Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll start with the roll call.

Brent Couch.

Here.

Chris Hussain.

Here.

Clement Ogunyemi.

Here.

Matt Philpott.

Here.

Howard Austin.

Here.

Jennifer Keith. Here. Mark Cloud.

Here.

Gray Cordiel.

Here.

Teresa Reynolds. Here.

Up next is approval of minutes. This will be a call for the vote.

ALL FOR VOTE?

THAT PASSES 9-0. WE'VE GOT A FEW ITEMS TONIGHT THAT HAVE BEEN TABLED. THE FIRST ONE IS C-26-07, SUBOR DEL CAMPO, AND B-26-41. WE'VE ALSO GOT L-26-02, SUCCESS AVENUE FLATS. L26-22 and W26-40, Hanks Fine Furniture. B26-106, Mitchell and Julie Erickson Revocable Trust. And that's it. We will start with our tabled items from our last meeting. The first one's gonna be R26-34 and B26-77, Honey Properties, LLC. Mike Acuff, Cameron and Chris Honey, presented by Blue and Associates. One more time for Blue and Associates.

My name is Tanner. I'm with Balloon Associates representing the Cam and Honey Project. Tell us what you're asking for. We are basically just replatting this property. There's three existing parcels, and we're combining it into one whole parcel. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING FOR HIS BUSINESS. THAT'S BASICALLY IT. AND THEN THERE'S THE VARIANCES, WHICH IS JUST A REZONE AND THEN A SETBACK VARIANCE.

Yeah, so as Tanner mentioned, they do have an informal plat that's under review by staff. They withdrew a tandem lot request that you might have previously seen in a packet. And so they're cleaning up some property lines, which is why we have the variance request related to that plat. And while we are talking about it, I do want to note on the record that I know our building department had looked at some of these structures and just with the aerial view of whenever they were built. So I think some of the structures in the rear either need to be torn down or permitted correctly. And I don't know if the building department has anything further or specific.

Just the one lane two structure behind the existing commercial building, that building was never built with a permit. But if you're tearing it all down, it doesn't make any difference.

Yeah, that one actually, that building and the smaller one in front of it, those will both be demolished. I'm talking about the building to the right. The little canopy, the overhang canopy? Yes. Yeah, that'll be moved or tore down. Okay, okay.

And then tonight, we're really looking at the variances for that plat and a rezone. So, so far, we don't have an official development plan that's been submitted to our office to review. So really, we're just looking at the variances and the rezoning. And for staff comments on the rezone, this rezoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is recommended for approval. ASSURE ADEQUATE LAND ALLOCATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL AREAS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND IN PROPER LOCATIONS, ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WIDE RANGE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND REGIONAL CENTERS, AND PROMOTE THE VIABILITY OF OLDER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AS WELL AS NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

ANY OTHER STAFF COMMENTS? ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS?

In regard to your variance request on the setbacks, are these existing buildings? I'm sorry, there's a lot of information on that page.

Right now they exist, but they're going to be demolished, so they won't encroach the setbacks.

So we really don't need the variances then?

Well, if they want the plat signed before the structures are demolished. One or the other. You don't need the variance, but we would have to ensure that they were torn down before we signed the plat.

Yeah, I was told to go ahead and do the variance just THAT'S HOW WE GOT THERE.

SO DOES THAT, IF WE APPROVE THESE VARIANCES, DICTATE WHEN THEY BUILD BACK WHAT THEY CAN DO?

NO, NO. SO THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY SEPARATE. IF THEY COME BACK WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BUILD ANYTHING NEW, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL. IF IT'S A LARGE SCALE, POTENTIALLY COME BEFORE THIS BODY. SO REALLY IT'S UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT REALLY THE TIMING OF THE PLAT. IF THEY NEED THIS SIGNED PROMPTLY BEFORE THEY TEAR IT DOWN, THEN THEY DO NEED A VARIANCE.

WE'RE TEARING IT DOWN, BUT I CAN LET MR. HONEY SPEAK. I'M GOING TO START BUILDING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CAMERON, HONEY.

BUT OTHER THAN BUILDING, BECAUSE TONIGHT WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE REZONING AND THE VARIANCES FOR THE PLAT, DO YOU HAVE TIME TO TEAR THESE BUILDINGS DOWN, REVISE THE PLAT, SHOWING THOSE STRUCTURES NO LONGER THERE, AND THEN GET IT SIGNED?

AS SOON AS THE PERSON I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM IS GONE, He has a month to start getting stuff off there, and then I'm going to start demoing everything and cleaning up the site. If you guys have seen it, it's horrible.

So if the plat is needed for the sale, then they probably do need to go ahead with variants if you...

It's already bought. I bought it Friday.

Yeah, I don't... I mean, I like the idea of tearing everything out and cleaning everything up. I'm not supporting giving you variances on setbacks and... because those setbacks are there for a reason. And so if your plan is to tear them down anyway, I don't see the point of giving a variance on that if that's your plan. Because we don't necessarily like giving variances on setbacks unless there's a really good reason why. And the fact that you want to tear them down is not a good reason why, in my opinion. But also, no one will make a hardship for you. So I think that's kind of what's in my head. I don't understand the Platt situation as far as how that would slow them down.

WELL, WE'RE GOING TO SIGN IT. IT NEEDS TO REFLECT THE CURRENT CONDITIONS. SO THAT TIMELINE IS UP TO YOU, I GUESS. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEMOLISH THOSE IMMEDIATELY, WE'D RATHER YOU REVISE THE PLAT, WITHDRAW THE VARIANTS, AND WE ONLY DO THE REZONING. BUT IF THAT'S GOING TO BE AN EXTENDED TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHEN. IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO HIM.

I MEAN, I'M AT HIS MERCY NOW. I OWN THE PROPERTY, BUT HE STILL IS LIVING ON IT. SO HE COULD TAKE A YEAR. I DON'T KNOW. I just want to be able to move forward and get this thing taken care of. So however I got to do it, I'm willing to do it. If you got out of there, I would start demoing it tomorrow, but it's still there.

Yeah, understood.

So I think that's probably where the variance will come in to where I can move on.

So is there a time frame he has to vacate the premises?

He has a month to remove his stuff from the lower part where the two buildings are, and then he has six months to get out of there where he's living, where the trailer house is with his RV.

Can he just wait to ask for this replay after all that's done?

He could. It just depends on the timing, right? So we would... the property line adjustment is needed for some of the development plan things.

So I guess that's my point, is what the people in front of us are planning to do, is what they're planning to do require these setbacks, or is it because of existing conditions?

Existing conditions.

Okay, thank you.

Any other staff comments?

So I don't understand, honestly. So what's, we're gonna go ahead and approve the variance. It's still on table to approve two variances, correct? They need the variance right now, or can we table this and come back at a later time? I'm not gonna approve these variances. That's just my opinion. So I don't know. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding it correctly.

That is what's in, I mean.

Sure, but you would agree with me if we approve these variances and your client goes and tears down these sheds, he can just go and rebuild whatever he wants to within those setbacks?

I don't want to do that.

But you could do that as the issue that we run into.

And then you don't need the variances. So what I think all of us here are trying to do is how do we help you move forward, but not give you the ability to build inside setbacks, which we don't want to do. And right now, it doesn't seem like, you know, if we vote down the variance request, that may hold you up, but I don't know, you know, the way...

Can we narrow down some of the structures? Are we able to look at it and say, okay, that lean-to, which ones can go sooner than later, with giving him the respect to the timeline that's been agreed upon for his residence, but look at some of the other accessory ones that might be able to come down?

I mean, all of them can.

Do you have the ability to tear these structures down now, or do you have to wait for him to move out first?

The two big ones, he has a month to remove it as of Friday. So a month from Friday, he's supposed to have that out. Again, I don't know if his stuff's still in there, and I can't really start demoing it.

Sure. Then I'll be... Well, that may move faster if you say, you know, you got a month to get this out, we're demoing this a month from now. Because, I mean, what I'd rather you wait until you get everything demoed, come back to us with a replat that's clean, and we can help you get your project done. That's what I would prefer.

Sharon, a variance would convey if this property were ever in the future sold. Is that correct? Correct.

At least this one would because it's with the setbacks which stays with the land as opposed to like a design standard one that's particular to a structure.

