Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, I show that it's 4.30, so let's call to order the City of Bella Vista Board of Zoning Adjustment. Call the roll, please.

Ellis.

Here.

Farner.

Here.

Klesson. Here. Sedberry.

Here.

Portillo. Here. Forrest.

Here.

Lloyd. Here.

All right, we do have a quorum. Next on our agenda is our regular meeting minutes from August the 10th.

I'll make a motion to be approved as submitted.

Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second. Second from Clesson. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Meeting minutes are approved. We have nothing under unfinished business so we'll move right into new business. First up we have a zoning variance 202666703. A variance request on placement requirements for a non-residential detached structure. Planner Grady.

Good afternoon. This subject property is located in the south central area of Bella Vista along Loch Lomond at the end of a cul-de-sac on Cheviot Place in the Cheviot subdivision. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow proposed shop building on the adjacent lot. The main dwelling was constructed in 2015 by the previous owners who subsequently purchased the adjacent lot in 2018. In 2021, a building permit was issued for a proposed 10 foot by 16 foot shed on the adjacent lot. The shed was later removed prior to the current owners purchasing the property in April of 2026. In July, the current owners received a building permit for the proposed shop in the same general location as the previous shed. The requested variance relates to Section 109046 , which requires the front yard to remain open and unobstructed from 40 inches above the general ground level of a graded lot. Due to the unique configuration of the property, the main dwelling is oriented perpendicular to the adjacent lot where the proposed shop is located. As a result, strictly applying the front yard requirements would substantially limit the reasonable development and use of the adjacent lot. The proposed shop otherwise meets the applicable setback requirements for the lot in which it is proposed. It also falls behind the front plane of the neighboring house to the north side. I believe we've got some images included in the packet that shows the adjacent lot to the north. So, that 1 would be to the South if you could go 1 more. Thank you. Right? They're located section 109037 F requires accessory buildings to remain subordinate to the principal use and structure of the property. The proposed shop would serve as an accessory structure to the residential use and would remain subordinate to the primary dwelling, which is consistent with the intent of the accessory building regulations. The existing orientation and placement of the drilling were established by the previous owners and were not the results of actions taken by the current applicants. However, they are requesting to place the proposed shop on the adjacent lot. Staff recognizes that the existing configuration creates a unique circumstance where strict enforcement of the front yard requirement would substantially limit the development of a permanent structure on that adjacent lot. The proposed shop would maintain the residential characteristic of the property and remain consistent with the spirit and intent of the low density residential zoning district. No public comments have been received. All legal notices were made. Given the property's unique circumstances and based on the information provided, staff recommends consideration and approval of the requested variance.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? All right, if the applicant present, if you would come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record, please.

So I'm Bruce Kerr with Highland Home Builder. I'm the builder. The owner is here as well. Do you want my address? Yes. 13 Atkin Lane, Bella Vista, Arkansas, 72715. And yeah, he'd like a little shop. And like I say, even if the next door neighbor was applying for this, it wouldn't need a variance. We're going to try to keep some nice trees through there. Can't hear me too well. We're going to try to keep some nice trees on the side between them and the old neighbor, and we're within all the setbacks and all of that. Other than what's been said, I really don't have anything else to add.

Any questions for the applicant? If you would step aside for just a minute, we'll go ahead and conduct the public hearing. If there's anybody in the audience that would like to address the board concerning this request, please come up and state your name and address, and we'll give you up to five minutes to address the board. All right, seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Is there any other questions or comments from the board? If not, can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 202666703? So moved. Got a motion from Portillo.

Second.

Second from Farner. Call the roll, please.

Senator?

Yes.

Farner?

Yes.

Forbes?

Yes.

Portillo? Yes. Lloyd? Yes. Glesson? Yes. Ellis?

Yes. Staff will get with you all in the next steps on getting your permits in place. Next up, we have zoning variance 202666708, a variance request on the side building setback for a proposed single-family home. Planner LaRue. All right.

So one riding lane is located in East Bella Vista within the East Riding subdivision. The applicant is requesting a variance of the side building setback to build a single family home. The subject parcel is a double frontage lot with platted setbacks of 15 feet along settle and riding lanes. There's another side setback of 10 feet platted adjacent to the neighboring residential lot. There's also a 20 foot protective screening easement found at the rear. The proposed house occupies the full width of the lot and places a portion of the garage within that side building setback of 10 feet. The garage, however, will still remain outside of the drainage and utility easement. Staff finds that the additional setbacks and the easements are not of the applicants actions and the parcels unique shape and occurrence of more restrictive setbacks Would be caused for undue hardship the granting of a variance would otherwise not conflict with the spirit and intent of the residential zoning district There was no public comment at the time of this report and all legal notifications have been met And with this analysis staff is recommending approval of the variance request.

All right any questions for staff Yes. Yes, ma'am.

I Had in my brain that the side setback had been changed from 7 1⁄2 to 10, but then it was changed back to 7 1⁄2. Am I hallucinating?

So the residential zoning requirements for the R1 zone, the building setback, the side building setbacks used to be 10 feet, and we reduced it to 7 1⁄2. So the request is aligned with the current R1 side setbacks. It's just the plat is 10 feet, and we have to honor the plat per the code. Thank you.

Yep. Any other questions for staff? If not, can the applicant come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record?

Captain Nembhard, 1204 Southwest Westbury Place, Bentonville.

Do you have anything you'd like to add to the staff report?

Nothing more to add. I think they did a good job.

Any questions for the applicant? All right, if you'd step aside, we'll go ahead and conduct the public hearing. At this time, if there's anybody who is interested in this item, if you would, come up and state your name and address for the record, and we'll give you up to five minutes to address the board.

Boy, my name's Catherine Reynolds. I'm not used to speaking in front of people like this, but I live at 3 Riding Lane, and Putting this property right along my property line is going to reduce my property value and make it like there's a checkerboard where my house is set back along the line where we were told when I built it. Now he wants to put it right next to the street and it's going to be like a checkerboard building. set a lot with my house clear back, and then there's still an empty lot on the other side, and if they do the same thing, I'm going to be like the odd person out of the whole mess. And I think that it's too close to the street for the sewer to run down the hill, which is, it needs to go down the hill, and... I would be fine if they wanted to put it clear on the other side of the lot and push it all the way to the other side, away from my property, on the property line that's next to the street. That'd be fine. But right next to my house is going to make it look ridiculous. And I just hope and pray that you'll keep the code the way that it was intended when I moved here.

That's all I have to say. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address the board concerns?

Can I say one other thing?

Absolutely. You've got a couple more minutes left.

