Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So please stand.

Thank you.

Right. Well, I'll call this meeting to order, and we'll start with a roll call.

Brent Couch.

Here.

Chris Hussain.

Here.

Clement Ogunyemi.

Here.

Matt Philpott.

Here.

Howard Austin. Jennifer Keith. Here. Mark Cloud. Ray Cordell. Teresa Reynolds. Here.

Next up is approval of the minutes. This would be a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes six to zero. We've got a few tabled items that I want to let everybody know about before we get going. The first one is C26-10, Honey Properties, LLC. The next one is C26-14, Vilma E. Ureña. After that, we've got FP26-05, the Courtyards at Butterfield. FB26-10, Wrigley LLC and Campus Edge LLC. FB26-11, Wrigley LLC. B26-58, Reyna Lopez Bonilla. B26-24, Cesar Polanco. And that's it. We will start with prior tabled items, and our first is going to be L26-06, Miller Flooring Expansion. This also includes B26-44, B26-56, and W26-24. Presented by Kraft and Toll.

Good evening. I am Allie Carr with Craft and Toll, and this is Courtney Austin. We'll go ahead and give an overview, or do you want to go ahead and staff give a report, or how would you like us to proceed?

If you want to go ahead and give an overview of the project.

Okay, perfect. So, overview of the project. This is an expansion for Miller Flooring. They are currently occupying two buildings at the corner of 40th and Dixie Industrial. This expansion will be about 13,000 square feet of warehouse expansion currently right now They have a lot of flooring materials on site either in their yard or in connex boxes and the whole intent of this project is to just bring that inside and kind of enhance the curb appeal of Their project and just continual maintenance of their site and just get all of those materials off the yard and inside inside a structure we are not proposing to do much site improvements. We're not changing the entrance to the site, traffic flow to the site. We're simply just building that warehouse expansion so that they can bring those materials inside. And so you'll see we do have quite a few lists of variances and waivers, and a lot of that is to conform with the existing buildings. And so I can kind of walk down this list for you, and we'll be available for questions at the end, but we'll just kind of give a quick overview, speak on behalf of the architect as well, because some of these are architectural. So some variances, we do have a side setback, side and rear setback variance that is due to the existing building already encroaches in that 20 foot setback on what is the south side of the property. So side from 40th and rear from Dixie Industrial. We're just continuing that wall projection with the expansion. And so we are encroaching in that setback. But again, it's an existing nonconformity that we have that we just want to continue rather than have a funky offset of that wall. We do have multiple buildings in the commercial center. They're on two lots right now. We're working on a lot replat, but you'll see that there's quite significant grade change across the property. And so expanding the building so that they could continue WORKING IN THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT THEY HAVE, WE NEED A SEPARATE BUILDING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GRADE CHANGE AND MOVE BETWEEN THEIR USES OF THE WAREHOUSE. WE WILL SHOW OUTDOOR, WE DON'T HAVE ANY DUMPSTERS ON SITE RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF TO IDENTIFY WHERE THOSE Any future dumpsters would go. I think you'll see that in our outstanding comments. We still have a few to work with, planning and engineering, that we'll work through. A waiver or a variance on the facades and exterior walls. So the code requires facades over 100 feet in length to incorporate wall projections. And so this speaks to, one, the functionality of the site. We're not showing many projections on the north side besides some, I believe they are, give me a second, some projection. We're showing minor projections in some awnings. But besides that, we have large trucks that will go on the north side of the site. So we don't want the building to encroach on that existing drive aisle. Again, we're not trying to change any of the site conditions. So don't want to encroach the building in the drive aisle that's already used for function of the existing building. And then again, if we add any projections on the south side we'd be further encroaching in that setback that I had already mentioned we were is a non-conforming piece of the site some detail features that we're requesting this this building we're proposing is to be engineered architectural siding that would be framed anything beyond that would be beyond the building's frame and would further impose into again the said drive aisle or the rear setback and so the Existing sites that you'll see all around are designed similarly to what we're presenting, so it's kind of conforming with the rest of the industrial sites, commercial sites around them. Again, the variances in roofs, also the code requires a change in height along every 100 linear feet in building length. And so what we're proposing here is the function of this warehouse, you need a minimum height for the owner to operate efficiently. And so we're proposing THE BUILDING OPERATE AT THAT MINIMUM HEIGHT RATHER THAN CHANGE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING WITH THE EXISTING GRADE ON THE SITE. YOU ALREADY HAVE DIFFERENT ROOF PLANES FROM THE EXISTING BUILDING DOWN TO OUR PROPOSED BUILDING TO EVEN THEIR OFFICE BUILDING. THEY'RE ALL AT DIFFERENT HEIGHTS, SO YOU ALREADY KIND OF SEE THAT DIFFERENT PROJECTION ACROSS THE SITE AS YOU WORK EAST TO WEST. AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THE ROOF PLANES AND WALL PLANES ALREADY BREAK UP THE SCALE OF THE SITE. Then last on the architectural variance would be our materials and colors. And so we are asking for a variance that we would like to do pre-engineered metal building. Again, as the function of this site, this is going to be warehouse. It's consistent with the other developments, consistent with the additional building that is already on site. We are proposing to add some additional facades to the existing building that fronts 40th, but this building is is tucked back 140 feet off of Dixieland Industrial with plenty of screening, landscaping. I don't know if you have our landscaping plan that you can pull up there as well, but we have lots of plantings that we're going to add that'll add that buffer between what you can see from this building. You really can't see this building from 40th, but we're looking to potentially add and beautify the front of the existing building in lieu of that predominant exterior building material. And I'll have Courtney go over some of our site-specific variances as well.

I'll start with some of the landscape variances. That's kind of the street frontage landscaping on both 40th and Dixieland Industrial. As you can see, we are providing screening just a little bit further back from those utilities. And again, we're not really touching the street frontage. We're not adding or changing any of the entrances there. We also asked for a variance on the landscape for the facade of the building. We're not really putting any landscaping just to match with that existing building and tie straight into the existing drive aisle there. And then she already, Allie already touched on that rear setback that is heavily screened and it is in line with the building. And then we are asking for a couple of waivers, mainly for all of the nonconformities to remain on site. Mr. Miller has been an employee. He's owned this business in Springdale for several years. He really wants to kind of clean up that site. And we're just asking that with that cleanup, he's not needing to conform to today's standards. He did improve the trail with the last large scale he pulled on this project. The street section has just changed since then. So there are trails on both 40th and Dixieland Industrial.

Any staff comments?

For planning, in addition to standard comments, I won't go back over in detail everything Allie and Courtney just relayed to you all. But I would like to clarify for the record that the existing nonconformities request will include not providing any incompatible use screening to the residential properties on the south. Is that correct?

Correct. We will just keep what's there.

And then you will also demo any of the trees on your side of the property line, but will preserve the trees not on your property? Correct. Okay. And then confirm if warehouse is the only use on the subject property. Previous discussions, and it sounds like just now, we confirmed that there is indeed office use, so we'll need to rerun those calculations before we go to construction.

There's just office use in the... single building on the corner. This expansion will just be warehouse.

Understood. Show the dimensions for the handicap parking and the access area and show the existing and or proposed dumpster location. Allie confirmed that they will do that. And that commercial design standards require a lighting plan to be provided for all large-scale development plans displaying at least one foot candle in all parking and pedestrian areas. A lighting plan has not been provided to staff. Therefore, a review is not possible.

For engineering, developer is required to improve the abutting streets to master street plan. So in this case, that would just consist of expanding the sidewalks. We actually have a project in design to do a 10-foot trail on 40th Street. So we wouldn't ask for a brand new sidewalk. We would just ask that, I believe it might be four feet or five feet, but the remaining up to 10 feet be added onto that. And we would support a payment in lieu of that. And then they submit a floodplain development application. The under construction and final construction elevation certificates will be required for the addition.

Any public, any comments from the public?

Commissioners? How wide are the sidewalks already, six feet?

I want to say they're both at four or five. Do you guys know?

I believe they're at five.

Both at five.

Yes. They were improved and added with the commercial building that they added on the corner a few years back.

Okay. And would you all be okay with the payment in lieu or?

I'm looking to our owner. So in lieu of, I'm going to explain it over the mic to him. So in lieu of building the sidewalk, we could pay for the additional four feet.

That's correct.

Yes, we would be open to that. These sidewalks were just constructed, so we hate to pull them out and then redo 10 at his expense.

And really, our project is trying to work with an existing right-of-way and with existing sidewalks that are still in good shape. So when we come through, that's what we're planning to do is just add on to get to that full 10 feet so we can continue that trail. I think we decided the name of it is going to be the Peaceful Valley Trail.

That was only gonna be my thoughts too, considering all these waivers to at least think through the screening to the neighborhoods behind and street improvements.

Yes, so there's existing trees. There's a pretty sufficient tree line with a fence. On that south side and we would only demo that I know that we had spoke about the demo of the trees that we would only demo the trees that were necessary for the building construction but leaving those alongside the pretty mature growth that you see right on the property line.

Is there water or flooding or drainage or anything on that south side that makes the fencing the screening difficult?

There is a drainage easement and a large culvert like on our southwest very most corner. But the site does generally drain from east to west, and so we would want to make sure that we don't hinder any of that drainage. But the true channel doesn't start as a concrete channel that you can probably see in an aerial, but it's in our very southwest corner.

My only comment is whatever sufficient looks like from a city perspective for that neighborhood would be what I would want.

