Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, let's call to Order of the uh city of Bella Vista planning commission meeting. Uh call the role please. Ellis here. Barner here. Pleas here. Sedbury here. Portillo here. Wagman here. Floyd

here. All right. We do have a quorum. Uh next on our agenda is our regular meeting minutes from October the 13th. I make a motion to be approved as submitted. Got a motion from Farner. Seconded. Second from Cleon. All in favor say I. I any opposed?

All right. Uh, next up we have our public input session. This will be an opportunity for anybody in the public to address the planning commission for any published or unpublished item. This will be our only public input session for tonight. Uh, so if you would come up and state your name and address for the record and we will give you five minutes to speak. All right. Seeing now we'll go ahead and close our public input session and move on to unfinished business. We have preliminary plat 2025-61139 a proposed preliminary plat establishing 23 residential lots known as Al Common Planner Hyatt. Oh, and for the record stepped away.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh this property is located in the southeast area of Bella Vista City Limits and is lot one block six of the Duxford subdivision. Uh section 107-71 through77 establishes the approval requirements for a preliminary plat to which the applicant is proposing a preliminary plat uh creating 23 residential lots with two common spaces for the Al Common subdivision. Uh following the approval of the plan zoning district for Al Commons. Again, this proposal takes the singular lot establishing 23 new residential lots. Um those 23 lots will be single family units uh complemented by two community building spaces. And the proposed plat keeps the existing drainage and utility easements along the outer perimeter of the original property boundary and creates new drainage easements between the outer residential lots. The PCD established zero lot line setbacks and the utilities were to be determined by the utility companies. The request does establish a new private road known as al loop uh to be maintained by their HOA that included 50 or includes 50 feet of access easement with 24 ft of paved surface. The proposed 50oot easement will also serve as a utility easement and a 5 foot wide sidewalk will be established along the outer edge of al loop and then transition to an internal layout around the interior community spaces of the development which meets the intent of 107-250m. The fire chief and city engineer has approved the street grade. Carol Electric had no additional comments at this time. Water will be served by the POA water department and village wastewater will serve the sewer needs. Uh no outstanding technical comments at this time and due to the analysis above staff does recommend approval of the request.

Any question? Any questions for staff? If not, the applicant would come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and we'll let you add onto the staff report if you'd like. Linda Lloyd, 102 Fairway Drive. I currently live on the property. I don't have anything to add to the staff report, but I'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. Any questions for applicant? If not, can I get a motion to approve preliminary plat 2025 61139? So move. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second from Wagn. Call the role, please. Plesen, yes. Sedbury, yes. Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman,

yes. Ellis, yes. All right, you're approved. Staff will get with you on next steps. Uh, next up, we move to new business. First on our agenda is large scale 202558745, a six-month extension request of a redevelopment of Town Center East Planer High. Sorry, we have to do this for the recording. Uh please let the record show that Linda Lloyd has joined uh as planning commissioner again. Do you need me to reread that again? Nope. Okay. All right.

All right. As as you all remember in June uh you approved the large scale development for town center that would included um a new retaining wall and um they were going to resurface the parking lot there. That was also tied to the uh remodel of the building in the area uh the existing building as well as removing the remnants of the old buildings. Uh due to several reasons listed in your letter uh that you see before you uh they do need a six-month extension. They're currently uh revising some of the architectural plans and then also there were some modifications with tied to those two projects with their mortgage. So unfortunately the December 9th deadline probably wasn't going to be able to be met.

Any questions for staff? The applicants present, would you come up and state your name and who you represent for the record? Jim Keith, Cooper Realy Investments. You have anything you'd like to add to the staff?

I just apology for me having to be here. I the date slipped up on me. Um I thought that it's my mistake. I thought we were moving from our we got the final approval, which I believe was in September and not moving from the June approval. So, we did have when we sat down and started working through our architectural um we had two different panels that both been discontinued and so we're going back to make sure that architecturally we can uh we can deliver. We have um we've identified our general our general count general counsel our general contractor and once uh we get everything done we're ready to go hopefully after the first.