I really don't like having to start out with a new neighbor this way. of being disagreeable to what they want to do. But it really is not the right thing. So I'm very sorry about this circumstance.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address the board concerning this request? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. If the owner would step back up to the podium, we will give you up to 10 minutes. You can address the public comment that you've heard or whatever.

I don't have anything to say. I'm calling the court on what is required.

Any other questions or comments from the board? Yes, ma'am.

I just want to mention to the neighbor that the problem is not how close it is to the road. He's in compliance with how close the house is being put to the road.

We can't have back and forth. Sorry. Any other questions or comments from the board?

Is there an opportunity to move it closer to, because if I'm reading this right, they're one foot encroached? That's correct.

Yeah. Could you repeat the question again? So you're asking for a one foot variance. It's two foot. I think that's what it said. I see a nine foot versus a 10 foot.

It's nine feet from the footing, but we include eaves in the setbacks. So he's asking for 7.5, which is the R1 side setback. It's just platted as 10. So the request is aligned with the R1 zone. And the setback on the south side due to the eaves, it does look, he's got 16.22 feet from the south property line. However, again, with those eaves in there, the eaves count with that 15-foot setback, so it is setback to setback as proposed right now. Did I answer your question?

Yeah, so if he did move it towards, was it a street settle or whatever it is, he'd be asking for a variance on the other side.

Yes, he would need a variance on that side. Yeah.

Has that house been built?

No, it has not yet been built.

Is there a reason why it's angled this way on the line?

Yeah, good question. So just to give a little history, the intent was to come off the settling side of it, but then it's very steep over there, and then we'd have a problem with the... with the slope so we had to fit the house on this side come on to riding lane and also to get the three bedroom septic system that's the best place you could handle and fit and we had to reduce that house size drastically just to fit it into that space and the only issue that we had was in the back right there that two feet hung over so we we tried to stay within the 10 feet setback but then after looking at the code and see that we had changed back to seven and a half.

I thought that we were... Is there any reason that the house can't be moved over the plans? Can't be moved over so that's not required?

You're meaning moving it over to the settle side?

Closer to the... Addison, zoom out just a little bit more, would you? Closer to settle lane. And I was still granting the variance, but

Yeah, we would have, and then we're going to have, then we're going to run into, or we could run into the septic line 10 feet from the house. Everything is really very tight. Yeah.

So the R1 right-of-way side setback is 15 feet. So this request is aligned with that as well, staying out of that 15-foot right-of-way and zoning side setback.

I'm not sure that even moving the house two feet is going to solve the problem that she's explaining.

I can tell you that if you slide your garage closer to the road, you wouldn't need the setback.

So we did all those movements.

Yeah, you wouldn't have enough room to get that out of it without, then you'd have to have a variance on the front. So the way I look at it, I don't see any way you take this floor plan without rotating it. and keep it out of some setback.

It's like you don't have the setback or the septic system. We did a lot of iterations with the surveyor and the septic to get it to fit this way. And we cut that down at two feet, then the garage is no longer a one-car garage. We're not going to have enough space for it.

I'm just saying, he's a lot further than 15 feet. The garage itself, I'm not saying move the whole house. I'm saying you could pull the garage forward more, and then you wouldn't need any setbacks. And the driveway is over 45 feet long, so it's deep enough for four cars.

We might just pivot the thing to the house. On that front corner, just turn it a little bit.

I don't think you can turn it and make it work. Oh, okay. Yeah, you've got a lot of room there. I mean, it's not what you're looking to build exactly, but it could be done.

Okay.

All right, with that, any other questions for the applicant? All right. With that, we always make a motion in the affirmative. Can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 202666708?

So moved.

Got a motion from Forrest. A second? Second from Fowler or from Turner. Sorry. Roll call, please. No.

No.

Yes.

No. No.

No. Staff will get with you on next steps, but your request has been denied and see if you can look at it with your home builder, maybe and figure out how to not do a variance. That's right. Get with your designer and staff and they'll help you out with the next steps. You'll have to get back with staff. We can't have that conversation tonight. All right. Next up, we have zoning variance 202666460, a variance request on placement requirements for proposed retaining wall. Planner LaRue.

So 16 Tibberton Circle Drive, once again located in East Bella Vista within the Gloucester subdivision. The applicant is requesting a variance of the retaining wall placement requirements in order to reconstruct a failing retaining wall near the property line. The scope of work includes reconstructing 106 feet of wall near the property line, gradually increasing in height from two and a half to 11 feet as it turns And meets the house the applicant had been working with engineering to lower the height of the wall However proximity of the wall to the driveway would not allow for the minimum slope requirements to be met without excavating the driveway Staff will add that additional information will be required when the applicant submits for the retaining wall permit including the top and bottom wall elevations where the wall meets the house and the removal of the portion of wall within the right-of-way and Poa water Carol electric and village wastewater had no comments on the proposal and the applicant is actively pursuing an easement release with the. Um, the current placement of the wall is not of the applicant's actions and strict enforcement of the ordinance may provide undue hardship by reducing reasonable access to the house. Um. Public comment was met, or no public comment was received, and all legal notifications have been met. And based on this analysis, staff is recommending approval with the conditions that the wall elevations be provided and the portion of wall be removed outside of the right-of-way.

All right, any questions for staff?

Yeah, so they're going to rebuild this wall, basically. Is it considered illegal, non-conforming now?

As it sits now, yes.

Any other questions for staff? I have a question for the city engineer. Yes, sir. So we've been going back and forth on this one for a while. I assume there's not a way to get the wall built without the variance.

Not without seriously reducing the driveway width, which affects them being able to make that right turn into their garage. So I don't believe there's a way to keep access to the garage that's not very difficult, and not put the wall back where it is, if that makes sense.

And this was built before we were a city.

Well, before we had this code.

Okay. Are you not allowed by right to repair legal non-confirming?

Well, tearing it down and rebuilding it is not repairing it. If they're repairing it, yes, we would allow them to repair it. But to be able to fix it, they're going to tear it completely down and rebuild it. That's the difference.

Replacement is the trigger in our code. Once it becomes a replacement, it's no longer illegal nonconformity.

Any other questions for staff? If not, can we have the applicant come up and state your name and address for the record, please? And we'll give you up to 15 minutes to address the board.

Wason Hokama at 1610 Circle Drive. I don't know what else to say. I did stop by the ACC, and they're going to go and try to get a, well, get with Blue Crane to get the release. So I submitted that paperwork today.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? All right, if you would take a seat for a minute, we'll go ahead and conduct a public hearing. If there's anybody in the audience who would like to address the board concerning this request, if you would come up and state your name and address for the record, and we'll give you up to five minutes to address the board. All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Always give you a chance to come up and say something else if you would like, sir. All right, any other comments or questions from the board? All right, if not, can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 202666460? So moved. Got a motion from Farner.