So could we not do the variance with like a timeline to where we give them the variances and he has within a year to knock it down and then those variances go away or no?

That would be great if that's possible.

I don't know. I'd have to look into that option. I mean, it sounds reasonable, but I want to make sure that... THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE POTENTIAL WRAP TO TAKE.

PROJECT'S GONE ON LONG ENOUGH, SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO LAY THIS ONE TO REST.

PROBABLY WITH TROUBLE WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS, LET US VOTE ON THE RAID ZONE AND THEN COME

I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT?

TO WITHDRAW THE VARIANCE REQUEST, COME BACK WHEN YOU'RE READY, WHEN YOU'VE GOT THEM TORN DOWN, LIKE MARK SAID, WITH A PLAT THAT SHOWS THE LAND AS IT IS, BECAUSE NONE OF US FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVING YOU THE ABILITY TO BUILD IN SETBACKS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THEN ANYONE WITH THIS CAN JUST DO THAT, AND WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

JUST SO I KNOW WHAT I'M ABLE TO DO, CAN AND CAN'T DO. I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BUILDING A RETAINING WALL TO KEEP ALL THE WATER FROM, BECAUSE THIS IS IN A FLOOD ZONE. I WANT TO BUILD A WALL, START BRINGING IN DURBS TO BRING THAT UP AND ALSO DEMO THOSE BUILDINGS. SO I'M ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT

THE PLAT COULD BE PENDING, BUT YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND WORK ON AND TALK TO THE CITY ABOUT LIKE A CONCEPT FOR WHATEVER THOSE FUTURE PLANS ARE, BECAUSE THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE VETTED AND APPROVED BY THIS BODY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. BUT IF YOU WANT, IF YOU WANT TO COME TO THE PLANNING OFFICE AND MEET WITH MYSELF OR ED THERE IN BUILDING, THE FIRE MARSHAL, AND WE CAN HELP LOOK AT THIS AND MAYBE IDENTIFY MORE SPECIFICALLY STRUCTURE BY STRUCTURE, MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

We don't have a problem with the rezone request. We don't have a problem with what you're trying to do. We just can't give you, in my opinion, I can't give you variance on things that you intend to tear down anyway.

Yeah.

It just sets us up for, it's just, yeah, it's not a good move for us.

That opens up a can of worms. We don't want to do that. Yeah.

I understand.

Yeah. because they're going to be demolished and then they pushed and pushed for the variance. So I basically had to apply for it at that point.

Understood. So you want to draw your request for variance and just ask for the rezone?

Yes, please. Okay.

Call for a vote.

Passes 9-0.

Staff is going to prepare an ordinance for the rezone that is going to go to City Council on the 22nd. That'll be here at 6 p.m. and you're encouraged to attend. Okay.

So we passed, you said?

The rezone did. It has to go to City Council now. And then if you'll get with us in the building department in the morning and we can help narrow down on these structures.

Okay. What I can do. Thank you.

Thank you for your help. Thank you, gentlemen. Up next, C26-16, Taqueria Rosie Toluca, presented by Wendy E. Moak.

Good evening. So we're asking for a conditional use application for a food truck business to be in place in this property.

Any staff comments?

I'm sorry?

Just asking if there were any comments from the staff.

Yes, so for this food truck request, we've seen food trucks at this location before, the 4409 South Thompson. So we know from previous requests that there's 28 total paved spots, three of which are designated for the food truck. The site and what she's proposed, the site, setback, paving, parking, lighting, all meet the requirements. Now, we did have the last food truck that was previously approved at this address in 2025. And so just to avoid incidentally creating a food truck court by multiple, there's an extra condition added to the list. Basically just helping reiterate that one food truck is allowed at this location. And then I just wanted to confirm the utility hookup on site? Yes. That you do have it? HOW DO YOU GET POWER TO RUN THE FOOD TRUCK? WE'RE GOING TO GET A GENERATOR. OKAY.

THAT'S ALLOWED.

THEN FOR THE RECORD, IF IT'S OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST READ THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR MOBILE VENDING SITES. PARKING AND LOADING AREAS IDENTIFIED MAY NOT OPERATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10 P.M. AND 7 A.M. NO OBSTRUCTION OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION OF ANY OTHER USE ON SITE. MAINTAIN ON SITE A 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 FLOW. NO OBSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS OR REGULATORY SIGNS. NO VENDING UPON A PUBLIC WAY. NO SOUND DEVICE THAT PRODUCES A LOUD OR ROCKEST NOISE IN VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE OR VIOLATION OF ANY OTHER CITY ORDINANCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE VENDING OPERATION. KEEP THE VENDING SITES CLEAN AND FREE OF PAPER OR REFUSE OF ANY KIND GENERATED FROM THE OPERATION OF THIS BUSINESS. ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS ACCUMULATING WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE MUST BE COLLECTED AND DEPOSITED INTO A TRASH CONTAINER. SUBMISSION OF APPROVED GREYWATER DISPOSAL BY SPRINGDALE WATER UTILITIES. SUBMISSION OF APPROVED GREASE DISPOSAL METHOD BY ARKANSAS HEALTH DEPARTMENT. AND ALL SIGNS MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF A TEMPORARY SIGN. NO FLASHING SIGNS OR LIGHTS ALLOWED. AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL, NO OTHER MOBILE VENDING UNIT, INCLUDING ANY VENDOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY, MAY OPERATE ON THE PROPERTY UNDER THIS APPROVAL. ANY REPLACEMENT VENDOR, ADDITIONAL MOBILE VENDING UNIT, CHANGE IN APPLICANT OR CHANGE IN LOCATION SHALL RE A new conditional use application and all required city approvals.

Any comment from the public? Commissioners? If none, this is a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero.

Staff is going to prepare a resolution that's going to go to City Council on September 22nd at 6 p.m. in this room. You're encouraged to attend.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up is PP26-07, Whispering Springs, Phase 1 through 4, Revised, previously PP23-19, presented by Kraft & Tull & Associates.

Hello. Blake Murray with Kraft & Tull. PHASE 2 FINAL PLAT. IN DOING SO, WE FOUND SOME DRAINAGE SITUATIONS WE NEEDED TO FIX BY INCREASING ONE OF THE PINE SIZES IN PHASE, IT WAS AT THE SOUTHERN END OF PHASE 2. WE'RE NOW CHANGING THAT TO BE IN PHASE 3. WE'VE ALREADY MADE PINE REVISIONS AND EVERYTHING. THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S DRIVING THIS. WE LOST ONE LOT TO MAKE THE PINE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE FOR THIS.

STAFF COMMENTS? To standard comments, planning just has a few. We just need to ensure that the vacated utility easement is not reflected on any of the pages. That's ordinance number 6177. And make sure that the construction set is updated accordingly. And then indicate total acreage for the subdivision and then acreage per phase.

No comments from engineering.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners? If none, this is a motion subject to staff comments.

So motion.

Second. Passes nine to zero. Thank you. Up next, we've got RP26-08 and B26-82 Ranchwood Place Subdivision presented by Michael Townsend.

MY NAME IS TANNER NEWKIRK WITH BLUE. MICHAEL IS ALSO PRESENT.

I'M SORRY, REAL QUICK, DO WE HAVE AN AUTHORIZATION FOR BLUE FOR THIS REPLAT? I MEAN, IF NOT, I CAN HAVE MICHAEL COME UP HERE.

SORRY IF I JUST DESCRIBE WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THEM. So basically we're replatting three lots. The two to the west are being combined. The one to the east is being slightly adjusted. And then we have a setback variance to reduce the front setback from 30 to 24 feet. Since there's a little encroachment there on the overhang of that building on the east parcel. So it's been removed?

It's not yet, but it's being torn down. Okay.

Any staff comments?

Well, sorry, hold on. What's being torn down? I'm sorry to revisit this again.

The lawnmower shed that's on the east side there.

Is it reflected on the plot?

Yeah, the OVH? Yeah. Well, I don't know if it's the most recent version.

Well, if it's demolished by the time of completion, can we get a revised one that then reflects it not being there?

Yes, it's in the process. I'm waiting for a new shed to be delivered so that I can put my lawnmower.

Gotcha. Okay, so the new shed being delivered, which is why you do request the variance, right? Yes. Because you want it at the same location?