Any questions for the applicant? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve LSD 202558745? So moved. Motion from Portello. Second. Second from Sbury. Call the RO, please. Lloyd, yes. Plesen, yes. Sedbury, yes. Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Ellis, abstain. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, next up we have LSD 202558918, a six-month extension request of the approved Razerback Greenway extension to Rearen Road. Uh, trail manager workman.

Thank you. This project aims to extend the Razerback Greenway from Mercy Way traveling north along the Little Sugar Creek. It will then turn west to pass under the Bella Vista Way bridge located just north of Rearen Road before heading south to the existing trail head on Rearen Road. Key improvements include a 10 to 10 to 12 foot wide multi-use path, drainage improvements and overhead lighting within the corridor under the bridge, and an asphalt overlay of the existing trail head parking lot. This project was previously approved by the planning commission earlier this year, and the applicant is here to request a six-month extension of that approval.

Any questions for staff? If not, if the applicant could come up to the podium and state your name and who you represent for the record, please. My name is Victor Guerrrell. I'm representing Trailblazers. We would like to request a six-month extension. We're through the design process and working on securing funding. We expect that that six-month extension will allow us to get started on the project. Any questions for the applicant? If not, can I get a motion to approve LSD 202558918? So moved. Got a motion from Farner. Second. A second from Clesson. Call the roll, please. Sbury, yes. Barner, yes. Portillo,

yes. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Yes. Abstain. All right. Thank you, sir. You're approved.

Thank you. Uh, next up we have waiver 2025 61698. A waiver request on pedestrian accommodation installation and retaining wall setback requirements for previously approved large scale uh trails manager workman. The subject site known as lot one and lot three of the Anderson Heights subdivision is situated south of the intersection of Oldm Drive, a subolctor and Cunningham Drive, an unclassified street as identified by our adopted master street plan. Earlier this year, the planning commission approved the Oz Trails bike park along with a waiver of section 107250M which requires pedestrian accommodation installations for all new non-residential developments within the city. This waiver covered the sidewalk that was required along Olden Drive, but now the applicant has returned for an additional waiver of this section for a 295 ft sidewalk that was required along Cunningham Drive. The applicant is citing existing steepography and mature dense woodland canopy as the reason for that request. Additionally, the waiver the applicant's requesting a waiver of section 107342E2 which prescribes retaining wall setbacks from a property line for a retaining wall that is shown to encroach the shared property line between lots one and three. The applicant is citing steep slopes, drainage, and site access challenges as the reason for this request. No public comments have been received. All staff comments have been addressed by the applicant. Should the planning commission approve the request, staff recommends a condition of approval to include the installation of a soft surface trail along Cunningham Drive in lie of the previously required sidewalk.

Any questions for staff? So the retaining wall is between lots one and three, correct? So this will be immediate. They own both lots. They do. Any other questions from staff? Not. Can the applicant come up to the podium? State your name and who you represent, please.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Taylor Lley with Craft and Toll. Sorry. Uh so the two waiverss requested uh the one along the Cunningham room for the sidewalks was discussed at the work session. Uh we are agreeable with the staff recommendation uh for the condition of approval as a soft surface trail. Um but as we mentioned in our letters and in the exhibits, those trees are likely between 100 and 200 years old along Cunningham there and just allowing for more flexibility uh with the trail connectivity along Cunningham. Makes sense in this in this request. So happy to address any questions there. Regarding the retaining wall, uh the property line that divides the main plaza area and the parking lot on the south side of the Austral bike park uh follows pretty closely to the drainage channel that runs uh kind of drains the whole hillside there. And we've got the big large culverts and the the head wall. Uh in order to control some of the grades on the the parking lot slope, the head wall needs to tie into a retaining wall that extends across that property line. As you mentioned, the property owner owns both sides. Uh, and obviously the parking lot and the uh the plaza space crosses the property line already and so we have no issues with the with the retaining wall crossing the property line and we are maintaining the setback requirement off the highway. So, I'll be available to answer any other questions you have related to that as well.

