Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, let's show us 430. 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, everybody's here and present. Next on our agenda is our regular meeting minutes from May 11th.

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

Got a motion from Farner.

Seconded.

Second from Klesson. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Meeting minutes are approved. First up, we have some unfinished business from our last meeting. We have zoning variance 2026-64402, a variance request on tree preservation requirements for a single family home. Planner Grady. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Ordinance 2023-46 went into effect November of 2023 in an effort to reduce tree canopy and natural vegetation loss. We're possible by requiring a percentage of that lot be protected during development based on zoning designations at the recommendation of the planning commission. The ordinance does allow for an administrative modification for up to 5% of an undue hardship is found. This property is surrounded by single family residential properties to the North, South, East and West. The future land use plan designates this area for future neighborhoods. The Master Street Plan classifies Powick Lane as non-classified street. This request was previously tabled at last month's BZA meeting on May 11th. This property is a sewer served lot that remains under construction. Please note the construction has ceased due to the over-clearing beyond the approved limits during the initial phase. Of site preparation, the applicant obtained a grading and erosion control permit on January 9th and a building permit was issued on January 13th of this year. Once the applicant became aware of the over clearing, they notified the planning department on April 2nd of 2026 staff finds not all 3 review criteria to be met. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated the three approval requirements in their submittal letter. Staff also finds that no hardship has been demonstrated that was not self-imposed by the applicant. However, the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to accept responsibility for the over-clearing and to work with the city to take the needed steps to address the issue. Staff has received an as-built survey from the applicant. Staff published all required legal notifications according to code requirements. No public comments have been received at the time of this report. Staff could not find all three criteria to be met. However, should the BZA find them to be met, to be aligned with the code audit, staff recommends the following conditions. A stamped landscape architect plan is provided showing native tree species of both shade and ornamental varieties and the contractor shall establish ground cover with hydro seed or sawed within the previously approved 25% preservation area to align with our landscape perimeter requirements and 109 dash 063 C staff requests 3 shade trees of minimum at a minimum of 2.5 DPH. three ornamental of minimum of 1.5 dbh be placed across the preservation area. The plans and plantings must be done prior to the issuance of a CFO. Please note a public hearing has been held already for this item and one will be not held tonight.

All right, any questions for staff? Okay, is the applicant present? Yes, sir, if you'd come up to the podium for us real quick. State your name and address for the record and who you represent.

Yeah, I'm Mark Taylor. I live at 14650 Mariano Road. I was the one who cleared the lot and it was an oversight on my part and I'd like to ask the Planning Board for forgiveness and we will gladly do whatever you guys would like us to do to fix it and make it right. Okay.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. All righty, sir. If you would just have a seat for just a minute, or you can stay up there at the podium. Real quick, how did you guys come up with the replacement of a number of trees and all that kind of stuff?

It's within our code under the, what section was it? It was 10.

Yeah.

You'll have to expound, I'm afraid.

I'll let Taylor. So, yeah, we didn't pull those numbers out of thin air. We just went and referenced our code that's in landscaping for non-single-family residential development on the side and rear, so it's the exact same thing that a non-single-family home would do and what we'd require of them for just the portion of what they were going to preserve. So that's kind of what we did last time we had one of these situations, so we did it this time to stay consistent in terms of recommendation.

Okay. I think the only thing that I would say on the conditions of approval is I don't care if they saw it or hydro seed it, but the grass has got to be established growing and healthy versus let's hydro seed it and issue the certificate of occupancy the next day. It needs to be stabilized, ready for occupancy, and not require maintenance or erosion anymore. That's just my personal opinion.

We do have stabilization requirements per percentage of the fall of the lot.

Right, but I think in this particular case, it will have grass growing on it regardless of whatever else the code says, in my opinion.

Oh, yeah, correct. We can't be less stringent than the code already requires.

Yeah, just the way it was worded, it just said hydroseed or sod. It didn't say specifically establish grass. Gotcha. Yeah. We don't care about the means and method. We just care about the finished product, right?