No, the variance is, I believe, for the front porch that's too close to the front. When I moved there in 1986, the front porch was there, so I didn't know that it had nothing to do with it.

So that rectangle that has OVH below the building rectangle, that's your front porch that encumbers a 30-foot setback.

Correct.

And it's been existing since when?

Since I moved there.

In the 80s? Yeah. Yeah, okay.

Any staff comments? In addition to standard comments, like I said, Tanner already mentioned the pending variance. The shed meets the criteria to be an accessory structure and within the setbacks. So check that internally. The South Turner Street needs to be updated to read just Turner Street. Include a note that the plot meets minimum standards and ensures signatures are updated to reflect the memo. AND I UNDERSTAND TANNER ACTUALLY SENT AN UPDATED PLOT EARLIER, SO IT SHOULD BE GOOD.

ENGINEERING HAS NO COMMENTS.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? COMMISSIONERS? WE'LL START WITH THE VARIANTS, SO THERE'LL BE A CALL FOR A VOTE. CALL FOR A VOTE. THAT PASSES NINE TO ZERO. NEXT WILL BE REPLAT, THAT'S A MOTION SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS.

MOTION SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS.

SECOND. ALSO PASSES NINE TO ZERO.

ALL RIGHT, STAFF WILL PREPARE AN ORDINANCE, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL NEXT TUESDAY, THE 8TH, The replat has to now go on to city council for final approval. And so staff, if replats can go next Tuesday on the 8th, but if you want that, we need an ordinance and any revisions left on the plat by close of business tomorrow. It's kind of a tight deadline, but. Okay.

Thank you. Next up is FB26-12, Ronald Katjang and Rosalie Lelouch, presented by Ronald and Rosalie. Hi.

Good evening, everyone.

Hi, could you tell us your names, please?

I'm Rosalia Lelouch.

Ronald Katjang. WE PRETTY MUCH LAID DOWN THE GRAVEL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WE DID 13 AND A HALF WIDE AND 52 FEET LONG. REASON FOR TRYING TO AVOID PAVING AND PARKING ON THE STREET.

STAFF COMMENTS?

I do at least want to mention that there's been a number of driveway expansions in that neighborhood. And so I know that the lots can seem constrained. But can you go back to an aerial view, Nate? Just as a reminder, we had that large scale. I guess we don't have a mouse to circle it. But that big open area on the north side. We had approved a large scale earlier this year for a 200-unit complex that was going to have full street improvements up Mountain Street on that north side, or Mountain View. And so there is, hopefully, if that project moved forward, you're going to see some nice improvements in street parking available on Mountain View. I don't know a timeline, but I at least just want to throw it out there that there's going to be better, hopefully, neighborhood options.

Any public comment? Commissioners?

So I know that typically you're limited, if you do paving, you're limited to a percentage, correct? And if we allow this, does that, it falls under kind of a different category, or would that be still under that same, only a certain percentage type category?

No, it looks like Haiti, but since the gravel is not impervious, it's pervious, so I don't think it would be under the same cap, but still, the idea is that we don't want, we have a 40% max for this zoning, that we don't want more than 40% of your front area would have impervious.

Right, if they did decide to pave it, we would need to make sure that it does not go past that 40% mark during the permitting process.

CALL FOR THE VOTE IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS. CALL FOR THE VOTE. THAT REQUEST FAILS FIVE TO FOUR.

SINCE YOU HAVE THIS DENIAL, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO So you have to file your appeal in writing to the city clerk's office within 15 days and state why you think the planning commission erred in their decision. And you need to re-notify adjacent property owners if you're going to appeal, okay? And if you have questions, you can always call the planning office in the morning and we can explain in further detail.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up is B26-79, Nets Global Holdings, LLC, presented by Bates & Associates.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Hunter McCutcheon. I'm representing Bates and Associates for this project. I deeply apologize for this, but we would like to request moving this item to the end of the agenda. There has been some travel difficulties with the buyer on this site, so we'd request to move this to the end of the agenda tonight.

Sounds good. We'll call you last. Thank you. Next, we're gonna move into public hearing rezonings R26-38 Alfredo Reyes and Leticia Hernandez-Garcia presented by Odyssey Engineering LLC.

Hello, my name is John Glenn. I'm representing Alfredo Reyes in the rezoning. With the new interchange, GOING AROUND SPRINGDALE BYPASS, RDOT HAS PURCHASED SOME LAND THERE, AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A REZONE BECAUSE WHERE HIS HOUSE IS AT CURRENTLY IS SF2, AND SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A REZONE SO THAT FRONT PARCEL WHERE THAT BLUE ROOF IS AT WILL MATCH THAT ZONE.

STAFF COMMENT?

This reasoning request is in keeping with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan related to maintaining compatible development patterns, protecting established residential areas, and coordinating land use decisions with existing and planned transportation infrastructure and is recommended for approval.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners? Call for the vote. Call for the vote. REZONING PASSES NINE TO ZERO. THANK YOU.

STAFF WILL PREPARE ORDINANCE THAT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE 22ND, OKAY?

THANK YOU. R26-39, WALKER HOGUE INDUSTRIES LLC, PRESENTED BY BOBBY GOLD. UP NEXT. THAT'S RNB26-89. HELLO.

I'M BOBBY GOLD, AND THIS IS TRACY HOGUE, THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY. WE WERE TRYING TO GET A REZONING STARTING OFF WITH THAT. We need to get the rezoning to do the seven foot tall opaque fencing around there to block it.

The rezoning, yeah. So we can store some things there, right?

Can you tell us a little bit about your business and what you're moving in here?

Did y'all get the drawing?

We did, and I believe we passed a hard copy out to all the commissioners. This is an updated site plan. Okay, the one we got this afternoon.

Y'all are with it. We sent this late. Y'all are with it. So I'll tell you a little bit about the business. So my father started our company 40-something years ago in central Arkansas, but we've actually been in this area for over 20 years. We're right now off of Apple Blossom. We started there when it was still Bethel Heights, and now our Lowell is our address. So we've been in the community for a while, and we are just wanting to purchase and expand. We need more property. So that's who we are. We're a wholesale fence company. We sell chain link, wrought iron, final, all the fencing.

Any staff comments?

For the rezoning, the rezoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval. Promote the viability of older commercial properties as well as new commercial development and encourage the development of regional commercial areas that accommodate a variety of wholesale retail service and office uses. where the highest traffic volumes and greatest utility demands can be served and a more extensive outdoor display of materials will be expected and permitted that has frontage and or access to highways and I-49.

Any public comment? Commissioners?

Can you talk through the variance request for outdoor storage, trash collection, and loading areas? Why this is a variance from standard C-5?

The outdoor storage.

I believe it was the materials that they were actually going to use for the fence, right?

Yeah, we were going to have storage in the back that was going to be kind of bulky, and they suggested it was probably best if we moved to the C5 from the C2, as long as we put in the opaque fencing where it was blocking the view of the public.

It'll be our inventory.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just wondering what the variance requests are for our one-on-ones is not a standard C5.

Mr. Cloud, the applicant is proposing to not provide that opaque fencing on the west side of the properties where those green highlighted lines are on the screen. They propose to not put in opaque fencing in those sections.

Is there any fencing? I'm assuming you have fencing. All your stuff will be, you'll get rid of everything you have.

Nice looking fencing. Gotcha. Sure. The south on the property.

And you mentioned a gated access with an ox box. Are y'all doing that? Is that part of your plan? Yeah. Or is that already there? I don't know.

Yeah, I talked to the fire marshal about it that we were going to have that just in case they needed to access the property.

And just as a reminder for commercial design standards is that the C5 is for that open display where we want people to be able to see whatever's being advertised. but even those places still sometimes have like a lay down yard or storage, and that's the part that we still ask be screened. Thank you.

If there are no other comments, we can start with the rezones. Call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes nine to zero. If we're going to do the variances together, that's also a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Also passes, not a zero.

All right, staff is going to prepare an ordinance for the rezoning. That's going to go to City Council on September 22nd, so it'll be here at 6 p.m., and you're encouraged to attend.

Thank you. Thank you. R26-40-264, Leasing, LLC, presented by Jason Apple, A4 Civil.

