Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

started. Um, we'll start with the pledge of allegiance of the stands nationy for all.

Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your mercy, for your grace, for giving us the opportunity, Father, and the freedom to gather here today. We ask that you bless and be with all the Springdale residents as well, Springdale residents as well of our all our uh employees with them and their families. And we ask that your presence be here today to guide us through these items we're about to touch in touch on tonight. Uh give us wisdom, Father God. give us patience and understanding uh for the benefit and well-being and safety of Springdale. We give you all the praise and all the glory in Jesus Christ's name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Right. We'll call to order the March 3rd, 2026 Springdale Planning Commission. Um and move to roll call. It's a call. Frank Couch here. Chris Hussein here. Clementi here. Mal Philpot here. Howard Austin here. Jennifer Keith here. Mark Cloud here. Ray Cordial here. Teresa Reynolds here. Right. We'll move to the approval of minutes. That's a call for the vote. Call for the vote.

Second. Right. Then are approved 9 to zero. We are going to start with tabled items from our last meeting. Um and the first one is R2606 Typicanoo Junction LLC presented by Bates and Associates. We're going to start actually with listing tabled items from this agenda. Excuse me. Um the first is D uh R2610 David Ramirez Zuniga. Um L2605 125 North Main Street parking FB 2604 125 North Main Street parking. Uh B2615 Trent Curry building, B2616 which is also Trent Curry building, W2605 North Main Street parking and W2610 Trent Curry building. Now we're going to start with our table items and we'll start with Typican New Junction LLC presented by Bates and Associates. I'm Jeff Bates with Bates and Associates and we're representing the developer. Um they're want to reszone this area to MF12 uh to do some town homes and do a little commercial strip center or something in the front.

Any staff comments? The reasoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval. So the residential portion the MF12 appropriate locations for single family and multifamily residential development should be provided based on accessibility site suitability utility availability neighborhood compatibility and environmental factors. Encourage the development of a variety of housing types appropriate to the size and income of all households living and working in Springdale. And for the commercial C1 portion, encourage the development of small-cale neighborhood retail and service uses at intersections of collector and arterial streets and at the edge of logical neighborhood areas or within neighborhoods where suitable sites exist and the conditions are appropriate to balance compatibility with convenience.

Any comments from the public commission? All right, this one's a call for the vote. Call for the vote.

Second. Second.

This passes night to zero. Thank you. Staff will Hey, Jeff. Staff will prepare an ordinance, but it goes to council on the 31st. Council voted to move it to the last Tuesday of the month. Okay, up next is RP26-02 Success Subdivision presented by Engineering Services, Inc.

Nick Boning on behalf of Engineering Services, Inc., if you'all have any questions, uh, please let me know. Any staff comments? Only standard comments for planning. Same for engineering. Anything from the public commissioners? What changes did you make from the original plat? Um, so we are taking B right now it's like 10 different uh lots for each duplex. We're just joining all those together and then carving out the lot that we're actually going to develop and making that its own parcel. So you went from 10 lots to two to three total. Three total.

Yes, sir. Thank you. There are no other comments. Is a motion subject to staff comments? Motions. Go ahead. Motion subject to staff comments. Second.

That passes nine to zero. um if you want this heard at next Tuesday's council on the 10th and we need uh the ordinance in our office by tomorrow. Is that all right? Up next, we'll move into our public hearing reszoning. Um and we'll start with R26-07 Rentals LLC. Uh yep, they're all part of that. as well as PP2603, Benetto or Benadetto phase 3 and W26-09. Hi, Karen Ramirez with engineering services. Happy to answer any questions. Any staff comments

for the reasonzoning? Um, this resoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval. Appropriate locations for single family and multifamily residential development should be provided based on accessibility, suitability, utility availability, neighborhood compatibility and environmental factors and assure adequate land allocation for residential purposes by providing lots of adequate size. Any public comment on the reszone commission? Can you confirm is this SL2 or SL3? Is I see both in the documentation in front of me. It'll be SF2.

