Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

going to call to order the Thursday, January 8th, 2026 City of Conway Planning Commission meeting. Our first order of business is the election of officers. I forget. Do we do vice or chair first? So you could do chairman first and you'll just open it up for nominations for chairman and then once a nomination is made if there are any other no other nominations then somebody could make a motion and a second on that one and then you move on to the vice chair. Okay. So you [snorts] chair first. All right. Do we have any nominations for chair?

Yes. and nominate the honorable Jessica Wise as [laughter] as our chairman chairwoman if she would be willing to do it again. I'll second that and double her salary. Yes. [laughter] All $000. All right. Um any discussion? Any other people you want to throw? Okay. Um all in favor? Any opposed? Awesome. Thanks, guys. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. All right, moving on to elected vice chair. Vice chair have any nominations for vice chair? If David would do it again, I'll nominate David and double salary with the double salary

in. All right, anybody? Are you seconded? Okay, Mr. Anderson seconded. Sorry, I'm having too much fun. Um, all right. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Congratulations, sir. Thank you. [laughter] Congrats to the board. You guys are stuck with me another year. Very important job. All right. Um so our our next um item is the approval of the December 11th, 2025 planning commission meeting minutes. A motion to approve as presented. Second. We have a first and a second by Mr. Cornell. All those in favor.

Any opposed? All righty. Moving into public input. There's anyone in the public that would like to speak on anything? All right. Everyone want to make a motion that we close public input. Second. A first and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All righty. Moving into subdivisions. Item A is university suites. [clears throat]

Yes. Uh this is a three-prongong request, although it is officially broken up into two separate items on the agenda. The first part is for preliminary plan approval of the university suites expansion plans which includes a design modification involving the open space fee inl appraisal of fee and loo appraisal requirements. Under the current requirements of the UDO, any development in which less than one acre of open space would be required, the applicant is required to pay a fee in lie of providing the open space on site unless the open space to be provided on site complies with the suitability standards of our ordinance, including that it is a minimum of 1 acre in size. [snorts] Based on the current requirements for open space, a thousand square foot of open space is required for each unit proposed, which would be 24,000 square feet in this case. The UDA requires that an appraisal from a licensed real estate appraiser be provided with the value of the property post development as if the project were completed. That [snorts] value is then divided into the total area of the development and multiplied by the total amount of open space that would otherwise be required. The applicant is proposing to pay the fee in lie of providing the open space. However, the applicant is asking for a modification from the way in which the fee inl amount is determined. [snorts] The applicant has provided a contracted amount of $569,000 in lie of the written appraisal. And using that dollar amount, the fee in L would amount to $179,142 or $746 a square [clears throat] foot. And when you include the recent amendment to the open space ordinance, which requires the fee and amount to be 125% of the determined amount, the required fee and

ll amount for the 24 unit project would be $224,000. The applicant contends that while they are providing the fanlue, the project will still provide some open space although it does not meet our suitability standards. So the first of the two items regarding you regarding the project is one a request to approve a design modification from the requirement for a written appraisal in determining what the open space DNL amount would be and to instead accept the applicant's amount of $569,000 as being a satisfactory amount to be used in determining that fee and two preliminary plan approval. Um the applicant u Mr. Schwar is present if you have any questions and I'll be happy to try and address any questions you have as well.

Okay. So, we're going to take these separately, the A and B. [clears throat] Okay. You can The second one actually is a recommendation that actually goes to city council for them to consider. So, that's one of the reason we broke it up. Okay. All right. All right. Mr. Short.

Sure. Thank you very much for uh listening uh to all those words about the open space. [clears throat] Basically, after reviewing the open space multiple times, it's really not designed for infill projects, projects that are smaller in nature that are fitting on smaller pieces of property. It's designed for larger, more spacious open tracks of land that are master planned. And on all those plans, we've provided way more than the required amount of open space on those type of plans. But when you're dealing with an infill project such as this, you can't really squeeze in. I mean, if I was to put an acre on this, you twice as much as I needed and almost half your property would be in the open space. So, it's really not designed for infill. So, fee in L of is really the only option. Um, and instead of getting an appraisal, the 569,000 isn't just the contracted amount for the PL plant piece property. It's actually the contracted amount for the property as if it's been permitted and developed. um they won't they cannot close on the property unless there's a permit on the property. And so therefore, the value of the property really is $569,000 and that's the value of it. Um and so that's why instead of going back and getting another appraisal and spending another 15 or $20,000 to get that straight, we would rather just go ahead and pay the fee in Luo based on the value of the land as if it were permitted, which was the 569,000. Now, this particular project is sharing the amenities with the parcel across the street. Anyway, it's an expansion of that project. So, they has access to the pool, the amenity, the halfcourt basketball, the picnic area, the grilling station, all the stuff that is across the street. It's part of this shared amenity that would be available to them. Um, and of course, it's student housing, so they have their own other amenities, but neither here nor there. the amount of $72

per square foot is a reasonable amount that it would cost the city to be able to buy open space and replace it in some other alternative location. Um, and so instead of going through the hassle of trying to get an appraiser, and this is about the third one where I've had trying to explain to the appraiser what you need in order to determine the value as opposed to just determining a flat fee, which is something that I've actually asked city council to examine is the possibility of developing a flat fee on an annual basis where they go and review what that fee should be. So that if you're developing a multif family or commercial and you need open space to provide a flat fee just so it's easier, the city then still gets the money and chooses and uses it wisely for their activities and open space acquisition and landscaping and things that they use it for. And they've done a good job with it. So we don't have a problem paying that. It's just a matter of you waste 10 to 15,000 trying to get the appraiser to do the appraisals to figure it out, determine what it's going to be worth. And in this case, we know what the property is worth because that's the contracted value of it as if it was permanent. It's not like they're buying a piece of raw land and then they had to, you know, they were going to get it resone so they bought it cheaper. This was based on it being permitted as this particular project and so therefore there was no need to go get another value. So,

okay. And I will say that staff, this has been one of those issues that since I've been with the city that I've dealt with where you have to try to get an appraisal for something that doesn't actually exist yet. Um, it it has been a reoccurring question is how do you get an appraisal for something that doesn't even exist? So, you're really just giving a a guesstimate on what you think the value is going to be, you know, postdevelopment. But there's a lot of factors that could come into play with that. So, as David mentioned, that is one of the topics that staff is proposing to submit for budget retreat discussion for city council is maybe coming up with a flat rate per square foot that would be um considered uh when open space fee and lube is required rather than having a a written appraisal.