Second.

Second from Portillo. Call the roll, please.

Forrest?

Yes.

Portillo?

Yes.

Floyd? Yes. Klassen?

Yes.

Sedberry?

Yes.

Farner?

Yes.

Ellis? Yes.

Yes. Your request has been approved and staff will get with you on next steps in getting your permit issued. Thank you. Next up, we have zoning variance 202666892, a variance request on the maximum number of access drives proposed for a detached non-residential structure. Planner Hyatt.

All right. Thank you. This property is located in the southern area of Bella Vista and is lot 37 block one of the Queens Ferry subdivision. Zoning code section 109057F4 establishes the maximum number of access drives based on length of road frontage. The applicant's requesting a variance to allow for a second access drive on a lot with less than 151 feet of road frontage for an existing single family home and a proposed accessory structure. Again, the proposed accessory structure sits to the south of the current home. The lot, as you're looking, oh, can you go back one? That home sits between two lots, 27 Queens Prairie to the south and then the adjoining lot to the north. And that home was completed in March of 2026. The proposed accessory structure Would or the proposal for the accessory structure would be to sit the detached garage to the south next to the existing garage. Um, but how the. Lot for, uh, number 27 does not have 151 feet of frontage. So code would not allow for the 2nd. Second access drive staff does not find that all three criteria are met to grant a variance for this as space is available on the adjoining lot for the accessory structure, which would possibly allow for the access drive as long as it meets the 21 feet of separation from center line to center line between the two. Queens Ferry Lane is a non-classified residential street per the Master Street Plan. The experience is low to minimal traffic. And for the future land use map, the home is within a low-density neighborhood area. No public comment has been received at this time, and all legal notifications have been met. But due to the analysis above, staff does not recommend approval of the variance.

Any questions from staff?

Yes, I do.

Go ahead.

That driveway that's there now, the way I read it, is split onto two lots. How much of that driveway is on the second lot?

The plot plan we have, so the sheet in front of you, shows the driveway to be all on 27.

I believe there may have been some confusion for that, but the plot plan's showing it to be all on 27 Queensberry. Any other questions for staff? Yes. Yes, ma'am.

Is the porch that connects the house and the garage what prevents us from classifying the existing garage as an accessory structure on an adjacent lot? Because my understanding is our code only allows one accessory structure on an adjacent lot, and it seems to me that it's already there.

The house encloses the garage. It is completely attached on the north and east side. I think there might just be a line that's not very viewable on the plot plan, Addison.

Yeah, there is kind of a something got erased, so it doesn't look like it all connects, but that garage is connected to the house.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? If not, if the applicant is present, we'll go ahead and if you would come up and state your name and address for the record and which will give you up to 15 minutes to address the board with your comments.

Thank you. Kyle Russell, 3 Billingsley Drive in Bella Vista. I want to open by acknowledging in the letter that I wrote, I made the same mistake that you did about thinking that the existing driveway was on Uh, both lots when I found out about the hearing, I had only a few hours to get this together before the deadline and I was careless. So that's not crucial to my case here today, but I want to acknowledge in my letter. I wrote that and it was incorrect. Um, I have a few points I'd like to bring up, uh, that I think are solid justifications for wanting the proposed structure on the South side of the house. However, I think what's more pertinent to at least address first is the interpretation of that code. According to, let's see, 109. I'm sorry. According to... The zoning code that restricts the number of driveways. It says, unless otherwise specified this article, the maximum number of access drives for each property emphasis on the word property shall be determined by length of road frontage over 151 feet. It allows 2 driveways. Our initial perspective on this was that since these lots are effectively joined by the house, and the total number of linear feet of road frontage is over 151. Feet that that would give us justification for 2 driveways as long as we space them in accordance with this code, which is what is proposed. So I think that is. The case we initially intended to plead, however, I also uncovered after finding out that we needed to plead our case in this meeting that and the article 9 of definitions. Uh, section 109169 general interpretation meetings says the term lot parcel and tract may be used interchangeably, but it does not discuss the word property. 109170 says words and terms not expressly defined should be defined according to the APA planner's dictionary. And the word property and the word plot are not defined in code one or nine. But if you, I have a copy of this here, but if you guys would like to see it, um, the word property is to find an API plan restriction area as a lot parcel tracked or plot of land together with the buildings and structures there on and it goes on to define the word plot. And 6 or 7 different ways that are favorable, but the most, the clearest 1 says 1 or more lots blocks or parcels of land and any combination under single ownership recorded as contiguous to 1 another or through 1 another on either a plot or a unifying deed. The homeowner has a unifying deed, and we have a plat showing both lots together. So, if this is to be viewed as a plot, that would be considered property. And property over 151 feet should be allowed to driveways. Looks like a copy of this.

Any other questions for the applicant? All right. If you would go ahead and take a seat, we'll conduct the public hearing.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address the board concerning this request? If you would come up and state your name and address, and we'll give you up to five minutes to address the board. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Any questions or additional comments?

Well, if It would appear to me that if we did not approve the second driveway, that additional structure could be accessed from the existing driveway. In other words, if this is the proposed addition they want to put, it could come off this way, off of the existing driveway, so they would not need a second driveway on that lot.

Well, if you joined both of them, would that be considered one driveway? If you poured concrete in between the two, there's one big concrete...

I mean, we have recommendations to not exceed widths for certain driveways, just for maintenance. I think a lot of property owners understand that they're responsible for maintaining their driveway culverts, and the longer the culvert gets, the harder it is to maintain and ensure that code enforcement's not knocking on your door a couple years down the road. But they could essentially, yeah, I mean, we would allow one access. Again, we have recommendations on maximum widths, but there's not a hard, steadfast code that maximizes it, if that makes sense.

But they could just go build it on lot 38 without a variance, right?

They met setbacks and everything else. They would not need an access drive maximum variance. That lot does not have an access drive yet.

Or if it was combined into a single tract, then they wouldn't need the variance either, would they?

If this was a normal city and we had normal planning practices, yes, typically these two lots would be combined through a property line adjustment and it wouldn't be an issue. But because property line adjustments are very regular lot combinations, unfortunately that's not a route.

Is there a house on lot 36? And if so, how close to the property line is that driveway

Sorry, what was the question? Could you repeat the question?

Mr. Forrest?

Oh, is there a lot, or is there a house on lot 36, and if so, how close is the driveway to that property line? Are we going to have three driveways in 16?

Oh, currently that lot's vacant.

Can I, why, so we're treating this as two lots, but he was allowed to build a house on a property line?

That is correct.

So we're treating it one way for one thing and another way for another thing.

