Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

July 9th, Hot Springs Planning Commission meeting. We will start with an invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, and then I'll read some meeting procedures. So, Director Scott, I apologize for putting you on the spot because I haven't spoken to you. Could you do the invocation, please?

Let's pray. God, our Father, we thank you this evening for this opportunity to serve the citizens of Hot Springs. God, we thank you for the sacrifice and the efforts of all the commissioners and those who are aiding in these efforts. We pray that what we do and decide on tonight will be pleasing in your eyesight, Lord. Help us to do it in such a way that continues to allow Hot Springs to be a great city. We thank you now in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Amen.

with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, thank you all very much. Just a few meeting procedures. When your name is called, if you are here to speak on an item, then please come to the podium. Address your comments to the Planning Commission, not to the audience. Any questions you ask, will be answered once everyone who has signed up has spoken. So we understand you may have strong feelings one way or the other on these topics, so out of courtesy, when it's your turn to speak, unless it is your turn to speak, please remain silent and refrain from applauding, cheering, booing, or other verbal outbursts. So the applicant will have five minutes to speak, and other speakers will each have three minutes. Please respect those time limits. All right. Mr. Staudter, would you please call the roll?

Campbell? Gerke? Present. Stone? Here. Scott? Present. Walker? Here. Bowe? Lamon? Here. Baker? Stafford?

Here. All right. Thank you, sir. So now we need to approve the minutes from last meeting. May I have a motion and a second for that approval?

So moved. Second.

All right. Very good. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. So now we need to approve tonight's agenda. May I have a motion and a second for the approval of tonight's agenda?

I move approval of tonight's agenda.

Second. Very good. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Excellent. So the first matter of business on the agenda is the consent section. May I have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda with staff report findings and recommendations.

So moved.

Second. All right. Director Selman, would you please present the consent agenda?

Thank you. We have one item on tonight's consent agenda. It is LS-26-143. This is concerning 648 and 658 Park Avenue. A lot split replant application to divide lot 3R in block 140 of Hot Springs Reservation subdivision into two separate lots. The recommendation to approve contains one condition and that condition is the plat must be filed with Garland County Circuit Clerk's Office and a recorded copy shall be returned to the Planning Department within 30 days of planning directors execution thereof or this approval will become null and void and that completes the consent agenda okay very good

Mr. Staudter, would you please take roll on the motion to approve the consent agenda?

Gherke?

Approve.

Stone? Approve. Scott? Approve. Walker? Approve. Lamon? Approve. Stafford?

Approve. All right. The next part of the agenda is new business. Director Selman, could you please introduce the next item?

Yes. The next item is a rezone request, RZ-26-126 at 2748 Melbourne Avenue, a request to change zoning from residential neighborhood 1 to neighborhood commercial for 2.7 acres of land.

OK. A motion to approve. A motion to approve merely gets the matter on the floor for discussion. A motion and second do not mean that you are necessarily in favor of an application. May I have a motion and a second to approve the item?

I move approval of RZ26-126 regarding 2748 Malvern. I second. Excellent.

So can I get the staff report, please?