Okay. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? Um I'm a math teacher. Yeah. So I'm looking at the numbers and like so 24 units into 570,000 is like I don't know like 25,000 a unit. Is that the is that I mean so if I break it down into units that seems like really cheap. It's based on square footage not by unit. So, like the sale value of this at the end, the valuation's got to be way low for the what it's actually worth once developed, isn't it? Like, wouldn't this be worth like I don't know the price? How I'm just just I I guess I'm

Yeah. I mean, if you're talking about once you put the value of the roads, the storm water, the building, all those values in, you will never have an infill project. Yeah. because there'd be no value in it for the person doing the construction if you were paying based on the value of the building once it's built. There's just there's no But isn't that the way the ordinance reads right now? Well, it's kind of a weird that's why we're here for the design because it the value of it's built. You you literally on an infill project would never build. Yeah. I mean, there's just no way to do it on a project this size.

I think that's a pretty compelling argument. And I mean, infill is generally good. is places where there's already full city services. We want to encourage infill density. We need to have that. That's the kind of stuff that discourages more sprawl. And so that's also generally a good thing.

And I would never ever propose this in a larger master plan community. It just doesn't make sense because if I've got something where you're talking about like a single family development, it just the the amount of square footage that's available, I wouldn't propose to not have the appraisal and do it. It just doesn't. But when you're talking about a twoacre property, you know, and you're trying to squeeze in all the other stuff, you literally at that point, if you gave up an acre, you'd lose a whole building and then you don't do the project, right? Or if you pay like if the end valuation is say 50,000 or 75,000 or 100,000 a unit and then you're ended up paying, you know, $300,000 in open space, then you just don't do the project again. So you don't encourage infill.

I guess my issue is do we have I mean we're going on your word. I don't want to say anything but we're going on your word that it's 569,000. Do we have any documents or anything? Offer to provide the contract. That's what the contract.

So it's a contracted it's a contracted price. No, we don't have that document. And I'll tell you, in the past, um I guess when development had really slowed down, um the city had at one time, um let people use um the Ory County Tax Assessor land records and we would determine which caused significantly low fee and loo amounts. Um a good example, um is on Country Club Drive. There's about 10 to 16 single family homes that were built right along Country Club Drive. and it wasn't enough to warrant having a huge amount of open space in an amenity center. It was a very small but it was a major subdivision. Um they produced like a 20 foot wide open space completely passive and I think that the ordinance actually changed after that to require that in those instances where you would have basically unusable open space with you when you got such a small development that they pay a fee in lie. um that is required when less than an acre is going to be required when you do the calculation. Um however, you can opt to pay the fee in L regardless of the number of units. You can request that or you can put the open space in. The trick is is it has to be a minimum of an acre. But David is absolutely um correct. Um, you know, we want to encourage infield development and, you know, when you have a project like this where a lot of the city services and utilities are already there, um, it would it it could become cost prohibitive. What you do is you take the contracted amount, $569,000. You divide that in the square footage of the lot. So, this lot is an acre, 1.75 acres. So you would take that square footage and you would whatever that

number is, then you would multiply that times the square footage that would be required in open space. In this case, 24,000 square ft. So that's how you come up with the $179,142. You have to do the 25 additional percent that brings it to $224,000 that would be required under the current ordinance. And so I'm not against the fee in lie of I understand that situation. I guess I'm saying like are we setting a precedent because we're allowing an applicant if we approve this we're allowing an applicant to say this is what it's worth and you know we're cutting in half right what was the amount that is being proposed

as a piece of evidence or county's land development regulations just as a side or county's land development regulations specify $5 per square foot for multif family for fee and lu of So, and we're proposing $7.40. So, well over what that standard is. I will say that's Lorie County though, and they don't require sidewalks and street trees, right? Uh, no, actually they do require sidewalks pretty much on every new reszone project that comes in. And they do require street trees as well. They do. And they also have elevation design standards. Okay.

Very similar. They basically adopted a lot of what the city of Conway had done uh in terms of those design standards. But in terms of the cost of open space, the whole idea of open spaces, it should be something that the city uses that money to put towards their open space programs elsewhere within the city if you're doing a fe of and this I agree with that. Yeah. Well, this this amount is the amount of what the cost of that land would be. the city isn't asking for. Like if I put an acre of land, it would be an acre of vacant land. I'm not required to put a building on it. And this the same thing I shouldn't have to pay based on the value of that building that's on that if the city is not going to also be putting a building on it. It's

how did we do there was a project that was over off of was it cultra or no it was over by the common Christian school. It was a single family project and they had to come and pay a big fee in lie of right Chapman village. Did we make them pay the entire They did. And did they have to do it? Was it and it an appraisal? [clears throat] Yes. But that was not a project and it was a single family. That was a large scale development. I don't think it large scale development where they had to be provide that open space on site if they chose.

I'm just I'm just expressing like I'm not I don't disagree with the fee in lie of and I understand like the argument and I get it. It's in project. I'm very much pro this development and all and I'm just kind of saying like where do we draw the line on what is required for one applicant versus another.

Well, it's a case by case bas. It's a case by case business. If you're asking if you're setting a precedent, people have asked for modifications from the open space requirements um several times. This is one of those. This is a design modification from the requirements of open space, specifically the appraisal requirements. So this is just a design modification which you guys see a lot a lot of. So as far as precedent setting it's it stands on its own in that it is unique. Have we have you reviewed or approved something like this just like this? No. But there have been several requests for open space requirement be it the type of open space the amount of open space or fee inl

and we're not asking to get rid of the open space or the fee in lie of which other people have asked for. We're just asking to take the amount that is the contracted value for the property as if it was permitted, which that's the way the contract currently reads and said we've offered to provided if if staff wants to have it for the record before they approve the development, but that's the value of the property as contracted based on it being permitted. So, period. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. No.