I think staff, if possible, would encourage some sort of screening just with the residential neighborhood to the south. I know it might be difficult with the drainage. Katie's team may have to give input around the drainage easement. But we know that this is a unique piece of property and it's had some complex challenges. And usually an expansion like this triggers the entire site to come into conformity. And so they've been working pretty diligently with us.

might be able to do is whenever we're getting ready to go to construction, we might be able to come out and visit the site and look at what trees we think are going to get taken down and see if there's any gaps we may want to fill in there.

Yes, I think we can do that. That'd be great.

Anything else from the commission?

I was just going to say, I just along those same lines just want to encourage that any roof runoff or any of that stuff on that backside is not going to adversely impact any of those homes on that end.

Yes, ma'am. We'll make sure that we take a look at that with Katie's team as we final up the plans.

Any comments from anybody else? Okay. We're going to start with B26-44, the variances A through H. That would be a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

It passes six to zero. Next will be B26-56, the variance for existing nonconformities. That's another call for the vote. Call for the vote. Also passes six to zero. Up next is the waiver of street improvements. This is a motion to forward to council with a recommendation of denial or approval of...

And just to clarify, we do have those two streets there, so engineering would support a waiver of the sidewalk expansion on Dixie Industrial and a fee in lieu on 40th, if that wasn't clear.

Motion to forward to council to approve the waiver on Dixie Industrial and the fee in lieu for 40th. Second.

Passes six to zero. Last, we'll do the large scale. That's L26-06. This is a motion subject to staff comments.

Motion subject to staff comment.

Second.

Also passes six to zero.

Staff will prepare a resolution for the waiver that goes to council on the 28th. Thank you, guys.

Up next is RP26-06, Jacob's Crossing, Phase 2 and 3, presented by Engineering Services, Inc. Kyle Davin with Engineering Services.

So we're proposing to take these five platted lots and turn it into four. We're also working on getting utility providers to work with us to vacate the easement that was currently along the rear lot line of the three lots to the west.

Any staff comments?

So in addition to the standard comments, we would like to confirm that the file protective covenants will not affect the impact history plat. As you mentioned, you are suggesting that you will be vacating in utility easements on this plat. So we just wanted to make sure to note on our comments that any pre-existing easements that you wish to vacate shall be formally vacated with city council approval. And this will need to occur before the current plat goes to City Council for approval and the vacation will need to be reflected on the plat by ordinance number. We also have, we would like you to show the building setbacks for all sides of the lot 109A. Extend the utility easement line on lot 109A. Clarify what line L1 on lot 109A is intended to represent and add the appropriate label and note identifying its purpose.

All of that makes sense. So we've been working with planning to resolve some of those issues. As for the bill of assurance or possible covenants, we haven't been provided any or found any that would reflect any issues with this replay.

Any comment from the public? Engineering?

No comments from engineering.

Commission? If there are no comments, this is a motion subject to staff comments.

Motion subject to staff comments.

Second. This passes six to zero.

Staff is going to prepare an ordinance. However, we're going to go ahead and time it that whenever we schedule the council date to vacate the easements, we will schedule the replat and have them go at the same meeting at the same time. So we'll just coordinate with you all in the planning office, okay? Thank you.

Up next is B26-39 Eagle Carports, presented by Charles Hyatt and Chris Beasley.

Charles couldn't make it. I'm Chris Beasley.

Tell us about the variance you're requesting.

So what we are looking to do is change the original landscaping design to just the front of the property and not both sides and the rear of the property.

Why?

The original soil analysis showed some issues with that and planting those trees along with the sod that's planted in the retention pump.

Any staff comments?

Mr. Beasley, do you mind clarifying if you are agreeing to also install the parking lot landscaping as shown on the plans?

Yes, the parking lot landscaping and all of the front.

Have you guys looked into potentially planting native species that may be more fit to thrive in the soils here?

Yes, that's what we're trying to do.

Okay, so you are willing to plant the perimeter landscaping trees, but you wish to substitute them?

Yes, I think that would probably be the best thing to do, but we are hoping to come across with just the front of the property.

Understood.

Well, I don't... Hold on. Will you clarify that one more time? Even though you're exploring native plannings, this right here is what you're proposing with just the parking lot and the frontage, right? None of the sides and rear perimeter. You're asking basically a variance to forego those sides. Correct. Okay. Was there ever... Coordination to try and explore native plants or some sort of landscaping plan even that was closer up that just delineated the back of Your area or that lay down yard area Any public comment Commissioners So you said you're exploring doing native trees I

we would be willing to explore doing native trees, yes.

Okay. I'll just say, I guess from my perspective, I'd like to see it, and I'm going to vote no on the proposal, more likely than not, as is. If you want to vote tonight, we can do that. If you want to change it to have it be the native trees with the requirement, we're happy to do that as well, I think. That's just up to you.

Okay.

That's just me personally. The rest of the commission can weigh in if they want, or we can vote, or if you want to reconsider it, just let us know.

Can you elaborate on the soil issues in the back?

I don't have the information. I just know that there was some issues with the soil when they were doing the parking lot, and that some of the soil had to be removed and replaced.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay.

If none, this is a call for the vote. Fails 5-1.

So you have the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to City Council. You have to file your appeal in writing to the City Clerk's Office within 15 days of the Planning Commission's meeting. And you need to identify what you think the error of the Planning Commission's decision was. And there is a requirement to re-notify the adjacent property owners. And if you want to contact the Planning Office, we're happy to talk in detail to you or other staff tomorrow. Okay. Thank you.

If you are agreeable to essentially just swap out, do substitutions for native trees, there's no need to go back before a body. We can do that administratively.

Up next is B26-40, Victor Hugo Caldera, presented by Victor Caldera.

All right. So I'll come before you to.

Sir, could you tell us your name, please? Victor Caldera.

So I come before you to ask for a variance of material fence and height. I know most of the heights have to be at six. For the most part, it is at six. Only where I have lights, it goes up to like six, four, six, five, the top, the tallest. As far as material fence, as you can see, I use metal instead of using wood pickets. And I just feel like it gives it a better value and it makes it look a little bit more better than just having the wood pickets. I've been having to switch out the wood pickets every three or four months. So it's, I fell with the metal fence. It's going to be a lot more durable. And it, as you can see, it kind of makes the property look a lot better too.

Any staff comments?

Is this a business or just residents, right? No, it's just residents.

Any comments from the public? Yes, ma'am. Come forward. Please state your address and name.

Oh, yeah.

I'm Megan Myers. I'm at 1720 Silent Grove Road, which is the east side of this. I think it looks beautiful. The only thing I ask is that the tarp and the dirt get removed. That's been out there since you've been working, but yeah, it looks great.

Thank you. Any other public comment? Commissioners? If there are no more comments, this is a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

This passes five to one. Thank you. Thank you very much. Up next is R26-28, DJ Custom Homes, Inc., presented by Daniel Jimenez.

My name is Daniel Jimenez with DJ Custom Homes. What I have here is just a An infield lot in Springdale, 804 Virginia Street, currently zoned multifamily 12, which requires 10,000, roughly 500 square feet of minimum lot size for a duplex building. And I'm just proposing to rezone it to MF16, which requires, I believe, a 9,000 square feet minimum lot size to be able to build a duplex on it.

Any staff comments?

The rezoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval. Provides more compact residential development, promotes more efficient use of land and utilities, and the development of less expensive housing on smaller lots. Encourage the development of a variety of housing types appropriate to the size and income of all households living and working in Springdale.

Any comments from the public? Commission? There are none. This is a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes 5-1. Thank you.

Staff will prepare an ordinance that's going to go to City Council on the 28th of July, okay? Okay, thank you. It'll be here at 6 p.m. You're not required, but you are encouraged to attend.

Thank you.

Up next is R26-29, Berean Baptist Church, presented by Wayne Van Hook.

We are asking for the rezoning. This property had a split zone on it, so we're bringing it into from the part that's C1 into C2, so it'll all be C2. We're going to ask for a... a usage 42, which is a church or a synagogue. It's a church that has been existing on the property for five years, but we're correcting the zoning where everything matches. The property has been examined by the fire department. We got a clear bill of health on it yesterday. Everything's been done, and the usage won't change. No neighbors disagreed. In fact, we got a letter from one of the neighbors recommending, and so if If there's any other questions, the pastor is here tonight and a member. Just confirming you are Mr. Van Hook.

Excuse me? Confirming you are Mr. Van Hook. Yes.

I'm sorry. Did I not say? Okay. I apologize. I'm Wayne Van Hook with Cryolite Realtors of Springdale.

No worries. Thank you, sir. Any staff comments?

Yeah. So like Mr. Van Hook just said, this is largely a housekeeping action for the property for their zoning and approvals. Looks like the church purchased the property in 2021 and they've been operating since. And so we need the correct zone and to obtain a conditional use to allow the church. So for the rezoning, this rezoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan. It is recommended for approval. Encourage the development of a wide range of commercial development for the residents and tourists to include neighborhood, community, and regional centers. And promote the viability of older commercial properties as well as new commercial developments.

Any comments from the public?

I have one comment as well. Just wanted to note to owner, whoever is here tonight, that this property does lie in the floodway, and so any changes that the owner would like to make to the building or to the site require a floodplain development permit, and there are some heavy restrictions. As long as you keep the building as is, no problem, though.

And the fire department just finished yesterday with everything, with our inspection.

Any other comments, commissioners?

Just curious. This building would be otherwise a commercial building in any other use, and so that's why it makes more sense to keep it as a C2 with conditional use instead of doing like a P1 type thing.

Correct. I believe they indicated on the application that the church wanted to keep it C2 for potential future options if they weren't going to keep it long-term as a church location. And they need the C2. In a C1, there's not the option for a church with a conditional use. Is that correct, the reasoning?