SLF2. Yes. Thank you. No other comments. This be a call for the vote on a reszone. Call for the vote. Reszone passes 9 to zero. Up next, we'll do the preliminary plat PP26-03 Benadendettto phase 3.

Comments from the staff for planning besides the standard comments. Um, we need the total acreage displayed under the site information. We need to update lot information to include the common area, also identified as the HOA lot 8, and update law 8 label on the preliminary plat sheet and provide a crosswalk to the southern crossing which leads to the amenities. Engineering comments. Submit the off-site drainage easement in phase two of Benadetto. Submit a PDF of the signed and sealed drainage report. All street sections shall be determined by formal design with geotech analysis. Submit detailed plans and geotech report prior to construction. Smooth out the 90° turn in the sidewalk that leads to phase 2. And subdivisions must stub out in all four cardinal directions. A waiver has been requested to only connect to Gibbs Road to the north. Um, we're recommending that a south connection be put in at least an alley section so that there's vehicular access from phase to phase and to the amenities and then the hammerhead can be removed as well. But we agree that an east or west connection is not feasible for this.

Any other comments from staff about um the preliminary plat or the waiver? Any from the public? Hello, I'm Sarah Taldo Brothers. I am a resident here in Springdale at 222 Allen Avenue. And um on the south, you can see that there are two lots there. Well, there's actually three or four lots there at the south part of the property that are not owned by the same entity that owns and is developing the property. And so, we can't just go buy some or tear down somebody's homes or take those lots and put it straight in and connect it to the south. It's just not feasible. So, I don't know if that makes sense or if there's any questions.

I guess a question I would have is was this property owned when phase two was designed? Because I would

it was not owned when phase two was designed and the preliminary the plat for phase two was approved and we already have two buildable lots on that phase. We actually already have two homes that are playing planned for those two lots also. And there's detention that goes all the way across at the Hammerhead there. You designed the detention to go there. That could move. I I think it would be really nice to see some kind of connection to the south. Um I think we recommended a 15t alley. Um which, you know, could still give two lots there. There's no homes there that I know of.

There are not homes there. the entity that owns those lots is not the same entity that's doing the development or that owns this property now and is putting this request in. So we can't we can't just go and take two lots from somebody that doesn't own that we don't own them that the Taldo Rentals does not own those properties. It was a previous phase of Benadetto that was already final platted and then accepted by the city as as platted buildable lots. Um, correct. But I think that's why we have the waiver request, right, for the um the stub out in the cardinal directions to address that one to the south. Any other comments, commission?

Curious what fire can thinks about the hammerhead. Is that a problem? So, um, hammerheads aren't something that we are welcoming, you know, in the future, but we have accepted it on this project. Um, so there are times and places where it's not an issue. We discourage it in in dead ends just because it has a tendency to collect cars and vehicles, you know, that that want to find every nook and cranny that they can, but we have no objection for this. Sarah, are you saying that the lots to I don't know if it's south or north of that Hammerhead.

Uh those are going to be those are platted for future single family home development. They are already Yes, that was already approved. Homes are there now? No. No, there's no homes on two of the lots. They are already though home. They're already lots that have been approved and owned by a different entity and we already have plans for those two lots. Gotcha. And so I mean you're I mean we can't put a road down there and lose two lots. They're we don't even own them. Two different entities.

And you might have ownership that might be the same in entities between this one and that one, but it's not all the same people. So, just like you you may own one company, part of one company and have stuff that you you own yourself, but that doesn't mean that you can go take something from a partner that or where there's multiple partners and then do that. You can't I mean, you just can't take stuff from people. I kind of have a question. Yeah.

Where these where these roads ex if we're going to go out to the east and go out to the west, where exactly are they leading to? So, it's not feasible to stub to the east or west. Um, we definitely agree with that. Um, since there are no homes on those two lots of south, I think it's worth investigating doing that stub. Um, just for full neighborhood connectivity, you're calling it a phase three, but it's not connected to anything. Um, it's nice to have the pedestrian connection because even before there was just like zero connection between the two. Um, but it is required for neighborhood connectivity to step out in all four cardinal directions. Any other comments, commission? If not, then this we'll start with the waiver. It's a motion subject to staff comments. Um, but this one does not go to city council. Is that right, Sharon?