Well, our code has an allowance for building structures across the property line so long as a notice of structural encroachment letter and an easement release is obtained. It doesn't address the access drive maximum, just building across the property line.

I mean, my opinion is we've treated this as a singular piece of property by allowing a home to be, but he can't divide that unless the property is divided, the building is torn down. So I mean, it's effectively one piece of property, even though it's two lots.

But I don't know that we can do that. I understand what you're saying, but I don't know we can legally do that.

Well, I mean, the applicant pointed out that we don't have a definition. We can define it as one piece of property. I mean, that's how it's treated right now. Why should we treat it differently?

I mean, I know what you're about to say, but we can direct staff when these come forward in the future to look at the amount of frontage that is dedicated to the property that the primary structure sits on versus what is platted.

Right. Yep. Right. But we are setting precedence today if we were to approve this request based on that. It's a variance. It's not an interpretation. Right. Case by case. Yes.

Fair enough. Perfect. Any other questions from staff? Yes, ma'am.

Not necessarily a question. I understand what Clayton's suggesting, but since we've come up with several alternatives to the variance would be to put the garage on lot 38 or to use the existing driveway, I think we've demonstrated that there are options without approving a variance.

I would, I agree with that. I think putting it on lot 38 would solve it. Connecting the two driveways while technically might solve it. I don't know that that's for the betterment of the community to have a 80 foot wide driveway.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff? All righty. With that, can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 202666892? Sure. You get a rebuttal. Come on back up. I'll give you one. You get up to 10 minutes.

Thank you for considering this. I did not address before the justifications for putting the building on the south side of the home, which there are a few. I thought that the interpretation here, which I think we're getting hung up on the word interpretation. I don't think this is up for interpretation. I have direct definitions and instructions for where to look for definitions that say that this is considered a property. And because this is considered a property, 151 feet should get two driveways. That's not up for interpretation. I have the receipts in front of me, which I'm happy to show. As far as where it could go in the law, I understand the case for going on the north side of the house. However, it offers several restrictions. 1, as I believe was Mr forced, uh, pointed out or asked about the house. I'm sorry the property to the south side is vacant right now. The property to the north lot 39 does have a home on it with the driveway on the closest side. So we would still be stacking driveways and tighter on that side of the house. also the amount of space available for the garage on the north side of the house is considerably smaller and the only way to fit the proposed structure which has been approved by the building department would not fit as it is proposed on that side and in order to to fit it there we would have to change the dimensions in such a way that it completely changes the functionality of the building and the homeowner would not be able to use it for the intended purposes which i can elaborate on if that's If that's needed also, as far as the extent, excuse me, expanding the driveway. We'd be happy with that option. We thought the same thing that you did that it wasn't necessarily for the betterment of the community that 2 driveways made more sense than 1. however, if the board saw that 1 driveway. That was between 45 and 50 feet wide was more appropriate. We'd be perfectly happy with that solution. Um. One of the reasons we need it to be that wide instead of tying in at an angle, which I think is the other thing that was brought up is that the homeowner would like to be able to needs to be able to pull a trailer to back a trailer into the garage and backing a trailer in through a curved driveway into a structure is for anybody who's never back to a trailer is virtually impossible. So a straight access is what we would wish to see. Any questions for me about that?

I've got a question for him, if I could just . You mentioned quite a bit about the definitions and interpretation. Are you saying that you don't think you need a variance? You think that the definitions currently would just allow what you need without without there being a variance? Is that what you're trying to argue?

That is more or less. The only caveat I would give to that, sir, is my understanding of a variance is that if you believe you've been, I think the word used is aggrieved by the staff's interpretation, and because the staff interpretation is different than this, then I would say variance by that definition is required, but I think that staff could read what I have here and approve it without a variance.

My point, and you presented a variance application, and that's your right to do, but I think you may be misreading something, and that is if you disagree with the interpretation of the staff regarding the zoning code, you can appeal that determination to this body and have them determine whether or not that interpretation is appropriate that they agree with it, or they agree with you, or they, in other words, they are the final arbiter of what that means. By applying a variance from the way that it is, you're saying, you're not challenging the interpretation, you're saying, this is the way it's interpreted, therefore I need a variance, and I have grounds for a variance because of hardship and the various things that are in the code that allow that. And so I just, I'm trying to draw that distinction a little bit, because your argument kind of blended both. I understand, thank you.

This isn't really related to the driveway, but are the setback lines that are noted on this plaque correct? Yes.

Yes, the 20-foot setback.

No, there's a 30-foot building setback. Yeah, this lot has a 30-foot plan of building setback. And on the other side of the 25, in both cases, they're...

Yes, I believe there's an MMR, minor modification, for it to reduce it down.

There is an MMR, yes.

Yeah.

Wait, I lost that. So the proposed garage is not?

No, so with the house, there was, yeah, the platted setback exceeded the zoning code. There was an MMR to reduce it down to the zoning code 20 foot so that the house for that lot was able to build to the 20 foot setback. It does actually look like it crosses for this proposal, but we could sort through that in our zoning review when they submit that application, but... For those two lots, it's a 20-foot setback.

I believe the applicant stated that that proposed garage is already approved with it being in this setback?

No, that's not what he said at all. He said the building department has approved the construction drawings for it, but planning and zoning approved the lot.

Yeah, we would still have a review with that.

Any other questions for staff? Can any other thoughts comments? Yes, yes, sir.

The, uh. The last point I wanted to bring up, I don't know if this is something that you guys consider, but a garage on the north side of the south side of the house right now is what you'd call the ugly side of the house. There's no windows. H, back is over there. That's where the electrical electrical connections are. Um, so. Locating the garage on this side, not only functionally makes sense, because it helps cover up the other side of the house. It makes easier access to electric. It's closer to the proposed garage or to the existing garage. But putting on the other side of the house on top of cramming the driveway against the neighbor, it also blocks windows to the living room and master bedroom. It restricts light inside view to the yard, and it makes it more complicated to get utilities over there, which I think is worth considering. That's all I have. Yes, ma'am.

So if I understand our attorney, if we were to deny this, he could come back with a request to differently define the stances.

He couldn't come back and ask for the same variance. That's not what he would be doing, technically. Taylor, were you going to add something?

Yeah, I just want to make sure. There is a literal provision that a variance is being discussed right now within this number of access drives permitted. the intent is to reduce the amount of access drives and so the code says Where lots are contiguous a common egress an ingress drive is required to minimize access drives and better facilitate traffic so a little provision variance would still be needed and

Well, and that may be, but so if you denied this variance and he had an interpreter, I can't tell you, he told you what his interpretation was. And I believe he's saying, I can read this to say I can do this anyway. then he's disputing the staff's interpretation of the code, which could be appealed to you. So if you agreed with the staff, then he's already requested a variance from it, so he really wouldn't be able to come back. If you disagreed with the staff and found a different interpretation that perhaps agreed with his, then he would be able to do it without variance. He could get a building permit.