Thank you. The applicants and property owners, Josh and Marissa Rowley, seek zoning change consideration from RN1, residential neighborhood 1 zoning, to neighborhood commercial CN zoning for property located at 2748 Malvern, also known as parcel ID 46966. The Future Land Use Map designation is Residential O. It's located in Board of Directors District Number 6. At the March 13, 2025 meeting, Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of Directors for a previous rezone request to change the district from R2 to C3. The Board of Directors at their April 1st, 2025 meeting voted to remand the application back to Planning Commission for reevaluation after new information was brought forward about traffic accidents by citizens from the nearby neighborhood. The property owner at that time then withdrew his application for rezone. The subject property is currently developed with a single family home that is vacant. The property is 2.7 acres containing lots five through nine of Skyway subdivision. It has approximately 250 feet of street frontage along Malvern Avenue, also known as Arkansas Highway 270. This property is close to Lakeside Public Schools, and it is approximately 5,000 linear feet from the Malvern Avenue MLK Expressway interchange. A small portion at the rear of the property contains floodplain. The RDOT daily vehicle counts have ranged variously between 12,000 near the subject property and 22,000 near the Martin Luther King Expressway, as shown in their 2025 information that is the most recent year available. Surrounding property on the west and south are zoned Residential Neighborhood 1. On the east, CN Neighborhood Commercial, and on the north, Regional Commercial. And this Regional Commercial zoning is across State Highway 270. Adjacent and nearby land uses include single-family residential, duplex residential, public school, retail store, and manufactured home park. The property has 250 feet of street frontage along Malvern Avenue. It is right across directly from Pleasant Mobile Home Park. Regulations for the neighborhood commercial zone are found in hot springs code section 16 to 5. And the purpose of the district is described in this way the CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to accommodate convenience commercial and personal service uses that primarily serve nearby residential neighborhoods often in a nodal development form. The applicant's narrative states in part, the proposed development consists of a neighborhood serving commercial project, including a gymnastics training facility, a neighborhood coffee shop, associated parking, access improvements, and supporting site infrastructure. The proposed uses are community oriented, low intensity in nature, and intended to serve nearby residents and families. In response to concerns raised during previous rezoning request and in review of this application, the applicant did provide traffic information. It was done by an independent licensed traffic engineering consultant, and the resulting traffic memorandum concluded that the proposed uses are expected to generate minimal traffic impacts and would not typically warrant additional traffic impact analysis. Approval standards for a zone change in Hot Springs code section 16 to 14.1 states approval standards. The planning commission recommendation and board of directors decision on any zoning text or map amendment is a matter of legislative discretion that is not controlled by any particular standard. However, in making the recommendation and decision, Planning Commission and Board of Directors will consider the following standards. Approval of amendments is based on a balancing of these standards. A is compatibility with surrounding development or zoning. Surrounding development is predominantly residential with some commercial uses within a mile or more of the subject property. B, the extent to which the proposed amendment creates nonconformities. No nonconformities would be created with the proposed amendment. C responds to a significant change in surrounding physical, economic, land use, or other conditions. No significant change has occurred within the surrounding area since the construction of the Dollar General in 2017, nine years ago. The existing commercial zones within a mile or more have been in place since 2010, several of which were CTR commercial transitional zone. The Board of Directors have acknowledged through their housing strategy the need for additional housing in Hot Springs. A change of zone to commercial may preclude housing development and exacerbates the potential for future incompatibility. D, implements an approved city plan including the comprehensive plan. The application fails to demonstrate how the proposed change implements an approved city plan, such as a future land use plan, the comprehensive plan, or the housing strategy. The application does contend that the proposed use would align with the intent of the CN zone with the zoning code. That narrow compatibility does not justify in itself changing the zone from residential to commercial. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the objectives of this code. the application fails to demonstrate how the proposed amendment would have consistency with the objectives of the code the future land use plan shows this as residential low and the housing strategy states that sub market b which is the malvern area has the lowest residential density and the least available residential land. The future land use plan is undergoing review this year and the housing strategies goals are likely to be incorporated into that review. f fulfills a demonstrated public need the application fails to demonstrate how there is a need for land so zoned a number of existing commercial uses are within a mile or more of the subject property such as dollar general rockstar wellness clinic shopping center tri-lakes dental taco bell and mcdonald's and convenience store On the other hand, housing availability is a critical need. G, corrects an error in previous MAP amendment action, and there is no error on this property in previous MAP amendments. Adjacent and nearby zone districts include RN1, residential neighborhood one, RN4, residential neighborhood four, CR, regional commercial, and CN, neighborhood commercial. And we have talked about the adjacent uses and regarding the traffic memo that was provided That memo looked at the two specific uses being proposed by the applicant, and as Planning Commission knows, the rezone is not limited to those two uses alone. The full range of uses in the See and zone would be possible if this zoning was approved and the use matrix should have been provided for you in the packet demonstrating what those uses are. The finding with regard to the future land use plan map is that the future land use classification of residential low is not compatible with the requested CN neighborhood commercial zoning. The zoning map amendment finding is that the application fails to demonstrate that the standards for favorable consideration have been met. Planning Commission may be unable to establish a basis for recommending approval to the Board of Directors in that the proposed change fails to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding development and zoning, that it fails to demonstrate significant change in the surrounding physical, economic, land use, or other conditions, that it fails to implement an approved city plan, and that it fails to demonstrate that such a change will be consistent with the objectives of the code. The recommendation is to not recommend approving the application as it fails to demonstrate that the standards for favorable consideration have been met. Should you determine that you would be voting, to approve an amendment to the findings at the time you cast your vote would be required. And that completes the staff report.

OK. Thank you, Director Selman. Can we please get the applicant to come forward, give your name and address? And you've got five minutes.

Good evening. Would you like my personal address or the address of the property?

Personal address.