Any questions for the applicant? Not for the applicant. Are we taking them separately or is this a package? That's up to you all. Well, I don't care. I'm just asking. It's okay for me to do it together. Okay. No objection. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, can I get a motion to approve waiver 202561698 with staff recommendations? Got a motion from Foreigner. Second. Second from Sbury. Call the RO, please. Yes. Portillo. Yes. Wagman. Yes. Lloyd. Yes. Yes. Sbury. Yes.

Ellis. Abstain. All right. That uh staff will get with you on next steps. Uh next up we have waiver 202561561. A waiver request on retaining wall placement requirements for a proposed retaining wall at 98 Grand Shire Drive. Planner Laroo.

Good afternoon commissioners. Uh, so this property is located in eastern Bella Vista near Lake Brittany, lot 4, block 3 of the Dickensshshire subdivision. The applicant is requesting a waiver of section 107342 to allow for a proposed retaining wall within the front retaining wall setback and easement. Uh, a previous wall had existed near this location and is contemporary with the construction of the house and was considered non-conforming. Uh, a large portion of the wall had collapsed in April of 2025. The applicant is proposing a new 6ft high wall running uh 60 feet along the front property line setback of 7.5 ft in lie of the required 9.75 ft. Staff finds that the waiver may be necessary in order to preserve the cut topography between the ride ofway and the house. Strict enforcement of the regulation would otherwise locate the wall further into the interior closer to the house and increase the distance. Um oh portion um the wall will then cross into the easement connecting with the existing wall. Uh the proposed location would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare nor prevent any future subdivision of land. Staff would like to add that uh the street department had no comment on the proposal. Um there was no public comment at the time of the report nor any outstanding comments.

Any questions for staff? What do we know what year this house was built in? Uh the house in 2010. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? If you would go ahead and come up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record, please. Hello, commission. Uh my name is Stephanie Spivey. Um 98 Grand Shy Drive is is my home. Okay. Is there anything you'd like to add to the staff report? Uh, no. But I'm uh certainly open to answer any questions that you may have. There any questions for the applicant? So, you're just replacing the wall that collapsed.

Yes. So, when the house was built, we built it from the ground up in 2010. Uh, we had no idea that it was actually within the easement. And so, when we had the bad storm in April, uh, to our surprise, the most of our wall actually collapsed because of the way it was constructed. And so we found out that we had to move the the wall out of the easement. And so there's that little jut right there that we need to have to support the the the current wall and to bring it out to support the new wall. And that's the uh part of the waiver that we're looking for. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve waiver 202561561? So moved. Got a motion from Sbury. Second. Second from Farner. Call the roll, please. Portillo, yes. Wangman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Pleas, yes. Sbury, yes. Barner, yes. Ellis, yes. All right, your waivers approved and staff will get with you on next steps and permits. Thank you so much. You bet. Thank you. Uh, next up we have waiver 2025615555, a waiver request on retaining wall placement requirements for proposed seaw wall at 7 17 Evington Drive. Planner Grady. Good evening. Thank you.

Good evening.

This property is located in the south uh west area of Bella Vista city limits along lock lmen and is located on lot 9, block 6 of the Edmonton subdivision. The applicant is requesting a waiver to section 107342E2 setback requirements to rebuild an existing seaw wall along lock lmen. This section of the code requires retaining walls to be placed a minimum of 7.5 ft or 1.5 times the height of the wall whichever is greater away from the property line. The applicant respectfully requests a waiver from this section of the code to reconstruct the existing seaw wall from property line to property line along lock lmen. The current cedar seaw wall, which spans the full length of the property, has effectively controlled shoreline erosion for years, but has deteriorated and now requires replacement. Although the current code mandates a uh 7.5 ft setback, this requirement is set to be removed with the revised code effective December 1st of this year. The applicant seeks approval to proceed during the upcoming lake draw down period uh which is an optimal and limited time opportunity for the shoreline construction. The proposed seaw wall will follow the existing footprint and be uh professionally engineered to maintain hydrostatic pressure and reduce sedimentation into the lake. Reconstructing it in its current configuration will preserve shoreline stability, protect adjacent properties, and serve the long-term interests of the Lloman community. Maintaining the continuous lot line to lot line design ensures a consistent and effective erosion control system across the shoreline. The waiver request meets all four criteria for approval. Special site uh conditions exist including the deteriorating seaw wall, erosion risks, and time-sensitive construction window. Uh shoreline protection is a substantial property right necessary for the reasonable use and value of the land. And the engineered solution protects public health, safety, and the environment. and the project maintains existing conditions without interfering

