Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, let's call to order the uh city of Bella Vista board of zoning adjustments. Call the role, please. Ellis here, Barner here, here. Sedbury here. Portillo here. Wagman Lloyd here. All right, we do have a quorum. First on our agenda is our March 10th meeting minutes. Make a motion that it be approved as submitted. Got a motion from Farnum. Second. Second from Cleen. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Meeting minutes are approved. Next up we have unfinished business zoning bearings 202557690. A bearance request on side on a side building setback for a proposed single family home at five Swallow Lane Planner Laroo. Good evening, commissioners. Uh yes, so this uh this property is located in eastern Bella Vista near the Metfield Clubhouse on uh lot 9, block 3 of the Sunderland subdivision. Uh the applicable zoning code uh we are looking at today is section 109753C, which requires a minimum side setback of 7 1/2 ft parallel to the property lines. Of course, the applicant is requesting a variance of this side setback to build a single family home on an existing foundation. A little bit more of the background of the property. Um, constructed prior to prior to 2007, the previous three-bedroom home at this site was destroyed by fire in October of 2022 with demolition beginning in March of the following year, uh, leaving only the foundation. Uh, per code section 109132, the owner had one year to rebuild in order to maintain the non-conforming status of the house. However, uh, the status had been lost. The new proposal includes a new three-bedroom home that would reuse the existing foundations. Um, however, this would locate the e the eaves of the front corner of the house over the side setback line. Swallow lane is a dead-end culde-sac labeled as a residential street per the master street plan and is

within a neighborhood area. Uh, staff finds that the fire is not of the applicant's actions and provides hardship for development. Reconstruction of a single family home at this site using the same foundation aligns with the spirit intent of the R1 district. Staff uh excuse me, all legal notifications were met. No public comment was uh given and staff is recommending approval. Any questions for staff? Welcome Jack for the record. Thank you. All right. If not, would the applicant go ahead and come up to the podium? to state your name and address for the record, please. And we'll let you expound on the uh staff report if you'd like to. Good afternoon. Alicia Lewis on behalf of Palisades Construction as their council. The only thing I would add to the report is the reason the status was originally lost after the fire is there was a delay in getting the original plans from the ACC. Once we obtained those plans, they couldn't be utilized. So, we had to retain an architectural firm to draft new plans. and they did confirm that the foundation is structurally sound and there's no other issues with that. And then once we obtained that and received the approval from the architectural firm, we applied for this variance. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? No. Um All righty. Do we need to conduct a public hearing on this one since this is under unfinished business? We would have already done that, didn't we? No. So, we don't have to do another one. All righty. If if not, are there any questions or comments from commissioners? Not. Can I get a motion to approve zoning variance 202557690? So moved. Got a motion from Portillo, second from Farner. Call the role, please. Farer, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Plesen, yes. Sedbury, yes. Ellis, yes. Your variance is approved and staff will get with you on next steps. Thank you. Thank you much. You betcha. Next up, we have

public hearing uh or zoning variance 2025 58179. a variance request on the front sitting set setback for a proposed single family home at five Waln Drive. Planner Grady. Good evening, commissioners. This property is located in the central area of Bella Vista City limits near Highway 72. The applicant is seeking a variance on section 109-75B3A, which stipulates the minimum front setback from all property lines shall be 20 ft unless otherwise stated on the subdivision plat. The applicant requests to reduce the plotted 20 foot setback of lot 17 by 5t to establish a 15oot setback due to the specific placement, topography, and lot size. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-bedroom, 1,243 foot single family home with a 33 foot long driveway, two-car garage. Per this 15 foot setback request staff found other properties within the Quanto Hills subdivision are zoned R1 single family residential and have setbacks ranging from 15 ft to 25 ft. Waln Drive is located excuse me Waln Drive is a local residential street per the master street plan and the site falls within a neighborhood area per the future land use plan. staff finds that the 26 square foot lot falls under the 32 square foot R1 minimum lot size which means small. Additionally, the site is challenged by a ravine uh and steep topography on the rear northeast boundary, thus pushing the development forward and it creates a hardship that is not the result of the applicant's actions. Additionally, other factors such as the state approved septic design are causing a need for the forward placement. Finally, the request to build a two-bedroom single family home meets the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and the 15 foot setback request is aligned with R1 blocks nearby. No public comments were received. The staff is re recommending approval on this based on this analysis.