All right. My name is Josh Raleigh. My address is 185 Limar Place, Hot Springs, Arkansas. Good evening, Commissioner, Chairman. I want to say thank you for this opportunity. My name is Josh. And I appreciate your time and your consideration this evening. I'd like to thank the planning department and the DRC for the time that they've invested reviewing the application. Throughout this process, I've listened very carefully to the comments that were brought to me. And I've made revisions to the narrative. And I did retain an independent traffic engineer, which was requested. And I did refine the proposal, the proposed development. This evening, I simply would like to provide a little additional context for this request being considered. Throughout this process, I kept coming back to one question, and that is, what is the highest and best long-term use for this parcel? Residential development is absolutely a possibility here. And I recognize that the future land use map does identify as residential low. However, I respectfully believe the question before the commission tonight is not simply what can be built here, but what land use is most appropriate for this individual piece of property. When I consider this property's frontage on Malvern Avenue and its direct adjacency to CN zoning and its location within an already established mixed-use corridor, I believe that neighborhood commercial represents the highest and best long-term use. I brought a visual aid. to show what the, excuse me, sorry. I brought a visual aid to show what the current state of a mile or more within Malvern looks like from a commercial perspective. When you step back and look at a much broader view, we can see that this truly is a mixed use corridor, regards of primarily residential. I want to say that this board illustrates the already functioning east and west commercial properties along this corridor. As far as the housing goes, I absolutely agree that housing is important and is a need within the city. However, planning decisions, I believe, are made on one parcel individually and where it best fits. And so the question before you tonight is not whether housing is needed I absolutely agree with that But the question is this particular parcel with the frontage on Malvern the direct the direct adjacency to the existing zoning of CN and the location within the established mixed-use corridor is This the appropriate place to fill that need I respectfully believe it is better suited for neighborhoods serving commercial use I Commissioners I want to say thank you for your time on this matter I'm not asking you to create a new commercial corridor. I'm simply asking to recognize that one already exists Based on this property location the surrounding developments the proposed neighborhood serving uses I respectfully believe neighborhood commercial represents the highest and best long-term use for this parcel and I respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval I Thank you very much for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys may have.

All right. Thank you for that. Do we have anyone signed up, Robin? We have received a couple of letters that Director Salmon will now read into the record relevant to this submission.

Thank you. The first is from Bruce L. Willis at 2734 Malvern Avenue. Dear Planning Committee, it is my understanding that McGraw Company recently purchased 2.7 acres at 2748 Malvern Avenue and would like to rezone it from residential to commercial. I currently reside near this property and propose that it remains residential. Believe there are several factors for problems at this location Such as it would increase the amount of traffic which would directly affect the homeowners in the area There is also already enough traffic from Lakeside School the zero speed monitoring by officers, state or local. Traffic on Malvern Avenue frequently moves far above posted speed limits. There is no turning lane causing traffic to bottleneck during the school year. It is a blind area when turning left from the property. Hill and curve are there possibly causing more accidents on Malvern Avenue Keeping this property residential would be beneficial to the neighborhood and school. It holds promise for a much safer setting The second letter is from Philip and clay 1212 golf links Road Is my understanding The McGraw company recently purchased 2.7 acres at 2748 Malvern Avenue and would like to rezone it from residential to commercial. I currently own the two plots of land right next to 2748 Malvern Avenue. And my wife's estate is the owner of the property at 2734 Malvern. He cites identical factors for problems at the location and adds, a number of years ago, I and my wife received a verbal offer to purchase the 2734 property and the immediate adjoining lots. The offer was conditioned on a change in zoning to commercial. I hired a representative to inquire into the possibility of such a zoning change. My representative informed me that he was advised by a city employee that the area was residential and would remain so for consistency this should remain the position of the city. Keeping this property residential would be beneficial to the neighborhood and school. It holds promise for a much safer setting and consistent residential designation. Sincerely, Philip M. Clay. Thank you.

Okay, very good. We have some people signed up to speak on this item. First being Philip Clay. Could you please come to the podium? Again, state your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes.

My name is Phillip Clay. I live at 1212 Gulf Links Road. I'm temporarily residing at 1220 Gulf Links Road. I own the adjoining property. my letter fairly sets out my position so I won't belabor it but I own the two lots immediately adjacent to the lot that this board has under consideration tonight my wife's estate owns the property at 2734 Malvern Avenue that houses two individuals what I see in addition to what I said in my letter is that This neighborhood has historically been a residential neighborhood. 2734 is kind of the beginning of that residential neighborhood. There has been a gradual walking up of commercial developments all the way to now the Dollar General store. And this to me is just a further encroachment on that historic nature, residential nature of this neighborhood. And I would ask the board to deny this request. Again, other than what I said in my letter, the traffic on that curve that comes around is horrendous. I'll be frank with you, when I go to see my tenants and my friends at 2734, I always rather than turning left on Malvern, I turn right and go down to the school and turn around and come back because the curve is that severe and the traffic is that extensive. But again, that's about all I have this evening. I appreciate whatever decision the board may make. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. The next person signed up is Bruce Willis. Could you please come forward? State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes. And if I could be so bold, I'd like to get your autograph after the session.