with adjacent properties for future development. Uh there have been no uh public comments and no outstanding technical comments either. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Yes. If you would come up and state your name and address for the record and we'll let you add on to the staff report if you'd like to. Uh my name is Wendy Wickersam. I'm the homeowner at 17 Everton Drive. Um, I don't really have anything to add other than just to reiterate that it is just a timing issue. So, this will go into effect 121. We're just asking that that to be a little bit sooner because of the draw down time and then the weather limitations.

Right. Any questions for the applicant? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve waiver 202561555? So moved. Got a motion from Lloyd. Second. Second from Barner. Call the role, please. Wangman, yes. Roy, yes. Yes. Sbury, yes. Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Ellis, yes. Your request is approved and staff will get with you on next steps for your permits. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Next up, we have waiver 202561559 and large scale 202561558. both for a proposed development at 401 Northeast Town Center Drive, more commonly known as Domino's Pizza, Planner Hyatt.

All right. Thank you. Again, this property is located in the North Central area, Bella Vista, uh in the Town Center subdivision. Uh development code section 107-250M1 establishes pedestrian accommodation requirements. Section 107-342E1 states a retaining wall shall be placed a minimum of 10 ft or 1.5 times the height of the wall whichever is greater away from the existing or proposed uh structure. Uh section 107-342E2 states that a retaining wall shall be placed a minimum 7.5 ft or 1.5 times the height of the wall whichever is greater away from property lines. And then section 107-162 sets forth review and approval requirements for large scale developments. Uh the applicant is requesting waiverss uh from those three sections of code alongside the large-scale development approval for a proposed domino's pizza and retaining wall along the southern side of the existing town center shopping center. Uh the site is zone C3 central business district and is within again within the current town center development. The pre-platted lot is uh plus or minus.7 acres and the proposed development will consist of a 2,135 ft building with 14 parking styles. The parking lot will include two ADA spaces and bike rack. Uh, this Domino's concept does not include any internal dining space, so the development is designed as carry out only and includes a drive-thru pickup window that wraps around the building. Uh, two access drives will be created along the eastern side of the development accessing off of Town Center Drive, which is a 32- foot wide access easement. Uh due to the due to topography, a retaining wall will wrap around the site and because of the size of the site and height of the wall, separation requirements are not being met. Additionally, a waiver has been requested for pedestrian accommodation requirements. The applicant applicant cites topography, drainage, and utilities as hardship for constructing the sidewalk along the street frontages. Um, instead the applicant has provided sidewalk directly to the site via an existing path that will further establish a midblock crossing away from

the existing crosswalk pad that has been previously established at the light on Lancaster. Uh, staff has expressed concerns about the promotion of the midblock crossing and the applicant set up a meeting with AROT to discuss further work in their rideway. Uh per the master street plan, the site is surrounded by major arterials to the north and west and recognizes the access easement as an unclassified residential street to the east. Uh again, a meeting with ARDOT took place on November 6th where the sidewalk connection along Lancashire was discussed. Uh in that meeting, ARDOT deferred to seeing a proposal for the work uh before providing a determination on if they would allow any necessary work to establish that sidewalk along the road frontage of Lancashire. Uh the applicant is working up a proposal what the improvements would look like to have ARDOT review. Uh but due to that due to the analysis above staff still has concerns regarding the pedestrian accommodations and we'll want to see the comments from AROT. So at this time we recommend tableabling the request until the December 8th regular meeting.