Thank you, Jason Apple with A4. We are requesting a rezone from C2 to I1. Just a little background. This property was in Bethel Heights. It was zoned B2 in Bethel Heights. And the current users were there when they were in Bethel Heights, and the uses were allowed in that B2 zone. When it got brought into or annexed into Springdale, CAME IN AS C2. THE USERS OR USES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN C2. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP THAT, CLEAN UP THE TITLE, REQUEST THE I1 ZONE. ANY STAFF COMMENTS?

This rezoning request is in keeping with the following goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan and is recommended for approval to consolidate industrial areas near traffic arteries and collectors, rail, air facilities, and major utility trunk lines. And I guess I will also just mention in a second what Jason said. I think most of the businesses in that area are non-conforming in a C2 where they actually wouldn't be permitted by right unless it was an I1.

Comments from the public? Commissioners? This is a call for the vote. Call for the vote. The reason to pass is not a zero.

Staff will prepare an ordinance that goes to council on the 22nd.

Could we request that for next Tuesday?

Yes, sir. We'll get that confirmed, follow up with you, confirm with the mayor's office, and follow up with you tomorrow.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. R26-41, Mattias Shopping Centers, Inc., presented by Ryan Griffin and Thomas Henley, Craft & Tool & Associates.

Hello, my name is Ryan Griffin with Craft & Tool. This one's pretty straightforward. It's currently zone C2. During a remodel, the owner let their business license expire and stayed inactive longer than six months, which caused the drive-thru to now be non-conforming. This being said, we would like to rezone the property at C5 to bring the property into compliance and resume its intended use.

Staff comments?

The existing drive-thru, it lost its non-conforming status after being inactive for more than six months. So the rezoning to C5 would bring the property into compliance and allow the building to resume its intended use with the drive-thru window. So this rezoning request is in keeping with the following goal and policy, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and is recommended for approval. to encourage the development of light to medium intensity commercial development along arterial streets that provide adequate setbacks and buffering to adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners? Call for the vote, if not. Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero.

All right, staff will prepare an ordinance that goes to council on the 22nd. Okay, thank you.

Next up, L26-08, B26-92, and W26-34, McDonald's Restaurant, presented by Danielle Carter.

Hello. It's nice to see you all again. My name is Danielle Carter. I'm with Upichito on behalf of McDonald's, and I am here for just any questions that you guys may have.

And, yeah, we can just dive into it.

So we are here today asking for variances for our landscaping and some of our sidewalks due to restrictions of setbacks and utility easements. And then we are also here for our large-scale development.

Any staff comments? In addition to standard comments, Planning just has a few. The cover page shall be updated upon the approval or denial of the variance in the waiver that Danielle had referenced there. Due to all this being one contiguous track, street improvements need to extend the full length of Don Tyson to the west property line. A waiver has been requested from that requirement. INCLUDE SCREENING DETAILS FOR PARAMETER FENCING. THE SCREENING WILL NEED TO EXTEND THE FULL LENGTH OF THE C5 PROPERTY. THAT IS PENDING A LOT SPLIT APPROVAL. AND THEN A VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED FROM BUILDING FACADES WITH CUSTOMER ENTRANCES MUST HAVE A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK SET BACK AT LEAST SIX FEET FOR FOUNDATION LANDSCAPING AND THEN FOUNDATION LANDSCAPING IS REQUIRED ALONG ALL FACADES.

Like Nate said, there's a lot split in progress and so my only comment is that 10 foot sidewalk should extend all the way to the west property line and they've asked for a waiver. There is a current five foot sidewalk there and then that 10 foot would be done at the time of that lot development.

Any comments from the public? Commissioners?

I would like to comment. Overall, I was looking at the lighting plan, and it looks good and uniform. I am very concerned about the 5,000 Kelvin rating on those light fixtures. I would like to see. It's very close to residential. I'd like to see it get warmer. 4,000 would probably be OK. A little bit warmer would be nice. But I think just especially as close as you are to residential, the pole height is not too terribly high. So it's less concerning. McDonald's does have a way to lower that, so.

I hope they will.

Katie, are you saying that it's currently a five foot sidewalk and the waiver involves waiting to the property adjacent and this will be 10? Can you really say that? Did I mishear you?

So, there is an existing five foot sidewalk on Don Tyson. There's a subdivision development under construction that will improve that to a 10-foot sidewalk. There's McDonald's that will improve their piece to 10-foot sidewalk, but there's a piece in the middle that they are splitting off that will be between those two, and they are asking to not upgrade the sidewalk to 10 feet on that area west of the blue. That is the part that has not had a development plan submitted yet.

Understood.

And just to add to that, all we're asking is for us to be able to put that 10-foot sidewalk on the site that we're purchasing and plotting, and then the future developers will come through. Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah, thanks.

Any other comments from the commission? If not, we're going to start with the variances or the variance. It's a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes nine to zero. This will be the waiver of street improvements, sidewalk on Don Tyson. This is a motion to forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval.

Motion to forward to city council for approval.

Second. Also passes 90-0. Last is the large scale. This is a motion subject to staff comments. So moved.

Second.

Also passes 90-0.

Staff will prepare a resolution for the waiver that will go to City Council on September 22nd. Perfect. See you all there.

Up next, L26-16, B26-105, and W26-38 Marchant Road Storage, presented by Expedient Civil Engineering.

Jason Ingalls with Expedient Civil Engineering. These are storage buildings. There will be no water or sewer, so it's totally internet cells, like most of the storage buildings are doing. We do have several variances, which is typical with storage facilities. We have a lot of them. One of them is the screening. And I want to explain that a little bit. The northern half of the site, we're cutting the site down 10 to 12 feet. So we're only going to see the top of the roofs on that northern half. So we're not going to have to screen that. But we're also, as typical with storage units, the foundation landscaping, it's hard to do that in an internal building. We tried to place those shrubs throughout the site to account for that. Is there any question? Oh, to explain maybe the waiver request on street improvements like the previous project here before us. This project is somewhat phased. There's a kind of a phase one or two. They don't know what they're gonna do with the north half. So they're wishing to only have to do those street improvements to that phase one. And that's the purpose of that waiver request. Is there any questions you may have? Any staff comments?

IN ADDITION TO STANDARD COMMENTS, PLANNING HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS. REMOVE THE WORK PROPOSED FROM THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE LABEL IN THE LEGEND. THE SECOND COMMENT WILL BE TO SHOW THAT REQUIRES STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE FULL LENGTH OF MARTIAN ROAD, BUT YOU JUST EXPLAINED THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR IT. WAIVE IT FOR THAT. ADD A NOTE TO THE UTILITY PLAN STATING THAT NO SEWER LINE OR SEPTIC SYSTEM IS PROPOSED BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO OFFICE OR EMPLOYEES ON SIDE. We have a few of commercial design standards that you have already explained a little bit, but I'm going to go over them. So we have pedestrian flows that requires to provide a five foot wide sidewalk along the full length of any building facade containing customer entrance as well as they require foundation landscaping. Regarding the building design and facades, the facades are exceeding the 100 feet in length and most incorporate WALL PROJECTIONS OR RECESSES ALONG WITH THE REQUIRED REPEATING ARCHITECTURAL PATTERNS AND THE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THAT. THE REQUESTING ALSO A VARIANCE FOR ROOT LINES MOST VARY IN HEIGHT AT LEAST EVERY 100 FEET ON EVERY LENGTH, SO WE HAVE THAT. FOR ENTRYWAYS, EACH PRINCIPAL BUILDING MUST HAVE A CLEARLY DEFINED AND HIGHLY VISIBLE CUSTOMER ENTRANCE INCORPORATING AT LEAST THREE OF THE REQUIRED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. AND LASTLY, AS YOU MENTIONED SCREENING, BUT I ALSO HAVE A LITTLE COMMENT HERE THAT IS ALSO REGARDING ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MUST SCREEN FROM INCOMPATIBLE ADJACENT USES. and from the from incompatible adjacent uses and the public right-of-way with an 8-foot opaque screening fence. And finally, please submit a unified lighting plan in accordance with the Springdale commercial design standards.

Street improvements are required the entire way of Marchant Road for which a waiver has been requested. Show handicap ramps at the driveway crosswalks and include the Springdale standard detail for those ramps. And then I was wondering if any fences or gates are proposed at all on this property. Typically these have a gate across the front, but I didn't see one on the plans.