Correct. It's part of the design criteria rather than uh the street improvements. So motioned second waiver passes 7 to two. Next we'll do the preliminary plat. This is a motion subject to staff comment. So motion second passes nine to zero.

Um staff will prepare an ordinance for the reszoning that goes to council on the 31st that last Tuesday. Perfect. Thank you. Up next is R26-08 Springdale School District number 50 presented by Half Associates. I'm Jeff Nichols with Half. Um be happy to uh answer any questions, but the gist of it is there's some C2 properties in red there that um that the school owns that would be better aligned with the full property being P1. And that's the request. Any staff comments?

This resoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval. Um the city's goal to quote locate schools on collectors and or arterial streets to improve access and limit adverse impacts of this higher intensity use on residential neighborhoods. Uh this goal is also achieved by having the bus and transportation um facility in a similar area. Any comments from the public commission? This is the bus lot, correct? Uh, yes. This is the support facility. Yeah. Thanks. So, call for the vote.

Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero. Staff will prepare an ordinance that goes to city council on the 31st. Okay. Up next is R26-09 Robinson Avenue Church of Christ Incorporated presented by Greg Hughes.

Hey, I'm Greg Hughes with Robinson Avenue Church of Christ. And um just to clarify something on the front end, I know it says uh P1 to C2. are actually wanting to go to 01, which I think is a downgrade from C2 to 01. We're going to uh be bringing counseling services to Springdale with we're partnering with the Joshua Center and so they'll be using some of that office space for counseling services in Springdale. Staff comments.

So, the reasoning request for the C2 is not in keeping with the comprehensive land use plan and not recommended for approval. Uh but while there is general commercial nearby, uh the broad range of uses is not compatible with the site's uh specific constraints. Um so the downgrade, my recommendation was a downgrade in the commercial zoning to an 01, the neighborhood office. Um and this district quote anticipates that office uses will be located in established areas of the city and in close proximity to apartments, residential units with limits to a maximum structure um size of 5,000 square ft. Um and so even in in the P1 right now uh offices like counseling services are not permitted uh use by right which is why they are seeking a different commercial zone to have that

any public comment commission call for the vote. I just had a question. Sorry I thought it was Mark was getting ready to make a comment. wasn't my comment. Call for the vote. Um, so we're just reszoning this little piece of the whole thing for that purpose. Correct. Correct. Mhm. Yeah. The P1 doesn't allow the offices that use unit 16. So 01 is the recommended one. Um, and it makes sense obviously P1 for the rest of the the site being the church. Okay.

I'll revert to his calls for the vote. She passes nine to zero. All right. So, staff is going to prepare an ordinance um for an 01, the neighborhood office district that goes to city council on the last Tuesday on the 31st. And you're recommended to attend just in case they have questions. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we've got R26-12, Edgar and Alfonso Hernandez, presented by Expedient Civil Engineering.

Jay Sniggles with Expedient Civil Engineering and I'll answer any questions you may have. Staff comments. So, this resoning request, it is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval. Improve the city's economic base and tax structure through the promotion of healthy, stable commercial concentrations. Assure adequate land allocation for commercial areas of sufficient size and improper locations. And encourage the development of a wide range of commercial development for the residents and tourists to include neighborhood and community and regional centers. Any public comment

commission for the vote passes 8 to one. Thank you. Staff will prepare an ordinance that goes to council on the 31st. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next we're going to move into our board of adjustments. Um, and we're going to start with B26-12 NWA All-Star Dance. Laura Bowen, presented by Laura and Bill Bowen.

Hi, my name is Laura Bowen and I'm here for the variance for minimum parking requirements. Anybody have any questions? Any staff comments? Um, no. Well, other than I think there were copies of that shared parking agreement um just to loop you in that they they have achieved some of those. Can you let us know in this picture which shared parking it would be? Um well in this picture it will be the building to the left. Okay. And then the other shared parking is across the street in this picture. It's in a Yes, they're right there. Right. Directly across the street is about 100 ft away from our

Thank you. Any public comment comment from the commission? So with the shared parking, what does that bring the total to?

