think that's actually very complicated and maybe just reach out to the plan department, you can reach out to me directly um or anyone at the plan department and uh we can discuss. But then the next step is to present to city council and then based upon that presentation. Um if there's any drafts that need to be made, we will uh make those any edits and then we will present this potentially as a hearing item as an amendment to the zoning code at the next planning commission meeting. And then from there it'll go to city council

where they will vote on it whether it'll be adopted. Thank you. Welcome. All right, that wraps up item A. Any other items from staff or the commission? Well, then we will take a motion to adjourn. Move. Second. All in favor? I really know.