Excuse me. All right. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? if you could come up to the podium and state your name and address, please, and we'll let you add to the staff report. My name is Cameron Hagen and I've own the property for three years. I think that there will still be plenty of room for parking cars out front with the minimum set back 15 foot property line being 10 ft in from the black top to begin with shouldn't be an issue. Any questions for the applicant? If not, if you go ahead and take a seat real quick, sir. We're going to conduct our public hearing, then we'll call you back up. All right. At this time, we'll go ahead and open the floor for any public comment on this particular project. We give the applicant the uh public five minutes to speak and um we'll go ahead and open the floor. All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh if you would come back up to the podium, sir. Uh commissioners, any further questions or comments of the applicant or staff? Anything that you would like to add, sir? All righty. If not, can I get a motion to approve uh zoning variance 20258179? So move. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second from Lloyd. Call the role, please. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Yes. Sedbury, no. Barner, yes. Ellis, yes. Staff will get your your variance is approved. Staff will get with you on the next step, sir. Thank you. All right, that finishes our new business. Do we have anything for open discussion?

Not for the board. All righty. With that, we stand adjourned. [Applause] All right, let's call to order the city of Bella Vista Planning Commission meeting for April 14th. If you call the role, please. Ellis here. Barner here. Clen here. Sedbury here. Portillo here. Wagman here. Lloyd here. All right, we do have a quorum. First on our agenda is our March 10th meeting minutes. I make a motion it be approved as submitted. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second from Cles. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed. All right. Meeting minutes are approved. Uh next up we have our public input session. This will be an opportunity for anybody in the public to address the planning commission for any published or non-published items. We'll give each person five minutes. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public input session. Uh, first up we have for unfinished business waiver 2025576-93 and large scale 202557496. Both associated with a Dollar General located on Highway 94 outside uh within our planning area but outside our city limits. Planner Laroo. All right. So, this property is located in the the far northeast corner of Bella Vista, just outside city limits of lot of lot 1, block one of the Auckland subdivision. Uh, the applicable uh regulations we're looking at in this application is section 107 317E uh which does require a minimum distance of 250 ft between access drives on major and minor arterials as well as subsection F um which requires commercial developments along major arterials have

a designated right turn only lane. uh as well as 107162 which sets forth the requirements of large-scale developments. Um the applicant is requesting a waiver of the of 107317E for the proposed access drive um to accommodate the new Dollar General and its assoc um excuse me to accommodate the new Dollar General. Uh in lie of the required 250 ft distance from the adjacent uh driveway to the north, the applicant is proposing 73 feet in order to meet the 250 separation requirement of the intersection located just to the south. They're also requesting to have the left turn. Uh I'll go ahead and just run through it more. Um the site will be served by POA water and on-site wastewater management. Arkansas Highway 94 and 340 are designated as major arterial streets per the master street plan. Uh there is no zoning requirements because this is outside city limits in the planning area. Uh the applicant did submit a traffic analysis um and the site is expected to generate uh 99 trips a day. Um, as a reminder, all the building uh building permitting shall be handled by the Benton County. Uh, grading and erosion uh grading and drainage permitting will be handled by the city of Bella Vista. There was no outstanding technical comments at the time of this report and staff is recommending approval so long as the planning commission approves the waiver request. All right. Any questions for staff over the report? Can you real quick explain what you were saying about the uh left turn movement or the right in right out or I didn't catch all of that. Right. So um the applicant was requesting a waiver of the requirement that on access drives

onto major arterials to have a designated right turn only lane. Um they of course are pro um they want to keep the lefthand turn lane. And so they're going to be asking a waiver um from that requirement. Okay. So they're asking to do a uh a left turn and a right. Okay. Correct. Yeah, I got it now. All right. Any other questions for the staff? All right. Is the applicant present? If you would go ahead and come up to the podium, state your name, who you represent, and we'll let you add on to the staff report. Good afternoon. My name is Cody Ston with Blue and Associates representing um the developer and uh I don't think I have anything specifically to add that Connor didn't bring up already. Uh we pretty much need the two variances for access to make the property developable. Um especially since the unique circumstances with the property being right at the state line and the adjacent uh liquor store to the north just kind of has a large swath of a no man's land of pavement that stretches to the north. So it's mathematically impossible to get that uh original length of whatever the 250 the 200 that's required in there. So, have you have you gotten your AROT permit yet? Uh, we have not. We're waiting on contingent on your guys approval. Uh, because the county's county has already approved everything contingent on Bella Vista's approval. Um, we have I've already discussed the site with um, Ben Kerwood to great extent. We were just waiting to get the city and the county approvals before we handed it off to the state just in case there was some minor change. If you know if you guys wanted to move something five feet then I'd