With the shared parking, that brings our total well, we currently have 14 almost 16 spaces if you move a a barrier um pole in our parking space. So, we'll be still four parking spaces short, but the street does allow um local parking. There's green spaces and curbs along the street to handle even more overflow parking. And I I will note even just from the aerial view, um is that their short 13 spaces, however, achieved seven of those through the parking agreements that you have seen. So, it really just brings it down to a need of six spots. And Elliot is a local road that you can park on, but off streetet doesn't count toward the requirement for a business license. Um, which is why it's not counted in here.

How many do you have in classes usually that you would need parking?

Well, we haven't opened yet. So, um, but we there's a the reason why we have a large building is there's a room that is is there for a a large for a competition team so they can practice. There can never ever be more than 24 kids on a competition large competition team and you have to have a lot of space for that. So we never usually have teams that large and so um it'll be minimal and a lot of our parents drop off and pick up. So a lot of the required spaces won't even be used just because they simply drop off because the girls are usually there for a couple of hours at a time. Gotcha. Former dance mom just checking. Yeah.

Do you plan to restripe? Because I noticed the parking lot's pretty what I noticed from parking spaces they were pretty nondiscreet. You couldn't really tell where parking spaces were. I was wondering if that's something that you were going to do to make it easier for people to park correctly. Yes. Yes, we plan to do that. Okay. Thank you. There no other comments. This be called for the vote. Call for the vote. passes is nine to zero. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is B26-13 3735 Treat Lane presented by Bates and Associates.

Hello, Jeff Bates again. Um, the current owner is wanting to do some light warehouse and some outdoor storage possibly and the interior islands are in the way of semi-truckss trying to turn around and back up into the proposed dock. So, that's why we're asking the variance to get rid of those interior islands and also an entry off of the culdesac. It is a a deadend culde-sac so there it's too close to the other private drive so we were asking for variance to that and I'll be happy to ask answer any questions any staff comments anything from the public commission so the areas that say uh the crushed um what was it is that gravel or is that

it's like gra it's crushed granite. It's not dusty, which you you can't have in certain circumstances in I1, which is why they're planning for it. And I think this is a non-large that we're uh looking at concurrently, right? Yeah. It's under review. Then I'll note that tree lane itself is a private road, right? So it's at the dead end of a private street. Dead end. Um, is there going to be issues with these pockets of asphalt in the middle of this concrete when the truck's turning? I've seen this before. It normally doesn't go well. Is Is the owner opposed to putting concrete there so it matches the rest of the park? We'll we'll fill them in with concrete

because it says asphalt or asphalt. I mean, it would those are very different. Yeah, probably the two on each side of the truck dock need to be concrete in case the truck's turning as it's backing in there. It can grind into that asphalt. So, if we can We're currently under the site plan review. We can have them change it to concrete. Probably be easier anyway. Yeah, I think I would like to see it all concrete if he wants to take those islands out because I think that's just more durable and looks better and will last a lot longer. Yeah, that's not a problem.

Is that good with you? Thank you. So, I do have one other question, Sharon. Um, when we looked at this, I know we looked at this previously. We were I think when we reszoned it and um we were looking about at the buffer and I had thought I understood that kind of some of the trees that it looks like the along that drainage way that are being removed according to this. I thought that was part of what we were allowing to have for buffer is how does that factor in? We're not removing any trees. It says existing tree canopy to be removed along the the floodway. I don't know if that note should be there then because we're not we're keeping all the trees along the flood floodway.

So if there's some there's some brush and there's some trees too. We don't have them individually surveyed but yeah I haven't reviewed this in detail but I was under the impression that the only ones removed were for the added parking or the added drive but that all the others would be remained. Um, I think some of it's in flood plane now and so some of it is that was my question. I guess you you sort of answered that is it shows on here one of the drawings existing landscaping. So that'll be left there and it looks like it is on the flood plane. Um, so that's going to stay. Yes.