Yes, we need to see to the use unit 42 variance of our allowance is in C2. So we needed to be C2 to be allowed to have a church or synagogue.

I think she wanted to confirm why you weren't seeking a P1, an institutional zoning that would make a church by right, that you were doing the commercial instead. Was that just to keep future options open? I believe that's what the application indicated.

P1 doesn't require a variance.

Right. The church, this small church could outgrow that and so might have another use, you know, for it. So we prefer C2.

Any other comments? If none, we'll start with the rezone. That's a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes six to zero. Up next will be the use unit 42 conditional use and a C2. That also is a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Also passes six to zero.

All right. Staff will prepare an ordinance for the rezoning and a resolution for the conditional use and they're going to be set for city council on the 28th of this month here at 6 p.m. Not required but encouraged to attend.

be there. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is R26-30, Harold and Dorothy Schwartz Living Revocable Trusts, presented by Harold Schwartz.

My name is Harold Schwartz. I'm petitioning a, what we've got is a remainder of a larger commercial property that the larger property was zoned C6, and there's This remnant is not very big and C6 does not leave much options for development. So requesting C2.

Any staff comments?

The rezoning request 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 in proper locations, and encourage the development of a wide range of commercial development for residents and tourists to include neighborhood, community, and regional centers. And this remnant, since it was a part of the Don Tyson Parkway development in the early 2000s, C2 is a downgrade, and it's a small piece. It could potentially still be developed, but it will have its challenges.

Any comments from the public? Please come forward and state your name and address.

Hello, my name is Amber DeHarlow. I live on 692 Purtle Avenue, right across the street from this plot of land. As you can see, it's a very small street. It's all occupied by families that have small children that play in the street every single day. I'M JUST AFRAID WITH THIS TURNING INTO A COMMERCIAL LOT THAT IT'S GOING TO TURN INTO A MORE DANGEROUS AREA. JUST TWO DAYS AGO THERE WAS SOMEBODY WHO WAS HIT AND KILLED IN THAT SPOT EXACTLY. SO WITH A COMMERCIAL LOT, PEOPLE MIGHT DRIVE THROUGH AND TRY TO CUT AROUND TRAFFIC BECAUSE TRAFFIC BACKS UP AROUND THIS CORNER HERE EVERY SINGLE DAY, TWICE A DAY. During rush hour, I do have people that try to go up there already, and then they find out that it's a dead end street. They turn around, people zip on through. But with it turning into a commercial lot, I'm just afraid that if there isn't some kind of blockade or something, the people are going to be trying to cut through. And it's going to be completely non-usable to the families that live there. And that's my concern. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Hi, my name's Shanna. I also live on Purtle Avenue. I agree with what she said. It's a very small street. There are lots of families who live there. So I share the same fears that putting a commercial lot there would make it a little bit more dangerous. Also, like she said, during school season with traffic in the early in the morning or five o'clock traffic, it gets so blocked up back there. So I share the same concerns that people would end up just using our street as a cut-through. And again, I just feel like it would make it a little bit more dangerous for all the families who live there and have their kids playing in that area. Thank you.

Do you want to specify what's already zoned there and kind of what it's moving to, just for information?

So right now, currently, it's zoned CSEC. So it is already a commercial lot. So even as today, if he were just to come in and meet the basic minimum requirements, I mean, they'd be able to sell vehicles, have a parking lot, automotive services. They can have an oil change, detail place. So today, by right, they can do commercial development. And a downgrade to C2 just opens it up to a more broad category of the different commercial uses and options that could come there.

But if this site was to be developed, they would still have to go through the development plan.

and all the development requirements of the city. So there would be thorough vetting and neighbors would be notified. And this would be part of the public process if it was to be developed.

That's something I would just to clarify for the citizens that if you, when this goes to be developed again in the future, you will have a chance to come and speak about the safety because I would agree. It's not a very safe area. So I would encourage you to come back again when this goes to be developed someday. Any other comments?

If none, this is a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes six to zero.

Staff will prepare an ordinance that will go to City Council on the 28th.

Up next is R26-31, Stacy and Ellen Turner, presented by Justin Jorgensen.

Good evening, Justin Jorgensen. Thank you for your time this evening and We're requesting a rezoning on this, and as you guys probably know, R-DOT came through and is expanding that road, so they took a lot of the right-of-way. So the Turner house, which would be the west house right next to the road, is getting torn down, and ultimately they're looking to sell that to the property to the east. So we're trying to do a little house cleaning, do everything on the same page as far as setbacks and stuff like that. So that's kind of the reason for the request. And I've worked with staff, and they've been very helpful as always on kind of getting all this worked out. So thank you. Any staff comments?

I think we have an informal plat in review and gold star for neighbor cooperation on this one. It is. It's a great solution for this. And for the rezoning, the request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval to protect the positive aspects of neighborhood character throughout the city. assure adequate land allocation for residential purposes by providing lots of adequate size, and encourage the development of a variety of housing types appropriate to the size and income of all houses living and working in Springdale.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners? If none, this is a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes six to zero.

Staff will prepare ordinance that goes on the 28th.

Thank you very much. Up next, R26-32 Accelerate Housing LLC presented by Ryan King, ISG Inc. Good evening.

Ryan King with ISG. And what we're doing is a PRESENTING FOR A REVISED PUD FOR TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE LOCATED HERE. ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND REFERENCED ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL OF FORD AVENUE. Essentially, we have very minor changes in what was presented originally. So minor in nature. Overall, the intent of the project is fully intact. Some of the sheets were revised in the process for clarity with the contractor and with Springdale Water Utilities. Parking count increased slightly on one side. This is all highlighted in our PUD narrative that has been revised. OUR COMPACT SPACES ON THE SOUTH, WE ADDED A FEW COMPACT SPACES. ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED THERE WAS THERE IS A MINIMUM SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT THROUGH ADFA FUNDING WHICH REDUCED THE SIZE THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO A FEW PARKING SPACES. SO WE IDENTIFIED THOSE AS COMPACT SPACES. AND THEN I THINK WE'RE AT .01 DECREASE IN OUR OVERALL AREA, SO VERY, VERY, VERY MINOR CHANGE IN OUR AREA CALCULATIONS. AND OUR OPEN SPACE WAS REFINED A BIT. KEEPING THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE REMAINS THE SAME FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THE PLAYGROUND AREA WAS REFINED A LITTLE BIT TOO. ANY STAFF COMMENTS?

So the Ford Avenue flats, the north and south, so R2632 and the next R2633, these items are related and they're part of the same overall affordable housing development known as the Ford Avenue flats. So although they function kind of as a single PUD, they're not contiguous. And so we have two separate PUDs, two separate rezoning projects that we're doing this. So they have to be considered separately as two planned unit development revisions that are coming through. So the Planning Commission originally approved this PUD in September of 25. And since that, they have, the applicants and developers have worked really closely with staff and the Water Department and make sure that we have updated development plans to accurately reflect the site layouts for the rezoning. This one is for R2632. The rezoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies. The comprehensive land use plan is recommended for approval. Encourage the development of a variety of housing types appropriate to the size and income of all households living and working in Springdale. Protect the positive aspects of neighborhood character throughout the city. And appropriate locations for single-family and multi-family residential developments should be provided based on accessibility, site suitability, utility availability, neighborhood compatibility, and environmental factors. And then some of the PUD specific comments that staff had identified. I think we're still trying to work through some of the public access or private public open space areas and some of the details on it. And then as far as the wetland conservation strategy, I think we were working with Illinois river watershed. And I don't think there's been any progress or, or new information on that, on that agreement or the maintenance plan and what that is going to look like. And when this PUD was originally passed last year, I think our notes that were before grading permits or before Katie's team would release any permitting that we needed more detail on that that staff felt comfortable with. Description for the outdoor amenities depicted on the concept plan address the proposed trail network and the pedestrian improvements. We're asking for some clarification on land use and density calculations. And I can provide, these are minimal. And there's a few inconsistencies, including describing the south side as being located on the North Avenue, along with a couple conflicting descriptions, small typos that we can point out for you. And these comments go for both 2632 and R2633. Any other comments? Staff, public comments?

I'll just echo what Sharon said. We need that conservation easement with an operation and maintenance plan to be submitted to the city so that we can approve it and get it filed with the county. We need to consider stormwater BMPs in that O&M plan during construction and long-term after construction. needs to include things like who owns the open space, who maintains the open space, short-term and long-term maintenance activities, and who's responsible, mowing, litter pickup, invasive species removal, et cetera, information about what is allowed and what is not allowed in the open space as far as tree removal, grading, et cetera, and the extent and location of undisturbed buffer zones.

Jackie, was there anything else? Because they're also submitting a revised large scale, but due to the minimal modifications, we're actually doing that administratively on a staff level, but was there anything else? Okay.

Any comments from the commissioner?

Yeah, just one question. It looks good. I'm just kind of curious from a picture that more so, I know this looks like the south one as opposed to the north, but it looks like there's a neighborhood that butts right up against

The one on the south side butts up against the commons. To the east? To the south?

To the west, I believe.

Yeah, my directions are off. But that parking lot in the side of the building that's to the left, Looks like if you go one further left, it's just like the backyards of that neighborhood. What's the screening look like between, or what is between? Sure, so a few things. Since it's three stories, it's kind of a tall kind of...

Well, we actually tried to get ahead of that. We transitioned down to two stories at those ends to help with that transition. We have created more space and provided planting in between the two. Much of our property sits out a little further to the north. So I think if I recall correctly, it's one and a half to two private residences that it would be adjacent to.