So what's the difference between the the amount that you're proposing the the 56,588 what's the rationale for paying that price instead of the contracted rate which would be like 180,000 and 100 and then the additional 25%. So like I I'm seeing in the the issue number three

that you're you're from what I'm reading you're proposing to pay $56,588. They're actually and that's part of the second request. This act this part of the request is just a design modification from the requirements for the appraisal and preliminary plan approval. The next request which is the third prong is actually the amount and we received a revised um request that um has a little bit of different numbers and I was going to um tell you those numbers and he can clarify that. That's part of the next the next

I would rather keep the value just as a structural thing. I'd rather keep the valuation off the table and let's just like keep our regular standards of what what the expectations are expecting evaluation of the of the final project. But then on this case we could discuss a reduction of that because of it being an infield project. I I don't know if that makes sense like instead of like playing with a system of what we're talking about like we have a system that that this is what the what's required is the I I don't know does that make sense?

Well that would be exactly what you are doing okay because what the modification itself is just um a request to u modify the standards for which that determination is made. So he instead of providing a certified written appraisal from a South Carolina appraiser, he's saying that the contracted amount is what he wants planning commission to use in determining what that amount should be. That's that request. But the other parts, yes, that's absolutely what you're doing. And and the reason we've specifically asked for that is this is an infill project where it's located at it's defined in the contract that it was specifically for the property as if it was permitted for this use as opposed to I buy lots of property that's just a farm land and go to subdivide it later. That's a whole different kind of plan. And you know honestly I would I wouldn't personally bring one of those here because that's not my nature. But um we're specifically asking for it because this one is the Enfield project that it is and where it's located at. There's just it's not I'm not able to provide the open space on site which is almost universally my preference. Just a quick comment. So a right now is solely I'm about to make my favorite tired argument. um are is all we're focused on is whether or not to allow uh a waiver of the appraisal requirement and that's totally under our purview and that's our call.

Yes. along with preliminary plan approval in our narrow scope of view. narrow scope of view and then B is when we can talk about the open space fee and L requirement but that is a recommendation and so city council is going to have the ultimate call staff can have all the documents ready for them and if they don't like the amount and all that stuff then they can that dance will happen right at the house

and at that point they can tell us I got to pay more or I don't pay as much which I don't think they'll And so in light of that procedural positioning, I think that again, it's probably good that it comes like this because we get a shot at making sure that it's sensible to wave or not wave an appraisal requirement. And in some cases, well, probably in a lot of cases, it would never come before us because it's easy enough to get an appraisal and and sort it out and then you're just fighting over the amount. And so it's probably unique that we're actually even having to determine the efficacy of the appraisal. But anyway, but we got to swing at it saying yay and a whether it's this project or whatever projects are um whether it's infill or not. And then um and [clears throat] if the the applicant can't make the case that we should wave it, then they got to go get an appraisal. So I don't and I I speak to that as thinking that that's a good check on whether or not this sets a precedent because it really is pretty specific to

Well, I mean, if you're worried about if they're not being honest, they just paid taxes on $246,000 worth of value on that property. I just looked it up. So, I mean, the 569,000 that they're coming for, you know, they're not they're not going to go through. I mean, they're not I don't think they're taking money away from the city with that with that valuation. Okay. Doing what? So, in the and we're also in a to add to Mr. Slide doing site plan approval basically, right? Yeah. Too. Okay. All right. I do have

with the condition that of course council would have to accept the fee and move over where you'd have to pay the amount. Well, that's a separate the se that's the next one. So, the preliminary plan and design mod that's the first prong or that's the first um request which [clears throat] is totally within planning commission's perview and then the second part would be the next discussion that would but that would also go to city council. Okay. [clears throat] So, my one comment on the site plan part is um the sidewalks that are in front of the building, do we need to connect them to the sidewalk that's on that side of is it technology? Yeah, there be a crosswalk or it's striking.

Well, I don't know that you can have a crosswalk at an unsalized intersection, right? I know we talked about connecting the cross there on that road at that intersection. I'm not talking about crossing the road. I'm talking about connecting through the parking lot itself. Yeah. because you're going to have students walking presumably, right? Yeah. To the amenities to get to the well to get to the sidewalk to walk to the school and right now there's no sidewalk from the sidewalks in front of the building to the sidewalk along the street. That there's a sidewalk though if if his sidewalk runs all the way down towards tech then then he will they will run into a sidewalk that lets them I think they'll connect they'll connect that way. Okay. Okay.

She's worried about internal across the parking lot and I honestly it's a single 22 foot drive. I don't know that there's enough traffic volume in there meant to justify putting a crosswalk in that location. We've got what 48 bedrooms and 49 parking spaces. So, there's going to be a lot of if this is student housing. I can tell you that none of the across the street has any crossings and it's a way bigger project than this. Okay. Yeah. And it's the same exact complex [laughter] No, I'm worried because I mean George and I work over there and I see the traffic on that road. I would just be concerned from a safety standpoint. However, if they are walking to school, there would be another option.

I'm not saying across the street. I'm just saying from the building to the sidewalk that's on the same side of the street. Yeah. To get to get from where you lay your head down to the actual sidewalk to walk. There's no way to get there. I'm not saying that is walking across the parking lot which is once again 24T wide parking lot. It's only a 24ft drive out. you're having to walk across to get it to 24T with 19 connections. You're talking about what we do 8 foot wide parallel spaces on this. So the way it's laid out, these are parallel spaces that are 9 ft wide right in front of the building and then there's a sidewalk along and there's no connection between. So these these are actually elevated. I was just saying connect the sidewalk in front of the building to the sidewalk on the same side of the street

so that when the kids come out the unit they can walk to the sidewalk to walk down the sidewalk. That's it. The question would be where would I make the connection at? On either end of the I can do it either way. I mean I I have the room there. I'm just wondering where you'd like to see it. You tell me and I'll put it there. Well, that was my other question is you had different types of open space. What is essential feature open space? That was my second. But none of this is actual open space that meets the open space requirements because you have to have an acre of open space, right? But what is that? So these [laughter] well I mean the open space open space we're just showing where it's act. So the landscaping is actually on this side right all the way up until this fence line right that's along that side because this is a substation a power substation

so you're going to hide it. So we're putting the fence on that side because it's just not that attractive over there on that side. So I mean I get that but I'm just asking what is what is essential feature open space? What? I just It came from a the dark green. It came from some terminology in the open space section. Yeah, it's actually in the open space section. It's under the ancillary open space. So, it it wouldn't count for It doesn't count for anything. It's basically open space that doesn't count for open space. It's just parking lot. I was just wondering [laughter] what that was.