Yeah. Everything that's off of our property anyway, so all of that in there is going to stay. And that's it's pretty much full of landscape or trees and bushes and weeds. Yeah, I can see it more. I I didn't have this to look at when we were looking at our original packet and it is I see where it's a little more clearly like the red is removed and the green is staying. So that that's I didn't see that previously and so that was no problem. That was where I was missing. Commissioner, are we good to take these together? Let's be a call for the vote.

Call for the vote. Those variances pass 9 to zero. Thank you.

Up next is B26-14 Deans Trail Commercial presented by Bates and Associates. Okay, this one pretty much along the entire side of of the trail. The majority of the side of the trail there is a sewer line. So, we can't put trees. So, we want to put shrubs because it's within five feet of the main because there's a the trail and then there's five or six feet and then the parking or the drive. So, they were wanting to put shrubs instead of trees because trees weren't allowed to spring no water. And the other is the big gravel area. They're planning on putting another building, but I don't know when. Uh sometime in the near future, and they didn't want to pave it and then have to tear some of it out.

Anything for the staff? Can he grass? Can he grass seed rather than He definitely could. it. I think what had happened was they were in originally intending to pave it cuz they had a tenant who was going to use that space. The tenant fell through right before they had paved. So, the gravel was there ready to go to pave it. So, it is in place. So, they have to remove it and yeah, bring in some top soil and seed. Um,

yeah. Yeah. What I remember from the last time this came in before us was I thought we agreed to do gravel where the building pad is and then pave the rest because that's going to have to be paved once you build the building anyway. And I thought that's what we agreed to happen. But apparently Sarah's shaking her head. No, Mark, you're dreaming. No, because we didn't we didn't have that third. Was it the third building?

I mean, we look at a lot of stuff. So, I could be completely thinking about a different project. No, you might be right because I think that was the the original idea of of you know this will either be a layown yard, a parking lot or a third building, but nobody knew and we still don't really know. I I will say though that B2478 a paving requirement that was heard in October um that was denied for a paving requirement one for Dean Stra was that for that same previous area

and that was in October of 24 and yes and then after that planning commission when it was denied the plans were revised before construction to show it as a paved area. Um, through the conversations I've had with the owner and development team, um, it sounds like this area would be good for a material storage layown area and that if that tenant were to request that, they would come in and pave it, but they want the flexibility to leave it as gravel in case that tenant doesn't come through and they do want to build that third building. Is there a way to put a timeline on that so we're not just sitting there with gravel for 20 years or so? It's a good idea.

Not saying that's going to happen, but you know, I don't know. I mean, does he think like within six months that something is going to happen? Because it's I mean, if if we already denied the gravel once, um Sir, could you come up to the microphone? Yes. and please state your name. Yeah,

Blaine Erskin with Edwards Properties. Um, we've had a couple of tenants fall through. We were going to pave the whole thing cuz they were going to park trucks there and then we had another one that wanted outdoor storage and without having that now we're looking at potentially building another building there. So, and you really can't pave part of it and then dig the building inside of it. You'll have a huge hole. It'll collect water. Won't drain as well. So, we've paved the fire lane on the south, no east side,

the east side all the way to the south and we've left the gravel portion where it's shown checkered, but I would imagine we'll do something within a year. So, if you want to put a one to two-year limitation, that'd be fine. I think one's fair. Okay. Thank you. So, the best way to do that is is for a bill of assurance so that we have something recorded in our office to to track that timeline. So, you guys good with the one-year bill of assurance? Is it going to be used in the meantime?

I I think that's what some of the staff's concern is that in the meantime, even if we give you a year, that it's going to be a parking lot or a lay down yard. Um, there's currently no one in that building. We have one tenant in the first building. So, we're actively trying to lease the rest of the space. So, it's it's nothing right now. There's a couple of piece of equipment there. Would like to comment that neither of these buildings have certificate of occupancy. I believe building one does. I met the fire department there yesterday.