Any questions for staff? All right. All right, if the applicant's present, if you would go ahead and come up and state your name and who you represent for the record, please.

Uh, Kip Williams, the one of the civil engineers working on this with own uh with the applicant. Um, I think part of our emails and conversations with AROT up today and even during the meeting that Christopher mentioned, ARDOT has voiced concerns uh with the improvements needed to establish the sidewalk along Lancaster. the uh they showed that they're not interested in retaining wall improvements within their rideway. Um they've noted in email and during conversations their concerns with the amount of utility work relocations happening within RDOT rightway, the drainage improvements necessary, review and design necessary to make this uh sidewalk meet current ADA and ARDOT regulations. Um, also they've noted that uh curb and gutter would likely be necessary to establish sidewalk at this location if possible along with the other concerns they've noted. Um, and that typically they do not like curb and gutter uh on random sections along their rideway. This would be the only curb and gutter along that length in that area for a long stretch of road. And then we have provided a more detailed concept than the ones that we pre previously provided the R dot uh noting some more detailed design. And today they've given us some additional feedback into the previous concerns that the improvements across Lancaster to the north uh would also need to be improved on the other side of Lancaster. and the sidewalk in order to maintain ADA compliance would have to extend well beyond their rideway to maintain a connection because they have a concern as well with the lack of connectivity on both sides of our street. And it's our opinion too that creating this access that one uh be goes well beyond the scope and scale of this project currently would also encourage use uh to areas that there's no connectivity on either side of it and and can create dangerous conditions. And that's ARDOT's biggest concern is safety. And not only that, but the just the amount of improvements that go well beyond the size and scope of this

project just to make this uh rideway sidewalk uh possible. Um even the existing connection that we've tried to coordinate with staff on maintaining and make ADA compliant that's diagonal. Uh AR DOT stated during that meeting as well that that has to be removed and that's not does not meet their current RDOT uh ADA standards or regulations. and they noted that, you know, they voiced that this would be a significant undertaking um to make this happen. And the amount of time and coordination with them and design necessary to establish this is just well beyond the scope of this. Um and we're just uh even the exit ramp on the west side. I think though that one does it you know we've coordinated staff and I think this is the only part of the waivering request as far as we're aware that uh staff is really wanting and I think between the original expectation art had this sidewalk till now there's been changes in regulations and uh I we just see it as a big undertaking that um coordination that may have to be more something that's a part of a future corridor improvement not something with this development to create unsafe conditions or target hund you know 100 feet of utility relocations pedestals light uh relocations on both sides, uh additional lights, just it just goes the list goes on and on. Um not not including the time it takes to do that. So, kind of longwinded there, but if y'all have any questions, we'd be happy to answer and discuss uh and look into it. Um but we've gotten a lot of feedback at this point that we think the end result's inevitable at this point and we don't want to delay any further um to continue designing on something that is just beyond the scope of this.

Yeah. How would how would you all feel to a a fee in lie of construction? Uh I think we would be very open if it's you know I don't know the standard for that. If it's based on the square footage of linear sidewalk with frontage we would be happy to entertain a fee in lie of a typical sidewalk design and a where it would be feasible. Um that that makes total sense and we we'd love to help out there and we'd love to you know sidewalk where we could. It just right now with the improvements needed all within the rightway. It's just a lot probably and then then Ardos this interest and the amount of it would take to do that as well. Any other questions for the applicant?

I mean I would say I would agree like that's a large undertaking. Yeah. Yeah. I I do too. I mean I that's what I think I mean it's well like he said that that's what it's goes well beyond just the development of the site. That's an entire intersection rework. It's It's not an inter it's an interchange. Interchange. Intersection. Those words are interchangeable.

Depends on who you ask. If you ask Ardot, they would disagree with you. Any other questions or comments? Well, I'm not clear on what's being proposed on that sidewalk issue on Lancaster. Is ARD do has ARD dot gotten back to you?

