Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] or I can. Yeah,

either one of you. Yeah, you can do it, Mark. All right. Lori Quinn here. Ethan Reed absent. Mark Ferguson's present. Alexander Bainy present. Vincent Tilki here. Jay Winborn here. Brooks Davis here. Cassidy Cook here. Evan Gamrell here.

Okay. With um the roll call, we are going to remind everyone tonight 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 8:28, I mean 10:28. Um items not approved by the planning commission board of zoning adjustment may be is it the 28th? No, no, I'm sorry. Okay, go ahead. It is sub may be appealed to the city council within 30 days of the date of denial. Um and I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes to approve the Okay, we have a motion. Second and a second. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Thank you. And we are going to um jump right in to our public first public hearing item. Lauren, we what? Oh, I know.

Better. Okay. So, the first item for review tonight is a reszone of property at 554 Ingram Street from R2A to R2. It's the property at the northeast corner of the intersection of Ingram Street and Third Street. The property is um about a fifth of an acre. It is completely surrounded on all sides by R2A zonings. There's an existing 921 square foot single family home with an out building behind it. It's not located in any overlays, but it does abund it to the west, the old Conway design overlay district. It is a special study area by the comprehensive plan, and I I'll mention more on that later. Um projected traffic impact for a single family home is about 10 vehicle trips a day. The plan is to construct a duplex with the tearing down of this home which would be double that. So 20 traffic in the area is 2,800 a day uh just about two blocks to the north of Ingram and First Street. It's not located in any FEMA flood zones. Any new additions or expansions of utilities will have to be coordinated with Conway Corporation. Ingram Street is a collector with third being a local residential. There is a shared use path part of the Conway connectway trail that runs along all the frontage of Ingram Street there. There are no current street improvement plans uh planned at this time. The property as it sits was a part of a historically larger 10acre lot that was platted into Conway in 1917 and has been subdivided over the years to where it is now. It's 58 ft wide by 150 ft deep. The applicant is intending to construct, if this is approved, a one a one one duplex on the lot, but due to the zoning constraints of the size of the site and the zoning as it sits, it's not able to do so. In the R2A zone, you have to have 10,000 square feet and 100 ft of street frontage. In the R2 zone, you have to have 7,000 square feet and 50 ft of lot frontage. So, as it sets now, they can't accommodate that to build a duplex in the R2A zone. Even if they were um to tear down the house, they still couldn't build a duplex. So

that's why the request to R2 has come in. Um the R2A zone does have some multiple purposes. It's for larger lot residential duplexes on larger or for two family duplexes on larger lots and the facilitation of one family residences to those in um to two family in more developed areas. Um the R2A district or the R2 district is pretty much the same as the R2A zoning district. It's just smaller lots. Um, as I stated earlier, the comprehensive plan says this is a special study area which is established in the central city for refined detailed land use until an actual established pattern has been met. Anything anything else? Okay. Is the applicant here to speak in favor of this request? Okay. If you'll just come forward and state your name and address.

David Perry. address is 130 Summit Valley Circle. Okay. Um I didn't know. I'm new to this and um I called and asked if it was possible before I started the process and they told me cuz I wanted to do two duplexes. They said no, you can't do two, but you can do one. Okay. Or I I wouldn't have bothered. Are you fine with the staff's comments, their recommendations? Did you receive those? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Okay. We may call you back up if we have any questions. Thank you. Is there anybody here to speak in opposition? Okay, with that, let's pull it back into commission. I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay, with the conditions. Okay, second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion is carried. Okay, move on to the next item on the agenda. All right. And the last um land use item tonight is a conditional use request for 24 dwelling units on a one uh one lot over off of Garden Grove, Holiday, and Sunflower Drive, just north of Prince Street. It's located at 2760 Garden Grove. It's 2.13 acres and is zoned C3, and it's completely surrounded on all three sides by C3. It's a vacant lot, and it's not located in any overlay districts. Um the requested use would be to construct 24 units per acre in the C3 zone based off of the zoning and the land uh acreage. That would be up to 48 apartment units would be allowed. Um the conditional use request is required because uh multif family use is not allowed by right in the C3 zone, but it is with the conditional use permit. Traffic is obviously going to increase as the lot is vacant. Right now it's completely surrounded on all three sides by mini storage. So the majority of traffic will be going currently to those mini storage um uses but right now um it will increase obviously with apartments if they come in. It's not located in any flow plane and any utilities will have to be extended by Conway Corp. There are no street improvements at this time. Pretty much the gist has been explained, but when it comes to the use intent, they're looking to do a phased apartment um unit development with 16 units per phase. If you look on page 10 of the report, there's a proposed site plan. There are nine conditions proposed for the development that they'll have to adhere to. It will obviously have to go through site development review. The property has already been platted and staff has just proposed those nine conditions. Okay. Anything else, Lauren? Any questions for