just have to start over with state. Sure. Again, understand any qu any other questions? Yes, ma'am. I think you'll find that the county planning board has not approved everything because we're waiting for this to happen first. Yeah, I think that that's what I tried to say. said that kind of backwards. Understand? Uh we so we had the I think the county meeting three weeks ago and then yeah it was a it was approval contingent upon city's approval. Gotcha. Say that right. That's right. Close enough. We got it. Any other questions or comments? All right. If not, can I get a motion to approve waiver 202557693? So moved. Got a motion from Portillo. Second. Second from Farner. Call the role, please. Wagman, yes. Floyd, yes. Yes. Sedbury. Yes. Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Ellis, yes. Can I get a motion to approve large scale 20257496? till move. A motion from Farner. Second. Second from uh Sedbury. Call the roll, please. Floyd, yes. Quen, yes. Sedbury, yes. Barner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Ellis, yes. All right, you're approved and staff will get with you on next steps as far as the city's concern. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up for new business, we have a waiver 2025-58040. A waiver request for the number of permitted access drives for lots less than 151 ft on 96 Melanie Drive Planter Laroo. All right. So, this property is located in the southeast

area of Bella Vista City limits uh on lot 15 block 5 of the Merit subdivision. The applicable regulation uh is 107317D which permits a maximum of one access drives uh for lots with street frontage less than 150 ft. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this code section to improve a second non-conforming gravel driveway. So one more on the background. The applicant is required to improve the non-conforming driveway um with an existed corrugated metal covert um that was established before the ordinance of the city uh due to the increased trip generation for the um proposed attached garage. Um excuse me, I said that a little a little backwards. Um the applicant is proposing to improve their driveway because of uh the new attached garage. Um the subject lot uh has only approximately 110 ft of street frontage which of course does not meet the 151 ft requirement to have two accesses. Uh the center line is over 25 ft from the adjacent driveway center lines. Existing access features in place prior to the adoption of this ordinance uh shall be brought into compliance with substantial improvements. Um, like I had already mentioned, uh, if the planning commission approves this waiver, staff will note that the first 20 ft in length, uh, shall be paved with concrete with an 18-in asphalt approach to the city street. Uh, city engineering permits will also be required should this waiver be approved. Uh although it is not best practice to increase the number of curb cuts, Melanie Drive is a residential unclassified street per the master street plan that does experience low to minimal traffic volumes uh and is a low density neighborhood area. Um the applicant uh additional permits may be required from the ACC. Um some outstanding technical comments. Um Village Wastewater did uh resubmit

comments addressing the lift station and the sewer connection. Um and they with the latest plans that they had saw uh they did approve um as long as the sewer tap and the lift station were not obstructed. That is everything. Uh any questions for staff? So am I understanding correctly the existing or this second gravel driveway was put in before we became a city. Correct. Okay. So it's an existing non-conforming driveway. So what is what has prompted the need for the waiver then with the proposed attached garage just the change in trip generation and the number of times that that driveway may be used. Um, also improving the any improvements over I think is it 50% um would require yeah just improvements to be made any proposals. And just a note for the record, it was built after the city was established. It just was built prior to the section 107 317. So it was built in 2008. Okay. All right. All right. Is the applicant present? Yeah. Yeah, if you go ahead and come up and uh give us your name and address for the record, and we'll let you add on to the staff report if you would like. Evening. Uh my name is Greg Thomas, 96 Melanie Drive. Um the only thing I'd like to add is 2008 was as far back as I could get a Google image of that driveway. Um I don't actually know when it was put in. Uh neighbors have said like soon after the house was built in 96 or 97. So it's been there for a long time. We have any questions for the applicant? Yes. Yes, sir. U during the work session, I think I remember you saying that you were going to concrete the entire driveway. Is that correct? Well,

I I didn't want to do anything with it, but they're requesting it be brought up to code. So, they've requested the first 20 ft and I'll just I think it's kind of silly to have 20 ft of concrete going into stone. So, so you're saying that you're going to do the concrete all the way all the way to the to the new garage is is the plan now. Okay. So, there's a new garage being built in the end of the lot and this accesses the new garage if I understand the case. Yes. Well, I already have a shop in the basement underneath the house. I'm just expanding that. Um I I don't really foresee any increased traffic in that driveway as we just use it for occasional parking when people are over uh visiting. You know, it's just access into that that garage. So, have you worked for the neighbors? Any objections? Uh the neighbors I've talked to have no objections on it. Do we have anything on record? We don't have on waivers. We don't require public hearing. Yes, ma'am. is seems to me it'd be quite easy to come from the existing driveway and curve around to this rather than putting a second curb cut. Is there a reason you choose not to do that? Because the the driveway is already there. My front lawn is 31 by 33 with a tree in the middle of it. So essentially by putting a driveway from the one driveway over, I have no front yard left. It seems to me that we've turned down a number of these second driveway requests previously. So, I'm just trying to come up with an alternative solution for you. That was that was brought up. And I mean, if the my street frontage was bigger, it it probably wouldn't be an issue, but just routing the driveway through the front yard. I mean, the front yard's going to be nothing but