So, we sent a more detailed exhibit today and then this was between the meeting that happened at toward the end of last week and now and they've they've given feedback. They haven't been able to do a more detailed look. Um, but they have said that it would take improvements to the northeast intersection, the other side of it, and then the the sidewalk beyond that to connect somewhere because they right now they see it as there's no connectivity on either side of this proposed new sidewalk that they've have established. It's it's one of those things where I know we don't like to grant waiverss on sidewalks, but if the if the client's willing to pay or the developer willing to pay a fee in lie of for the city use at their discretion, I think they're meeting the intent. Um, and this being in like I said in basically an interchange. Um, it it's going to require significant more work in order to make it work.

I understand that. That's we talked about it at the work session and I wasn't clear what ARDOT's position was. I you know I'm not going to speak for AR dot but I've seen other instances where they've denied this request. I know staff ask a clarification question um since we spoke last week. I am also still unclear as to what you're saying. So, are you saying that you sent the con concept design that we requested to prove there's a hardship to AR dot? They just haven't responded to that yet. We've sent a more detailed concept and they did respond saying that there's uh let me do we have a copy of it? No, we just got that on we finally got the response on the way here.

Gotcha. Okay. So, we were unclear on that.

Yeah. Um, and you know, part of their response is ARDOT likes to say they'd never like to say a definite no until they we go through a full design and they've stated that that this would take significant drainage analysis um rework there and different aspects of it. And they've they vote really what they voiced in their response to this was in addition to the previous concerns they've had, which was that this work would likely trigger the northeast corner of the intersection to be brought the current R.8 ADA standards which includes pedestrian signals and likely taking the current ramp on the northeast corner and extending it beyond the rideway. So whereas currently both are just a crosswalk to nowhere. Um and they we part of the packet to an email thread they voiced that um currently our interest in retaining wall structures in addition to all the utility route locations and the other things that were listed. So, it's it's been voiced that they're, you know, they have significant concerns and they voice even during that meeting that it would be a large undertaking to that effect of the amount of work needed to do this. Um, and this all goes back to the scale of the scope of our project currently. Uh, the amount of rideway work to make this happen. Um,

how how much frontage do you have along Lancaster? Uh I honest I think if I recall it was aund and maybe as much as 150ish uh linear feet. I would have to check to be certain on that but that's a good ballpark I feel. I can't read the survey so I can't really tell this print's too small. Would would you help me understand what the fee in lie of is please?

Yeah, basically it would be instead of actually building the sidewalk, they would, you know, they would pay X number of dollars per foot of street furniture along Lakeire and then the city would take that money and apply it to building sidewalks somewhere else. Okay. But who sets the number? Uh, I think there's some general practices out there that could be utilized to come up with that. And it's typically like an amount that it's agreed to with the director or city engineer. Gotcha. With the project engineer. Okay. Scroll down a little bit. A little bit more. It would be some time. Keep going. There you go. Right there.

Yeah. at least 51 ft of look like. So, this is one of those situations we'd love to do the fe on this just because that would be typical of a standard development of, you know, the the cost to make these improvements, you know, that represents that. Um, it's one of those things normally in all these projects we load the established sidewalk. Um it's just this starts going beyond and to make that happen for 150 ft with sidewalk and connectivity on both sides not establish um

we see it's more something between seeing AROT in the future to kind of the corridor improvements necessary to establish the right connectivity and improvements Art standards have changed and the old improvements they've had currently established there aren't up to their their standards now. Well, my concern is that there is that wonderful cross light, crosswalk light, and it seems like there ought to be some sort of sidewalk path or something to get from your property down to that. I mean, for well, to get down to that and that's kind of frustrating to me uh that there needs to be something there. If that if they're going to take that light out, that'd be something else. But the lights there and I think we ought to have access to it.

That's part of what Ard said is currently not at their standards anymore. That would have to be I'm sorry. Ardot's boy stated us that that intersection that light and how it's put together right now is not up to their current standard. It's it's not what up to their current standard and ADA compliance. The in order to in order to do what you're what you're what you're speaking of, Commissioner Farner, it would require the reconstruction of that entire intersection.