You may have it.

Sorry. Good evening. My name is Bruce Willis. I reside at 2734 Malvern Avenue. And I have a good friend named Paul Newman. And when both of us are together, people think we're lying to them. But anyway, I won't keep you long. But I appreciate you listening. Basically, the same thing Mr. Clay said. Right there is the worst part of Malvern Avenue. Because by the time the people get to that curve, they're not going 45 miles an hour. What the speed limit is, they're going 60 miles an hour. We've had actually a couple people come around that curve and run into the trash truck that's been sitting there picking up the trash. That's happened twice. We live at 2734. Then there's the two empty lots, and then the lot that we're talking about that they want to go commercial. Getting out of our driveway some mornings can take 10 minutes, because we're waiting for the traffic. There's no center turn lane that you can get out to get in to wait for. So especially on school mornings, sometimes the police officers will sit on one side of our driveway. They don't do that much anymore. But then when we were talking to people in the neighborhood over at the mobile home park that's directly across from this property, there's an elderly couple in there. And we had never said anything about 10 minutes or anything. And they said that they have people come to their home to take care of them because they can't get out of their home. And they said that the nurses have told them sometimes it can take them 10 minutes just sitting on the road waiting to turn left into the mobile home park. I just think a gymnastic studio is gonna bring gymnastic teams that brings lots of parents lots of children Lots of kids lots of traffic. We can't take more traffic in that little section right there now you come around that curve down that hill and then once you get up past Dollar General and And I think Dollar General got in there because nobody paid attention. And nobody said, don't do it. I would like it just to stay residential so that it can be a safer area. And I appreciate you listening. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you. Next person signed up to speak is Steven Verville. Hope I got the name right. Again, please, your name and address and three minutes to speak.

Okay.

I'm not really prepared to speak, but I live at 2734 Malvern Ave. I'm his roommate. And other than everything that's been discussed, as you go around Hot Springs, there's plenty of properties that are already commercial. And if somebody wanted to come in and do a commercial property, they should have gone for a commercial location. I agree with everything that's been said from the other people. You really can't take a lot more traffic in that one area. And like I've said, like he said, we already had accidents in front of our house. So, you know, if they really wanted something to go in commercial, I think they should have picked a spot that was already designated for commercial use. That's really all I have.

Thank you, guys. Okay. Thank you. The next person signed up is Rhonda Deville.

Hello, my name is Rhonda Deville. I live at 2007 Malvern Ave. These are my friends here and I would just also like to state when I go and visit Bruce and Steve, I too have a difficult time getting out of the driveway with the curve and the hill. You do have to take a right. You're almost playing Russian roulette with your life just trying to get out of their driveway. So I just don't think it would be a safe spot for a gymnasium to go up for children and families. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, we have another person signed up to speak, Steve Parker. again please make name address and you have 3 minutes.

I'm state Parker and I live at that 2751 mountain Avenue directly across general dollar just for whatever business they're going to try to put in I wish they wouldn't because I've been living there since 2005 since and it's already 2016. And I've seen so many accidents, so many accidents coming down the curbs like everyone else says. It's uncalled for. It's supposed to be a residential. It's supposed to be nice and easy, smooth. It's not if it's commercial. It will not be commercial. It cannot be. I mean, it'll hurt people. Since I've seen so many accidents, I'm telling the truth. They pull up the police reports and everything, and it's going to get worse. That's all I have to say, and thank you for listening.

Yes, sir. Thank you. OK, we appreciate the input. And now the public part of the meeting is closed. Commissioners, do you have any questions? No.

Yes, . Yeah, I have a question for staff. Under this zoning, how many residences could be built on the 2.7 acres?

On 2.7 acres, it's what's minimum lot size.

Ten thousand square feet I did an estimate of that. Ten thousand square feet is the minimum lot size and that if you allow somewhere I think the general rules around eighty percent for streets and utilities plus or minus but that might give you somewhere between eight and ten lots

okay okay just just wanted to know from a residential standpoint what traffic is going to be created from that I understand commercials commercial and I understand that I might be a little biased to the location since I developed the dollar journal store but just wanted to get that

the information so yeah yeah it were you looking for a number of trip generation yes houses it would be probably somewhere south of 50% of the commercial.