Just a reminder, denied variances have a 365-day waiting limit. So if it's denied, it's not done done. There's a one-year waiting limit.

Well, if it's the same variance.

Correct. Just wanted to clarify that.

Any other questions or comments? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 202666892?

So moved.

Got a motion from Farner.

Second.

Second from Klesson. Call the roll, please.

Quartillo? No. Floyd?

No.

Klesson?

No.

Sudbury? Yes. Farner?

No.

Force?

Yes. Ellis? No. Your variance request has been denied. Staff will get with you on next steps. Next up, we have zoning variance 202666865, a variance request on the maximum driveway grade for a single-family home. Planner Hyatt.

This property is located in the central area of Bella Vista and is lot 5, block 3 of the Lambeth subdivision. Zoning code section 109.114.E6A establishes a maximum driveway grade of 14% and 109.114.E6B2 allows an administrative waiver by the city engineer for a total maximum uphill driveway grade of 20%. The applicant is requesting a variance for an existing uphill driveway currently sitting at 20.6% for a single family home located along Lambeth Drive. The primary residence has been completed and is ready to schedule final inspections. It was discovered that the driveway didn't meet the maximum 14% slope and, again, also exceeded the engineer's administrative approval of up to 20%. The initial plan called for a driveway averaging 10.1%. However, the applicant's letter states the grade was not verified prior to the placement of footings and block, leading to the finished floor elevation being over 3.5 feet too high, creating the driveway that averages 20.6%. With this driveway exceeding the maximums, no CFO can be issued. But in its review, staff does not find all three criteria to be met for approval due to the great issue having been of the applicant's doing. Lambeth Drive is a non-classified residential street for the master street plan that experiences low to minimal traffic. Per the future land use map, the home is within a low density neighborhood area. no public comments been received at this time and all legal notifications have been met but due to the analysis above staff does not have a recommendation at this time all right any questions for staff all right if the applicant is present would you come up to the podium state your name and address for the record and we'll give you an opportunity to

address some of the staff's comments.

Hi, my name is Pavel Onishenko with Timeless Homes. I'm the builder. My address is 5811 South Primrose Road, Little Arkansas, 72745. Yeah, sure. Yeah. So we're that's we're requesting right now is this is my first build in Bella Vista. So kind of learning with how it all works. And I'm taking full responsibility of the oversight on not verifying the the gradient and the footings being dug. The company that was hired wasn't they didn't look over the plane as as they should have as well. And obviously it was just caught too late after everything was framed. So we're requesting to just be able to do the driveway steeper than allowed.

OK. Any questions for the applicant? All right. If you would go ahead and take a seat for a minute. We'll go ahead and conduct a public hearing. If there's anybody in the audience who would like to address the board concerning this request, if you would come up and state your name and address for the record, we will give you up to five minutes to address the board. Yes, sir. Good evening.

My name is Vladimir Onshenko. I live at 6110 South 37th Street in Rogers, Arkansas, 72758. This is our personal home that we're building with my wife. We're very excited to move in. The construction loan has already expired. and we have filed for an extension that has been granted to us by the bank. The bank is very nervous. We are very nervous. We just used an iPhone degrees calculator. We put 35 foot sections of two by fours that run from the existing pad that is in the garage that go down to the street. And just by measuring on an iPhone, we're between 11 and 12 degrees. So that's not the grade, but that's the degrees. Me and my wife walked across the street and measured every driveway across the street. We have pictures of the degrees that on the phone that is averaging from fifteen to twenty one degrees of the neighbors driveways. So we are okay to deal with the steeper driveway. We're willing to get a brushed finish so that it's not going to be a slick in an icy condition. If there is any opportunity for us to slant the driveway, it would be towards the northwest side of Lambeth Drive. Then we can minimize the grade because the Lambeth slopes down. The highest point of Lambeth would be the... Uh, North West, so so sorry West side and the lowest would be the East. And so if our driveway would be moved, possibly 2 feet over. Then we can minimize our grade and get down to about 11 degrees on a phone measuring device, which I'm not sure where that would fall in line with with. how you guys do the grade percentage. But we're just asking for approval so we could get this loan finished. The house is moving ready. We need the railings, the driveway, and the landscaping to pass the final inspection. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? If not, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

All right, question for staff. Do you take the average Or do you take, because on this driveway and many other ones, you have two different slopes on each side. Do you average them center line, worst one?

No, we actually take the measurement at the center line. The center line. I mean, nowhere along the center line can it be over that.

The first 20 feet and the last 20 feet.

Which is, I mean, this one, I don't think it's over 40 feet long. 35 feet. So the entire thing has to be within our code.

Is it true that other driveways up and down that street have steep driveways?

I don't have any idea, but it wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of really steep driveways in this town. But that's exactly why we have this code.

So if the center line was 20, you would have the opportunity to... approve it, or since one side of it is 22%, it's still no?

We don't look at the sides. We just measure at the center line for the first 20 and the last 20 feet, and that's what we check.

Has that been done here? Because if you're on 18 on one side and 22, has anybody measured the center line? Is it possible that it sneaks in at 20?

No. I mean, we measured. We actually put a smart level on the center line of the driveway, and it told us what it was. So, I mean... We're not averaging anything. We're actually taking a measurement at the place that the code requires.

What did it measure out at, Chris?

It's been a minute since I looked, but it's over 20, but it's not over 21, as I recall.

There's just over 20.

I don't have a picture of it. I mean, it's not very far. I mean, the whole thing, I mean, if that driveway would have come in when we reviewed it and they would have showed it right at the maximum, we would have made them get a survey of the block before they built the house. But because that came in and it was not even close to our maximum, we don't require that for every house. And unfortunately, they... If you look at this plan, the finished floor of the house is 73, but what they said they were going to build the garage at was at 1160. That's a big difference. That's the only way they can meet our code, but they unfortunately built it quite a bit higher than what they're showing.

We don't have any inspection process when the footings are poured.

We're not licensed surveyors, so we can't go out there and a couple of reasons. You can't get what the actual elevation of that block is, and you can't tell if it was actually built that far from the right-of-way. And that makes a big difference. If that house was shoved a little bit closer to the right-of-way, then that makes it even more difficult to meet our code. So, no, there's nothing that someone out there looking at the block work could go and say, this doesn't look right. You need to do something else.

So you're less than 21 on your measurement?

Yes, ma'am. 20.6.