No. Okay. All right. Just to be clear on my end. Yeah. Before we get to see a bow or can we start building?

Yeah. Basically, basically the way the staff recommendation is, is it says you may, you'll be able to go back to work, start building your house. Um, this, all of this work has to be done. and grass growing finished and before you can get a C of O. So if you plant, if you hydra seed it the day you finish the house, it may take you 90 days to get the grass established before you get the C of O. So you may want to focus on that. I'll go hydra seed it tomorrow. Yeah. So you might want to hardly rake it, smooth it out and hydra seed it tomorrow to get the grass growing or you may want to wait whenever, but that's up to you. Yes, sir. Or sod, whatever, however you want to do it.

All right. I greatly appreciate you guys. Thank you.

All right. With that, can I get a motion to approve?

Just kidding. We're good. Sorry.

Say this was unfinished business. I don't need a public hearing on this one. All right. With that, can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 2026 with staff recommendations with the modification that the grass be established, not just planted?

So moved.

Got a motion from Portillo. Second from Lloyd. Call the roll, please.

Portillo?

Yes.

Lloyd? Yes. Glesson?

Yes.

Sedbury?

Yes.

Garner?

Yes.

Horst?

Yes.

Ellis?

Yes. All right, sir, your variance request has been approved. Staff will get with you on the requirements for the landscape architect and all that stuff. Thank you. All right, that finishes our unfinished business and we'll move on to new business. We've got public hearing for a zoning variance 2026-64902, a variance request on tree preservation requirements for a lot served by sewer at 12 Pershore Lane. Planner Hyatt.

Thank you. This one's actually just down the road from the previous one. It's a lot six, block 12 of the Worcester subdivision. Again, a similar request, Code Section 109-114E7 requires single-family residential lots serviced by sanitary sewer to preserve a minimum of 25% of the existing natural vegetation and tree canopy. The applicant is requesting a variance from this 25% preservation requirement. Per their letter, a new crew was brought in and a miscommunication led to the 25% area being completely cleared the week of April 27th. Uh, inspection that week notified the contractor of the over clearing of the new construction lot and advise them to reach out to the planning department. Uh, the contractor promptly reached out to us, uh, inquiring on the steps needed to correct the actions. And, um, this property is surrounded by single family, residential properties to the North, South and East with common property to the West, uh, future land use plan designates the area for future neighborhoods. And the master street plan classifies per shore lane as a non classified residential street. Uh, upon review staff finds that no hardships been demonstrated. That was not of the applicants doing currently the lot of sitting cleared and unstabilized. And the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to accept responsibility for the over-clearing and to work with the city, to take the necessary steps, uh, to address the issue. Um, staff published a legal ad notifying of the public hearing and the weekly Vista on Wednesday, May 20th, and posted the public hearing sign on the subject property on May 29th. Um, staff could not find all 3 criteria to be met. However, should the find them to be met to be aligned with the code audit staff recommends the following conditions. A stamp landscape architect plan is provided showing native tree species of both shade and or mental varieties. And contractors shall establish ground cover with hydro seed inside within the previously approved 25% preservation area. And then to align with our landscape perimeter requirements of 109063 C. Uh, staff does request a minimum of 3 shade trees of 2.5 or higher and 3 ornamentals minimum 1.5 or higher be placed across the preservation area. Uh, this plan and plantings must be done prior to see about.

Any questions for staff?

Yep.

All right. The applicant present. Yes, ma'am. If you come up and state your name and address for the record and who you represent.

My name is Jill Arrett. I'm from 1054 North Main Street, Bentonville, and I'm here for New Horizon Homes.

Okay. Do you have anything you would like to add to the staff report?

It was just over-clearing miscommunication, and we would like to ask for what we can do to correct the situation and move forward. Okay.

Any questions for the applicant? All right. If you would step aside for a minute, we'll conduct a public hearing, and then we'll bring you back up. All righty. At this time, if there's anybody in the public that would like to address the board concerning this variance request, if you would come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and you will be allowed five minutes to address the board.