Yeah. In that case, that that is the uh landscaped buffer BM that's between that. So, what you're seeing here, and I don't know the best place to stand for everybody to see, but this is an existing pond that's already there that acts as the drainage for the food line shopping center. This is our new pond. This is the landscape bank that's between the two. It's essential and it's landscape and it's open space, but it doesn't count towards any of the open space. It's direct out of the ordinance itself. So, okay. Sorry, I just saw that and I was like, I don't know what that is. [laughter]

As design, I mean, I can I can definitely run a sidewalk out here on this end on this side over here. It would be I mean there's a ditch that runs between these two that drains all of technology back that direct that actually all of the food lines the front of food lines where DOT is doing all the work out front where the that pond outfalls and comes this way and goes that way underneath the road. So it's not I can't really if I start going over there it's going to start getting to the point where I'd have to regrade into that ditch. I just think it'd be nice to have a sidewalk connection because you're encouraging kids to live there to walk to school, right?

Like I said, I I'm not saying I can't do it. I'm just I'm actually if you guys make it a party condition, I'll draw it in there. I just

Well, what the um this isn't in the gateway corridor overlay, but if it was in the gateway corridor overlay, pedestrian walkways a minimum of 5 foot in width must be clearly defined and provide a direct connection from the street to the main entrance and to a budding [clears throat] properties. Um it could it doesn't have to be a sidewalk, but it's just a you know almost like a crosswalk that's grade separated for pedestrians. And if it was in the GCO, then they would have to have to do that. [clears throat] But no, I mean, there's nothing that specifically says if there was a bunch if there was streets within this development and it was multifamily, then yes, they would have to have sidewalks on both sides of the street, but this is just a parking lot. So, there's nothing that says they have to have sidewalks.

Yeah. I mean, like I said, I can add it, but I to me the the amount of traffic in the parking lot that's there is so low volume and and I realistically don't see students coming from one side of the the development all the way to the other side where the the sidewalk is just to cross and they're just going to cross the parking lot since it is just a low volume parking lot. People are going to take the shortest path. I mean, you could put a Y in the center right by those two corner landscape islands. That's where a lot of the utilities come through as well as the C and the stuff. I mean, I could do it and I'd have to move those utilities around, but

um and I and I know what you're talking about right through that middle island. That's where I would have done it. But um but through the boxes and stuff that are underground there for the water, sidewalk on top of utilities

and the there's actually the sidewalk itself is on top of a big utility, the one that's along the road because um the main power that comes from that substation is actually underground through that area and it's encased in concrete. So it makes it quite a little bit more challenge to get the sewer actually from there to the pump station across the street itself. So it anytime you're dealing with infill though, you're going to have those kind of challenges. So, but if a sidewalk is something that I need to add, I would gladly add it. But to me, it's such a low volume parking that I didn't didn't put it on there to begin with because I mean, I cross I mean, it's a lot safer than crossing the parking lot of Walmart and you don't have a sidewalk all the way through every parking lot to get up there. So,

all right, bring it back to the board. Thank you. No, I like the discussions. Honestly, I know some of you guys might get tired of it, but I learn from you guys every time. So, all right. Do y'all have any other questions, comments? Anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a move to accept the proposal as submitted. Okay, we have a motion to approve approve the applicant's request as presented. We have a first and a second. All those in favor I. Any oppose? I'll go with the opposed. All right, moving on to B.

I'll [clears throat] still look for that sidewall.

Same project. All right. Um, so this is for the approval of the open space amount, but at a reduced rate. as [clears throat] part of the open space fee inl if the design being that it has been granted they would like to use the open space that is being provided on site and have it deducted from the overall required square footage which um to remind you would be 24,000 square ft per their [clears throat] application using the square footage rate of $746 per square foot and the open space deficit of 6,991 square foot per their revised application ation. The fee and amount would then be $52,152.86. But I do want to note that the amount does not take into account the additional 25% fee that the ordinance would require. Um, so should that dollar amount be accepted, the $52,152.86, the fee and amount would also need to be approved by city council. Okay. All right. Do you guys have any additional questions or thoughts for the applicant? This is just a continuation of our previous conversation.

Is there And so if help me with the the logic. So we've talked about the the valuation and not using the appraisal and using this substitute. That's right. And then so it seemed to me then once you have the value then you would apply the traditional formula of 125%. And so why should we not follow that formula? Right. And that's that is the question. Um and if you recommend that that's what we'll have go that goes to council at that time. Right.

I got I got a little lost in the sauce there with the uh the square footage that we're dividing by. So but Okay. So So help me out with that. We It was 24,000 that was required, but now you said there's a different number. Yes. On the document that I had here, it's 6991 square foot because of the open space that we were able to provide on site. Okay. Even though it's not dedicated, even though it doesn't meet the minimum one acre that's required in order to have open space. So all the all the open space that we were talking about earlier, that that doesn't count toward the buffer.

Correct. So the the way it works with the open spaces, it doesn't really matter if I don't provide at least an acre. It doesn't qualify. But to your point, that 691 is left over including the dark green or not including the dark green because you said it was not be a able to count as open space. So the dark green was no, the essential open space, the other on the chart. Yeah, these are the ones that you guys zoom in on the chart. This is the open space that's along the back. And then the open space that's around the pond, right? As well as the fact that we're putting a fountain in the pond and creating that feature there. So that gets you your pond. If you put a fountain in it, you can count right

a portion of it. But it can't count towards your active open space, right? But it but under the ordinance, it can count to reducing the fee and loop. That's how the formula would work in the ordin. No, no, that's what that's what we're Okay, correct. Because you have to have a brains in [clears throat] the paper. No, [laughter] I'm with you. So, okay. So, you he's got the approval for the value of $569,000. So, when you take in the square footage of the property, it's 76,230 square ft. So, you [clears throat] would divide that and that's how you get that amount.