And another question I had in in Josh I don't know if this is I know the public part is closed, but is there a consideration for a partial, not a full rezone? But that's his question.

That would indeed be for him.

Can I ask you? Sure. Josh, would you be open to some blended? It's not going to help you tonight, and it may go to nowhere, but is there a residential slash commercial component that would be considered in the future?

I think the answer to that is yes. It's a large piece of property, 2.7 acres. With the gym and the coffee shop, definitely not taking up the majority of that piece. The one concern I would have is the flood zone near the back, about 80 foot of the rear of the property. I think on the map it shows 50. based on flood expansion, probably about 80 feet from the rear property line. I guess that would be the south property line is flood zone across the rear side there. But no, I'm absolutely not opposed to that. I hadn't thought about that.

Okay. So while you're here, roughly what portion of the property does your current development proposal occupy?

The main driveway on the property is on the northwest side, and it will be directly on that. There's a mound there where the house was. We're going to level that, and that's where the goal of the gym and coffee shop would be.

It would not use the total frontage on the mound? No, sir. But roughly percentage-wise of the acreage? No.

The gym we're looking at is a hundred foot wide and so I believe there's 263 I'm 250 to 260 feet across the front and so I would probably say 60 to 70 percent the way that the property It has a on that north Western side, it kind of jets in a little bit. And so the property, the majority of the property is wider. It's about 300 feet wide. It's just the frontage is a little bit shortened on how they platted. I guess y'all see that. I don't know if you see it in front of you, but the plats there, it kind of follows the trajectory of the road.

Okay, any other questions? I'll just make a brief comment. I was running errands today and went by that spot. I don't think there's any place in this city that I consistently see people breaking the speed limit as much as they do on that road. I mean, I find it difficult to see anybody going the speed limit on that part of the road. So that was an interesting personal observation today. Any other questions? Okay. Public portion is closed. We've had our commissioner questions.

I do have some comments.

OK. Yeah, please. Not questions, but some discussion.

I would add that I probably spent more time reading the documents documentation of this than Certainly more than the average matter that comes before us and in summary To be honest. I'm really not comfortable voting on this and one of the major reasons that I mean there are a lot of things involved here and It is a mixed-use corridor. It is a four-lane road, which normally should support commercial construction. The entire length of Malvern Avenue historically has been changing and moving residential to commercial. So there are a lot of things that support that in terms of the way we look at this sort of thing. But at the same time, I think if I were sitting on the city board, that I would look at this and it comes to me in whatever appeal that might be possible I'm looking at and go back to their decision in twenty twenty five where they basically remanded it to the planning commission quote for new information that was brought forward about traffic accidents Uh, and you know, really that hasn't been answered. I understand that I've looked at your traffic studies, so you've provided so many, some things. Um, but I don't really really really feel qualified to evaluate that I think we really really should ask the city of broken apart people in the city the traffic department traffic engineer to look at that have as anybody updated the accidents over the past year how does that classification fear that we have some again we have people on the city staff that should be able to give us some information and frankly I think we should have that information to make a decision personally that's the way I feel

Permission to speak.

Considering all of your comments.

In regards to the traffic accidents, I reached out to Officer Branstetter at the city police. And they ran a report back to 22. And there have been a total of five registered accidents in front of that piece of property. I didn't ask exactly how far he spanned that stretch. Sorry, I misspoke. 2024. It wasn't 22. Since May of 24, there's been five total accidents in front of that property and in front of the Dollar General.

Okay, because I believe the original report that he wrote was from 2020 through May of 2025. So you're taking a piece of that and the year plus. Again, thank you. I'm not sure that really... satisfies the question should I have okay considering all that I think I would ask us to to defer this don't for at least a month and request some information so that we can make a recommendation to the board that answers the questions that they had a year ago not that much time now procedurally I would look toward the director to tell us how do we do that as far as we have a you know if I can and so I'll just think I can just I move that we defer the decision on this or postpone it until the August meeting and ask the city to provide us some traffic information.

We have some discussion before we vote. Certainly. Well, we don't have a second. Well, you don't have a second. Yeah, we don't. Right.

Does anyone want to second that so we can take it? Second. Thank you.

What specific information are you, you keep saying more information, more information about what? What specific things would give you comfort in order to make a decision?