They were 0.6% over what the city engineers allowed to approve. Any other questions or comments from staff?

Did you discuss the block wall certification inspection? Is that the process you were explaining to them? When they do request an administrative modification from you, we require a block wall certification to prevent it from getting so far.

Because of this issue, these that are coming before you are trying to limit those. So we add that requirement when they're right up at our maximum, very close to it, because we don't want it to have to come before y'all.

But this one didn't need a block.

It didn't because you were close to our maximum.

It was less than 12%. Right.

14%.

Well, I mean, it was less than 12%. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, what they asked for. Right. I understand.

Okay. Any other questions? I think if you'd like to come back up, sir, we'll give you a few more minutes to address the board if you would like before we take a vote on your request.

I don't have anything else to add. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve Zoning Variance 202666865? So moved. Got a motion from Portillo?

Second.

Second from Farner. Call the roll, please.

Lloyd?

Yes.

Klassen?

No.

Sedbury?

Yes.

Barner?

Yes.

Forrest?

No.

Portillo? Yes. Ellis?

Yes. Your request has been approved. I would encourage you not to come back and ask for another one anytime in the near future. It may not go as well for you. Make sure you know our code next time, okay? All right. Thank you. Next up, we have zoning variance 202666678, a variance request on the maximum driveway grade requirements for a single-family home. Planner Hyatt.

Thank you. This property is located in the eastern area of Bella Vista City Limits. There's lot 22, block 5 of the Ambleton subdivision. Zoning code section 109114E6A establishes a maximum driveway grade of 14%, and then 109114E6B1 allows for an administrative waiver by the city engineer for a total maximum, there's a typo, sorry, downhill driveway grade of 17%. The applicant's requesting a variance for an existing downhill driveway currently sitting at 18.8% for a single family home located at Embleton Drive. Again, this primary residence has been completed and is ready to schedule final inspections. It was discovered that the driveway did not meet the maximum 14% slope. It also exceeds the engineer's administrative authority to 17% for the downhill drive. The initial plan called for a driveway averaging 15.4%. However, the applicant's letter states they checked the elevation prior to inspections and found the slab would be 2.5 inches too high, so removed the L block, setting the house 1.5 inches too low. The project passed block and slab inspections, so work continued. The changes to the block wall led to a drive that averaged 18.8%. With the driveway exceeding the maximums, no CFO can be issued. In its review, staff does not find all three criteria to be met for approval due to the grade issues having been of the applicant's doing. Emilton drives a non-classified residential street for the master street plan that experiences low to minimal traffic. Per the future land use map, this home sits within a type one neighborhood center. No public comments have been received and all legal notifications have been met Due to the analysis above, staff does not have a recommendation at this time.

All right. Any questions for staff?

Did I hear you right that they were instructed to lower the building?

No, I believe they caught that they were higher, so did lower it. So they checked their elevation.

If the house would have been built a little bit higher, we wouldn't be here. Yeah.

Yeah.

I said in his letter, I'm sure you can speak more to it, but he mentioned checking the elevation prior to inspections and found the slab was 2 and a half inches too high.

Yeah, okay.

Any other questions for staff? If not, if the applicant is present, if you would come up and state your name and address for the record, and we will let you add on to the.

staff report uh my name is cody burnett 10 11 north walton boulevard in bentonville that's where i live

Anything you'd like to add to the staff report?

No, I mean, just what he said, before we had our block inspection, before we poured the slab, and we had looked at it and tried to hit the FFE, and I took a Honda Accord down the driveway and into the garage and backed it out. And I think it's 1828 on the high side. I think it's lower on the other side. But it works as designed, and it didn't seem like it was even close to being over when we were doing it, and we do this a lot. And now, of course, after this house, you guys actually make us do survey. We take shots at the street, and it's finished floor elevation. We didn't have to do that here. So I thought we were doing it right on our own, but apparently not, I guess.

And you decided on yourself to take the L block out. It wasn't a direct circumstance.

We're just trying to hit the FFE that's on the plans. Assuming that that was what we needed to do in order to make it all work out. Since we found that you can't necessarily rely on your surveyor and your designer to hit that mark every time. But again, it works as designed. I pulled that car in and out on both sides of the driveway and put it right in.

Anything else you'd like to add? If you would, just step aside then. We'll conduct a public hearing real quick, and then we can call you back up. All right, if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address the board concerning this request, if you would come up and state your name and address for the record. We will give you up to five minutes to address the board. Five, that's all you get.

Larry Williams, 109 Mayford Drive, Bella Vista. I have looked at this particular installation. I think the error may come in the calculation that they have a four foot flat area approach in front of the garage. And if you ran the line from the face of the garage to the street edge, the slope would be a lot flatter. And so the slope has been enhanced, if you will, because they left the flat area access in front of the garage that's about four feet wide from the street visibility, which creates perhaps the difficulties that they are faced with. So I would encourage you to give some consideration to that. It makes it much nicer for the property owner.

All right, anybody else who would like to address the board concerning this request? We'll give you just a minute once we get done with the public hearing. All right, if not, we'll close the public hearing. Yes, sir, you're allowed to come back up to the podium, and we'll give you an additional 10 minutes to address the board.

Oh, just one quick thing. I was going to say, I meant to say that, but that's part of that is why I think he's right. It's a little steeper because we're trying to get water to run off this way and not go into the garage. So I think that is part of it, and I hadn't really thought about it, but that's a very good point, so a very valid point. It would be nearly impossible to fix it. I mean, I don't know what you would do, but I guess we'll try if we have to. So just for this morning.

All right, any other questions or comments from the board?

What was it permitted with? What was the percentage?

We need you at the podium, sir, so we can hear you for the recording.

I have that. Yeah, we approved it at 15.4% downhill.

That's the center line.

With an FFE of 1,335.34%.

So what did the center line end up coming out at?

18.8.

And we're allowed to, staff is allowed to approve it up to? 17.

For downhill.

For downhill.

So it's 1.8 over. I have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

It looked, can you bring up the picture where the car is sitting at the road, please? Yeah, that one. It might be perspective. It looks like the blacktop apron goes up and then the concrete goes down. Is that normal, Chris?

Well, it's not what their plan shows and that is another problem with this driveway. Why is it? It's too steep is because that does go up the edge of the edge of the concrete slightly higher than the edge of the road, which is intentional. So you don't get to run off from the road, but that's not what their plan showed. They showed a straight grade from the edge of that road down to that garage. So because you went up instead of start going straight down, that's one of the reason why it's over the code.

So if the top part of that driveway were cut down...

If that asphalt transition had the same grade as the driveway, then it would be, it wouldn't be as steep. Now whether it would be exact, I mean whether it get it under 17, I haven't run those calculations, but I mean, it's definitely not going to be what it is.