None of the buildings nor the suites have certificate of occupancy at this time. It's a parameter within the bill of assurance that I'm sure that we could list that it's not um it's just gravel, right? Not utilized for other purposes. Correct. I mean, my my intention is not to put hardship for the reasons he stated, but also my intention is not to allow them to just use it for wherever they want to. So, I think a bill of insurance for one year used for gravel as a holding until they can build a building is fair for both parties. So, that's what I'd like to see.

Blaine, if that bill of assurance is voted on, um if if it is voted on and signed and filed with the county during that year period, if you do have a tenant that comes in and wants to utilize that space, will it be paved at that time or will you leave it as gravel for the year until you have to do something? I would probably leave it for the year even though your intentions are to pave it. If someone does, the tenant comes in and wants it paved, we'll pave it. Yes. Okay. Or if that doesn't come through, we'll draw a new building there and build it. Any other comment?

This would be a call for the vote. Call for the vote. So to clarify before we start voting like crazy. U the call for the vote is to agree to the variance potentially we could turn it down for uh paving requirements with one-year bill of assurance that it would not be used for anything other than holding pattern for them to build a building there at the time that they get a tenant who wants it. passes nine to zero.

Was that both of them? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Sorry about that. Yeah.

Well, we'll follow up and let you know when the bill of assurance is all prepared and and and ready for them. Up next is B26-20 Walker Hogue Industries LLC presented by Bobby Gold. Hello, I'm Bobby Gold and we just need to get the chain link done on there. 75% of the property already has chain link and we just need to see if we can get the rest of the property in chain link. So, Um, and I have a a better view of that if y'all need to see it a little bit better.

I think we have a picture with chain link. Yeah, there we go. Uh, yeah, that's the chain link that's on the south side. And uh, hang on one second. I didn't get the best views before, but so this is the north side. This is the north side where it doesn't have chain length. The yellows are the the pre-existing fence. So we just want to build it up just right here. It's just going to be the same chain length that that is already there.

What's the height that you're trying to match? Six foot. It'll be commercial grade. We'll have the barb wire to match, too. Yeah, we can we can do anything that the city requires. Are you going to have a gate at the entrance by 71? There'll be there'll be gates. Uh we're trying to figure out what's the best idea, but there'll be gates right here along the front. I'll say that they probably engineering and and fire probably want just to make sure that you have enough stacking room for wherever the gates's going to be so we don't block. Well, that's what I was trying to figure out on the front side is we thought about bringing it back a little bit just for cars to be able to come in so it wouldn't be too close to the road. Yeah, we would recommend at least pushing it back, you know, one car length so someone can pull off.

But I didn't want to have to bring it in. I was just trying to keep it close, but I'll be the one pulling in the morning. So, I'll make sure that there's space. What's the use of the land? What do you do there? We're a fence company. We expensive products. That's why I know what we can put on the propert. Understood. Yeah. So, I mean, yeah, we'll we'll have and we're just planning on putting chain link right now, but sometime in the in the I say near future, like a year or two, we're going to put up more of a high quality ornamental style fencing along the front and just kind of keep the sides like they are. So, we were hoping that y'all would allow us to finish a chain link. And

so, I'm assuming the chain link fence is to keep your product in. Yes, sir. Not allow people to take it out. Yeah. Yes, sir. Any comment from the public? I'd just like to speak with you real quick. You get done, we just talk real quick about access on those gates and electronic gates and things. Okay. Thank you. Anything else from the commission? This be a call for the vote. Call for the vote.

Parents passes 9 to zero.

Thank you for your time. All right, we're going to move into waiverss and our last item on the agenda is W26-11 Trade Pro presented by Steven Green. Hello. Good evening. My name is Steven Green. I'm Joe Douglas.

And I'll I'll help preface this by saying um this is one this is a large scale that you guys have seen recently and approved. So they had a waiver request uh it was recommended for approval by planning commission um denied by city council. um they did not appeal within the 30 days. However, if they come back with a different um request, it could be honored and then heard different. Um so we work with them and they have come back with a slightly different request. Um but that's why it looks familiar to you all. You just want to tell us a little bit about um what your proposal is for this business.