Good afternoon. Larry Wilms, 109 Mayfair Drive. My encouragement to you would be to add a condition to maintain the new plantings for a minimum of three years after occupancy.

I believe we've already got that in the code for new plantings, right?

Current code's one year.

Does it require a bond? Pardon?

Not for single family, but you guys could impose that as a special condition of a variance.

I would recommend if you choose not to go to the three years, that you do a three-year bond on the plantings. Your consideration.

Thank you. All right, for anybody else?

good afternoon brett wilson 10 5 per shore lane i live across the street from the lot that was cleared and it is a disaster frankly we were dismayed to watch as the bulldozers came and removed everything on the lot it is now an erosion disaster i was there this morning in the rain and i was watching as buckets of water washed away soil directly onto the back 40 which is just below the lot here. So I strongly support any and all conditions you would impose as far as tree cover, seeding, three year requirements that they maintain these trees. That way we can remove the blight from our street and also secure the condition of the back 40 going forward. It's a significant danger to the trail right there. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address the board? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing of this of this request if the applicant will come back up to the podium. We'll give you up to 10 minutes to address any of the comments that you've just heard from the public. We would ask that you address those to the board and not to the public directly, though.

I think that what the board feels reasonable to mitigate is what we're willing to do. So I would like you guys to come together and decide what you feel is appropriate, especially seeing the one that we just had go through. We're willing to address those mitigation issues and take care of it.

Any additional questions for the applicant? I do have one question. Have you extended your silt fence all the way down to the area that's been cleared so that we are keeping any any sediment or soil from leaving your project site?

There are wattles around the entire perimeter of the property.

Okay. They're being maintained? Come up here and state your name and address for the record, please.

Amber Quinn, I live at 1501 Burton Lane in Little Flock. The wattles are up and around the property. They are doing monthly GEC inspections. The lot is at a standstill. We have not touched it, but the wattles are being maintained as well as the rain gauges.

No violations that we're aware of, Taylor?

Nothing I'm aware of, other than the over-clearing. Our stormwater manager inspects most, if not all, sites monthly.

Any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you all. Any further comments or discussions? In your microphone, sir. In your microphone, sir. It's off.

Did I hear you say that the ordinance requires maintenance of these trees for a year?

One year right now, but with the code audit we discussed a few weeks ago as an update, we were looking at making that three years to be more aligned with best practice.

So if this is approved, they only have to maintain them for a year as of right now?

After C of O. I can't. Correct. After C of O, one year from C of O.

Yeah, okay. That's what I wanted to know. But did you say we could make... You could make it three as a special condition. Since we're headed that way anyway for future... For a code audit.

You absolutely could.

I mean, you just approved one, so.

Yeah, I'm okay with it one year, but I'm waiting to see if anybody. You just approved one.

Yeah, I'm kind of with y'all. All right, with that, can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 2026-64902 with the staff recommendations modifying that the grass needs to be established prior to CFO.

So moved.

Got a motion from Varner.

Second.

Second from Lloyd. Call the roll, please.

Lloyd? Yes. Klesson?

Yes.

Sedberry?

Yes.

Farner?

Yes.

Forbes?

Yes.

Portillo? Yes.

Ellis? Yes. Your variance request is approved. It would be a great sign of good faith if you would get out there and get grass growing on anything that you can. All right. Thank you all. All right, next up we have a public hearing zoning variance, 2026, 64962, a variance request on retaining wall requirements for an unpermitted wall at 3 McKeever Lane. Planner LaRue.

All right, so this property is located in Northwest Bella Vista within the O'Neill subdivision. The applicant is requesting a variance of 109059 to allow for an existing, uh, retaining wall that was built without a permit inside the retaining wall setbacks. The wall was put in to accommodate new construction after the house was graded five feet below the approved GEC permit. Inspections in November of 2025 noted that the driveway had exceeded the allowable grade and correction action would be required. By February of 2026, the final GNC inspections noted that a altered driveway and retaining wall had been constructed. No certificate of occupancy Has been issued at this time, the applicant has expressed the need to change the driveway in order not to exceed that allowable driveway grade staff finds that altering the grade of the of the approved elevations and the subsequent retaining wall are a result of the applicant's actions and do not meet all 3 review criteria for granting a zoning variance. However, should the board approve this staff will note that the wall must be reviewed by a professional engineer as part of the retaining wall submittal requirements. There was no public comment at the time of this report and staff met all legal notification requirements. Staff is recommending denial as not all review criteria have been met.