You are allowed to have your 18-inch approach downhill, not flat?

Absolutely. I mean, that's what they showed that they were going to build.

All right. Any other questions or comments from the board? Can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 2 0 2 6 6 6 6 7 8 So move got a motion from Farner Second second from question call the roll, please No Yes No No No No. Staff will get with you on next steps on making corrections to your driveway or appealing the decision by the board. With that, that finishes our new business and takes us to open discussion. Is there anything from staff for open discussion?

Not at this time.

Alrighty at this time we will adjourn our Board of Zoning Adjustments and move right into our Planning Commission meeting unless we need to take a break. All right, nobody said they needed to take a break. All right, let's call to order the City of Bella Vista Planning Commission meeting. Call the roll please.

The light blinked. Do you mind doing that one more time?

You bet. Let's call to order the City of Bella Vista Planning Commission meeting. Call the roll, please.

Ellis.

Here.

Farner.

Here.

Flessen. Here. Sedberry.

Here.

Portillo. Here. Forrest.

Here.

Lloyd. Here.

All right, we have a quorum. Next on our agenda is a consideration of our meeting minutes from August the 10th.

I make a motion. Be approved as submitted.

Got a motion from Fowler. Farner. Farner. Sorry. Well, I saw him in here. He left. Anyways, I apologize, Commissioner Farner. I had a motion from Farner.

Second.

Second from Setbury. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, meeting minutes are approved. At this time, we'll go ahead and conduct our public input session. This is an opportunity for anybody in the public to address the Planning Commission concerning any published or non-published item. I will say we are going to conduct a public hearing for the STR proposal that got sent to us from Council. So if you have anything else you'd like to address the Commission on, that would be your only chance tonight. The STR one's later, so if you hear about short-term rental, we'll get you in a minute. All right, seeing none, we'll close our public input session. We have nothing under unfinished business. We have one item of new business tonight. Zoning ordinance amendment, a proposal to require a 200-foot distance requirement for short-term rentals within the residential zones. Director Robertson.

Okay, we have before us a requested public hearing for the subject matter, which is a 200 foot separation requirement for short terminals within all residential areas. Part of that resolution request was to grandfather existing uses short terminals. However, we already have a nonconformity clause, or some people call it the grandfathering clause. So pre-existing, prior to the ordinance establishment, should this go forward and get adopted and after publication, then existing uses would already be grandfathered or a legal nonconformity. And then, of course, requiring another requirement or requested requirement was to exempt short terminals that are owner-occupied, so those that live on-site at the time of rental would not be subject to this 200-foot separation or density requirement. We are here today because of that requested public hearing. There was a notice put in the weekly VISTA, as well as all three school boards were notified per state law. We tell them any time we do any kind of zoning ordinance within their school board areas, so... Public noticing has been met. I have received two comments since the publishing of the weekly ad, weekly Vista ad, as well as the website and school board. One of them is within the packet. It's from the townhouse association. And then you have another one within your paper packet that I found in my junk after publication, but I believe you all may have already received it. It was an email that was sent to, I believe council and planning commission, but since it was also sent to me afterwards, I wanted to make sure it was included in your packet. So, only 2 comments to share with you at this time, we talked at length of the work session about best practice ironically, or just in time we had an American planning association. Publication for this exact conversation of August of 2026 and so sent that with you all for homework to review. Um, after reviewing that thoroughly and reviewing other, uh, local. Local jurisdictions in their requirements and within the within the area staff is recommending a. More complex, or I shouldn't say complex, but a more specific requirement per zoning class, rather than a blanket requirement. As proposed in the resolution sent before us, it is a 200-foot separation requirement on all residential zones. However, due to just best practice as stated in that publication as well as kind of what the other cities have already learned in practicing similar situations, staff would recommend that we maybe look for further study to do a separation or review a density requirement per zoning classification instead of all residential zones. So maybe that looks like R1 having its own separation requirements, R2 having a different separation requirements, R3, or even land use, looking at the land use instead of the zoning classification since we combined some of our uses and we have less classifications now in our new code. So staff is recommending to table this so staff can further study and prepare a little bit more of a detailed proposal for you all before we send this on to city council. And I'm happy to take any questions.

Any questions for staff?

I will tell you all before the meeting started, I asked staff what meeting they would be requesting us to table this to, and they'd be asking us to table this to the November meeting, where at that time we will conduct a second public hearing over any code amendments that staff is proposing.

Are you going to have some sort of committee to come up with this new proposal?

No, not unless you guys create a committee. The Planning Commission can create a committee.

I'm sorry?

Yeah, Planning Commissioners to further study this.

We can create a committee if you so desire, sir, but I don't know that we need to. I mean, it's whatever you all want to do.

Well, I'm very concerned about... the townhouse association situation, which I think you're covering it from what you're saying, doing it by zoning classification.

Or land use.

But I just think it's very important to have a separate set of requirements, if you will, for townhouse properties as you do for general areas.

Yeah, since they're in a different zoning classification, I think that's what staff is wanting time to research and come to us with a different

So if staff's planning to do that, I'm okay with it.

And staff also, if you did table this to the November meeting, we would probably have a discussion about it at the next work session as well to continue the conversation. So that way there would actually be two more work sessions on this before you had the second public hearing in November.

I would like very much to, when you come up with your first draft, so to speak, Let's take a look at it.

That's what she's saying she's going to do. She's going to bring it to the next work session. So we'll actually get two work sessions to interact with staff on what they're proposing. And then we'll conduct another public hearing in November.

You know, it's important that we give this the time to look at it to get the right answer instead of rushing into something and thinking we've solved it and we really haven't.

Yep. Yeah. Any other questions for staff on what they've presented tonight? If not, we'll go ahead and conduct the public hearing. Anybody in the audience that would like to address the commission concerning this ordinance amendment, if you would come up and state your name and the address of your primary residence for the record, and you will have up to five minutes to address the commission.

Hello, my name is Laura Gentry. My husband and I live at 12 Mason Lane.

Which city is that in?

Bella Vista.

Thank you. Yes.