Any other comments, questions? If none, this is a call for the vote on R26-32. Call for the vote. Passes 6-0. We've also got R26-33 that we've discussed. I don't think there are any new comments from staff, are there? Any public comments? Commissioners, this one also is a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes six to zero as well.

Staff will prepare two separate ordinances. They'll both go to city council on the 28th. Not required, but encouraged, recommended to come. Thank you.

Thank you all. Up next, C26-11 and B26-59, Taqueria Manzanillo Mexican Food LLC, presented by Everardo Moran.

Hello, Valente Reyes here, Everardo Patron, and we're here to represent Taqueria Manzanillo Mexican.

Could you repeat your names again, please?

My name is Valente Reyes, and this is Everardo Wichard.

So tell us what you're here for, please.

It's a food truck that's going to be located on 1321 West Sunset Avenue, but they already have Mexican cuisine.

Any staff comments?

So right now the site, it has a commercial building and it's home, is it home to two businesses, Smooth Solutions and Signs for Less? That's correct. It appears to have sufficient parking spaces for the commercial uses, including the three designated spots, space for potential picnic tables in the food truck. However, the site requires restriping. Size, location, you've asked for a variance for the utility connection, B2659. In our memo, we had identified the maintaining the three parking spots, but since then you have submitted an updated parking plan. So the site standards, we had a comment about blocking required parking for other uses. And then one of the restrictions that we had placed on the memo was prior to issuance of business license, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating the food truck operation does not reduce, obstruct, or interfere with required parking. clearly identifying the parking spaces reserved for the food truck and customers and the proposed layouts shall be subject to planning department approval. Site inspection shall be completed by planning staff prior to issue the business license. And so the applicants actually came in yesterday and provided this, a couple of really sufficient parking plans. And if you go back through just aerial photos through time and history, they have kept the site accessible with decent circulation. And the parking has been fairly clear So at this point, staff feels pretty comfortable with the site plan of the parking. We would still encourage striping. Although this looks good, we would love to see some striping that just helps with some of that control. And the city can help provide some parameters for the striping. But some of the other additional restrictions for mobile vending sites that I'll go ahead and read. Parking and loading areas must be identified. May not operate between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. No obstruction of parking spaces is required for the operation of any other use on the site. So the two other businesses that are there still need to have their required amount and make sure that they can function. Maintain the minimum of three parking spaces designated for their use. If a health certificate is required, display the health certificate in a manner visible to customers. No obstruction of pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic flow. No obstruction of traffic signals or regulatory signs. No vending upon a public way. No sound device that produces a loud or raucous noise in violation of city ordinance or violation of any other ordinances in connection with the vending operation. Keep the sites, keep vending sites clean and free of paper or refuse of any kind generated from the operation of their business. All trash and debris accumulating within 20 feet of any vending stand shall be collected and deposited into a trash container. Submission of an approved gray water disposal by Springville Water Utilities. Submission of approved grease disposal method approved by Arkansas Department of Health. And all signs must meet the requirements of a temporary sign. No flashing signs or lights allowed. And did we have an approved gray water or water source agreement? Okay.

Any public comment? Commissioners? If there are none, up first would be the conditional use. That's a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes six to zero. And then the variance from the utility requirement is also a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

It also passes 6-0.

All right. So this still has to go to City Council for one more round of approval. That is scheduled for the 28th. So it will be here at 6 p.m. You're encouraged to attend in case they have questions. All right. See you then. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is C26-12, Alabaster by KCLLC, presented by Karina Montero.

Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, actually. My name is Sergio Garcia, and I'm the owner of KC, Alabaster by KC. This is my wife, Karina Montero, the administrator, CEO, and whatever, everything, just everything, pretty much, for me. And we're here today requesting a... Let me see here. Requesting approval for... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A SMALL HOME-BASED BUSINESS THAT IS FOCUSED ON ESSENTIAL OILS, SKIN CARE, AND WELLNESS PRODUCTS. OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE QUALITY PRODUCTS THAT PROMOTE REALIZATION, SELF-CARE, AND OVERALL WELL-BEING. AND THIS IS A SMALL BUSINESS. WE'LL HAVE VERY SMALL IMPACT OR LITTLE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. because our work's pretty much doing online. We just started this business, and that includes marketing, customer service, and all that. So we do not expect to have any customer traffic, excessive deliveries, noise, or any activities that will disturb our neighbors. We're here because we deeply care about being a good neighbor and following all the city regulations. So... We're committed to operating this business responsible and respectfully while maintaining the residential character of our home. So any questions, any questions that you may have for us, thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Any staff comments?

And just to confirm, these products are going to be sold exclusively online? Yes, through my social media. Okay, so low-impact resident-based activity. And based on the square footage of the home, there is a 30% maximum that a home occupation can use of their heated and cooled space. And what they have calculated and presented is less than 2% of that 30% max. single-family dwelling, single-family low-density subdivision surrounded by other single-family homes. The development standards were acceptable and Staff finds that the request was consistent with the requirements of use unit 28, home occupation. The proposed use is conducted entirely within the residence, remains secondary to the primary residential use, and is not expected to generate significant traffic or impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. And so the following conditions for a home occupation shall be permitted only if it complies with all of the following. So these are the conditions that would be listed on the resolution if approved. No alteration to the outside appearance of the residential structure or provision of a separate outside entrance for the business areas of the residential structure. No outside storage of materials required for the operation of the business. operated only by the resident members of the households and shall not have any employees, concessionaries, any other form of operator or helper, whether such business is conducted on the premises or off the premises, requires the use of an area no greater than 30% of the total heated living space of the residential structure, generates no traffic, parking, sewage, water use in excess of what is normal in a residential neighborhood, Will not produce any fumes, odors, noise, any other offensive effects that are not normal to residential activity. Will not involve accessory buildings. Stock and trade shall not exceed 10% of the floor area of the accessory use. Will not require the construction of a duplicate kitchen or the addition to the existing kitchen. Will not require or cause the consumption on the premise of any food product produced thereon. And will not provide medical treatment, therapeutic massage, or similar activities.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners? If there are none, this is a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes six to zero.

All right, so staff is going to prepare a resolution that's going to go to city council on Tuesday the 28th here at 6 p.m., okay? You're encouraged to attend. Thank you.

Up next is RP26-07, Conestoga Park, presented by Stone Bowshears.

Hello, everyone. My name is Stonebow Shears. I'm here on behalf of J.A. Riggs Tractor Company, also known as Riggs CAT, presenting the replat and combination of lots 6, 7, and 8 of Conestoga Park. As you see here, this is located on the east side of Conestoga Street and west of North 45th Street. Property lies directly across 45th Street from our current rental and Springdale branch store. And really our intent to replat this and to combine these lots is to eliminate internal lot lines, building setbacks, to be able to use it as a lay down storage yard for equipment. We have a whole lot of equipment, doing a whole lot of business within this northwest Arkansas area, and we just need extra space. So replatting this, if this passes in the future, we would like to fence around the property and then create a little gravel area that we can safely and effectively store equipment. Any staff comments?

So in addition to standard comments, we have a few. You are proposing to vacate an easement that is between lot six and seven. So for that, any pre-existing easements that you wish to vacate shall be formally vacated with city council approval. This will need to occur before the current replat goes to, before city council for approval, and the vacation will need to be reflected on the plat by ordinance number. Additionally to that, we will require you to label all the property lines adjusted by this plaid as property lines removed per this plaid. Add all the symbols used and centerline type to the legend. Show the sewer line on the west side of Conestoga Street. And please correct the signature block to include the Secretary of Planning Commission and our Planning Director. No comments from Engineering.

Any public comments?

Mr. Boshears, is this property currently being used for equipment storage?

We have, in the past, laid down some equipment here, yes.

Commissioners?

If none, this is a motion subject to staff comments.

This is just the replant. This is not the acceptance of a lay down yard.

Correct. Just the replant. Motion subject to staff comments.

Second.

Passes six to zero. Thank you.

If you want this to go to City Council next Tuesday, we would need an ordinance prepared and sent to our office by tomorrow. We would like you to encourage and start with the vacating of that easement. So we're also happy to help you get that started, okay? Perfect.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Up next, we've got L26-11 and B26-71, Creekfront 49, Lot 4, presented by A4 Civil.

Hello, I'm Noah Gills with A4 Civil. We're working on, or we're proposing two commercial buildings. We're also requesting a variance for the screening so we can do a chain link fence with razor wire and screening slats. This will be similar to the lot two commercial development that has already been approved. That variance, very similar. It is pretty much the same thing as what was done in Lot 2 to the southeast. Any questions?

Any staff comments?

Provide calculations for a stilling basin design and sizing. I think with the amount of water and how fast it's going to be coming out there, I think we need to look at that a little bit more detailed. Show a 20-foot drainage easement on Stormline A that receives off-site runoff. Submit structural plans for the retaining wall. Submit junction box design as indicated that it would be precast from skurlock. Move frontage trees out of the right of way. And then some of those trees look like they were grouped really close together and might need to be spread apart so they can grow properly.

Hi, Noah. Okay, so for planning, we have a few comments. We need the legend to be updated a little bit. There's just a few symbols that are missing. Label the street classification. This is specifically for North 45th Street, and it's a local street. Revise the plan to ensure all standard parking spaces meet the required nine foot minimum width. I think they do, it's just the labels aren't there. show the proposed method of screening rooftop equipment on the building elevations. And a note has been added to the landscaping plan indicating that the irrigation system will be provided, but we'll just need something showing the plan when that's ready. For the frontage landscape, the required trees have been provided at one tree per 25 feet. However, add the seven shrubs that are required every 25 linear feet, specifically along that south frontage on North 45th. The perimeter landscaping is required in accordance with Chapter 56. Foundation landscaping is required along that section of the building specifically that isn't showing any of that foundation landscaping. And then fencing needs to comply. So I see that you guys have that variance here for that chain link.