Yeah. So before I think you know there might have been a little confusion because we were when we were going through this process initially the uh it was used it was originally two lots. We did a lot split which was finalized like right when the city council meeting happened. Uh so now it is officially three different lots. Um of course we're developing the the middle lot with the trade pro business. And just to clarify, we're me and Stephen are partners in this venture. We're Oakrow Partners and we're the owners of the land and Trade Pro will be the tenant that we're going to do the development for. Uh so initially we had asked for waiverss on the north and the south lot to not have to do those street improvements, but we obviously are going to do the street improvements for the middle lot. uh we got, you know, the city council denied that request uh saying that we would be responsible for all improvements. So, what we're asking now is that we're we're still going to obviously do the the second lot improvements. Um, and then we're asking for a waiver on the the northern lot, but we're going to agree to the the improvements for the southern lot, but we're looking for maybe a delay in in those improvements because we're waiting for to determine kind of what the future development will be for that lot. And so, we're looking for, you know, a delay in having to make those improvements to that southern lot. So, that's kind of what what we're asking for at this point. So from my understanding, it's really lot three that is the difference here, right? That's the different waiver request. So they're coming back requesting that one wave the improvements totally, but they're doing the shared drive. Two is your development you're going to build. Three, you're willing to, but you're asking for a later date or build or or one of the other some other route. Correct.

Correct. Okay. Yes. What was the conversation at council that um like are they wanting things done sooner and is that the reason that the full waiver was reg uh rejected or um I will say the timing of the informal plat made it a little tricky. We've had several developments um that come through like this that are simultaneously doing an informal plat that that splits it. So at the time um council um required lot three basically as off-site improvements. Um, Oak Road. I think it's local, right, Katie? Um, but it needs improvement. There's been a couple projects that have done.

That whole area is kind of growing out there. There's like out there by Walmart and there's like apartment complexes putting in sidewalks across the street or kind of across the street from it. So, I know there's a lot of development down there. I guess my reasoning for that was is you know this f if if we have this in there in the future are they still not going to be h is council you know if we approve it is council still not going to be happy I just want to try and keep it as easy as possible for y'all

and the one thing too there was and I was not present at the council meeting and you know hindsight's 2020 um we weren't there and I think there was some confusion that went on about you know they were saying hey could we table this to see if the lot split would be finalized And then it uh I guess in that confusion it just wasn't really maybe very clear. It got clarified but uh you know we would like to go back to the council and and and kind of talk through any concerns that they would have. Can we go to a different image that shows the relation to the streets in these lots? I'm turned around

and I think you guys when you passed it last time

Thank you. The main concern here was lot three. So, as sort of a way to say, hey, we understand that uh concern, we we will like to handle the street improvements for the the third parcel. Uh but we do needed to delay that just a tad bit. uh because in and just a little bit I trade pro I'm one of the uh owners of that company and uh you know the idea is and we're we're you know it's a Springdale company we we want to service we're plumbing we're roofing we do uh exterior remodels things like that uh we we're we're hoping to service the the company uh the the community here uh but we're we're hoping to to not put the burden right now and not that we won't we won't handle that just the full burden of all those street improvements right now. Uh that's what we're asking for a little bit of uh understanding with.

I have a question. Um on the the the lot one up top, do you guys have any future plans for that at any point or will you just keep it vacant? Yeah, we kind of want to preserve that because we feel like that's a very, you know, that'll be a valuable lot as as this area develops. And, you know, we don't we don't we're not sure what what might go there, if we may develop it ourselves or if we may sell it in the future. Okay. Someone else question, if we give them a waiver now and they come back 2, three, four years from now, is that waiver still in place for that lot? like they would that they wouldn't have to do the improvements then.

Yeah. The the waiver the the final decision of council for the waiver sticks unless they come back with a different development plan or a different request that is recognized as different enough to be heard. So really you're just asking to wave lot one. Yes. And the good news is we're already providing the drive a shared drive and all the detainment uh for the water for all three is being handled. So, we are we are and and really everybody needs to know there's a huge power line that that cuts this property and makes it very difficult to work with, but we're willing to do that and I'm willing to put my company right up against the power line, you know, to uh to to make that lot work.