Any questions for staff? I do. Is the house built?

Yes. The majority of it is completed.

Okay. Do we happen to have any photographs of the said wall? Okay.

The original plan was for the driveway to go straight out to the road, correct? Correct. What was the resulting driveway grade as it was formed up and it was flagged?

I believe the grade was over 14%. Um, is the allowable is the maximum level grade and then we can administratively approve, I believe, up to 20, um, that's getting into grading and erosion specifics. Um. But I believe either way, the driveway did exceed both of those grades exceeded 20.

So, the house is at a 5 feet below the approved what was shown on the original permitted grading plan. Is it the same house that was approved?

Yes.

Okay. Is it the same location as where it was approved? Yes.

And how would they have gotten into it if it was built as approved?

Well, they... They're five feet higher. Are they lower? They're lower.

They're lower.

Yeah, they built it lower. Yeah.

Oh, it's a down lot, not an up lot.

That's what it looks like.

Okay. Never mind.

Yeah. It appeared that the original had the garage set at one elevation and a house slab lower so they would enter the house downstairs.

Is there, have staff looked at this and is there a different way to get this done? Might as well come on up because this is you.

Well, I mean, I didn't analyze it to see if there's a different way to do it, but looking at it, I don't believe there probably is. Where the garage is and where it is in relationship to the property line, they're going to have to bring it out to where the road is higher. and longer, you know, add that length so you can get the slope corrected. And there's no way to put it where they have it without moving the garage, without putting a wall there. So, I mean, I don't think there's another way of doing it without putting that wall there, I guess is what I'm saying. Because of where the house was built and the height, I mean, the elevation of the house.

So if I'm hearing you correctly,

It's kind of a tear it down or prove it kind of thing because there's no way to get into that garage.

Tear the wall down or tear the garage down?

Tear the garage down and move it.

I would agree. I don't think there's a solution other than is there an avenue for a variance on the grade of it if they built it? As per plans, could they have come asking for a variance on the percentage?

They could have sought a variance on the grade rather than redesign. It's about four feet lower than what we approved. We approved 1184 and that bill shows 1180.

Do we have an applicant?

Yeah, I'm sure we do. Okay. Any other questions for staff? How did it get, did we not inspect the foundation? We've had that conversation many times. We're not going to rehash, especially when we don't have our city attorney here. All right, do we have the applicant present? If you would please come up and state your name and address for the record and who you represent. As you can tell, we have lots of questions, so I'll let you dive into this.

My name is Robert Schmidt. I am the owner, along with my business partner, Trey. Our builder is not here. We have since parted ways. And we were not aware that the house was... four or five feet lower until the GEC inspector was out there and they saw our formed up driveway and was like, there's no way that's going to pass code. And so that was kind of the first time we were officially aware that our house was too low. I'd love to blame it on the subcontractor, but in the end, I'm the owner and I've got to figure out a solution. The GEC guy suggested we bring the driveway in from the side. The builder was like, oh, okay, well, we can put in a four-foot wall and we'll route the driveway in from the side. They did that. We actually did have an engineer design and stamp a wall design that we submitted as far as I know. I'll have to call the builder to confirm. But as he said, we're kind of in a tough spot because we don't really have a way to access this with a direct grade in and the house actually has passed final. We were doing the driveway after the final inspection had happened and So as the investor, I've done 11 up here with some various builders, and we have not had any problems prior to now. Obviously, I would love for the inspector to have caught it, but I also really consider that the contractor that I hire's job to know is the elevation at the right side. So in the end, though, I own it. I'm responsible for it. I'll be glad to do whatever we can do to figure out a way to make this house accessible and saleable and livable. I do think we did a good job putting the wall in and landscaping and doing all that. I didn't realize that there was a variance needed for that or a request needed for that, so that's on me as well in the end because I'm the guy that owns it. The builder, unfortunately, did not pursue all the right avenues. That's all I really know to say, and I apologize for that. It's a beautiful house, and it sits in there pretty well, even low, but I don't know what else we can do.