We have one traffic study I'm looking for a second less opinion I believe a city traffic opinion would be less biased than a developers opinion and I'm not sure that that answers the questions of the board that doesn't answer some of the questions that I have again I'm not sure I can tell you all the questions but you know part of that is what's happened in the last year How dangerous is this section of street relative to other areas? Is it the most dangerous intersection in the city? Has the city evaluated any corrective measures? The reality for our citizens here is that nothing has changed In the last, what are we talking, 15 or 18 months, really, nothing has, I'm sorry, you got me off my thought, but nothing has changed really in a number of years and certainly since the prior rezoning request. to make this street safer. And that is your primary concern. And I have not heard any comment that anybody has asked that question to the city. And I think it's appropriate. It's a major part of the input I'd like to have before I vote on this.

Yes. We specifically had the city engineer look at that study. Thank you. His comment was that it was a credentialed independent traffic engineer following the protocols that are followed by somebody doing a study for this purpose and that he could not see anything that was in that study that he would question in terms of either approach or conclusion.

So

given that doesn't answer the traffic safety there is a traffic safety issue apparently did he address traffic safety issue relative to relative to the city how dangerous this is or not dangerous what we asked him to review was the traffic study and he reviewed the traffic so we have no we have we have some testimony about traffic safety and some documentation

So then what you are hoping to have is additional statistical documentation of traffic incident history at that location. I want to get you what you want to have.

now and again our chairman stafford has been a consultant you understand you don't really know all the questions that you do the study with this fundamental question is is traffic safety as it relates to this zoning issue and and it's a bigger question than one rezoning it obviously affects several miles of roadway and so Again, until somebody in the city sits down with a blank sheet of paper and says, what do we think? That's the direction I would have. How safe is this? Are there some things that should be done to mitigate that? And what would those things be? And I'm sure he would work with the planning staff. Other questions will come up. I just believe I can make a more informed decision.

Director Lamont, I guess, you know, we can't. My personal belief is, obviously, we can't make a decision and know what the outcome is going to be ahead of time. But if we include that level of scrutiny, it changes the nature of what this body should be looking at, I think. i mean i agree with you in fact i looked at the staff report and there's nothing in there speaking about traffic safety and i was i was a little surprised by that um not staff report not all the different departments that weigh in yes there's nothing in there that talks about that so it says it hasn't been evaluated well It hasn't been evaluated in the context of a planning commission request. That's why I'm making the request, Mr. Chairman. I understand where you're coming from, but my fear is it raises the scope of what we're asked to approve. Anyway, that's just my feeling. We probably should just see if there's any more questions.

I don't know that mine's so much a question, but at least I'll have it on the record. I feel like it's more than just safety. It's the will of the people. So we have a very historic neighborhood where we have mixed residential, and we do have commercial in that area. But just because we could make it safe, I don't know that that's the will of the people to turn it into a

commercial area it would be a no for me at this time and I don't need additional studies for it for my now okay so we have a motion and a second that we need to address all in favor of waiting until some additional information is supplied in order to make the decision. All in favor of that, say aye. Aye.

Are you going to roll call?

Yeah, we probably should roll call.

So this is on the motion to table to August meeting. Stone? No. Scott? Yes. Walker?

Yes.

Yes. Lamond?

Yes.

Gerke?

Yes.

Stafford?

No. OK. So it looks like we'll park this one. Very good.

In the the August meeting is the 13th the 13th It'll be at 6 o'clock in this hearing room And at that time Planning Commission will further consider the request Permission to speak Please

Is there anything from Next Steps for me to bring you guys? Or is this a checklist that you guys are gonna create and ask to try to figure out the appropriate safety

If there is, I'm sure the planning department will be in contact with you about what might be required. It's my understanding that the request Director Lamond has made for information is coming from the city.

Yes, but I don't think it would be inappropriate for the applicant to provide that information either.

OK. Yeah. If you have any other information that you think could help clarify the questions that have been asked, please provide them.

I will. Okay. And I may add just for those in the audience, everyone in the audience, that we make our decisions, they have to be based on information presented in the public meeting, such as, so we have information tonight and whatever else is presented can be taken into consideration.

Okay. So, That topic is closed. Let's move to the next item on the agenda, please. Thank you all. Thank you. So, Director Shelman, could you introduce the next item?

Yes. The next item is a site plan approval request number 26-149 at 122 Sanders Street. This is a large-scale development for a cottage court to develop a four-unit cottage court development.

OK. Could you please present the staff report on the item?

I need a motion and a second to bring it to the floor.

Sorry. Can I get a motion and a second to bring it to the floor? It doesn't necessarily mean that you approve of the item. It just gets it on the floor for discussion. So moved. Second. OK. Sorry about that. Director Shulman, could you please present the staff report?