Yeah, we intend to comply with everything.

How tall is that retaining wall?

A 33-foot at the tallest? It will be. We're getting structural engineers to design it, and we'll submit it after. If we get approval, we'll submit it afterwards.

Any comments from the public? Commission? There are none. We'd start with the variance. It's a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes six to zero. Do the large scale with some motions subject to staff comments. Or motion for approval subject to staff comments.

So moved.

Second. Also passes six to zero.

Thank you all.

Next up is B26-62, Get Graphic Expansion, presented by Bates & Associates.

Good evening, my name is Hunter McCutcheon, representing Bates and Associates regarding the Get Graphic project. Tonight we are here to request a variance from building materials, primarily the detailed features, colors, and materials for a covered parking area located on the north side of the site. This parking area is going to be primarily a metal structure, and it is located behind the primary structure, and it has a privacy fence that surrounds it. We will also be requesting a variance for landscape screening on the north side of the site for the outdoor storage area. And lastly, we're requesting a variance from opaque screening, which is required to be eight foot tall. And we are requesting to utilize the existing fence that is wooden and six feet tall. Any staff comments?

Either Katie or somebody, but let's go quick, please. Yeah, I've got a little background on this one.

Y'all probably haven't seen this project before. It came through as a non-large scale back in 22 originally. It included the building up front, the parking lot, and the detention pond. It was built and CFO was issued in late 2024. In March 2026, we issued a floodplain violation for unpermitted work in the floodplain, including a storage building, pavement, and vehicle material storage located partially in the floodway. Some unpermitted building addition was also observed at the time of inspection. So to come into compliance, they needed to submit a revised non-large-scale development and a floodplain development permit application. The storage building does not meet commercial design standards, so that's why they're asking for these variances. It is existing on the site. and they're looking to move it out of the floodway. Let's see. My comments on the project, even though you're not going to vote on the non-large scale, so I wanted to read these. Pavement needs to be removed from the floodway. No storage is permitted in the floodway. Submit a floodplain development permit application detailing the proposed work and uses in the floodplain.

Need to verify the location of utility easements on the property It's unclear whether the storage building and pavement are within an existing utility easement Would also like to clarify for the planning department if the elevation related Variance requests are for the carports only or if they are for any other proposed structures within this development It's just for the carport

Any public comment? Commissioners?

I'd like to address a couple lighting items. Is lighting required in any of this?

There are going to be employees parking in this area, then yes, we expect there to be a minimum of a foot candle in all parking and pedestrian areas. If this is for storage only and not for parking for your employees, then we highly encourage lighting of your storage areas for sept head reasons, but we will not require it.

Further to that, I didn't have a chance to physically get out to the building, but looking at the front of the building on Google Maps, it looks like there are unshielded wall pack lights on the front of the building. I'm concerned about that. Also, and so I'd like to see some shielding added to those fixtures to meet with our requirements I would also say if there are any fixtures added to the back that you choose to do they must be cut off and please Keep in mind you're higher than the residential areas behind you and there's a significant chance of glare going into those areas and Please do your best to if you do add lighting to avoid spillage over into those areas

Yeah, we would put the lighting low, and we would utilize wall packs on those with full cutoff shields to meet commercial design standards.

I'm just saying, like, if it's pushing, you know, even if it's low, if it's pushing toward that, if it's anywhere above any of it, you know, it can create a glare just from being higher than the other neighborhood areas, based on what I can see from the topography, depending on where it falls on the site. Okay. Yes, ma'am.

So is everything that's behind the existing kind of building, is it fenced in, you said? Or is there just like one flat fence in one part?

There's a fence. I'm Aaron Black with Get Graphic. There's a fence that we put in on the east side all the way down. And then there was an existing fence at the bottom that was damaged during the sewer expansion that was replaced.

Does it go all the way back to the left, back to the building, or just does it stop kind of behind that shed?

It comes down on the right-hand side all the way down and then back across to the left topmost edge, but does not come back up the other property line.

Do we have a picture there at non-large scale where it kind of shows the proposed placement? So this was a rut row we built in the floodplain with no permits. So this non-large scale is remedying, is trying to remedy that with the city.

Yes, correct. And so we're voting on the variance of the commercial design standards on something that was built without permit, correct?

Correct. So they're proposing to move it, right? To move the actual building? Yes.

Yes, ma'am. We're proposing to move that out of the floodway and floodplain.

So seeking variances for what is a new development plan.

So even if the fence is allowed to stay, the six-foot fence to do the screening, is there not part of the property that should be screened that's not screened to the left? Is that fair to say?

Potentially. It depends what's next to it. If they have storage or it's an incompatible use, they'd be required to.

Well, I know it's undeveloped currently, but there's streets that are like cul-de-sacs that could come on down. So if development goes behind there, is there adequate screening around your whole property to kind of block residential?

I believe what's to my left is commercial. Everything else is floodway. And then across is Pasadena Loop. And then I think maybe one house to the west of Pasadena can see the property from the back. But... I don't think there's anything there that's developable that isn't currently occupied.

I'm following on the planning department, I guess, to see if there's anything that could be developed back there.

If this is helpful. So if you see in this picture, on the north end of this property, there is a waterway and sewer lines that are going through there, which Mr. Black is referring to. And then beyond that waterway is Pasafena Loop. due to the sewer line construction that had gone on through there and there are there's not many trees there are some but it is pretty bare there but what they are proposing to do or to keep is not as the elevation is not as high as the approved development was that helpful at all or is there any

And if I can add, the owner has stated that he is willing to plant some trees wherever it is needed or required to meet the standards. He's willing to work with everybody on that and make sure that we're meeting the code.

It's a call for the vote on the variances if we're going to take them all together. Call for the vote. It's a tie, three to three. Fails.

Thank you. You have, by the way. FYI, and you'll get a letter afterwards, but you have the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to City Council. You need to file your appeal in writing to the City Clerk's Office within 15 days of the Planning Commission's decision. You have to identify what you think the error of the Planning Commission's decision was, and there's a requirement to re-notify the adjacent property owners. If you get with the Planning Department, we're happy to walk you through that, okay? Thank you.

Up next is B26-65, Juan Manuel Rodriguez and Lizette Lozano, presented by Juan Manuel Rodriguez.

Hi, my name is Giselle Rodriguez, and I'm going to help him.

I'm going to interpret for him. He is hoping to request a variance for reduction of setback from 30 feet to 20 feet for the 2306 Jean Street. He's hoping to build a porch on the front, and he can't do so unless he gets the reduction.

Thank you. Any staff comment?

We verify there's no easement with our encroaching on.

No easements. I just had a note that we need to make sure we're measuring from the back of the sidewalk, but it looks like we ran those calculations and it works out with the 20 feet that he's asking for.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners? If none, where are we? Sorry, this is a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes five to one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Up next, V26-66, Mabry Crusay, presented by Mabry Crusay.

Hello, my name is Mabry Crusay. So I'm just requesting a variance in height for my fence. It's a corner lot. And so anywhere I want to build, it can only be three feet. And I have a dog that is almost that tall. So it's just not very safe. And so for my safety and also the public safety, I'm just requesting the fence height increase.

So are you ideally seeking it where the yellow highlighted line is around the perimeter of your property?

So since it is a corner lot, I don't know if I necessarily would do the entire thing, but I'm not sure. Like at this point, I just went in whatever would be approved in order to provide my dog with a safe area.

I think site and visibility. And so the engineering department and Katie's team who oversees streets and sidewalks would have some concern just as closer you get a taller fence of visibility. And I know you're on an important corner and near a school. So the closer that you move the fence towards the house is better for site visibility or a different material, rod iron or something that was visible. Katie may have some questions.

I think we just need to figure out how far we need to set that fence back from the street just so that everyone can see at that intersection when they're coming around the corner, and we can work with you on that, the exact location, but the height isn't a problem.

Okay, thank you.

Any public comment? Commissioners? If none, this is a call for the vote. Call for the vote.

I just want to be clear that it would be an acceptable what we are voting, what the Planning Commission is voting on, is the fence heist, but an acceptable something that is worked out and approved by Planning and Engineering Department.

Correct, yeah. If you just want to reach out after tonight and we can kind of go out there and figure out where we need to move that fence so that everybody can see and you can back out of the driveway safely and all of that.

Passes six to zero. Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, B26-67 and B26-68, Dean's Trail Commercial, presented by Bates & Associates.

Good evening. My name is Hunter McCutcheon, representing Bates & Associates regarding the Dean's Trail Commercial Center. Tonight, we are here to request some Board of Adjustments variances along with Commercial Design Center variances and a waiver request. These are in regards to pedestrian flow. for a sidewalk connection that would connect to Highway 412. We've currently paid or we're paying a fee in lieu for the sidewalk that fronts Highway 412 and currently are not providing the connection from that sidewalk to the customer entrance of the building. We're also requesting a variance for lighting on the east side of the site. Currently There is existing lights that do not meet commercial design standards. They are not full cutoff lights. And we are also requesting a variance for paving requirements for the private Highway 265 access. We request that this be a gravel surface as this will only be used by the owners. And we're also requesting a variance for overhead power as opposed to underground, which was requested from Ozarks Electric. And I believe that the owners are here to share a little more on that. And lastly, we have a waiver request for the sidewalk widening along Highway 265.