driveway. I think curb appeal wise is just especially There's already a a driveway that's been there for 20 years. I have a question for staff attorney. Do we have anything uh from a precedent perspective that allows us to approve something like this because of its existence prior to code being established? I I don't remember. I I mean I mean there's been a lot of projects over the years. I don't have a recollection of all of them to say we've done this before. We haven't done this in this same circumstance. Uh I can just tell you that the driveway pre-existed any regulation of the additional driveway. So obviously I think at this point the city could not require the addition the driveway that exists to be removed. I mean they have it and so they they've uh established that um because of the improvement that they're wanting to do and the fact I I assume that it's more than 50% of is it a widening of it? is that there's four things it's but it's improvements I think over 25% of the existing GFA and then trip generation if you're going to use it more things like that. Okay. So so that's what gives rise to you having to to consider this. I so I don't know of a precedent that that that says that you've done it like this before or that you haven't and that's just based on my memory. But we have no books that says if it did exist there is you're you're automatically no able to do no I don't we don't have anything that looks anywhere that says anything's automatic uh in terms of of approval of a matter to which you have judgment in which to make. Okay that answers it. Thank you. And I'll note too, just since it was said, yes, 107 317 items have been denied, but secondary accesses have also been approved. Those waiverss have been approved since I've been here as well. So, both cases, it's a case- by case

basis. So, I just wanted to make sure both circumstances have happened. The the last one I remember we denied was one that got built like as they were building the home just a couple years ago and they were literally parallel to each other. Um and it was to start parking a bunch of other cars and we were like no you can't do that. The code told you you couldn't do it and you did it anyways and you came in and asked for forgiveness. This is a little bit different. This is an existing driveway and I'm pretty sure it was there before 2008. Just looking at the 2008 photo. It wasn't there in the 2007 aerial imagery. Yeah. I mean it but it's been there before we had the ordinance. Correct. So really he's asking us can he add on to his house for additional shop space. That's that's really what's the question because he wants to do that. He has to get a waiver on his existing driveway. That's clear. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions or comments? If not, can I get a motion to approve waiver 202558040? I make a motion we approve the waiver so long as the driveway will be uh concrete. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Got a second from Wagnon. Uh call the roll, please. [Music] No. Sbury. No Barner. Yes. Portillo. Yes. Wagman. Yes. Floyd. No. Ellis. Yes. That is approved. 4 to three. Thank you. Staff will get with you on next steps. Next up, we have waiver 202558092. wave a request on several retaining wall requirements for an

existing terrace wall at 39 Bradford Drive. Uh planner Laroo, you got a busy night tonight, sir. I know a little bit. So, this project is located in the central area Bell Vista city limits of block lot 11 block 4 of the Randor subdivision. applicable um zoning code is 107342D pertaining to retaining walls inside drainage and utility easements as well as 107342E and F uh which uh sets the minimum distances um for retaining walls uh from from structures, property lines and so forth. All right. Um so the applicant is seeking is seeking a waiver of the requirements above to to and allow an existing terrace retaining wall uh to remain that is stabilizing an unpermitted cut. Going into some of the background, the applicant is seeking the subject waiver for the retaining walls. They total 52 in of height um to stabilize the approximate unpermitted 4-in cut. No grading. No grading was proposed in the 2022 GEC permit and is unknown how close the septic system um is located to the walls uh in the back of the home. Since the time of the walls construction, staff has been working with the applicant to achieve compliance with the house currently still in its temporary uh certificate of occupancy pending the the yard or the wall approval uh since April of 2023. An engineer certification letter is included in your packet and does approve of the design as constructed. Um, should this waiver be approved, additional approvals may be required prior to wall permitting. Uh, this waiver request is not considering the private easement that the wall sits in, just the setback. Um staff is recommending that um prior

to the retaining wall permit being issued that an updated survey is submitted showing the exact locations of the wall from the house to the property lines as well as from each other. Um the new survey should also include spot elevations. All right. Any questions for staff? Was u were these wall walls permitted before they were put in? They have not been permitted yet. That's why they're here as of now. We can't permit them until the setbacks are waved. So, we're doing a setback waiver on the retaining wall. Correct. All of them. Um from each other, from the property, from from the property lines, and from the structure, but but those walls are there. Correct. That we're trying to bring into compliance. This is one of those situations that um it's one of the few remaining um that we've been cleaning up. Hopefully one of the last. Uh but we cannot move forward with a permit until the setbacks are waved. This one dates back from 21. About right. The project um correct the walls I believe uh communications been going on since circa 2022 2023 for the walls specifically. This is new single family, new new construction. Or is it It's new. It's new single family. Um it is occupied. They have a temporary certificate of occupancy contingent upon the wall permit before they get their full CO. And that was also just to state for the record too, this temporary CFO was given before the city's new policy um was established that temporary CFOs will not be issued for retaining walls or driveways. But the building permit was issued with this item undecided. Yes, the building permit was issued. The cut was not disclosed. So therefore, the