There may be at some point in the future, but right now he's not wishing to gate it or fence it at all.

Any public comments? Commissioners?

Can you elaborate on your facades and exterior wall, your variance request, what you're not meeting on that standard?

Well, most of the time with these commercial buildings, the ones, the building facades that face the street, we will try to meet the ordinance. Of course, with the overhead doors, you can't really meet the ordinance because of all those doors going down through there, which is typical with storage buildings. But I believe the rest, there are two signs, I believe, that do face the street right of way that are, to the best of their ability, are trying to meet the requirements. The request is mainly on the interior buildings.

Go back to plan B. So you're saying the two, the side of the buildings that face each other, the long ones, those are metal. Yeah. The exterior, both the end caps, if you will, and the opposite side of that are brick. Partially brick, I believe. What does that elevation show? There's one more. One more. Do you know how far off he is from meeting our standard?

How long are buildings, do you know?

Some of them are over 180 feet. Most of them are no longer than 100. The two long buildings are over 180, I think.

I mean, it's hard to make storage buildings look good, and one way to do it is put brick where you can see it. So, I mean, if you're really close, I'm going to say let's get it done. If you're a little far off, then I guess we'll vote whether we agree with it or not.

I think we should, like I said, the The buildings that face each other, the right-of-way, you can't see those. The doors, you can't really do it. But those end caps is where we're placing the masonry.

And some of the variants that are being requested are for...

customer purpose since this is a business oriented where they're not going to have staff on site from my understanding right yeah i mean yeah i know i realize that most of the storage units they don't fit our commercial design standards and all a lot of things and i'm not asking about any of those i am asking about the exterior finishes though because that's the one thing that i see in different places it just looks awful also taking the context i know this is

within the city limits, but this is way out there. Today? The new 612 highway out there, there's nothing out there right now. Today? The surroundings has industrial uses. It looks like a trucking company across the way from us. To the south looks like an industrial use. The new 612 is on the east side of it.

Yeah, I guess some of this is for RV storage.

There's nothing outside. Everything would be in the enclosure.

But the larger doors that are to park are these inside? Yes, sir. And then the smaller ones are for typical household storage?

No, I don't believe there's any.

There's a boat? Storage. So houses will follow or vice versa easily? Yes, sir. I'm going to take all the variances together except for one. I can tell you which one that is unless you think you already know.

Before we jump into that, I know that Jenny mentioned the lighting needing a plan. I just want to preemptively say make sure it's all cut off, especially right there next to the highway. We don't need glaring lights shining onto it. I know a lot of times this sort of situation, you don't really get an opportunity to put poles up because just the drive lanes and everything else. So I just want to make sure if you're putting stuff, especially on the buildings, that it's not shining out too much.

Any other comment? All right. We're going to start with the variances, and we'll vote on variance B individually first.

Call for the vote.

That one fails six to three. We can take the remainder of the variances together. Anyone's got an issue with that? That's also a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero. Next is the waiver. That is a motion to forward to council with recommendation of denial or approval of the waiver.

Motion to forward with approval. Second.

Passes nine to zero.

Okay, so staff.

And then what? We get the large scale last. That's a motion, subject to staff comments.

So motion.

Second. Second.

Passes 9-0. Thank you.

Okay.

So we're going to have a staff's going to prepare a resolution for the waiver. It's going to go to city council on the 22nd. For the variance that got denied, you have the right to appeal to the planning commission's decision to city council. You have to file your appeal in writing in the city clerk's office within 15 days of the planning commission's meeting. And you need to identify what you think the error in the planning commission's decision was and re-notify adjacent property owners. Okay? Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, L26-18, B26-109, and B26-110, Robinson Trailer Sales, presented by Cody Smith.

Hi.

Cody Smith, By Design Engineering, on behalf of the owner. This is going to be a phased project, a 3018 East Robinson. The existing property has a house on it. They're on the east side, full build out. Yeah, that's what it looks like now. They've done a lot of work to it. Make it look really nice. Phase two, we'll have an 1,800 square foot building for a trailer sales business. Phase one is what I'm here for today, which will be the upgrades of the existing house and the conversion of the house to an office to begin the trailer sales. And then the back part of it, which is the garage now, they're going to make it a loft and rent that out as a professional office. So I'm here for that. And the variances that we're needing is a reduction in the front building setback. The existing house is 40 feet from the right of way on the east side. The requirement is 50 foot with parking in front. So we're requesting a reduction in that. Let's see what the other options were. Landscaping, so with the phase one just being the conversion of the existing house, we're requesting that the street trees and perimeter landscaping requirements be deferred to phase two construction. We're also asking for a reduction in the sidewalk along Robinson. The requirement is 10 foot. And in matching the existing sidewalk, if we do 10 foot, I'm afraid we'll be a little bit too close to the road as far as safety goes. There's also some existing utilities along the road there. You can see the power pole on the west side of the drive. and there's a guy wire that goes to the north. I know there was a staff comment wanting the sidewalk to go on the north side of that pole. There's a guy wire that goes pretty much to that water line. We can explore relocating that, but I'm afraid we'll get it too far out of alignment if we try to move it. We're also requesting a variance from the screening material requirement. for just the nature of this business. We're planning to do the three-foot kind of security railing that you see in kind of trailer sales or parking dealerships. And from my understanding, that does not meet the screening requirement material. Happy to answer any questions. Any staff comments?

Yeah, in addition to standard comments, so Cody had explained each of the additional requests that they have. In addition to standard, they'll need to show details of all handicap ramps. Truncated domes are required per ADA requirements, so indicate those as well. A variance has been requested from the following. Furniture landscaping is required along all streets. This is the one tree per 25 linear feet. A 50 foot setback applies when parking is in between the facade and the right of way. Streetlights are required at each intersection and along the street at intervals of 300 to 350 feet. A waiver has been requested from the 10 foot sidewalk requirement along arterial streets. For commercial design standards, all sides of a principal building that directly face an abutting public right of way shall feature one customer entrance. All pedestrian areas shall have a minimum of one foot candle. This includes pedestrian scale lighting, especially along the entry ramp to accommodate that requirement. The variance has been requested for the 60% of off-street parking in between the primary entrance and the street. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways from the sidewalk to the principal customer entrance. Internal pedestrian walkways must be distinguishable A five foot sidewalk is required along the full length of the building in any side that features a customer entrance. The central features must also have a direct access to that sidewalk and there must be additional landscaping around the dumpster. For the landscaping requirements, exterior ground mounted or building mounted equipment must have screening or landscaping compatible with the building. AND THEN WHEN A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES A FENCE OR A WALL, THE FENCE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS.

FOR ENGINEERING, SUBMIT RDOT PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE MASTER STREET PLAN FOR ARTERIALS AND HIGHWAYS DOES SPECIFY ARTERIAL STREETS, PROVIDE CONNECTIONS FROM COLLECTOR STREETS TO INTERCITY CONNECTORS, SUCH AS STATE AND FEDERAL HIGHWAYS, THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAND USES. THEY ALLOW FOR MOVEMENT FOR VEHICLES OF ALL MODES WITH DIRECT ACCESS LIMITED TO CITY STREETS AND SHARED PROPERTY ACCESSES AT PLANNED INTERVALS. SO MASTER STREET PLAN WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF HAVING THIS DRIVE OFF OF ROBINSON AND JUST HAVING THE TWO OFF OF ASPEN AND LOVELAND. I DID NOT SEE THAT GUY WIRE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT SIDEWALK WORK. I don't have any tips for that, unfortunately. And then we do need to look at that power pole on the west side of the driveway. I don't know if it would help to maybe scooch the driveway over to the east a little bit, just make sure that that is not at risk of being hit.

Any comment from the public? Commissioners?

Are these buildings existing, or are they going to be new? I saw a picture, but I don't know if that's...

The building on the east side of the site is existing. Is this what you're seeing here? And then the one on the west side is proposed in Phase 2.

Got it. Do you have a time frame for Phase 2 and 3? Because I know that you have some things earmarked for those phases. Right.

We don't. His plan is to begin the business out of this... house, converted office, and then once the business is established to build the building in phase two. He's working with the equity of the existing house to be able to finance phase one and then once the business is established, finance phase two.