Any questions for the applicant? Yes, ma'am.

Why was the wall and the driveway changed with no permit?

That's a great question. I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for that other than the GEC guy told us that, yeah, coming in from the side made sense. This is all information relayed to me from the contractor. And that we could build, the GEC guy, I'm not trying to put him in the hot spot, but he thought we could build a wall and access it at that point, and I think that's what they moved ahead with. Without a permit. Without a permit, yes, ma'am. And so I think that's, I don't know exactly which issue we're here to ask for a variance on.

On your existing wall that you've built. Okay.

Yeah, I think we're asking for a variance for the wall itself that we have constructed.

So the original driveway was supposed to come straight out.

Yes, it was supposed to come straight out, and it was pretty steep previous to the house being built lower. And I don't even know if there's a way to move the garage. I mean, unless you, there's rooms above the garage. I mean, it's a $100,000 type solution at minimum, I would think, to try to rebuild something so you can bring it in straight. And I don't know if you could protect drainage moving into the house at that point. The wall does seem to be the only solution. But obviously, we're willing to do whatever you guys tell us we need to do to try to correct this scenario.

Is this a septic or a sewer lot?

Septics. It has fairly good grade falling from street to the back. But as we brought the driveway in, the driveway comes in really flat.

Who was the builder on this?

99 Construction. I don't mean to throw him under the bus. I just, some mistakes were made. And again, I'm the guy who owns it, and I'm the one who's here now.

All right. Any other questions for the applicant? If you would just step aside for a minute, we'll go ahead and conduct a public hearing. At this time, we'll go ahead and open this up to the public. If there's anybody in the audience that would like to address the board concerning this request, if you would come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and we will give you up to five minutes to address the board.

Larry Williams, 109 Mayfair Drive, Bella Vista. Is it possible to slide that driveway farther down to lengthen it to change and adjust the slope, or does that make it worse?

It doesn't fix the variance request. The variance request is related.

It's just for the retaining wall? Yeah. OK. Thank you.

If there's anybody else in the audience that would like to address the board concerning this request, come up and state your name and address for the record. All right, we'll close the public hearing. Sir, if you come on back up to the podium. I'll give you a few minutes to address any comments you've heard or add any additional thoughts that you might have.

I don't have any additional thoughts other than to say this to us I think is the only reasonable solution is to have this retaining wall in place. I do think we're not necessarily affecting any neighbors with the wall where it is. We are up against city property, so I don't think any neighboring properties themselves have been affected by where the wall is located. Again, we apologize for not being fully versed in all the processes that we had hired somebody to do for us, but we're... Pretty sure we don't have a whole lot of other options other than to bring the driveway in from the side and have some kind of retaining wall. If we move the retaining wall even or try to shorten it, I think it makes the grade from the street and gives some drainage problems. We've looked at several different options and haven't been able to come up with anything else that will work and let us address the lowered house.

All right, any other questions or comments for the applicant? Any other thoughts? Taylor?

Can I ask what the, as the code is read, seven and a half foot or one and a half times the height, what was the reason behind that? Because other places are allowed to go up to the property line, so what was the city's reason for putting that rule in place?

The setback's intent is to keep property damage from occurring on property not owned by the one with the wall. So in this case, the setback would be protecting the city from that wall collapsing on our right-of-way and our infrastructure. But that's the intent of the setback. With our code change, we stopped overseeing or requiring an additional permit for walls under four feet. So we gave a little bit more room. We do have grading setbacks that we try to... Implement, but they have some administrative authority for grading like the tow of slope has to stay five feet from property lines. Essentially is the gist on that, but the intent is to keep it from damaging someone else's property in the event it fails.