retaining walls or the stabilization method was not disclosed at the time of building permit. staff would also add um the homeowner does own the property, the adjacent property as well. You you're saying the adjacent property to the northwest? Correct. Yep. Are those the only ones that are in question are the ones highlighted in green on the uh survey? It would be for all of the walls. Um I they're they're uh noted here as approved, but there was no approved retaining walls at this site. So even the pink ones up even the pink ones in the back and the front are not in compliance. Correct. They were built without a permit or not disclosed on the GEC. And the ask is to push this to the lot line. Is that how I'm interpreting this? The ask is to just allow the wall to remain um and and have the waiver so they can move forward with receiving their CFO for setbacks. You are only considering setbacks at this moment. You're considering setbacks from the property line, from the structure, um and from each other because they're terrorists. However, did staff just to be transparent just because we cannot see where the septic system is in relation to these We can't confirm if it meets or does not meet um the leech field. So, but at this time you're only considering property line structure and each other. And have they submitted a septic map as is? Is it that's the field? Thank you. We have not received a plan that shows both though just to answer I think the question you were about to ask.

Any other questions for staff? What's the impact if this is denied on the real estate? If this is denied, we can't permit it. Can't permit can't permit the walls and then thus the final certificate of occupancy would not be issued. So it would continue to sit on a temporary and then if it continues it would be in a in a nonconforming state and I mean this goes its full logical legal route and lawsuits and u uh to remove it or to remove the structure um most likely to remove the wall because there's no question about the structure. So the wall would have to be taken out since it was non-con. It was in the setback and unpermitted. Nothing good. It's terrible. No, there doesn't seem like there's a lot of good answers to this one. Unfortunately, this is not the first one like this that we have seen. Yes, it has come out of the early 2020s. Uh we even had one lawsuit we had to settle that had some same issues. Has the legal office done a fiscal impact on the risk? Is there a risk assessment or I haven't we haven't gotten anywhere close to that. Um we're not in the process. The you have to understand that there's there was an internal control problem in terms of inspection and letting things get put where they were put as things are being looked at along the construction process. So you've got that. But then you know it's not the government and the code says this. It's not the government to remind the builder, hey you're about to screw this up. I mean, they do bear responsibility for complying with legal requirements. They can't say, "Well, you didn't tell

me." I mean, they are still on the hook to comply. Um, so like I say, it's nothing good that's going to come from this if it's denied, but it may need to be denied. I mean, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be. Um, and that's really all I can offer. Uh but no, we don't I haven't done any kind of I don't see there being a fiscal impact on the city. Um but you know, I if I don't know who built this house and who currently owns it, but I I would expect fully there would be litigation between those parties as well or in addition. Um and just to add a I forgot one step. If this is if you guys do deny this, the applicant does have 30 days to appeal your decision to city council. Um, so if this doesn't pass tonight, they'll have 30 days from today to file with the city clerk and appeal for them to consider an overturn of your decision. Is the owner the builder or are they separate entities? I believe they're separate. No, it's an unfortunate situation. Do we have the applicant present tonight? Well, that makes it real easy for us. We have no applicant present. Can I get a motion to table waiver 2025 58092 to our next planning commission meeting? So moved. Got a motion from Farner. Second. Second from Clelesen. Call the role, please. Sedbury, yes. Farnner, yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Floyd, yes. Yes. Ellis, yes. Would you all staff, would you please let the applicant know that we expect them to be here at our next meeting or we will take action and they can just deal with our attorney's office after that? Uh, next up we have

lopplit 20257550, a loss near 9248 East McNell Road. Planner Hyatt. All right. Thank you. This property is located east of Bell Vista City limits and it's parcel 18-08019-00005 located along East McNelli Road. Uh this applicant is proposing to split this parcel uh creating two new lots. Lot one is roughly 2.48 acres and lot two roughly 2.57 acres. Uh the subject parcel currently has an existing home, garage, and shed that would be split out from the second lot which would then be vacant. Uh various drainage and utility easements have been dedicated to the public along the front, sides, and rear per city requirements. Uh rideway widths have been previously met for McNell Road and lot area requirements for Benton County are being met as both lots exceed the 1acre minimum. Um this section of McNell Road is classified as a collector per the master street plan and adjacent land uses around the parcel or all Benton County and part of Bellis' planning area. Uh no outstanding technical uh comments at this time, but due to the analysis above, staff does recommend approval. All right. Any questions for staff? All right. Is the applicant present? We are communicating the need to attend, right? Correct. I'm hoping no one's out in the vestibule or taking a bathroom break. I haven't seen anybody come or go. Finally concern or it's not really a concern is that we t if you table this we have you know we have these code requirements we have to take action with a certain number of days and and I just want to make sure that these applicants don't bear the benefit of that time