It it right now it cannot be done and meet ADA or PROAG or ARDOT standards. Um Ardoff's not going to officially comment on that until they submit a design for that, which quite frankly, um they're going to have to hire a sub consultant that actually does RO engineering work to do that. And it'll still probably get denied unless they agree to rebuild the entire intersection. Right. The construction outside of this lot is solely based on our dot approved. Yeah, that's right.

I if we do grant a waiver for this, is that existing 5 and 1/2 ft foot concrete sidewalk going to get taken out? Ard's voice, they want it removed. Um, technically, I'm not exactly sure how that's going to go because it's in the rideway. Yeah. If you're if you're not asking for a permit from AROT, they can't make you report. Exactly. So, I think the don't ask don't tell thing. If we're not doing anything, we probably won't touch it, but if we were getting improvements done within their rideway and they may require part of that if we need a permit from them to remove that. So, there may be potential for that. I'd like to see it so that people aren't encouraged to use it because I think it's unsafe because it's just going d diagonally out into the street.

Yeah, exactly. That's it. can't be removed. If AR dot's not going to let you remove it, I don't I think our they want us to remove it and we we agree that it that intersection diagonally is not safe. Uh we we try to maintain existing as much as possible uh since we couldn't do the other improvements. Barot wants it removed. Um so if the city feels that it's unsafe and y'all also want it removed, which we agree, uh we can make that a part of the condition and scope if that's something the city wants to entertain as well. in addition to the fe for the sidewalk that would be for the frontage.

I'm fine with that. Yeah. I just don't want like especially like the plans you have shown here, it shows connecting to that and that's just going to encourage people to use it and I don't think it's safe to use like that. and we'll still propose a sidewalk connection from our site to the rideway boundary um and have that removed that way when a future connection is made by city and in the future that that connection is there and established within the private side property of it. Okay, sounds good to me. Yeah, I just think we've got an applicant who's trying to go above and beyond to provide the proper pedestrian accommodations and being shut down at every step

and being asked to do things above and beyond their responsibility. Okay. So, basically, you're citing reasonable nexus. Yeah. Fair enough. Any other questions or comments? Okay. We're going to take these in two separate votes since there's been so much discussion. So, we'll have a part A and a part B. Uh, first up, we'll do the retaining wall. Can I get a motion to approve waiver 202561559 concerning retaining wall placement requirements? So, move. Got a motion from Lloyd. Second. Second from Sbury. Call roll, please.

Lloyd. Yes. Yes. Sbury. Yes. Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Ellis, yes. All right. Part B. Uh, can I get a motion to approve waiver 202561559 concerning pedestrian accommodation requirements along Lincolnshshire Drive with the stipulations of providing a fee in lie of and removing the existing crossing? So move. Got a motion from Farer. Second. Second from Pello. Call the role, please. Lloyd, yes. Pleas, yes. Sedbury, yes.

Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Ellis, yes. Uh, and then finally, we have or do we need to do more on the large scale? Are we good on the large scale, too? We need to do a report on the large scale. He gave the reports together. Okay. All right. Uh, any other comments or questions on the large scale for the Domino's Pizza? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve large scale 202561558? So moved. Got a motion from Cleon. Second. Second from Farner. Call the roll, please. Yes. Sedbury. Yes. Farnner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wangman, yes. Floyd,

yes. Ellis, yes. You'll get with staff to get that fee in lie of approved and then send them that email from Ard just for the record. We appreciate it. Yeah. Appreciate you all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh that finishes our new business for tonight. Can I get uh do we have any committee reports? None at this time. All right. Do we have anything for open discussion?

All righty. Uh announcement. City Council work session will be on Monday, November the 17th at 5:30 p.m. with their regular meeting on Monday, November 24th at 20 at 6 PM. There will be no planning commission work session for cycle 12 due to the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm not coming here on Thanksgiving evenings. Don't know about you all. Uh but the board of zoning adjustments meeting and will be scheduled for December the 8th at 4:30 p.m. directly followed by our planning commission meeting. And with that, we stand adjourned. Cool. Appreciating the staff.