And in this specific application, the wall could not fall on city property.

Come on up, Mr.

If you would step aside, let the staff engineer get up there. If that wall were to fail, the failure would be on to the next property. So even though the wall wouldn't fall on the other property, the ground that would fall would be most definitely be on the other property. And that's why you have these setbacks, so that you're not imposing any kind of risk on property that you don't own.

So I do have to ask the question, if this wall was one foot shorter, because then it would only be four feet tall.

If it was under four feet tall, they wouldn't need a retaining wall permit from us, but they would have to convince Chris, our city engineer, to give them a minor modification of the five-foot grading setback. Basically ensure that the grading is...

I'm not sure they can get three to one and stay on their property, much less be within the five feet. I'd give them the five feet, especially since it's...

Yeah, they may have to do a little bit of work in the road right-of-way.

And technically, they can't grade within a right-of-way unless they're putting a driveway in. And whether this is kind of a gray area, whether that's for the driveway or not.

But I mean, it... Well, as a city engineer, what would you prefer?

I think you leave it the way it is right now, to tell you the truth, without... The only, the fix is the garage not being where it's at. If it were four foot higher, and then they can meet all the grading requirements. But now that the garage is built.

The house is built.

I don't know of a better solution for what they have, unfortunately.

Does the ACC have to release the user?

I'm unsure since it's the front easement. It does cross into their side easement a little bit. So I know that they may have to release that portion on the eastern property line. I'm not sure how they'll treat the front that aligns with it right away. So they will have to, if this gets approved by you all tonight, they will have to meet all of the ACC requirements separately before they can move forward with it.

So before CLO, the ACC has to sign off on it?

Not for us, but they will have to just comply with their private requirements.

I would add an additional comment. I do, to our builder's defense, I think he told them we had to build a four foot wall, and I think the block layer did build a four foot wall, and then they put the decorative cap on top, and then it became a four foot, four inch wall. The decorative cap can be removed and make it a four foot wall. I don't know that that greatly enhances anything, but I think it also steepens the grain just a little bit. So again, a little bit of a tough situation.

Any other questions or comments? OK. Yes, ma'am.

I know our attorney isn't here, but if you look at the standards for approval of variance, it very clearly says the circumstances of the subject property do not result from the applicant's actions. So I don't know how I can approve a variance that clearly results from the applicant's actions.

Yep.

If there's any way to find some gray area or some grace area in there, I don't want to start a string of lawsuits if I can avoid it. Again, the house is livable. I don't know if there's something that we can do to address engineering to make them feel more comfortable with it. But again, the house is built. Without the wall where it is, it's a house that can't be inhabited. It would just have to sit there and be uninhabited. There's not a financial fix. We would be glad to donate to a city park if there's something we can do along those lines to mitigate. But anything, any ideas, we're open to.

How far is the wall from the garage horizontally?

It's about 24 feet. I don't have that exactly in front of me. It'd probably be about 32 feet.

There's no pictures. Do you have pictures?

I don't. I'm sorry. I didn't even get a copy of the staff report.

Staff would remind the BZA that should further discussion or deliberation be needed or further review by staff, tabling is also an option.

No, not their measure from the actual garage. Oh, okay, I got you. Yeah, you're fine. About 20, 25 feet. To the right of the garage?

I mean... That section there?

Why can't we move that? We can move that.

I haven't, I'm sorry, I've never heard that.

Then move it, then you don't need a variance.

If we move that, we don't need a variance? Yes.

That's what I thought we had dealt with that that we can build retaining walls within that five feet if it's for a driveway Well, it can go within the seven and a half feet of the front property line.

So long as it's supporting a driveway But the portion That would be a great solution

To move it?

No, the wall. You still need the stamped structural drawings for a wall over four feet tall.

Sure.

Okay.

Taylor, you agree?

Yeah, if this gets denied, you'll still have to comply with all the codes, including the permitting requirements.

That just means all you've got to do is shift that one section to the west.

Okay. I'm very glad to do that.

We would much prefer to take that approach because we really don't like a proven variance.