Wait, that's not before this body tonight.

Oh, I apologize. No worries.

We worked with the developer. He paid the fee in lieu, so we were able to take that off the agenda.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Absolutely.

Staff would like to clarify real quick that there's also a variance request for outdoor storage, trash collection, and loading areas for the dumpster enclosure on site. The enclosure itself meets commercial design standards. However, the gate is chain link with slats, and that does not comply.

Any staff comments?

I will note that the Dean's Child project is coming along. You guys are getting close. But I think there was a summary that I think commissioners got handed, which was basically just some background and history. Because I think even some of these variances we have actually visited before has been denied, where the 12 months has since passed. So they can file again for said variance. So even if we go through a couple of these and take a couple of these, because I think it is important to identify which ones this body has already denied and they're asking for again, and why, and which ones are connected to the actual Dean's Trail large-scale development as opposed to some of the other dirt work that's happening with that entrance to 265. Sarah?

So just for the commission's context, for the pedestrian flow, what we're looking at on the screen here, there are two structures that were approved for this development. The structure we are on right now is 1515 East Robinson. This is looking north towards Highway 412. On their development plan, they took what you see here is this pedestrian crosswalk, that brick pattern there. They took that to the right of way. And as you'll see in this picture, The pedestrian crossing was constructed in the parking lot, but it stopped short at back of curb. It does not actually connect to the right of way. So that is for a pedestrian flow. And then, as I said previously, the dumpster enclosure door. And then with the lighting itself. So on the west side of the building, the developer did provide full cutoff shield wall packs. However, on the east side, They are requesting to have these fixtures remain, which were not approved with the original development plan. And staff was able to confirm with the manufacturing rep that these are not full cutoff shields. And as you can see, they are angled slightly upward. And then as far as the paving requirement goes, we've got the Highway 265 access road that would lead to the rear of this development. This road has been here for quite some time. As the commission may be aware, there's been grading going on in this property for years now. And it seems as if the owner wishes to have it remain as is. And then as Hunter touched on a moment ago, they wish to keep the overhead electric, which is located on the west side of the property. This location specifically is in between two commercial properties. And these lines, the poles themselves and the lines were pre-existing. However, the new connection which you see crossing from east to west to the building was not there previously. Therefore, they have to request to keep it.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners?

I have a comment, and I'm going to speak very strongly on this lighting issue. The statement in the request for variance saying lighting pollution is already current in the area and has not created any negative impacts. I highly and strongly dispute that. There's significant issues in town in general, which I think we are working with our commercial standards to address and improve. And therefore, yeah, the existing in the area needs to be fixed, which is why I'm going to say very strongly against any variance in that regard on this project.

Any other comments? And thank you for that. I understand. And you were talking on the west side or the east, ma'am?

Yes.

The west side, we have now installed full cutoff lights that meet requirements. It's just the east side that's not in compliance.

I'm speaking to the comment that was left on here saying that it's not an issue in the area. And I just want to say that it is an issue throughout town. And I think every opportunity that we have to improve the appearance and also just the existence for, for neighboring traffic, neighboring areas, um, is, is in our best interest as a city.

Understood. Thank you.

And the access to two 65, that is not part of, um, That's not delineated as part of the parameter of the Dean's Trail large-scale development, correct?

It was shown on the plans that were approved.

Was it connection 265?

The connection to 265. A variance was requested in 2024, it looks like, for it to remain gravel, and that was denied. So it was changed to concrete on the approved development or pavement. It may have been asphalt.

at this time.

It was shown on there just to show connection at a time whenever we finished the other buildings on that side. It was never meant to be a part of this project.

And I have a comment about the lighting. Boss, can you give me your name, please? Gage Edwards. On the original lighting, our original variance was denied. We tried to put in the pole lights that were on the original plan, and we actually had to meet planning on site, and we were unable to do that because of the existing sewer and the sewer easement. The city of Springdale Water Department would not like us to put the pole lights directly on top of the existing sewer easement. And that's whenever we arrived at lights that we have and have them angled to where they do cut off at our property line and aren't supposed to shine out. There is an additional pole light that we have got and gotten confirmation today that it is full cut off that goes up at the road. I don't know if it's shown, but that is.

I think that, have you guys taken a light meter over there and got over on the trail to prove that there is no light that leaks over off of our property? I want someone to do that because I know that there's not any. It doesn't go across our property line. That's why they're angled up at a certain angle is so that they do cut off, they just don't have shields on.

And that's why in the manufacturer, whenever you look it up, it's not listed as a full cutoff light because we had to do that to accommodate for not having light poles.

Exactly.

Even if it doesn't reach the edge of the site, as soon as it's angled up like that, it creates a glare problem for passing by traffic.

Do what now?

It creates a glare problem for traffic that is driving by specifically on 412.

I drive by there all the time, and I haven't seen a glare, and I have a hard time with glares all the time, especially with the police lights. So, I mean, I don't know what to say other than that.

Well, if you do, a photometric plan or some sort of confirmation of the light will help because we would like to see that too.

If we can prove that there's no light leakage over the property line, is that good enough?

No, because if you have a light that's angled up, that alone kind of tells us. Do what now? If you have a light that you showed where it's angled up, that alone indicates that you're going to have some light pollution.

We were unable to use the original lights and the lighting plan, and we met with the planning commission on site, and this is what I was told would be acceptable.

Whenever this project was first presented in 2024, I know there was discussion about not wanting to put in pole lights out there because of the semi-truck traffic and the potential- That's one concern. Correct.

Because they'll knock them down. They do on the other property we have.

So at that time, it was decided that the site would be lighted for the parking lot with wall-mounted lighting and not a pole light. And then, of course, as the commission recalls, back in March, we came back before this body for paving requirement and the rear of the property to leave it as gravel and during that time we discussed that the grading plan was altered slightly as well as the site plan to increase the pavement area for truck maneuvering which then left only the sewer easement of green space or space available that the developer could have put a pole light.

I didn't do the grading plan, so I don't know. I mean, we had to install a wall, a retainer wall, to be able to get the parking lot in right over by the sewer easement. I mean, that's all I do know. We ended up having to put a wall, and it wasn't shown on the drawing either. But that's what we did, because it's the only way it would work. We didn't have enough parking.

Any other staff comments, comments from the public, from the staff or commission?

What was the issue with this 265 access road? What were you all saying about it?

It was shown on the plans. They asked for it to remain gravel, asked for a variance once that was denied. The plan set that we approved and was stamped showed it as a paved surface. They said that they didn't want that to be part of this development, but it was shown on the approved plan set to be paved.

That was just shown on there for... just so I would know what I was doing on that side of the property.

We get that, but we don't know that, Greg. We know what your plan is, but we don't know that. So when we see that on the plans, that's what we expect to be there when we show up.

Out to that property, it will be done, but I don't want to pave it where I'm going to build a building. And I don't know where I'm going to build it yet exactly. I've got pads built out there, but if somebody walks into my office and asks for 100,000 square feet, that will all change.

Sure, it could have been removed from the plans then, and it wasn't.

Well, it could be removed from this, too, but it doesn't sound like it's going to be.

Or a phasing plan. You know, is there a master plan for this entire area and for the stuff to the south and these building pads?

You're pretty much looking at my master plan for now. But it's subject to change, and it will change. I guarantee you it will change.

Well, make sure the city is aware when these changes come up.

And I'm going to change it, but I don't know what it's going to change to yet. I mean, I don't have a crystal ball.

But you've got to tell us when you do find out.

I mean, I can't tell everybody in the world every time I make a decision because I don't even know what it's going to be. Well, if it's about development, you've got to tell us.

Mr. Edwards, for this development plan that we're looking at today that you're wanting to get certificate of occupancy on, will those tenants have the ability to utilize that dirt road to 265, or will they only be allowed to come in and out of the 412 driveway?

If you tell me they can't. I'll put a cable up across it where they can't. I have not told them either way. I haven't said they can. I haven't said they can.

Do you mind clarifying, as it is today, there is a concrete driveway that leads to the southern end of this development where that lay-down yard is proposed, the material storage yard, and so you're saying that... What is that?

Material storage yard.

Your gravel yard. Yes. Yes.

Back there at the back?

Yes, sir. So do you see on that drawing where that access road is shown to come up to the southern property line? You're agreeable to not allow that and to put up a barricade to not allow your tenants to come in and out?

I'll put a barricade across that end where nobody can get across there. I'll put it right there. That's not a problem at all.

Again, we would need at least an updated one page showing that that's going to be blocked off because if it's going to allow two-way traffic and the tenants to 265, now we need a 24-foot wide built to city standard drive.

Yes, ma'am, and we've previously had a final inspection out on this site, and there were some issues that we're still working through with the final inspection. And with this, we're also providing a revision of the plan set that will be sent to the city of Springdale for their review on everything, and we will be sure to show these modifications and revisions with this.

To clarify with the fire department that there are no access issues with eliminating that secondary access?

Yeah, we don't have anything there that needs to be, we have a turnaround there between the two buildings, so I think our access is adequate. Thank you.

Are you guys opposed to tabling coming back with the site plan that includes all this we're talking about?

I have part of this building leased.

I have a space leased in there that I'm supposed to be finished with in a month and a half, and I need to finish it.

But if we do not and they deny this, that means that you're held to what we have right now.

I'll have to go a different route. I'll have to do something else because I promised a guy that I'll have him moved in there, and over this little bit of stuff, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to move him in. I'll sign an affidavit that I'll do what they say, but I cannot table this. I have to try to finish. I owe it to Liam. I owe it to my tenant to do what I set up to do. Okay.