I think your lighting plan looks good. I would like to ask you to have your consultant in the future segregate the plan because a big light blob like this doesn't give me accurate maxes and mins for the areas that we are specifically looking at. So each parking area, each drive area should have its own line item in the statistics so that we can confirm, you know, because your min is zero, but it's way off the site that we don't care about. Like we want it to be good off the site. But when we're looking at the areas that are important, we kind of want to look at those separately. So we may want to see all the numbers, but we want to see them in pieces, not one big blob.

Are we able to do some sort of bill of assurance for all this stuff that they're wanting to postpone to phase two? I'd be okay with it if we did that, but I probably wouldn't be okay with it unless they did that.

And part of the reason we're moving, we're not having landscaping in the frontage on the south and west is because of a water line, correct?

Yes, there's a water line on the south and west. But we've moved those trees to the frontage.

The bill of assurance could potentially work. It just depends on the timeline of this phasing, right? I don't think we typically don't recommend bill of assurances more than like a year for this. And so I would just want to make sure that your client is comfortable with that if that was a suggestion.

We can discuss, he's not here this evening. We can discuss that within, I don't know if a year he'll be ready.

I don't know. Is there a way to extend that if it's, They're not prepared to go to phase two and three?

We do. We've allowed people to come back for one extension request for another year.

Is that reasonable? I'm not the builder, but I think two years is reasonable.

I'd be good with doing it with a two-year bill of assurance.

Well, I think we do a one, and they can come back and ask for a one-year extension. Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.

Any other comments? If not, we'll start with the variances.

Cody, I would like to ask, if a bill of assurance was granted for the variances, how would parking lot orientation be met with phase two?

We would have to separate those, I think, Sarah. Okay, that's the point I'd like to make. And that's a great point. Not all of the variants can be wrapped up with the bill of assurance, so we really should separate. So the parking lot orientation, that's not something, that would be seeking approval, right? Since they have three fronts on this side, wherever they put their parking is. So that one, what else?

It's more landscaping, screening.

Yeah, okay.

That's what I'm emphasizing, the landscaping and screening points, the things they've called out here on their survey, their plan.

I think it's really A, that we don't want to wrap up the bill of assurance, but B and C. I can clarify too, the variances that are requested are not things that are proposed to come with phase two. The only thing that's coming with phase two is that building and the foundation landscaping. There are things you're seeking for the development as a whole. So these items aren't going to be addressed with a phase two.

On the landscaping that you weren't able to do, did you say you put it in other spots?

Yes. So those street trees that we couldn't put because of the water line, we moved them to the north side of the site to provide extra screening from residential.

Could you walk us through this sidewalk, I'm sorry, one more time, so we can make Katie happy, or at least we all understand why you can't do it, to make sure we understand that maybe you just don't want to do it. I don't understand why you can't do it, I guess, is where I'm at.

So we're requesting a reduction of 8 feet instead of 10 feet, based off of the existing alignment. We're meeting the north alignment of the existing sidewalk, and then if you push 10 feet, you give yourself about a foot and a half between the edge of the sidewalk and the road. which would be a safety concern. So we're requesting eight feet, and then once you get to the driveway, there's a gas meter and an electric pole, and then there's another electric pole to the west, which would be another inhibitor of expanding that sidewalk. And so we're reducing it down to five feet to get around those poles. Is that driveway existing? That's a proposed driveway.

So we could possibly look at a different driveway location to solve some of these issues? Well...

And I'm not sure if the Master Street Plan is a recommendation or a requirement for a driveway on Robinson, but we really need that for circulation. Yeah, I'm not saying get rid of it. I'm just saying possibly relocate it. We can't move it further east because that is the maximum spacing between the driveway and the road. And we can't move it west because of that existing utility pole. So it's kind of stuck. Okay.

Would you guys be interested in maybe talking about payment in lieu of that sidewalk? I would hate to not have that built, but it is a really tough one.

I think he would be interested in discussing that.

Or maybe we look at doing a five foot sidewalk or something that we could maybe fit in there a little bit better.

What I want to say is, can we work out something better than what I'm looking at? That's what I want to say, but I don't know how to vote on that, unfortunately.

Well, I thought I had figured it out, but I guess I missed some of those utilities, and my plan wouldn't work either.

We could take the five-foot and jog it up like we have the eight-foot, and so it doesn't look as wonky as it does. SIDEWALK UP, AND THEN IT MATCHES UP NICELY WITH THE EXISTING. I THINK THOSE EXISTING ARE FIVE FEET.

YEAH, THE EXISTING HANDICAP RAMPS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES WERE POURED AT FIVE FEET WITH THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT.

SO I GUESS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE WAIVER, I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CLIENT IS GOOD WITH THIS, BECAUSE IF THEY DO WANT TO EXPLORE PAYMENT LUE UP, THEN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE. I want to make sure that he's okay with that or if something needs to be worked out. So I don't know if it's a recommended that the waiver part gets tabled just until we know exactly what the request is and what you're asking of the Planning Commission.

What would the payment in lieu of be? Would it be in lieu of a 10-foot sidewalk?

Correct. It would be whatever the Master Street Plan dictates.

or we may table it and talk about some more options, because I unfortunately don't have a good recommendation for this one.

Yeah, I think talking through this is, I'd rather, I'd recommend you table it so we can try to figure out a better solution that's maybe better than payment-in-lieu, and also we're comfortable with it as a city, trying to meet in the middle, so to speak. I think we'd request a table, the waiver. The waiver, okay. Yes, sir.

It would not hold up your development plan process. We would still be reviewing as possible. Sure.

Yes, ma'am, would you please come to the microphone and let us know who you are?

My name is Brenda Lazenby, and I have property adjacent to this property, and I'm just curious to know what kind of trailer sales this is. Boxed, enclosed, enclosed box trailers? Thank you.

Any other comments? We'll start with the variances. Those are a call for the vote. If we need to do any separate, we can.

My thing was just for the landscaping portion. That's really kind of what I was touching on. I would prefer that we vote on that with a bill of assurance of some sort, and then the rest of them vote together on those, I guess.

Everybody good with that? Yes.

We'll say that the request that staff has is that the B26-110A, the parking lot orientation, be at least just taken separately since we can't do a bill of assurance about it.

So the bill of assurance is just for the landscaping?

And screening, I think, right? Landscaping and...

from landscaping by itself. Let's call for the vote.

This is with a bill of insurance, right? One year?

Yes.

Call for the vote.

Passes nine to zero. Next we'll do the other variance on B26.109. That's for reduction of front setback from 50 to 40 foot. It's also a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero. We'll go to B26.110. Those are the variances from commercial design standards A, B, and C. It'll be a call for the vote. Call for the vote.

Yeah, I think we wanted to do one as a separate vote.

Well, do any of these of the commercial design standards, A, B, or C, seeking the bill of assurance route? But it was just the landscaping one that they've already voted on?

It's just the landscaping. The rest kind of apply to phase one.

Okay. B110 can be.

Was there any discussion on any of the other A, B, or C on that one? I don't know if we touched it or not.

Yeah, I called it. I can call it again if you need me to.

This passed nine to zero. I will take up the large scale. It's a motion subject to staff comments.

So moved.

Second. It also passes nine to zero.

OKAY, SO FOR THE BILL OF ASSURANCE, IF YOU'LL VISIT THE PLANNING OFFICE, CONTACT US, AND WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING DRAFTED FOR THE OWNER TO REVIEW AND SIGN. AND THEN THE WAIVER THAT HAS BEEN TABLED, GET WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING, AND WE WILL TRY TO WORK THAT OUT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US ON THAT.

THANK YOU. L26-19 AND B26-108, J&D ASIAN MARKET, PRESENTED BY ODYSSEY ENGINEERING LLC.

Connor Threat with Odyssey Engineering. This is about an 11,000 square foot supermarket located on Robinson Avenue. This is just a little bit west of the airport. On this site, there is a current ongoing city project for a trail. With this project, we are going to connect to that, kind of connect our sidewalk to the northern portion of our site to where that trail is, and then connect the 10-foot sidewalk on the Robinson side over the top of the trail to continue that on to keep going toward the intersection. Otherwise, there is... Utilities, parking, drainage as required. I know there's still some outstanding comments with engineering and planning. We plan to address all of those. And then there is a connection with an access easement to the property to the east. That is an ongoing project as well, and we're coordinating with them to make sure that connects perfectly. There is two variances here. The architect is here to answer any questions on those commercial design standard variances. Other than that, we'll turn it over to you all. Any staff comments?