Okay, there's There's more wall though. I just want to there is wall on the west side that is not in the front property That's for the driveway Is the BZA determining that west side is the front I

Yeah, why wouldn't, if all that wall is for the driveway, why isn't it the west side not for the driveway? Not considered for the driveway.

It's the question of the front, the front, yeah, the front property line.

How about this?

Because we got some questions. I would suggest we table this for 30 days. That way you don't lose 60 if you've got to come back.

Thank you.

And then, of course, if you guys get it worked out next week and everybody can get on the same page, you go just withdraw it and we won't have to see you again. But just in case we do need to see you next month.

Okay.

If you're okay with that. Sure, no, it's a great idea. I need you to say, please table my variance until the next meeting.

Please table my variance, and I apologize that we're having to have the conversation.

No apology necessary. We're here to solve problems.

Thank you.

All right. With that, I've got a request from the owner to table zoning variance 2026-64962. Can I get a motion to table?

So moved.

Got a motion from Klesset. Second. Second from Farner. Call the roll, please.

Klesset?

Yes.

Said Mary? Yes.

Yes.

Barner?

Yes.

Forrest?

Yes.

Portillo? Yes. Lloyd? Yes. Ellis?

Yes. We will let you, let staff and the applicant work on that, and we may see them next month. If not, but this has been tabled on to the June, July. Oh, July 13th Board of Zoning Adjustments. All right. With that, that ends all of our new books. Business for the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Anything for open discussion?

Nothing from staff.

All right. With that, we will go ahead and close our Board of Zoning Adjustments and take up our Planning Commission meeting in about 30 seconds. All righty, let's call to order the City of Bella Vista June 8th Planning Commission meeting. Call the roll, please. That's okay. Take your time.

Ms. Brandt? Ellis?

Here.

Farmer? Here. Klesson? Here. Sudbury? Here. Portillo? Here. Forbes? Here. Lloyd? Here.

Chairman Ellis, did that recording catch him calling it to order before you called roll?

It was red.

And then she turned it off and then turned it back on. Let's do it one more time. Because it was off, then you turned it back on, and then you did roll call. Yeah.

Technology, you got to love it.

I think we're good now.

All right. One more time. We'll call to order the City of Bella Vista June 8th Planning Commission meeting. Call the roll, please.

Ellis.

Here.

Farner. Here. Klessin. Here. Sudbury. Here. Portillo. Here. Forst.

Here.

Floyd. Here.

All right. We show all members present. Next on our agenda is our regular meeting minutes from May 11th.

I make a motion they be approved.

I got a motion from Forner.

Second.

Second from Klessin. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Meeting minutes are approved. Next on our agenda is 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. We will give you up to five minutes. If you would, though, state your name and address for the record. All right. Seeing no one, we'll go ahead and close our public input session. And next up, we have unfinished business. Waiver 2026-64571 and final plat 2026-64375. Planner Hyatt.

The applicant has actually requested to withdraw this request.

They just withdrew. They didn't request. So, yeah, we don't even have to talk about this.

All right. Unfinished business is gone. That moves us right into new business. Waiver 2026-64917, a waiver request on subdivision design standards. And final plat 2026-64569, a plat proposing the split of track three at Lindlefoot subdivision. Planner Hyatt.