We would like to proceed as is. Understood. Any other comments from the public, staff, commission before we get to voting?

I would like to assure this commission that the planning department will not release certificate of occupancy on this site without that resolved.

Understood. All right. First is a call for the vote on B26-27. There are three variance requests. Are we good? That's 67. Excuse me. Are we good on voting all the variances together, commission?

I'd prefer to keep them separate.

Sounds good. We'll start with A, pedestrian flow. And that would be a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Fails, four to two. Next is B, outdoor storage, trash collection, and loading areas. Also a call for the vote. That one is a tie, three to three, it fails. Next will be C, lighting, also a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

That one fails, zero to six. Up next is B26-68. The first up is a variance from the paving requirement. That's a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Fails four to two. Last is the variance for the underground utility lines requirement. There's also a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

That one passes five to one.

So for the variances that failed, you have the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to City Council. You have to file your appeal in writing to the City Clerk's Office within 15 days of the Planning Commission's meeting. You have to identify what you think the error in the Planning Commission's decision, and there is a requirement to re-notify adjacent property owners.

Understood. Thank you.

Up next, B26-69, Milestone Construction Company, LLC, presented by Paul Davidson.

Good evening. My name is Paul Davidson with Milestone Construction Company. This is Sam Hollis. He's one of the owners of Milestone Construction Company. We purchased the lot to the left of our existing building to do an expansion for our lay down yard area. And so really we're wanting to put a fence up around the entire property and we already received a variance to put gravel down inside the fenced-in area, but there's a few things that we kind of came up that we wanted to address too. So on the east side of the property line, this design standards call for landscaping and that's going to be in between our two parcels and basically we're trying to open up our existing lay down area into the west and be able to just drive equipment, storage and everything between the two. So the hope is to remove the entire fence that's on our current west side, which would be the east side of this property, and not do any landscaping there. On the west side, it also would call for landscaping. And with some trees and everything, there is an existing water line. So one of the comments that we received from the city was that the Springdale Water requested seven foot away from the water line. To move it seven foot away, it puts it up pretty much against our fence if we maximize our fence area. And so we took the tree part of that out but left the bushes, the bush requirements in there to try to meet that standard. And then we left it on the south and the north side, everything that was required. The third thing that we have on there is a lighting system. We didn't show any lighting on our lot because it is a storage lay-down yard, and it's not for parking, not for really, I mean, just day use. We bring stuff, pick it up, take it away, and we didn't want to kind of draw attention to our storage area for anybody to entice anybody to do anything that they didn't need to do. That's pretty much it. Thank you.

Staff comments?

I will say I wouldn't be doing my job unless I at least brought it to your attention that there are CPTED principles, just crime prevention through environmental design, highlights lighting as safety. I know sometimes it feels like it draws attention, but it also is a big, big safety factor.

Any other staff comments? Public? Commissioners?

So to clarify, you're looking to seek no lighting in that area?

Is there a street light on the plan Katie or is there there's an existing street light on the northwest corner?

That light the drive at least that that's at least one thing the city Just in case if somebody was be pulled over or within that area.

We just want to make sure that there's it currently Honestly, I'm rarely there at night, so I don't know how well it lights up the area, but it is on the northwest corner

I've driven past it. I feel like it does light up that corner of their parking lot, like their sign and some of the parking spaces on the corner. And that little drive-in area, I believe it's all lit up.

Yeah, I think the streetlights were done with the subdivision and do meet city standards.

Anybody else?

I get they're not doing the landscaping on both sides, but would the trees be allocated that were supposed to be on those two sides? Across the top and the bottom?

On the north and the south end, all the trees that were required are there.

For the total project or just for those two sides?

Just for the two sides.

I would say put the total.

Okay. I mean, I just didn't know. I just, the density of the amount of trees.

Depending on y'all's recommendation, but if it can fit and looks good, would it not be, is it an option or no?

I'm sure we could figure out species that could, you know, fit closer together. We'll have to look at that. I'm not sure if it would be overcrowded or not, just looking at this plan.

I'm Sam Hollis. Yes, I mean, if it works out to where we can add those trees to the north and south, we'd be happy.

I just wanted to comment one thing. If you do at some point in the future want to do lighting, putting motion sensing on the exterior lighting can help with your security so that, you know, it can minimize how much it's being used and motion catches people's eye. And so if they see a light come on, they're more likely to be drawn to seeing, hey, there's an issue here, but then it wouldn't be on most of the time.

Mm-hmm.

How tall was your fence? It was a nice material.

It's an eight-foot TREX fence, so we're trying to protect and hide and cover everything, keep it out of public view.

If there are no other comments, this will be a call for the vote on the variances, if everyone's going to take them together. Passes five to one. Thank you. Up next, B26-70, Roberto M. Osorio, presented by Sarah and James Gertz.

My name is James Gertz, engineer on this project. This is coincided with a lot line adjustment, lot split going through administratively through the city. We're looking to be bringing a future subdivision in the parcels that are being remaining. There's a mortgage associated with the overall track that includes the house lot plus the two tracks. The lot line adjustment will eliminate the line. AND WE WANT TO REDUCE HIS MORTGAGE AREA SO HE CAN RENEGOTIATE WITH THE MORTGAGE COMPANY AND LEAVE THE REMAINDER FREE AND CLEAR FOR SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THE REDUCTION FROM THE 75 OR THE 70 FOOT FOR THE ZONING IS 55 AND A HALF WILL ACCOMMODATE A FUTURE RIDE AWAY AND EASEMENTS LEADING TO THE BACK SUBDIVISION. SO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

ANY STAFF COMMENTS? Anything from the public? Commissioners? If there are none, this is a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes six to zero.

Thank you.

All right, next we're moving into waivers. Up first is W26-25, Cayetano Garcia Rodriguez and Bertina Garcia, presented by Ricardo Garcia.

Hello, I'm Ricardo Garcia, here for Cayetano and Bertina, a.k.a. my parents. They are requesting a waiver for sidewalk requirements on 4300 Crocsdale Street.

Any staff comment? Anything from the public? Commissioners?

I don't think there's currently any sidewalks down Croxtail. I believe we've approved, I'm not sure when the most recent Croxtail waiver was, but within the last year.

Yeah, this is one of those streets where we don't have curb and gutter. We don't have storm drainage. It's all roadside ditches that would make it difficult to install a sidewalk.

If there are no comments, this is a motion to forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval of the waiver.

Motion to send to city council for approval. Second.

Passes six to zero.

Staff is going to prepare a resolution that's going to go to city council on the 28th. Tuesday, it's going to be 6 p.m. right here. You're encouraged to attend just in case they have questions, okay? Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, W26-28, Ryan and Kristen Hartley, presented by Ryan and Kristen Hartley.

Hello, I'm Ryan Hartley, asking for a waiver to forgo the sidewalk on 8216 East Brown Road. We just built our home there. There's no sidewalk along Brown Road anywhere. It offers little to no connectivity. There's also no curb and gutter along the street as well, so.

Any staff comments? Public? Commissioners? If no, this is a motion forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval.

Motion to forward to city council for approval. Second.

Passes six to zero.

Staff will prepare a resolution that goes to city council on the 28th, 6 p.m. here. You're encouraged to attend. Thank you.

Up next, W26-29, Gaston's Trattoria, presented by Burt Jones.

Good evening. I'm Burt Jones, and we're requesting a waiver for street improvements in front of our new trattoria.

Any staff comments?

Do we have an aerial? Can we show where it is? This is a new restaurant they're going to open on Holcomb. And I believe right now we have a non-large scale understaff review. And is it for the deck or the front? I believe we probably included pictures of that in the packet of what they're doing.

As you can clearly see, I'm not an architect, but... Yeah, we requested to reply to add a deck to the front of the building for outdoor seating and there would be a 12 or 13 space foot space between the end of the deck and the sidewalk and we just want to beautify that up, but We've run out of money

So as I read it, you're just asking to defer. You're not asking to not do it. You're just saying.

A one-year deferral, and we'd love to take care of it in the spring. And so that when everyone comes back to sit outside, it'll be all gorgeous.

I certainly prefer a deferral to a complete waiver of requests.

I'm good with that.

And there is an option where if an applicant agrees to a bill of assurance or payment in lieu of, they can do that directly with the planning commission. Then you can set the time limit, which is typically six months, one year or two.

I have no idea what you just said, but I'm sure it was okay.

A route to the deferral. So the Planning Commission has that option to set that time limit of what you requested and what that would look like.

Any other comments?

Can we request a one-year bill of assurance?

Which would basically defer it for one year. We would set that one year, and then Sarah would come knocking and say,

So then this would be a motion to forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval if it's with approval with that one-year bill of assurance.

Motion to forward to council with recommendation to approve with a one-year bill of assurance.

Second.

Passes six to zero.

All right, if you'll get with planning staff this week, and we will write up the bill of assurance for you to be able to review, sign, and then we will record it.

Perfect, thank you so much. Thank you. Up next, W26-30, Campus Edge, LLC, presented by Ross Kephart.

Hello, good evening. I'm Ross Kephart, representing Campus Edge this evening. We just completed the construction of a house at 107 Ray Dells Avenue. And our intent was to pour a sidewalk that fully aligned with the local street designation at five feet, which was the direction that we gave. When we came back, it sure looked like four feet, and when I put a tape measure up against it, it was. So I contacted Katie. We actually met at the site yesterday and worked out I don't know, a compromise, if you will. So we are requesting a waiver from a five-foot sidewalk to a four-foot sidewalk. But I would like to note our intent was to construct a five-foot sidewalk. We just didn't execute well.