running out for some reason. Well I I mean I don't feel like if they're not here then they're not they're not you can table it for one meeting without being concerned about that. Uh but if we end up with it again Oh, no. If they if they don't show up again, we take action as a denial. Well, you'll need to vote you'll need to vote on it after considering it. Yeah, I know. Commissioners, it's a pretty cut and dry deal. No question. Might be at it. I don't see a reason at the table nor. All right. Um, can staff confirm the date of complete before we do that? Can we confirm the date of complete submittal before we because it would I'm thinking it might be close to where we have to take action tonight where we pull the record. We're prepared to take action. Okay. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve law split 202557550. So moved. Got a motion from Bello. Second from Farer. Call the role please. Okay. Just to confirm, since this is a development of subdivision, um if it meets all code requirements, we have to approve it. There's no waiverss or variances submitted with it. Well, this is just a lot split, right? Correct. Subdivisions count. Yeah. Okay. So, we're doing it. Yeah. We have a motion second to approve. Call the roll, please. Yes. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Lloyd, yes. Yes. Sedbury. Yes. Ellis. Yes. All right. If you all would get with the applicant on the next step, please. All right. Next up, we have Plat 202557679, a property line adjustment near number five Oldm Drive. Uh, trails manager workman. Thank you. This subject site containing 190 acres is situated

west of the intersection of Oldm Drive and Bella Vista Way. The applicant is requesting a property line adjustment to clean up the existing property lines and to establish lots 1 through 4 of the Anderson Heights subdivision. Lot one measures 167.7 acres in size and is split zoned containing the following zoning designations. R1 single family residential, RE residential estate, SPR special residential, P1 conservation, and C4 shopping center District. This lot will be fronted by Oldm Drive, a subcollector, Bella Vista Way, a major arterial, and Cunningham and Sunset Drives, both of which are unclassified streets as identified by the adopted master street plan. Lot two is proposed at 15.3 acres in size. It's zoned C4 and is fronted by Sunset Drive. Lot three measures 3.8 acres in size, is zoned C4, and is fronted by Bella Vista Way. And lot four is proposed at 3.6 acres is zoned C4 and is fronted by Bella Vistaway. All lots proposed meet the Bulan area regulations of the underlying zoning districts and are all forefronted by a public street. Dedications have been made as required and no vacations were proposed with this application. No public comments were received and staff comments have been satisfied by the applicant. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this request. Any questions for the applic or for staff? Okay. If the applicant can come up to the podium, please state your name and who you represent. Hi, I'm Britney Gill. I work with CI Engineering at 2600 Northeast 11th Street. Thank you, Megan. That was wonderful. Um, here to represent for the property line adjustment. Um, yeah, if you have any questions, let me know. Any questions for the applicant?

All right. Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve plat 202557679? So move. We got a motion from Farner. Sec. Second from Sedbury. Call the role, please. Portillo, yes. Wagman, yes. Floyd, yes. Yes. Sedbury, yes. Barner, yes. Ellis, abstain. All right, the plat's approved. staff will give with you on next steps. All right, that finishes our new business. Uh, do we have anything for committee reports? Uh, not at this time. I did want to just remind the committee reports is a portion of the agenda from our bylaws that's set aside in case you guys decide to create a little subcommittee to focus on things. Um, so we won't have a committee report until you guys create a subcommittee to focus on a side project. Um, just help clarify a little bit. All right. Thank you. open discussion. I just wanted to provide a brief update. Um they kind of go hand in hand, so I threw both on there and attorney Kelly is more than welcome to add to or change or edit anything that I say. Um but as you know, the development code reform project was put on a temporary pause due to the active legisl legislature um that we've been experiencing this spring. There was a lot of property rights, land use, zoning, uh building. There's a lot of uh inspectors, inspection requirements, things of that nature that basically all revolve around the development world. So, we decided it was a good idea to press pause. We are investing u money into this. So, we don't want to pay a redundant fees to go back and change something if we have to change it in August. Anyway, um so to be uh more fiscally uh responsible, I guess you could put it in that um shape or form, uh we decided to pause. They have until Wednesday. I don't think the date has changed um to submit anything else. However, at this time um most of the