7.46. [clears throat] Yes. And then you would multiply that times the amount of open space that's required. In this case, 24,000 square foot of open space because it's 1,000 square foot per unit. When you use that formula with 125%, that total then becomes $224,000. What the applicant is now requesting, now that we've got that situation, we can accept the appraisal. He's asking to have the fee reduced to 52,000. $152.80. That's where the logic is. There is space. So, we're going to back out that that part that

the idea is that there are space on site as well as amenities that they're already being provided as part of being part of university suites where they already have a pool, they already have a clubhouse, they already have a basketball court, they already have a picnic area, grilled area, they have uh what is the other one? It's u across the street. Yes, it is all across the street. access all managed as part of it. Dog park and everything else that's over there. So, did and they're all students as well. So, did the other side meet the requirements for open space? The other side was a PD. So, it was done a long time ago. So, I doubt it met the open space.

I just asked it doesn't look like it from the amount of green. I would I would doubt it. Now, one of the reasons on that is that particular project which was done long before I got involved with it. But they do use a lot of pvious concrete on that side of the road. So that's the reason you'll see like a lot of storm water ponds on it is all the parking spaces in front of those buildings are all pvious. I remember that parking. Yeah. So it's it looks a little different if you look. It's a little more porous. So that's why they don't really have as much open space on that side. And it was done a long time ago. So no, it does not. [clears throat] This property was per unit.

It was reszoned last year. I think early last year. Um, it was this piece that's being developed was actually zoned highway commercial, I believe. That's correct. And the universe the the project across the road was zoned planned development, but it wasn't actually it was a it was a non-conforming plan development. Um, so and it was developed probably 20 years ago, so I wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not it meets the requirements, but [clears throat] it was actually zoned along with this piece to be R3, so that it's more compliant now than it was under being a PD, but I I do not know what that open space.

I would say that it doesn't meet today's open space requirements. It did meet the open space requirements at the time when it was a planned development, but it doesn't mean anything about whether these guys these will still have access to those amenity features. So, and once again, it's it's a matter of it's an infill project trying to get through a very tight window and there's a lot of constraints that happen to it. Basically, he's asking for the for the fee and loo amount to be reduced from 224,000 to 52,15286, which is a quarter of the required

based on the fact that we're claiming some of the open space that's on site. All right. Let me ask you this. Do you all have because right now these are two separate properties, correct? and you're asking for us to go through and give you credit for a piece of property across the street that is not married with a piece of property that you're asking the credit for. And you can put that. Are you going to go through and marry those two pieces into one plaque? We cannot combine them because they're across the property line, but we can include it in our covenants or restrictions that we have to provide before we get approval. Are they going to be under the same management?

Yeah, they're the same owners, same management, same office you'll go to pay your rent, same that you go to sign your lease. It's all the same and and potentially we may come in in the future and add for more where they'll have to provide open space. But that seems like a pretty good idea, George. But I'm more we can definitely tie it in the covenants that we have to provide in this part. And that would be my only problem is that you're asking for a credit that this could be I completely understand that. That's why I said we we can make them include that language. I mean somebody later on and they got a credit for nothing. I wouldn't think about that.

I mean because right now well county always thinks a lot of their market values. We won't go there. Who put the uh this is a totally different subject. Who put the speed bumps on that road that are closer to the this the college or the victory lane? I can only assume if it's a city road, it was the city. So, the college owns the road. The college owns the road in that section. The city's stops at the intersection. Yeah. Technology city.

I know the university. This is so close to the university and these students are going to be crossing that road and and the speed bumps don't start till a half a mile in and so they're people are coming around that roundabout and then shooting down this road and students are going to be wanting to cross that road to get to the amenities. And wouldn't it be great if there was a a raised speed hump walkway across that the university has these things that aren't exactly at intersections. There's the one over by the bus stop. Um, I'm just And I know that's a private property. It doesn't do any good. You should go through and see all of the tire marks through those roundabouts and and everything else. It doesn't do it damn it a good

Yeah, the police would have to look into that. That would be something that the police department could look and see if that if it warrants a speed a speed hump there. Yeah, we we looked at the intersection based on George's original concern and the two ideas on it were a roundabout and a a raised the whole raised speed table in the middle are the only two real solutions in that area besides continued speed enforcement. They don't even stop at the stop sign. So continued speed enforcement is really the only way to slow it down in this case. And that's expensive for the city. All right, I'm going to bring it back in.

I'm bringing it back in. I'm really uncomfortable making recommendation about the money portion of this because I don't feel like it's really in our purview. You know, I feel like we like you. Well, we're like we see a lot of you here and like I you know that that to me is is that but I don't think that pays plays into it. We've got an ordinance. The ordinance is such that it is written and if he wants to air the grievance about the the the or ask for reduction then that's a city council issue anyway whether or not he gets our blessing or not. It ultimately is a city council. It ultimately is. So, you will be making a recommendation and we already did agree to no postdevelopment appraisal requirement taking the $569,000 into account.

Right. So, do you guys have any other discussion feelings on the matter? Because I was going to make a motion unless anybody else wants you to shoot. All right. I'm going to make a motion that we deny the request in reduction for the open space fee in L requirement as well as the proposed amount. Second, ma'am. All right, we have a first and a second. All those in favor of denial of the applicant's request say I. I. Any opposed to the denial of the applicant's request? 33. So, if we have a tie, then the motion fails. Fails.

Is there another You'd ask for another motion. Okay. All right. So, my motion failed. Are we going to have the same Robert's rules of order for me? I'll Are we going to have the same result, though?

Well, let's see. I'll try to make a motion if [laughter] it if it um breaks it. Um I make a motion to recommend approval of the reduction in the open space fee inl subject to uh city staff verifying the documentation concerning value in the contract and um contingent upon covenants and restrictions being in place to um uh provide permanent access. uh to the amenities for the parcel across the street. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second.