So what we talked about on site yesterday was adding some wings basically to the driveway that would allow for a full five foot passing area over the flat part of the driveway that would allow for that ADA compliance while keeping the four foot sidewalk as is. Talked about adding one foot onto the back of it to make it five, but Didn't really think that that was going to work out well, probably settle, you know, end up with a trip hazard eventually. So Ross agreed to do that, and then I would support the waiver.

Any other staff comments? Anything from the public? Commissioners? If nothing, this again is a motion to forward to City Council with recommendation of denial or approval. And if it's approval with the wings that have been agreed to. Is that right, Ross?

Yes, sir.

All right. Motion to forward to city council for approval with whatever we want to call that agreement.

With ADA passing space. Let's have that. Second.

Is that a standard approach, Katie?

Yeah.

Passes 6-0.

Staff will prepare a resolution for the 28th. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, guys. Up next, W26-31, The Goring, presented by Craft & Toll.

Hello, my name is Ryan Griffin with Craft & Toll, here to represent this waiver request regarding Goring Street. The overhead electrical infrastructure installed along Goring Street is part of Final Platte FP25-05, was constructed by Ozarks Electric per the design of the previous engineering firm. At the time of installation, Ozarks Electric understood that the proposed facilities complied with the city's ordinance because the lines operate at a voltage exceeding 12 kV. It has since been brought to our attention that section 112-16 requires all new electrical lines to be installed underground with the exception of existing lines operating above 12 kV. This language appears to have created confusion regarding whether new overhead lines exceeding 12 kV were permitted. As a result of this interpretation, the overhead electrical facilities were installed along Goring Street. On behalf of Mathias, Crafts Tool respectfully requests a waiver allowing the now existing overhead electrical facilities along Goring Street to remain in place. It is important to note that as lots one through nine are developed, electrical service to each lot will be provided through underground conduits, eliminating the need for overhead service lines to the individual lots. Kraft and Toole believes this request is reasonable given the existing conditions of the surrounding area, which consists of both overhead electrical distribution infrastructure and overhead service lines serving the adjacent properties. Granting this waiver would maintain consistency with the surrounding utility infrastructure while still providing an overall improvement by requiring all future service connections to the individual lots to be installed underground. Along with this letter, we have submitted photographs that are intended to provide context for the surrounding utility infrastructure. Thank you for consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any staff comments? Public? Commissioners?

Are there any comments about the lights?

Yeah, the streetlights were added to these poles in order to comply with the streetlights, yes.

This one is a motion to forward to council.

Hold on. So those lights, do they meet the design that was done for the development?

Yes. The street light, we didn't have like a specific street light plan poll, you know, specification at the time. They meet the lumen output that's required.

So you said that they were installed by the utility under a previous design, and so somebody approved them to go ahead without the current design?

There was a little confusion. We had a final plat and a couple development plans that went together simultaneously, and I believe they had hired two separate firms. So they had somebody platting it, which had some of the information of the subdivision, lighting, utilities. And then they had Kraft and Toll, right, working on the individual developments.

Correct. Yeah, this issue got brought up when Matthias hired Kraft and Toll to develop lots 1, 3, 5, and 7. Since we've submitted these plants to the city and during the review process, this issue arose, hence why we're here asking for this waiver request.

Jennifer if this is helpful whenever we're going through final plot approval if the city receives receipt or confirmation from the Utility provider that the streetlights are on order then we will go ahead and file that final plat this subdivision sat without streetlights for months I don't know exactly how long that duration was, but it was an extended period of time, and I'm unsure if that had anything to do with the oversight of the overhead utility lines, when it should have been the utility lines underground with street lamps above ground.

That's what I was going to say. I'm less, actually in this case, concerned about the lights as I am. We're trying to move as a city toward the underground service, and I just don't know that... I don't know how huge a hardship it is, but is there any way to work with Ozarks to fix this in a reasonable manner?

One of the things that we're proposing is as each lot is developed, we're going to have underground service lots to each building. I understood that.

I'm just talking about this specifically. I understand what you're saying with that, though.

And that's why this comes in as a waiver, not a variance, because since these are in the right of way, it would be taxpayer money that would eventually need to put those lines underground if a waiver was approved today.

Anybody else?

It's definitely opened up the relationship between the city and some of these utility companies. It actually gave us, we have had a lot better communication and more direct communication with Ozarks specifically because of this issue. And I've come out with some better understanding, I think, on both sides. But I'm not sure what that remedy looks like.

So based on that understanding, they would have been able to go underground if they had known better? Correct. Correct.

From talking to Ozarks, it was our understanding that this was a financial choice.

This is a motion to forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval.

Motion to forward to council for approval. Second.

Ties, so it fails, 3-3.

All right, the staff will still prepare a resolution that is going to go to City Council on the 28th. So it will have the recommendation of denial from Planning Commission, but you can make your case then. Thanks for your time.

Up next, W26-32, Sean and Kristen Harwell Revocable Trust, presented by Sean and Kristen Harwell.

Good evening. My name is Sean Harwell, representing myself as co-owner of the property in question. I'm appearing tonight to request a waiver of the sidewalk improvement requirement for our primary residence building project. The three main reasons for this request are as follows. Our property fronts State Highway 112, maintained by R-DOT. Currently, there are no sidewalks anywhere along this corridor. R-DOT is working to widen the highway, and it will include a finished sidewalk in front of our property as part of job number 040-860. The job is in the land acquisition and condemnation phase, but the construction sequence is out of our control. Lastly, the Arkansas Highway Commission has already issued to us a sale of real estate for highway purposes contract for our signatures. They are acquiring one-fifth of an acre from us to extend the right-of-way in preparation for the highway's widening and sidewalk installation. For these reasons, we're asking the commission to waive or the city to waive the sidewalk requirement for our building project, with the understanding that the sidewalk improvement will be delivered by RDOT at a future date. Thank you for your time.

Staff comments? Public? Commissioners? This one is also a motion to forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval of the waiver.

Motion to forward to City Council for approval.

Second.

Passes 6-0.

Staff will prepare a resolution that's going to go to City Council on the 28th with a recommendation of approval.

Thank you again. Up next, V25-111, Richard Koger, presented by Thomas Koger.

Hello, my name is Thomas Coger. I am here requesting an extension on the paving requirement at 1404 Shady Grove Road in Springdale. I have been working on it. I'm just waiting on surveyors and the asphalt company.

So brief recap, I don't have the dates in front of me, but Mr. Coger, they did an informal plat and they want to open the building that's highlighted in green up for business. They asked for a variance for paving in the front. I believe it's gravel. They had a year bill of assurance.

Hold on, Sarah's going to chime in. A six-month bill of assurance approved at the December 2025 Planning Commission.

So here we are. So they're asking for another six-month extension on said bill of assurance.

Any public comment? Commissioners? Let's call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes six to zero. Cool. Thank you all.

All right. If you guys will get with the planning office this week so that we can prepare an extension for a bill of assurance for you and your brother to sign, okay? Got it.

Thank you. Thank you. Up next, L24-44, second nature landscaping phase two, presented by Swope Consulting.

Good evening. My name is Dirk Thibodeau with Swope Consulting requesting approval of the phasing plan. The owner at the time had proposed a building that didn't get constructed, and to close out the project, he's proposing to build it at a later date. So if you would like it based, please. Any staff comment?

Just to clarify for the commission, this project is ready for our final inspection and to receive certificate of occupancy. What you see highlighted is the phase three, as Dirk was referring to, is a standalone structure. Everything else on the site has been completed and is ready for inspection.

Public comment? Commissioners? This one is a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes 6-0. Thank you. Next up, L25-15, Bale at Watkins Apartments, presented by Kraft and Toll. Kraft and Toll, going twice. Kraft and Toll, one last time. All right. Next up, Planning Director's Report.

All right, everybody. Good news. July work session is canceled. We typically take a break for July and November every year. So we're going to go ahead and continue that. So enjoy this third Tuesday evening. And then we'll reconvene for the August one on the 18th at 5 p.m. A couple updates, certificate of occupancy and Sarah chime in if there are any others. Via Emma, Ruth's Landing, Modern Storage Phase 2, Buildings B and C, Chandler Village Phase 2 and 3. Recap on some of the non-large scale developments that we have that have come in that are just reviewed under the staff administrative level.

Via Emma, parking expansion. They're adding some more parking.

ESI expansion of their office building. Some more parking for Railside, downtown mixed-use building, Cavalry Free Will Baptist Church, M. Mile, which is over on Watkins, 1804 South Powell, a retail development, and Gaskins that Mr. Jones was just in here talking about on Holcomb. As other updates, FYI, B2646, which was missed, Masters of Disasters. They are appealing a variance denial. They asked for above the maximum sign height. They're out on 48th and they're adjacent to I-49. So that was denied and the appeal is set to be heard before council on July 14th. Council update from June. Everything that went had passed. We had several rezonings, a conditional use for that Spencey's Pizza. There was only one project that was not passed. It was the rezoning R26-24, I'm sorry, 25 from I-1 to I-2 on North Monitor Road. The council took no motion, therefore the request failed. And there was a rezone from C-2 to C-6 at the corner of North Thompson and Randall Wabi where there was no emergency clause passed. Everything else was passed for the land use plan. FYI, you're going to see it for the August planning commission, probably the August 17th council committee, and then tentatively the August 25th city council meeting. We will keep you guys updated. So we'll see you at the August planning commission meeting. Thank you.

We are adjourned.

Over. Over. Over one.