development related legislature has either been deferred if it's still revolving through the window um or it's been approved into an act uh or it's been sent to a another committee for study uh for the ne until the next uh legislature. The ones that have been passed um so far that we have already submitted to the Brie Nichols team for um updating make sure that our new code complies with it is the ADU limitation restrictions which is now act 313. Um that affected 109. So they now have that in their hands. Um Senate Bill 505 which is the administrative reszones was an item I wanted to discuss with you all tonight um after I get through this update. Um that is sitting on the governor's desk right now. It has not been signed into an act yet. Um we're just waiting to see what her decision is on that. It's passed through both bodies. And then the House Bill 1510, which is the big one that we've been discussing, eliminating your territorial uh jurisdiction in the planning area, that has been handed over to the reform team to uh work into chapter 107. Um so any mention of the planning area is going to be ripped out. It's only going to be focusing on the city limits for chapter 107 is basically the big change of that. Um the big bill that I've been sending you guys updates on, House Bill 1754, um is set for a hearing tomorrow morning at 8. However, it's on the deferred list. Um so essentially there's no movement on that right now. Um the other one that I was sending you emails about the zoning reform or the permit fasttracking SB456 was sent to an interim committee for study. Um no update on that. And then the Senate Bill 571 which is may or may not affect. It's where uh development and zoning regulations cannot apply to county owned property uh within our city limits. Um that was set for a hearing today at 1:30. However, um I've not checked or there's not been an update since 1:30 on

the house website. With that to say, um the development code reform is picking back up as of this week. All of the technical um review comments have been sent for 107 as of uh end of last week. and we're working on zoning code draft. Uh the second draft right now um as well as the map. Um the map is not the map, the draft of chapter 109 is already on our website. I've sent that to you guys for comment um at the beginning of March. I haven't received any comments from you guys. Um however, staff is working on that second draft and now um we are starting to eye planning commission meeting dates for this code reform. Um, I gave them three to choose from depending on how much work we have left. Um, I would love for this to come to you guys on June 14th, uh, your June regular meeting, which means we would have to have a public hearing that day on that and then potentially, should you recommend approval, go to council that month as well. Um, the second option was the July meeting, and then the third option was, which is the less preferable, um, would love to have this through before August, uh, the August regular meeting. And so that's kind of what we're looking at right now. And I will keep you guys updated on that because once we set that public hearing date with you all, that will then set the other public hearings uh or public input sessions, involvement sessions that we're going to plan before that because obviously we want the public and everyone um all of the you know the the committees, the boards, everyone that would be involved to see it before it actually comes to you in an official public hearing. Um so we have a few meetings to work out before that. So all that to say, keeping a radar on our June, July and August meetings, those work sessions may be long um whichever depending one that we get it set on which which you will have a heads up on as well once it's firmly set once we hear back um from them when they give their opinion on where we are and how close we are. Do you have any questions on that?

You you were flying through a lot of them. I know the uh the one bill that was trying to de deregulate residential zones 1754 that's deferred not moving forward at this point. So it's I don't think it's anything to worry about this time around. Okay. That was that was actually the one I was the most concerned about. So yeah, there there were some proposals I think would have pretty much eliminated municipal zoning. 1754 would have completely it was going to be significant. Yes. Uh I I think that and just to supplement what Taylor said and she mentioned it, but uh I think the most significant change you're going to see is just the removal of the planning area jurisdiction, the the Dollar General like we did right now that we you're not going to see it. The medical marijuana that we did few years ago, you're not going to see it. Uh we're only going to see development that occurs in the city limits. And given how our unique situation here in Bella Vista, I think that means you're going to see fewer arch scales, you know, I I depending on what happens up and down the corridor, but uh you know, seems like most of those sorts of projects have always been on the edge. Um and we're not going to have that anymore. So, um are we are you looking at any annexations or anything like that? Um there's been some internal discussion about approaching some property owners uh on the edges of some various places and in some interior locations um to address potential annexation uh on the east side uh that are joining the city of Bella Vista and uh I think those matters are under the mayor's advisement right now and and in preliminary discussion with property owners and things of that nature. All right. If you don't have any further questions for that, I did just want to feel the temperature of interest of the