Lauren at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here to speak in favor of this request?

You'll just state your name and address. Uh Patrick Hayden, 240 Skyline Drive. Here was the Tyler Group on behalf of Mr. Bobby Sigir. And we're just looking to go ahead and get the site plan approval, you know, rolling with this. Well, after site development review and and you're fine with the conditions? Yes, ma'am. We're perfectly fine with the conditions that we said. Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Thanks so much. Thank you. Um, is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this request? Okay, with that, let's bring it back in. Commissioners, I have a question. Okay.

Um, more of an observation. I know this has to go through subdivision, I'm sorry, site plan review. Uh, plan does show propos proposed storm water management, but it looks like it's in phase three. I'd recommend they do that as far as the very first phase because you wouldn't want construction on the site until you've actually had the storm water on site. So, they might want to flip that to phase one. Absolutely. And we we will like I said they are required to show a supplemental document but we will make sure that's absolutely handled in phase one. Okay, good question. Yes, thank you Kevin. Anybody have anything else? Okay,

I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions. Okay, we got a motion seconded

and a second. Okay, all in favor I. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. And with that, we are moving into um the amendments to the zoning code development review regulations. Thank you. So the we did a presentation at the previous planning commission meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the zoning code and after that we did another presentation to city council. After the city council meeting based upon conversations among staff, we have also included a few more uh changes that were not presented at the previous meeting which is just specifying the difference between building coverage and lot coverage in section 3 article 3 where site development review is applicable. We changed some items in 306.5 that were um duplicative with article 10 and then added definitions for um terms that we either didn't have before in article 10 or hadn't been defined or needed to be adjusted. So what we are presenting today I'm not going to go through the whole presentation again. Um, I'm just going to highlight the um the proposed changes, the sections for the changes and then take any questions. So, we're looking at changes to section three to um or article 3, article 4, which is the parking, the current parking, that'll be switched with article 9. Um and then within article 4, we are also including a lot of um the access management that used to be in article 10. And then also the article 10 changes highlighting the um flexibility with the

building materials as opposed to having the 50% masonry. Now we're going to have the chart and the different classifications for building materials and then including definition definitions in article 13. So, um, at this time, if anyone has any specific questions for me prior to opening for public hearing, I'm available.

Did everyone get a chance to review these changes? Okay. Anyone commission wise have any questions? Okay. And then at this point, we're going to just open up if anybody has any questions. Um, you're welcome to ask questions or concerns or anything like that. Again, this has been presented before. These are just some um changes and moving some things around. Anybody have any questions? Okay. And then with that, are you going to do we just ask to approve? Yes. Somebody wants to make the changes.

Okay. We're just looking motion to adopt the changes. Okay. We have a motion. And do we have a second? I'll second it. And a second. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. And do we have any those are effective? They will have to go in front of the city council. And we were just discussing today it probably will not have an emergency clause. So that it just gives the public a little bit more time. So there will be three readings of it before the council actually adopts it. So it'll we're looking in November sometime. And do we have any other announcements or additional business? Any commissioners or staff?

No, we don't really have too much happening. I mean, no, that's not that's a lot. A lot happening, but nothing that y'all would be interested in. Nothing that we care about. That's a big lie. Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, um, with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Make a motion to adjurnn. Okay. 5:43. All in favor? I. Yay. Is that a record? I think my my