I have just as often tried to roll over you. So no apology necessary. The applicant is Aaron Burrows with Atoka Incorporated, representing property owner Julian Gosley, looking for cottage court development site plan approval for a four-dwelling cottage court project to be known as the Cabins at Hideaway Hills. The property at 122 Sanders Street is lots 12 through 16 in Sunset Hills subdivision. It is a total of 1.11 acres. It is zoned RN2, residential neighborhood two. The future land use classification is residential medium high. It is in board district number five. This proposed multi-structure development is considered a large-scale development because it has multiple structures. And per Hot Springs Code 16-421A, it requires site plan review by planning commission. This is the first cottage court development application that we have had. This is something that was put into the zoning code. by Planning Commission and the board very recently. So I will review the standards for that approval from Hot Springs Code section 1628.3i, the general development standards. A cottage court development may take one of two forms. It can either be individual lots or multiple dwellings on one site. This project is designed to be a multi-dwelling development with a single entrance. B cottage core development requires some sort of management plan for maintenance of common elements. Mr. Julian Gosley as sole owner entity of the project is responsible. for all required maintenance in the project. Maintenance provisions for this cottage court development have been addressed in the document entitled The Cabins at Hideaway Hills Maintenance Provisions. Two, use limitations. The single family dwelling cottage court developments are permitted in the residential neighborhood to district and that is what we have here. No common facilities are being proposed for this development. The project complies with the requirements for maximum and minimum structures. Maximum is 10, minimum is 4. This is for single-family detached cabins. The minimum total lot area is determined by a formula, and this project complies as it contains 47,916 square feet of land, which far exceeds the minimum 14,000 square feet that is required for a cottage court. The project complies with the requirement that structures being located adjacent to a common open area exceed the five foot minimum setback requirement and the development as a whole must meet certain standards which are A 15-foot minimum perimeter and vehicle access setback requirement. It contains a minimum building coverage of approximately 10.7% and contains a maximum impervious surface coverage area of 29.5%. The project complies with the requirement that all four structures must front on a street or common open space. The requirement for off-street parking is met as proposed off-street paved parking is being provided on individual development sites for each dwelling unit. With regard to common open space, which is required, the project complies as the common open space meets the 3,000 square feet open space requirement and exceeds the 50 foot minimum width requirement for open space. Once central common open space requirements are met, additional common open space within the development is permitted, and this project complies as it proposes a significant portion of the perimeter of the project will remain undisturbed and wooded, enhancing the project's wooded cabin concept. Findings are that the large-scale cottage core development site plan requirements have been met per Hot Springs Code section 1628.3i. The submitted documents successfully demonstrate that all individual elements of review comply and that with conditions the project can be implemented. As the sole owner entity of this project, Mr. Julian Gosley is responsible for all required maintenance therein as documented in the cabins at Hideaway Hills maintenance provisions. As a detached single-family residential development, this project would be compatible with nearby single-family residential uses and should pose few to no negative impacts to the surrounding area. the recommendation for approval is with six conditions i'll read them into the record number one all construction and construction activity are to be accomplished in strict accordance with the approved site and development plans as well as with all applicable approval conditions and with the minimum standards codes rules and regulations and policies may now or hereafter be required or enacted by the City of Hot Springs the state of Arkansas and or the United States of America including the Arkansas fire prevention code whether or not submitted for staff review or Planning Commission approval number two the development site shall be constructed and developed in strict accordance with the approved site and development plans including but not limited to location of buildings drives lighting parking and tree preservation number three separate permit applications shall be made by the applicant to hot springs engineering department and permits shall be in hand for excavation storm water and drainage as may be required prior to any work beginning Number four, the engineering department has four requests. For the access, either label it as a driveway, or if this is intended to be a private road, pavement must be at least 20 feet wide. Provide revised drainage calculations for approval by city engineer prior to building permit. Provide a plan to prevent standing water in the detention area for approval by the city engineer. And provide revised plans and calculations along with any necessary detention area revisions prior to the building permit. Number five, all required maintenance and upkeep of the four cottages and site improvements, including yard work, fencing, utilities, gates, and exterior maintenance, shall be the responsibility of owner Mr. Julian Gosley or successor owner. And number six, large-scale development applications approved by Planning Commission shall be effective for one year from the date of approval. This approval will expire on July 9, 2027. Prior to its expiration, the director of planning and development may extend the original site plan approval for up to two one-year periods upon the applicant's written request. Planning Commission approval of any project that has not fully secured all required permits within the period of time set forth shall be null and void. And that completes the staff report.