administrative reasonzoning should the governor pass that. Essentially, this bill that is waiting to be signed into an act is a capability for staff to use internally to do administrative reasoning so long as the request is aligned with the adopted future land use plan. Um, that would streamline development. Uh, and it's already basically the idea is if planning commission's already held a public hearing on it. They recommended approval and city council already approved it then why does it need to go through that process again and so staff can just approve it if it's aligned with your directions to staff already. However, if it's not aligned with the land use plan then the reszone would come through a traditional reszone planning commission public hearing city council up to three times etc. I I it's been a while since I looked at it. Was that a mandatory thing or is it gave us the option of creating it? It is the option. It's a may. Oh, okay. Yeah, it's a tool. Should the city be interested in using it? So, I'm curious on planning commission's immediate Yeah. interest. Uh I This is one of those where I know there weren't many lawyers involved in it. I'm gonna Miss Portillo and I spoke about that. Um there is an entire body of decades of law that are clear that zoning decisions are legislative decisions and as such uh they can only be appealed to court. They would require council approval as you know and they can only be appealed to court if they are arbitrary and capriccious which is basically a standard that applies to any legislation. It's unconstitutional if it's arbitrary and capriccious which is a very high standard. So it it it gives the city council rightfully um great difference as long as there's some logical reason why they zone something a certain way then that that can't really can't be challenged in court. If we're

going to say now that there are certain reasonzonings that are administrative, now I don't know what that does to that standard because the the appeal of administrative decisions is not on an arbitrary and capriccious standard and I don't know if they've addressed that in the statute or not. Um, this is a what I like to call a lawyer support act of 2025 because they're lawyers that are probably going to end up getting paid to sort these things out that are created by the legislature. And I I just see it as potentially being an issue. Having said that, I've not gone over the statute line by line. It could be they've also made amendments to those other sections. Um, so, uh, I'll give you the recommendation that I usually give if it relates to as it relates to a lot of things. I'm not keen on Bella Vista being the first one so we can be the one to get sued. Um, there are others in who will probably want to do that and we can learn an answer to a question without having to incur those expenses and go through that fight. And uh um perhaps it would be wise for us to sit back and see how those things flesh out before we move. Yeah, I was going to say I don't know that the commission needs to have an opinion until there's an opinion to have. Yes. uh you know one I don't think it was this one but uh another potent it may have been the residential zoning that it talked about uh it was just a a whereas there are all these arbitrary zoning designations throughout the state well if they're arbitrary then they they're unconstitutional and there are remedies now so there are these assumptions that anytime you zoned you're acting in contravention of property rights unreasonably and arbitrarily and therefor therefore unconstitutionally and it looks like there's a large number of the legislature that just accepts that. They don't even ask whether that's

the case. So, nor do they know a lot about the case law because there aren't many attorneys in the in the legislature. So, yeah. And I I think the other question that that really has to be answered is how binding is the uh future land use map? Well, it's not. I mean, it is it's a it's a it's a plan and so you can deviate from the plan. I I know you say that, but interesting enough, there is a lawsuit that was filed and won in the city of Rogers where they did not follow their land use map and and as and and so there are and I've provided this memo in the past. There are a large number of things you can consider in a reszone. Yeah. One of those is is the compatibility with the land use plan, but that case at least doesn't say you have to do it to the exclusion of all other considerations. So, I I don't know anything about the facts of that case, nor how it was argued or how it's going to end up. Well, no, it it was already settled in the apartments got built. Well, Rogers Rogers acquiesced. Okay. So, it didn't go all the way up. So, is that Yeah, I think they they ended up I think they ended up deciding they couldn't win and they decided to settle it. All right. Well, I you know there there could be a lot of considerations behind that other than just that one thing, but um it it wasn't a it wasn't a pro any city planning legislature. Uh I can say that and I and I um I'll say this and and this doesn't apply to us. So I feel more comfortable in saying it. There are a lot of jurisdictions that have taken the term and the idea of planning well beyond what planning is. I agree. and and you know, if if you're a city and you want to have a climate action plan, well, that really is a whole different political ball game than we're talking about, you know, our sewer planning or something. And so, I think the the extreme is what brings these these ideas forward down Little Rock and and we're having to deal with that on on the common issues now.

Yeah. Well, I like what you said. Let's wait and see what everybody else does. And if even if Governor even if Governor Sanders signs it or not, she hasn't even signed it yet. So, correct. And this was just a temperature check to see if you guys were interested like if there were any and that's all that was. It wasn't an official direction or anything like that. I don't know if she's going to use her first veto on that one. If she has a veto, I mean, seriously, if you think about the consequences, I'm sure she probably doesn't care. That's fine. We'll we'll keep all the reasons the same in the current legislature and we will uh sit back and watch. So, we'll see what everybody else does. Cool. All right. Anything else? All right. If not, I believe that uh I already closed my book. Uh city council work session is April 21st at 5:30 p.m. with the regular meeting on the 28th at 6:00 p.m. We will have another work session on May 1st at 4:30 p.m. with our regular meeting and our board of zoning adjustments on May 12th at 4:30 p.m. We stand adjourned. Thank you everybody. Always appreciate all the minutes, Sarah.