All right, we have a second by Mr. Anderson. All those in favor? I Y'all raise your hands real quick. Yeah, keep them for just one second. Okay. All right. And then those opposed. So, we're split again. I have a question about a clarification now that we have the vote done. I didn't want to interrupt the vote. Is your in that motion was that uh could we make that motion without a numerical value that he's asking for with his with it with the number three? I So you make that motion without approving the number? Approving the the exact number or the valuation. Could we do that motion where we're we're

we're approving a reduction but not approving a reduction but not the amount that is like subject to what the city wants. I'm you know I'm I'm trying to get to a place that I don't know if 25% of the full amount is that's in bargain hunting. You don't get 25% of anything when you do and I'm I'm just and I'm not in this and I think that's I believe Mr. slide talked about adding the 20 the making it 125% as well potentially.

I'm just I don't know this is way above my pay grade and I don't want to put a recommendation on a number and I I don't think that's why we're here planning commission. I would rather just make the motion that that because of it being an infield um project and an acre is not available that we can recommend that the city would do that city council would would could consider a reduction. I'm I'm not comfortable with putting a dollar amount on that. Is that an official motion? I'm sorry. That is not an official motion. I'm gonna let Mr. slide with the official motion if you want. Otherwise, I'll let it just be 50/50 and we'll and we'll move on.

About halfway through, I figured out that why don't we just set a number like a percentage. So instead of 25% say 35 number in there and just say if the city council wants to go through and look at a fee in lie of make sure that they go through and establish covenants onto the property that assure that the amenities across the street you know must must convey um with with the with the property just rewarding the other um but there but there's no fee in I mean not not putting an amount for that fee in so would it be 100 125% of the reduced amount. So it' be like 50,000 times 1.25 would that be?

Yeah, whatever the reduced amount is. So it's the 52152.86 times um 125 um whatever that is. I think that's I'm doing it right now,000. That'll be another 13,000. So the total will be 65190. And so what I'm getting at is I don't even like putting a number on it from this side. And I would be opposed to putting your number on. Just before we go through the the thing of going through a motion, I is there a way that we could do the motion that that removes I'll put it this way. So we don't have final, right? We don't have final call, but we do have a duty to provide a recommendation and the recommendation consists of the amount. I think I think that falls under our purview as

whether whether or not how valuable our recommendation is is up for council to determine. I don't think there's a need to do another motion. We'll stand where we are and we'll I was just trying to get around to putting a recommendation. I think then we're if they're going to decide anyway, I'd rather it go with So, what happens if we're if we're 50/50? Does it even go from here to the city with any David? You could correct me if I'm I'm wrong, but um the motion failed in the affirmative, so it's denied. Yes. Um so, we're recommending denial. Yes. Yes. Is it is the effect procedural effect, but it will still go to the council.

Yeah. And and those and both motions, you know, the discussion from planning commission will be included in council's recommendation, but the first motion couldn't have gone that way because it would have deemed it approved. So, you had a motion to approve that failed, which denied it. So I feel like you know when you're in math class you have a double negative [laughter] like it's a double that makes it a positive or you know is it where I would shut up Greg I got to go home and do that [laughter]

I just and I know the motion's done but at that point you're talking about one almost $1.3 million an acre in terms of what the value of open space is. I just think because the property across the street doesn't have the appropriate amount of open space. If we're combining the two, if we were combining the two, the whole property would be looked at and it is all essentially one project if not property. So, we agreed to the postdevelopment appraisal being waved on the word of $569,000 is the assessed value. So, we've already sort of maybe reduced that,

right? And then now and we've given you the cost of getting that appraisal done whichever 1520$20,000 you said that was. So the reducing the open space fee in lie of I'm fine with the fee in lie of. I just think that it needs to be a fair amount. And I think that with the city of Conway growing and expanding and infilling I think that the money needs to be there to be able to buy the land or put the trees up or provide sidewalks. And I just don't think that the $52,000 or whatever that is is I mean what do you get for that nowadays? an acre of land which is more than

where where I mean I'm just saying that was my that was my reason for voting in that way. I think if that number had been higher maybe I would have felt a little more comfortable. I just I feel like we're doing a lot for this project in this area and it's obviously a good project. it's providing, you know, walkable student housing and infill in the city. But I just again I think there has to be some push and shove there like from my perspective anyway. So any All right. Well, again, this is just a recommendation. It is just a recommendation and [clears throat] city council ultimately will decide whe Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. All right. Moving on to C. Maple Grove.

Thank you for being here.

All right. Um the overall master plan for Maple Grove was approved in March of 2024 and the first three phases of development were approved in November of 2024. [clears throat] They did have a minor revision to their master plan that the technical review committee was able to approve administratively as it just involved the addition of a second amenity area in phase one. The applicant is now asking for preliminary plan approval of phases four, five, and six. Phase four contains 49 single family lots. Phase five and phase six each contain sing 60 single family lots which total 169 lots. Um I do not believe or is the applicant present? Do not believe the applicant is present. Um but if you have any questions um I'll be happy to try to answer those for you. All right. And this matches the master plan?

Yes. Okay. So it's nothing that we haven't seen before. Correct. All right. So this is the same master plan we've already seen. Yes. Question. All right. Does the board have any questions, comments, motions? It's a shame that the applicant is not here. I just want that to go on public record. All righty. I will make a motion that we approve the overall layout for phase one through six as presented given that it matches the master plan that we've already approved. I'll second.

All right, we have a first and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All righty. Moving on to public hearings. A reszoning request number one.

Yes, ma'am. The subject property was transferred um to Snow Hill Company by to the city of Conway from Snow Hill Company on March 21st, 2025 with the intent to preserve the flood zones and wetlands contained on the property. The property is currently zoned R1 and is vacant. The city is requesting to reszone the property to conservation preservation to protect these environmentally sensitive areas and the property does but um a residential development that is currently under construction that is also zoned R1 at this time while the remainder of the property is surrounded by wooded wetlands both in the city and outside of the city. In an effort of clarification, there was a small error on the staff report that was in your packet um in regards to the future land use map. And this property is in compliance with future land use map and does recognize the property as conservation preservation and the zoning is consistent with the city's goal to protect environmentally sensitive areas from residential development. So staff does support the request to reszone to CP and will forward planning commission's um recommendation to council at their January 20th meeting. And with that answer any questions you got.