We currently have nine houses on our street, and four of them are short-term rentals. Three of them are next to each other. One of the reasons that we moved onto the street is because it was a dead-end street, thinking we would have a nice, quiet cul-de-sac to live on. We were sadly mistaken. When we first moved in, there was one short-term rental that was fine until they started using it as a wedding venue and having live bands. And the city council mostly stopped that with the help of Taylor. But now we have three short-term rentals at the end of the street owned by the same people. And due to the three short-term rentals side by side, which each hold 15 plus people, and I can guarantee you that they're putting way more than 15 plus people in those houses. On some weekends, we have 45 plus people going in and out of our neighborhood, which is crazy. The traffic's crazy. They speed through our neighborhood. We have lots of elderly people that walk on the street because there's no sidewalks, and we're worried somebody's going to get hit. One of the short-term rentals, 19 Mason Lane, has one room that has three twin beds and four double beds in it. Then they have five more bedrooms, which each have two king beds and three queen beds in them, plus a couch that can hold two to three more people. The Bella Vista Ordinance claims that you can only have three people per bedroom, yet they have a room with seven beds in it. You can go to cedarlodgearkansas.com and look at the properties yourself. The specific one is called Emerald Shores. This property is only approved for a maximum of eight people living there due to their septic system, but they are not adhering to that rule either. Recently, a neighbor went down and counted 11 cars in the driveway and on the street. There were definitely more than 15 people in there, but these things always happen on the weekend, especially on July 4th and holidays, and no one wants to call the police. We have heard and experienced the lack of enforcement from the police, so there's no point in calling. The man that lived in the middle of the two short-term rentals moved because he said he couldn't take living there anymore. He said he didn't have any neighbors and he could not go to them for help if something happened. He also had so much difficulty selling his house that he ended up selling it to the short-term rental owners because no one wanted to live in the middle of two short-term rentals. We were initially so excited to live in Bella Vista, but that has changed dramatically due to the lack of enforcement of short-term rentals and the volume of them. Our street has several elderly people on it and when they have to sell their homes, someone could come in and create more short-term rentals, thus making the whole street one big short-term rental street, which we do not want to happen. We want our neighbors, not a bunch of transient people coming in and out of our neighborhood. And honestly, the city has allowed hotels in an area that has been zoned for single families, which should have been against the city code from the beginning. There are cities that are banning short-term rentals completely because of the issues that they are causing, plus the lack of housing available for homeowners. There are also many cities that have much stronger short-term rental regulations than Bella Vista. Ask yourself if you'd like living next to three short-term rentals that are running that many people in and out. I can pretty much guarantee you that you would not. Please approve the 200-foot rule. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Larry Wilms, 109 Mayfair Drive, Bella Vista. The memorandum from Director Robertson addressing the background recited three areas to be addressed at the public hearing. The 200 foot separation issue, grandfathering existing STR issue, and exempting short term rentals that are owner occupied. My point being that I think the suggested language does not address all three of those areas and suggest that specifically the grandfathering issue needs to be addressed as a part of this rule for clarification and simplicity. I'm not sure the director mentioned in her comments this evening before the hearing about a provision in our code now that has some grandfathering language in it. I guess I'm not aware of that. Perhaps should be, but I'm not. Would like to know how that impacts what this meeting is here. In other words, If you're within the 200 feet rule, does that mean you can continue? Does that mean you're guaranteed a permit forever? What's the grandfathering impact? And so if you look at the business license provision, which is what is granted when they get a license, when the property sells, then the license lapses and a new owner would have to make application just like a regular business. And so I don't know if that's a provision that's being continued now or being proposed or not. And I think we need clarification. And that really would suggest to you that it should be in this language here as to what it actually is. I've suggested a provision relating it back to the business license program, which then says it terminates when ownership changes. and you have to reapply as a new person or a new owner. So that's my thought. I think relating it to the building, the single family residential styles or types of building that we have would be a better fit for Bella Vista and probably make it more applicable, especially in the townhouse situation or condominiums. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Lani Johnson, and I am the secretary for the Townhouse Association. I think we submitted a letter some time back requesting that the townhouses be exempt from the 200-foot rule. for short-term rentals. And I won't go into a lot of the details. I think you all had a copy of the letter and you saw our points. But I would like to add a couple of more points to that original letter. With the area of Bella Vista becoming more of a tourist destination and with some really big money coming in to create more amenities, the pressure for more short-term rental accommodations is going to increase. I might also mention that we, I'm thinking that one of the answers to this, rather than just having the 200 foot rule, would be to just enforce the regulations regarding noise, parking, and other nuisances that we already have on the books, and perhaps as a city, create some rules and regulations that would help us to better manage the issues that we have with short-term rentals, especially like the ones that you mentioned earlier. I think that owners of short-term rentals who are using our neighborhoods in Bella Vista as a business need to be made aware that residents' quality of life is primary and that they would be held accountable, financially and otherwise, for failure to comply. Those are the additional comments that we wanted to add to our letter. We do feel that the townhouse association should be exempt from this rule, should you move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. What was your name again, just one more time?

Oh, I'm sorry, Lanny Johnson. I live at Nine West, Maryland.

Hello, I'm Kim Jones and I live at 10 Mason Lane and I also sent y'all a letter in August and I totally agree with her. The townhouses should be exempt from the 200 rule. What I'm concerned about is our neighborhood is turning into a hotel and that's what we want to make sure doesn't keep happening. Like Laura said, we have older neighbors who will be moving to nursing homes or dying, and our street is a very nice street, and I can see how someone would want to buy them for more short-term rentals. The problem with the three that are right next to each other, they are used for family reunions, wedding parties, that sort of thing, so they are all there at one time. It's usually always every weekend when we have at least 30 cars. I understand people want to come to the area and they want to have the rentals, but I think that residents also should have rights as well as the people who are running their businesses through short-term rentals. So please consider the 200-foot law for the neighborhoods that have just homes in them.

Is there anybody else that would like to address the commission concerning this amendment? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners?

Do we need to vote on that?

Oh, yeah. Yep, we do. But not yet. I'm waiting to see if anybody has anything else to say. Don't beat me to it. All right, we do have a request from staff to table this to the November 9th Planning Commission meeting where we will conduct a second public hearing. So with that, can I get a motion to table this to the November 9th Planning Commission meeting with a second public hearing?

So moved.

Got a motion from Farner.

Second.

Second from Klessing. Call the roll, please.

Sundary?

Yes.

Farner?

Yes.

Forrest?

Yes.

Portillo?

Yes.

Lloyd? Yes. Clesson?

Yes.

Ellis?

Yes. All right. With that, we will discuss this at the September 28th work session and at the October 29th work session, and then we'll take it back to the public for comment on November the 9th. That does end all of our regular new business. Do we have anything from committee reports?

Not at this time.

Anything for open discussion?

Not from staff.

All right, seeing none from the commissioners city council work session will be on Monday, September 21st at 6 PM. The planning commission work session will be on Monday, September 28th at 430 PM. City council regular meeting is on September the 28th at 6 PM. Our next board of zoning adjustment is scheduled for Monday, October the 12th at 430 PM directly followed by the planning commission regular meeting with that. We stand adjourned.