So they explained some of their other outstanding applications that they have with you all. In addition to standard comments, the access easement shall be filed per separate instrument. On the connection to the Greenway, ensure there are no slopes above 3%. Regarding the detail of the sidewalk along East Robinson, we suggest revising the sidewalk to have as little variation as possible. rather than jog around utilities, any possibility of relocating those would be encouraged. The thrust block below grade, that should be indicated upon review of the site plan. It kind of looks like a monument sign, and so it threw off some of the utilities. And regarding commercial design standards, these all apply to the east elevation. Facades over 100 feet in length shall incorporate wall projections. Building facades shall include a repeating pattern and roof lines shall be varied with a change in height every 100 feet.

For engineering, the outlet pipe from the pond needs to be RCP. I didn't see a material noted on the plans. Submit the RDoT permit prior to construction. This is another one where we have a lot of obstacles for the sidewalk. So yeah, we just need to figure out the correct route there. And I think we can work on this one to keep it in the right of way and jog around those utilities. And I had noted that the connection to the Greenway is no greater than 5%, but we can just say we would like it to be accessible and meet ADA.

Any public comment? Commissioners?

I just want to commend you guys for coming up with a project that connects to active transportation. That's awesome. Thank you for doing that.

We will start with the variances.

I was just going to comment the same thing I said on to the previous one. Your lighting layout looks good. I think it's OK. I'm going to once again ask when you work with your consultants to please have them segregate and not just have a big blob of calculations because it doesn't give us accurate statistics. So it's hard to look at what's correct and what parts of the project.

OK. We'll do it.

We'll start with the variances first. If you guys are gonna take those together, it's a call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes nine to zero. We'll take the large scale next. It's a motion subject to staff comment.

So motion.

Second. Also passes nine to zero. FB26-13, Margaret Jo Oliver Revocable Trust, and B26-102, presented by Margaret Jo Oliver.

My name is Margaret Jo Oliver, and I'm the owner of this property. And my first is the rezoning. I'm wanting to build a little retirement home on the slender, on the open part. SO THAT'S ALL THAT'S WORKED. AND MY SECOND ONE IS A VARIANCE APPLICATION BECAUSE WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 31 YEARS AGO, I HAD A STRUCTURE WHICH IS THE GARAGE WAS EIGHT, SIX FEET FROM THE FENCE INSTEAD OF TEN, OR EIGHT INSTEAD OF TEN, I'M SORRY. AND I THINK THAT WAS IT.

THANK YOU. ANY STAFF COMMENTS?

For the rezoning, she's going to a C district that the rezoning request is in keeping with the following goal of the form-based code and is recommended for approval to preserve or enhance the existing vibrant pedestrian-oriented character of these areas while allowing flexibility in use.

Any comments from the public? Commission? We'll start with the rezone. Let's say call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero. Take up the variance next. It's also a call for the vote. Call for the vote.

Thank you.

That also passes nine to zero.

And Ms. Peggy, we're going to, The staff is going to send an ordinance to a city council meeting on September 22nd at 6 p.m. in here. And you're encouraged to attend. And if you want details, just reach out to planning.

We're moving to Board of Adjustments. We'll start with B26-88, Mark and Deanna Brissy. Presented by Mark and Deanna Brissy.

Good evening, everybody. Mark Brissy, Deanna Brissy. We're asking for a variance on the height of our rear fence due to elevation and everything with the pool deck and everything that we have going on.

Any staff comment? Anything from the public? Commissioners?

Call for the vote.

Passes 90-0. Thank you. Good deal. Thank you all. B26-90, Uri Portilla-Juarez and Jairo Y. Portilla, presented by Jairo Y. Portilla. We'll call that one back up. B26-93 Schmieding Foundation, Inc., presented by Engineering Services Incorporated.

Kyle Davenport with Engineering Services. We're here to request a variance of the rear setback from 20 feet down to four to accommodate the existing structure. This is an existing property line and building that's been there for well over 30 years. So this is just to bring the site into compliance so that we can move forward with an informal plan subject to planning comments.

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

Call for the vote.

Passes 9-0. B26-94, Guadalupe Masonry Homes, LLC, presented by Manuel Nava.

We're looking to have a variance change in the MF2 from 90 feet to 84 feet. I think we got the zoning approved last week, so now we're here to do the next part of it.

Any public comment? Staff?

Now, I may mention that we did rezone this, and so I don't think the map correctly reflects that it's MF2 now. And what are you, six feet off from the minimum lot width? Yeah. So we've been trying to work with them for some redevelopment opportunities for this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

B26-97, D.R. Horton, Northwest Arkansas, LLC, presented by Gisela Talbert and Nye Carnahan.

Hello. We're looking to try to get a variance. Sir, could you say your name for us? Yes, Nye Carnahan with D.R. Horton Homes. We're trying to get a variance on a corner lot because since it is a corner, it's got two front setbacks, which gives us really less than a 30-foot wide buildable footprint. So to try to go outside of the plan so that we already have in that subdivision, just we don't think that it would look good. So we would be encroaching a little bit on the side of the house, but it's because of the corner lot. Any staff comments?

Commissioners? Let's call for the vote.

Call for the vote.

Passes 9-0. Thank you. Thank you. B26-98, DJ Custom Homes, Inc., presented by Daniel Jimenez.

Hello, my name is Daniel Jimenez with DJ Custom Homes. I'm just requesting variance for the minimum lot size to build a duplex on this property from the minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet to 8,700 square feet.

Is it 8,800 or 8,700? 8,700.

So we'll note that revision. I think we have 88 on here. And it's kind of similar to the previous variance request, where we rezoned this one recently, and they got a more accurate survey back, from my understanding. And so it turns out that their first calculations were 300 square foot off. And so that is enough, and we have a threshold. So we're here doing variance.

Any public comment? Yes, please come forward.

Well, I'm David Harrison, and I'm representing my wife, Maria, and my neighbor, Carol. And the survey, the most recent survey, shows that it has taken about a foot and a half of Ms. Carol's land at which there's a fence that has been there more than 20 years and by the State of Arkansas Contest we want sorry we want to claim boundary by acquisition and since the Fence has been there more than 20 years. And the state law states seven years. That is well within our right to claim that. And so instead of being a couple of hundred feet, it's closer to 500 feet. That is small. I don't know how wide the proposed building is. But if you take a foot and a half off of one side of it, I'm not sure that they'd still have room to put that on there. So we would like for you to deny this variance.

Sir, excuse me. Okay. I'm sorry. Are there any pending court actions around this boundary by acquiescence issue that you know of?

Not that we know of. Okay, thank you.

Garrett, you correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this is a civil issue between neighbors. It's gotta be dealt with with the circuit court or the county court as far as boundary by acquiescence. And that's not anything that we can deal with here as a commission.

I honestly don't know. I've never dealt with the boundary by acquiescence. But my instinct is that there should be a proceeding that we would be able to see. But I can't answer that right now, Chris.

They're not in the know. Basically, they're claiming adverse possession.

I get what they're claiming. Am I able to say something on the court case thing? Just from my experience in the title world, there is a court case that has to proceed for them to be able to say that that is their land now.

Right, and I think this is different than adverse possession.

Correct.

It's about the same. You view it the same, Chris? I would say they're the same thing, yeah. If they're saying the boundary is by acquiescence because they've used it for so long, they're saying we've adverse possessed it because it's been that way. 20 years, yeah.

Okay, so I would for sure believe that if we're going to treat it like an adverse possession that we need to see something in the lines of a petition or a lawsuit that's been filed.

All right. The fence as boundary has been treated as the line of the property as far as I know ever since the houses have been built. And it's only with this newer survey that the fence has come into question. And according to the state law that I looked up, it said that the fence takes precedence over the recent survey. And if you would like to look that up, it'd be easy.

Well, that's just what we're saying is we don't review that in this particular setting. We understand what you're saying. We understand your stance. I have a question for you. I'm assuming you weren't planning on taking down that fence, were you?

No, no. I didn't know there was a discrepancy. Yeah, sure. I'm willing to work with them.