All right, I will it's public hearing, so I'll go ahead and get that out of the way. If there's anyone in the public who'd like to speak on this pro um property. Okay, seeing none, I'll make a motion to close public input. I'll second. Have a first and a second. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay, back to the board. Questions, comments, concerns? Second to approve. So, looks like it's flood zone that needs to be conservation preservation. Okay, move to approve as presented. Second. All right, we have a first and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay, moving on to number two. Yes.

Oh, thank you.

Sorry. All righty. This um property or request to reszone was um submitted due to a name change on the utility service account. The according to land records, the property was transferred into the new owner's name on October 17th of 2025 and there is an existing single family home on the property. It is located on the corner of Clarity Road and Chevy Chase Drive and adjacent parcels were annexed in 2011, 2016, and 2023. The property does abut a vacant lot that is currently in the city limits and zoned FA while all other sides of the property are surrounded by residential zoning classifications both in city and out of city. The property is identified as R1 on the city's future land use map and council did approve the first reading of the annexation request at their December 1st meeting. Staff does support the reszoning to R1 and will forward planning commission's recommendation to council at their January 20th meeting. and I can answer anything you might have.

All right. Given this is also a public hearing, I will open it up for public input on this matter. Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close public input. Second. First and a second. All those in favor. Any opposed? Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay. Board have any questions, comments? Make a motion to approve as presented. Second. Oh, okay. It can have it. All right. Sister Cornell can have it. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Text amendments.

Big one. Um, so the first is an amendment to articles 2, four, and five of the UDA regarding revisions to permitted and conditional uses in various zoning districts. The [clears throat] proposed amendments would establish additional standards and restrictions for certain regulated commercial uses, including but not limited to vape, smoke, tobacco shops, cash advance, payday loan establishments, and other high impact uses. This [clears throat] amendment has been discussed at previous planning commission meetings and it began with the issue of limiting certain uses that we see a lot of in the highway commercial district and possibly limiting those uses to just the light and heavy industrial districts. Other options included the adoption of different conditions based on the zoning district, adopting conditions that would apply to the use regardless of the zoning district, and the condition would apply to the use if permitted in the district as well as adopting a special exception process that [clears throat] in certain situations would require that certain uses obtain special exception approval from the board of zoning appeals. While the UDO already lists certain uses that can be considered to have secondary negative impacts as being conditional uses, meaning that the use must meet certain conditions in a zoning district in order to be permitted at a particular location. There are other uses that were either outright permitted with no specific conditions or that were not addressed in the UDO. While there may be other uses that are not mentioned or included, the top three that have been identified for which there are currently no conditions in place include vape smoke or tobacco shops, payday or title loan establishments, which are a form of alternative financial services, and gas service stations with or without a convenience store component. As part of this amendment, there were other revisions that were included in article 5, such as amending section 5.1.3

banquet halls to include indoor event facilities or cleaning up language in other parts of article 5 that are not consistent with current city policy or other articles of the UDO. For instance, the use tables in article 4 list certain uses as either being permitted or conditional. But when you go to article five to review the standards for the use that was listed as a conditional use, the district is not listed as [snorts] one of the districts in which the use is allowed or the opposite. the use is permitted outright, which means that the conditions listed for that use. Um, for for example, religious institutions would not be applicable to certain properties that are zoned a certain way, while those conditions would be applicable to properties zoned another way, which is not necessarily unusual, but staff wanted to point those out because this amendment is an opportunity to determine if the conditions should apply to the use regardless of the zoning district. Another use, bars, taverns, nightclubs were listed as a condition that implied that planning commission must approve the use. And I believe there was even another use that required a conditional use permit be obtained, but we don't currently um provide conditional use permits. When it comes to a special exception process, what we don't want to do is create a situation where a use has specific conditions that are applicable to a site. And even though those conditions are satisfied, they still have to go through another approval process. A special exception should be triggered by specific factors. Meaning that the special exception should not apply to the use universally, but only when certain factors exist. What those factors are is something that can be determined for each use. The most common one being the distance to residentially zoned property or residential uses. When the special exception is required, staff must be able to say that even when

objective standards are met, certain uses may still create location specific impacts that require additional review such as traffic circulation, noise, lighting spillover, neighborhood compatibility, or operational characteristics. All of which are not fully captured by setting appropriate lot sizes or separation requirements for a specific use. With that in mind, staff made some revisions to the text since the packet was sent last week, which you should have a copy of in front of you. The uses that required the most amendments to article 5 were the vape and smoke shops, alternative financial services, and gas service stations. The highlights of those standards for each of those uses are in this slide. They include restrictions on location such as separation requirements, instances in which a special exception would be required, and other conditions for approval. This amendment was advertised for a public hearing. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. staff would prefer that after discussion or that after any public input we have that those comments be taken into consideration and used to refine the amendments if needed before an official recommendation is made unless planning commission is comfortable with the changes that are discussed. Um, some of the uses that commonly require special exception approval, such as outpatient treatment facilities or adult entertainment establishments, would not require a special exception with this amendment unless there are sightsp specific situations that could be added that warrant additional review by the board of zoning appeals and that would change the conditions that we currently have in place. but they do seem to be working as intended because we do not often see requests for those uses if ever. So, um with that, um I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have.

All right, this is Yeah, I love the work. I love that the work that's being done here. I think uh there [snorts] are a few tweaks and I think what this so this that we received is a little different than what we received by email. So, yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, what's Yeah. Yeah. So, I think I'm going to have to spend some time absolutely this one rather than this. It's not illegal to add to require a special exception in addition to having it being a conditional use, right?

But it is challengeable. And what I don't want is for a use or a denial to be challenged every single month if a special exception is not approved. So, the best course of action is to um have an administrative level approval for certain uses. And that could be if it's a certain distance away from a residential zoning district or use. Um and if it can't meet that requirement, then that would warrant the additional review by the board of zoning appeals if it's going to be closer than say 200 or 500 ft um from a residential zoning district or use. Is that why the C slashse is in there? Yeah.