Have you considered payment in Lou to do the whole improvement along that street? Well, I think when you guys were talking, you you thought the top lot was very marketable. It's very possible that that one is especially since we're handling the water detainment and your concern even in that day was the third lot. So we we would like to say we would we would address your concern that you had about the third lot and we will bear the burden of those street improvements. We're just asking for a little bit of a delay in in that uh so we don't have to put all of that just on the burden of the company in you know in that rent. So you're intending to sell lot one to another no

buyer? Not at this time. Not at this time. But is that your intent in the future? To Matt's point, if we issue a waiver on lot one, if if it doesn't change hands, I'm not Does it do the waiver go with the the waiver would just be associated with this development, any future development on lot, then we'd start over. That's what I thought. Yeah, we would have to if we do anything to lot one, my understanding is we would have to improve the streets and that

Yeah, I think our thoughts were we felt like it would it would develop quicker to the south toward uh Elm Springs Road more than to the north on this particular side of the street, which is why we were probably more interested in what lot three was going to do and how long that would be before you connected. the the area is a little bit in transition to the south because it is for sale. The price I think is you know maybe prohibitive right now but uh eventually I do think that that's sold and that could be something that that pulls lot that third lot into just not sure. How do we uh how do we are we do a bill of assurance again to rectify the date when it says later date that's kind of

I think we need something a little bit more concrete than that. Do you guys have any idea how later date you're requesting? couple years. Yeah, maybe two years would be great.

If we do a bill of insurance, they come back within the time frame. Can they ask for a longer can we extend that or I haven't done they would have to come back. If they wanted to extend the bill of insurance, they would have to come back and we typically don't see them longer than two years. is typically the yeah I was thinking shorter but maybe give them longer if they need it you know if nothing happened or things went differently like I was thinking a year but let them come back and ask for an extension for one more year that is typical are you okay with that I think so bill of insurance for lot three year improvements for one year and then in 10 months if it looks like hey nothing's really come back and say hey here's where we are blah blah blah yeah yeah that would be helpful Yep.

Any other comment? If not, this is a motion to forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval. I motion to forward to city council to approve waiver requests on lot one uh labor waiver request on lot three with a bill of insurance one year. Second.

It passes 9 to zero. All right. Staff will prepare a resolution that's going to go to city council on the 31st. It was moved to the very last Tuesday of the month. So, the 31st at 6 PM here, and you're recommended to attend just to be able to answer any of these questions and walk them through it. Okay. Okay. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Up next is our planning director's report.

Yeah, I was going to say I think Mark thought he had the record for the shortest planning commission meeting and then Chris steps in. It's not even six. I think Chris just got himself voted in for the rest of his time because less than an hour. Are you kidding me?

Um, no no no major updates. I want to thank everybody who came to the last work session about the act of transportation. I think it was really helpful for staff, commissioners, um, and everyone. Um, our next work session, it's on St. Patrick's Day, so please wear green. Um, recommended, not required. Uh, it's on the 17th, and we have a couple applicant presentations of some large scale and projects that they want to talk to you about. Uh, we'll talk about a little form base code update um, and more. um CFOs that were issued, Sarah and inspection team, the Courtney Haulingsworth auto expansion on Sterwin, uh Trails at the Crossing, that Southwest Overlay area, South 64th Street, um and Fire Station 4 on West Huntsville Avenue. Um all got certificate of occupancy, and I listed the items that went to city council. Um everything was approved. Um the waiverss, the one for the United Auto Group on 71 just north of County Line. Um they they approved it but with your recommendation of the payment lie of um the one for Fellowship Bible Church um on Emma passed with option one full grant and Larry Stuckco, the one just south of the airport on 412 East um was granted with option one and the reasonzonings and the conditional use for the artistic endeavor um all passed. So thank you all. Um and then welcome Matthew Philpot, our newest planning commissioner. He came to our work sessions this first meeting. Um welcome. We are journed.