Excellent. Thank you, Director Selman. Would the applicant please come forward?

name and address in five minutes please okay aaron burroughs 110 hunter cove court it's in the county i'm the engineer representing julian gosley i believe we've worked the the city staff worked with us real well to help us do this project kind of unique first first cottage court development project they were enthusiastic about that it was fun to be part of that i believe we've addressed their concerns that they presented at the DRC meeting and submitted a set of plans. There were some comments about the engineering calculations I've done on the detention. I did not get those done in time to resubmit to you, but we have submitted a new set of plans that do address and I believe, I haven't got a comment back, but I believe that satisfactorily address the concerns that that mr. Carnahan had and so I believe that I believe the projects met all the requirements and met the conditional requirements already so it'll be ready to move forward building okay very good thank you for your comments no one signed up to speak on this matter so

The public portion of the meeting is closed. Commissioners, any questions or concerns or comments?

One quick question. What does your typical tenant look like and what is the least expected lease term on it, rental term?

I'm sorry, I was having trouble understanding.

Can you describe the typical tenant and the lease term on this, short-term, long-term?

Well, it would have been an ideal development for short-term rental. It would have been a great place for it, but there aren't any short-term rental permits available. So Mr. Gosling plans for long-term rental. He's not going to sell them. He's going to maintain them and do long-term rentals. Thank you.

Anything else, commissioners? No? OK, very good. Mr. Staudter, could you please call the roll on the motion to approve?

Scott? Approved. Walker?

Approved.

Lamond?

Approved.

Gerke? Approved. Stone? Approved. And Stafford?

Approved. All right, very good. So now we're moving on to the next matter of business, which is? the elections for chair and vice chair for Planning Commission. So, would you like to guide us through that, Director Stone?

I would, I was hoping you would ask. Thank you. Okay. Let's start with nominations for chair. Do we have a nomination?

I nominate Director Stone.

Are there other nominations?

I direct, can I, Brian Gerke, is that possible? Or turned out, yeah, okay. Trying to give that away part, sorry. Hey, I understand.

Okay, are we doing this, are there further questions?

Do you need seconds on the nomination?

No, I think if there are no further nominations.

I'll second it.

You'll second it. Just in case, locking it in. Okay. Nominations then are closed. Is this nomination of Mr. Stone by acclamation or?

By acclamation. Does everyone agree?

Disagreement? Okay. All right. Congratulations.

You can sit with me now.

That's all right.

That's great. I'll pass my bottle of aspirin to you.

Thank you, Bart.

Okay. And so now we have opportunity to entertain nominations for vice chair. Do I hear a nomination?

Corey Scott.

No? Is this a heartfelt no or just a I should never have come here today kind of no?

A modest no. Yeah, my plate is like super full.

Well, okay. And you know what? You are an alternate. So I believe you have protection from nominations. I'm an alternate also. Oh, oh, oh. Are you an alternate? I'm an alternate.

No, you're a full-fledged man.

All right, this has never been so difficult I'm sorry.

I don't know maybe just stay there you going anywhere I

Okay, we have one nomination, Bill Lamond. Are there additional? I'll second that. Okay, that was quick. Okay, hearing no further nominations, nominations are closed. Is this too by acclamation?

Yes, it is.

Awesome, okay. So we have a new administration. Wally Stone, chair, and Bill Lamon, vice chair. Awesome. Okay.

I feel very happy about that. um is that the conclusion I will I will hand the meeting back over to our lame duck chair I'm just disappointed that we haven't already had a motion do we have a motion to uh end this meeting

Do we have a director's report?

Well, the director's report is simple. We have scheduled a meeting with Arista Strunges, with Cameros, to map our directions. We will be responding to the subdivision code analysis that she prepared for us. And we will let you know how that's going. The subdivision code, as you know, is more of a technical document. And what we found in the analysis, not to ruin the story for you, is that we have inexplicably included things in the subdivision code that have no place there. So we will be pondering moving those things to the parts of the code where they do belong.

The learning continues.

But yeah, we made good progress there. And of course, congratulations to our new officers. And great thanks to our departing officer. You are the Vice Chair now. and um you've been a wonderful chair through uh some really interesting times and it's been fun thank you been fun thank you the bruises on your shins will heal it's all good but we adjourned the process is what the process is yeah a second

okay now I think we're to the point in the meeting where you have a motion and a second already in which case let's go yeah you want to update us on your status still waiting to work it's a long process it's a long process