Okay. Yeah, [clears throat] that makes sense. I've got a [snorts] just a clarification question on the use tables, article 4 use tables, the main the first page of that um it says 4.1 how to use this section and then under C which was used to be conditional use is now permitted with conditions. Yes. And so are is staff trying to remove the term conditional use and use permitted with conditions or we think so then we need to probably we should make that consistent with article five permitted with conditions or what are the conditions

like we have conditional use written on this and I noticed that there just seem to be some flow issues through the whole document of like when are we using conditional use or permitted [clears throat] with conditions, right? And maybe defining what is what does the word conditions mean rather than conditional use in the definitions portion about conditional use. Correct. And you'll notice that when um with the amendments that there the language has changed. So instead of saying that the [clears throat] uses are permitted as a conditional use in

these zoning districts, it'll say it is permitted in the HCLI and HI zoning districts provided the following standards are met. So I've took and you know all of these uses were adopted at different times. You know some of them 15 years ago, some five years ago, but we went through and we made it consistent throughout. So, yeah, there might be a place that was missed that still says conditional uses. Um, it just might need to be that might need to be tweaked. Also,

help me with this, Jessica. And I the I had a couple things on the initial draft, but what y'all did on the cleanup um made those moot. Um, but with for instance, for example, on 5-7 J at the top of the page, it's just got special ex exception requirement period. So, it's in the same format as the heading where is which one is that? Um 5-7 uh in the new packet about

page 517 on the page. Yes, that that's um I left that there just to um show you that this use a bed and breakfast home, there are a lot of places, a lot of municipalities that do require them get a special exception. [clears throat] But if we do that, what you have to do is change the conditions and then say if these conditions can't be met, at what point do you want to require a special exception? So staff's thought was to remove that but wanted to give you guys the ability to say do you want to add additional conditions like say it has to be so it has to be so far away from a highway commercial district you know and if it's not then it needs approval from the board of zoning appeals whereas right now these are the conditions and what you don't want to do is say you meet all of these but we still want the board to approve it and then the board reviews it and says no we we don't like it. We're not, you know, they wouldn't do that. But no, we deny your request for a special exception, but they met all of these standards, so why wouldn't they be approved? So, it needs to be a specific use that these conditions do not address that would require the special exception requirement.

So, on like page 5-5 where it says special exemption requirement, similar thing, that's that's a placeholder. Staff isn't recommending one. That's right. That's right. And that's where it would go if we wanted one, but we're not that's not signaling there is one and we got a refer. Okay, that make that makes sense. I I was thinking that it was just like a dead end and then we were supposed to go and I I was just going to suggest make it more clear as to what it was, but I Yeah. And I was going to Yeah. And I I I was just under the assumption we would probably defer this and bring it back next month. Um but and I was going to remove that unless you guys wanted to adopt standards in which a special exception would be required. And so where that appears, staff's not making a specific recommendation,

correct? Okay.

All right. This is advertised as a public hearing as well. So I will open it up to the public if anyone has any thoughts. I don't know that the public had adequate opportunity to read [laughter] your thoughts. All right. I will make a motion that we close public input. Second. We have a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Just wanted to get that out of the way. Now, and then it'd be appropriate to defer now. Unless you guys have any other thoughts for staff to consider. I got I need to read I got to read through it. I need to read through. [laughter] We get this digitally. It's just easier.

Yes, absolutely. I'm going to we're going to readvertise and resend it back out. Yeah. I just wanted to bring it back up for discussion and see if the public had anything because we'd had we'd actually had some people come in and had some phone calls. So, I thought maybe there would be public here. Okay.

And [clears throat] I was hoping to get some feedback and just see what you know what we can do that maybe is not in here now or if there's any other concerns that the public or that planning commission had. Um but we can we will bring it back uh next month. And I'll probably create a table that just shows what's different um from the way it's adopted. Now, this is probably one of the this is probably one of the most the biggest changes to an actual ordinance that I've done. Um this is really going to be one of the ones that really impact um a lot of the properties that are zoned highway commercial. So, um, you know, that's why we've taken so much time is there with it.

Is there a notification to businesses who are in Conway who would be affected by the I mean, I guess they're not affected immediately, but a transfer of ownership would or would a transfer of ownership trigger a a change in like the availability of that space to be

not necessarily. If it can't meet the requirements, then what's there is there and it cont could continue to operate as that unless there's a unless the use is abandoned and it would be considered abandoned when there's nothing there for 180 days. So, no one's going to lose the ability to do anything that they're currently currently doing. But what we don't want is to continue having a proliferation of a of of specific uses where you've got a strip center that's got six um alternative uh uh financial services in the same strip center. Um that's really what we're trying to to target.

Just trying to get a better rate. [laughter] All right. Um, so I will make a motion that we defer um B text amendments number one. Just second. We need a second. Yeah. So second, Mr. Anderson. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Okay. So that'll come back to us next month. Um, moving on to number two, amendments to article two, article four, and article 14 regarding boards and procedures. Uh this [clears throat] one I pretty much already talked about with the last one. This would just be the official ordinance that's talks that article 14 um is included in this which includes the board of zoning appeals, their duties and responsibilities as a board which would adopt the special exception process and [clears throat] we can defer this and bring it back at the same time as well. Um but it was advertised for a public hearing if you would like to open that up. and say, "All right, I will open it up to the public and I will make a motion to close public input."

Second. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. And then I'll make a motion that we defer um B text amendments number two. Second. We have a first and a second. All those in favor. Any opposed? All right. We have any board inputs? Anything good with you guys? Happy new year. Happy new year. Happy new year. Merry Christmas. Believe. Merry Christmas. All righty. Any staff input?

Happy New Year. Um uh speaking of new year, um we are going to be kicking off the comprehensive plan. Um as I know I've mentioned before, we're rewriting the entire comprehensive plan. Um Nancy and Charlotte are going to be taking the lead on that. Um we will need to be uh begin discussions of um a steering committee um what we're going to call the comprehensive plan and we're trying to figure out the best way to get the public involved in naming the comprehensive plan and using social media to the city's benefit. Um when developing our comprehensive plan um if you guys have any suggestions let me know. I want to make sure everybody has a copy of the current comprehensive plan. Um, we'll probably email that to you as a link to that with the next packet. That way you guys can look at that, too. But we will have an official um, kickoff discussion that'll talk about all of the big changes probably in the next few months.

Is someone on the website current? [snorts] Yes. [clears throat] Yes. It'd be a good book for you. Still working my way through the park and record. It's really not that bad. I promise. [laughter] All right. So, our next meeting is on February 5th and I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. All those in favor? We are journ.