Thank you. This property is located in the southwest area of Bella Vista. And Chapter 107, Article 2 provides for subdivision design standards. And again, section one or seven zero four zero provides for the review criteria of the final plant process of the applicants requesting waiver from those subdivision design standards for this proposed final plat of the former Linda foot subdivision. Um, as quite a history at this site, I can run through it real quick. The subject site was formerly again, the platted subdivision that was consolidated back into 1 large tract in the nineties. A minor subdivision was brought forward to you all by the original owner on August 28th, 2025. Most of you will probably remember it to split the area back up into four tracks. And then an additional lot split was then brought forward by the previous owner to make a split of the newly created track two on March 9th of 2026. Now the subject site track three has subsequently been purchased by a new owner who is requesting to create two smaller tracks in order to build two single family homes. But due to the number of splits that have previously occurred, the subdivision plat process is required. And so due to the circumstances of the track sale and the intentions with the split, the applicant has requested a waiver from all subdivision design standards called out in Chapter 107. That article's purpose is to provide for the basic and minimum requirements for lots, blocks, streets, and other physical elements in new subdivisions. Uh, this parcel is dissected by an existing section line is illustrated on the plot map. Um, again, it would take track 3 and create track 7, which would be roughly 2.28 acres. maintaining 361.7 feet of road frontage and then tract eight would enclose roughly 4.66 acres with 143.42 feet of frontage the proposed tracks are dedicated with the required minimum 20 foot front setback 15 foot rear seven and a half foot side as well as utility easements per this plat and per the master street plan kirkwall drive is classified as a residential street and Uh, maintain 60 feet of right away exceeding the required minimum no new streets are proposed nor any vacated. Both tracks have access to a public street and no increase in city public services expected and no substandard lots would be created with this. I've not received any public comment and then no technical comments outstanding technical comments at this time do the analysis above staff recommends approval of the final plat request if the commission approves the waiver request.

And then just one note, since it's been a while, you guys recommend final plots to Council. Council makes final decision for these.

All right. Any questions for staff? All right. Is the applicant present? If you would, go ahead and come up and state your name and address for the record and who you represent.

Good evening. My name is Dustin Riley with CEI Engineering. 2600 Northeast 11th Street in Bentonville. And I'm here representing the property owner who's here with us, Mr. Calloway. We'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

All right. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve waiver request 2026-64917? So moved. Got a motion from Farner? Second. Second. I think I heard forced first, so we'll call that second. Call the roll, please.

Forced.

Yes.

Portillo?

Yes.

Floyd? Yes. Klesson? Yes. Sedbury?

Yes.

Farner?

Yes.

Ellis?

Yes. Can I get a motion to recommend acceptance of final plat 2026-64569 to the City of Bella Vista City Council?

So moved.

Got a motion from Portillo. Second. Second from Farner. Call the roll, please.

Portillo? Yes. Floyd? Yes. Plesson?

Yes.

Sedbury?

Yes.

Farner?

Yes.

Forrest?

Yes.

Ellis?

Yes. All right, staff will get with you at the next steps, and we'll see you at City Council. All right, thank you all. That ends our new business. Anything for committee reports?

No, but I do have a question. Since the Planning Commission hasn't made a committee in a very long time, is this something that you want to keep in your bylaws, or do you want to look at amending it and removing it?

What committee are we going to create?

I mean, you guys could create a transportation committee where you review transportation things or a sidewalk committee. It's up to you guys. We haven't done it in a very long time. So I'm wondering, do you guys even want to keep this in your bylaws on your agenda? Or is it something you want to look at maybe amending?

Are you saying we should not commit, should not make committees? Is that what you're saying? No.

She's asking, do we have any interest in creating any committees? We haven't ever created any committees.

Well, I think we still need to have that option. We don't know.

No, we do. I guess, oh, are you asking we want to take that out of the bylaws?

Well, I mean, do you want it to pop up on your agenda every single time, even though we haven't made any? Okay.

Okay.

Now, I think our bylaws need to stay as they're written. In the future, if we decide we do want to create a committee, we can, but I don't know if it needs to be on our agenda every month.

Okay, so that may be an amendment in your bylaws. I mean, you did propose then. Because right now it is set in your agenda.

Oh.

In the bylaws.

Okay.

Okay, I'll throw something together for you guys.

Yeah, that's what I said. Anyways, all right. So no committee reports, anything for open discussion?

Nothing from staff.

All right. With that, the City Council work session will be on Monday, June 15th at 6 p.m. With the regular meeting scheduled on Monday, June 22nd at 6 p.m. Our next work session will be scheduled for July 2nd at 4.30 p.m. Day before holiday. And then our Board of Zoning Adjustment will meet on July 13th at 4.30 p.m. Directly followed by our Planning Commission regular meeting. And with that, we stand adjourned. Thank you all.