Yeah, I know you are. Yeah. I don't like.

Now that brings up another issue, though. My lot will not be 87. Right. So you're in this It feels like we should table this to let the neighbors figure out what to do because I mean if you're not moving the fence then in theory

You're not adversely affecting her, because her yard will stay the same as it's always been. But then we'll need to know what the new information is, so at least we have it more accurate, if that makes sense. I don't know about...

I was going to say, and planning can help review it and look at it just for the minimum sizes to see what Because if something is filed, it could potentially make whatever you're doing pending. We might pause it, but it just depends on what you're building and how much room you have. And planning's happy to take a deep dive into that so that if we come back to the next planning commission, we have a little bit more specific information since we don't know what this total is.

I think we'd like to work with you to go the easiest way forward. And so if you're willing to table it, you can work with planning staff to figure out what that is and then you can bring it back and

Well, maybe I'll need to work with the neighbors and replant that lot and see what happens after that.

Yeah, you may or may not. I mean, I think their main concern is the fence doesn't move, but I could be wrong. But, yeah, just, yeah. If we could table it, we'd give us time to come up with a good solution for all of us.

Okay.

Awesome. I'll be fine.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. B26-99 DHL, Bates & Associates.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Hunter McCutcheon. I'm with Bates and Associates. Tonight we are here requesting a variance from landscaping requirements for the DHL project. To give a little background on this, DHL has been operating at this location for the last 18 years. Our development consisted of a building addition on the far southern side of this current DHL building. Ever since the beginning of this project, the original submission, one of the questions that came up was the landscaping for this site. Since there's so much impervious existing concrete here on site, there's not really a lot of green space or an adequate place to put landscaping. I believe through negotiations with the city of Springdale, we ended up coming to a conclusion of placing this landscaping up in the existing parking islands on the north side of the site. However, we've recently found out that DHL is not in support of this landscaping up here, and they're requesting that we do not provide this. We have explored the option of placing shrubs in this area as well to provide some landscaping, which they did not wish to have on their side of the property as well. So we're requesting a variance to do away with this landscaping, and I'm here tonight to answer any questions you might have about this.

DHL say why?

Not necessarily why they did. They wrote us in.

Hi, my name is Gage Edwards. I'm the owner of this building. And when I spoke with DHL and told them that This was kind of happening. They were very much not in favor. They do and pay for all of their own maintenance around the building as far as the yard and stuff is concerned, and it would add a cost to them to continue that upkeep. I mean, the bushes have to be trimmed, and I mean, it's just more work, and they just don't really want landscaping there. We had it in there at one point, and they specifically asked us to take it out.

And I would also like to note with this project, our addition, it has no correlation with DHL, with its own separate business. Along with this, it brings me a little bit of concern Where we are proposing that landscaping, there is existing fiber optic cable in that area and an electric box, which is on the south side of that sign. Fiber optic typically is not buried very deep. And with the roots and stuff, you do run the risk of potentially damaging that fiber optic. And along with this development, our addition does not include parking with it. And so it's kind of difficult to loop in this landscaping requirement with the difficult existing conditions. And our current site conditions, it's a hard one to define, in my opinion.

And I will give that it was a very unique project, but I think that's why staff tried to go above and beyond to be as flexible as possible and try to find a green space, just because whenever you do submit a development plan to the City of Springdale, you are agreeing to meet the requirements that are set out for ordinance, which with development comes landscaping requirements.

Yes, ma'am. Commissioners?

Yeah, I just want to commend staff for working with this applicant to try to figure out a way to meet in the middle. And I think you guys did a great job. This is a call for the vote. Call for the vote.

That fails six to three.

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 need to identify what you think the error in the Planning Commission's decision was and need to re-notify adjacent property owners. Okay, thank you.

And then Hunter, if the owner does decide that they do wish to comply, then we can work with you to find an area perhaps in that island or maybe even at the existing foundation at DHL that maybe we could fit those in it. Thank you. Thank you.

B26-100, Martin Leon Segura, presented by Yenny E. Vega Hernandez.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Eric Santiago. I am helping out Martin Leon Segura. He's requesting a variance to have a six-foot fence built instead of a three-foot fence in regards to better privacy, safety, and security.

A staff comment?

Yes, I believe there was an opposition letter that was included in the packet, just to be able to note that.

Anything from the public? Commissioners?

I do have a question just about, it was safety, but I guess tell me about the site. Why does it need to be fenced in?

Well, basically, because you have a lot of kids in the neighborhood, people are throwing trash. He doesn't want these kids or anybody to go in that neighborhood and something happen and him be liable, right? So defense, a vacant lot? Yeah, it's a vacant lot as of right now, yes, ma'am.

Is anything being stored there? Commercial trailers or materials or anything?

No, there's nothing being stored, ma'am.

Where's that structure that's in the middle? Is that an old shed or something?

Yeah, so it's an old shed. So it was a house in a shed that was previously on the property, but everything has been demoed. So it's cleared out.

Is trash being thrown over the fence a problem you guys are having or onto the lot? Pardon me? Is trash being thrown into the lot, like you said, as a concern, something that's currently happening?

Well, yeah, I mean, just kids. I mean, and then not only that, but kids riding their bikes in and out of the property.

I understand that. Well, I mean, just littering.

Yes, sir. Just littering. I mean, basic littering, right? What does that mean? I mean, paper, people walking by and throwing things, you know? I mean...

Do you want a fence to protect a vacant lot?

I mean, it's not just to protect the vacant lot, right? It's just for the privacy and security. He doesn't want nobody to be in and out of the lot as well, right?

And I will say, actually, the planning department, we do a lot with SEPTED, which is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. So we actually have some tips and tools and talented staff that could help with a few other things, like low-level short pedestrian lighting is actually a really good way to promote safety rather than like a fence, because a fence, now we're just kind of creating more dark spots. So we're happy to explore some SEPTED things that might bring you a little bit more assurance for safety on the site.

No, that's completely understandable, right? And he also does have some personal property on the property, right? So he also doesn't want any of that to get taken.

What is it being stored?

Lawn mowers. I mean, basically little tools and things like that, right?

And I have a question. How far back are you guys planning to put that fence from the road?

Just about 30 feet.

Okay, and then are you going to put a gate in it for any, like for vehicles to drive through or a man gate?

Okay.

Yes, comments.

Does the owner have any intention to utilize this property for residential use? Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am. Yeah, yeah. He is going to do that.

Is there a timeline for that?

One of the different ones. IN ABOUT A YEAR, COUPLE YEARS.

AND I WILL JUST SAY, JUST TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THAT THE ZONING, WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING, THAT ACCESSORY USES OR STORAGE OF MATERIALS THAT AREN'T FOR THAT PURPOSE OR FOR COMMERCIAL USE AREN'T ALLOWED ON THAT SITE. SO THERE ARE SOME USE UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THIS. A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, A FEW OTHERS. The city does not recommend and does not want or allow you to utilize it as just like an off-site storage yard. That's what we want to avoid.

Completely understandable. Yeah, no, no, and he's not going to, I mean, he just has a couple things there, but it's not being utilized as a storage or anything like that or a storage lot for him to go and storage material or, you know, company vehicles and things of that nature, right?

It sounds like he bought the lot and stores a lawnmower there to mow the grass every couple months or something. That's about it.

So when he bought the lot, it was a good deal, first of all. was a jungle you couldn't even go into it so i mean little by little he's just going you know taking the steps that he has to get the lot ready to be ordered for him in order for him to be able to start building and things like that right so it's it's been a lot of work you know yeah absolutely but you had mentioned that he had like stored like a lawnmower there or something you had mentioned i was just saying like to help explain to them that you're really only

leaving a couple of things there, just here and there. It's not like he's leaving a trailer with all sorts of stuff on it every day and backing up materials and stuff.

If this variance were to be granted tonight, when he does build a house there, does he intend to leave that six-foot fence there? Or is it only there while the property is vacant? Yeah.

I would love for you to get with the staff and figure out other ways to make that safe, keep people out of it versus building a six-foot fence, whether it be a camera everybody sees. To put a six-foot fence on a vacant lot is counterintuitive for us to do, especially one that faces the street.

So do you want to move forward on voting for the six-foot fence tonight, or you guys want to table and talk to staff about trying to figure something out?

I mean, he understands, I mean, either way, right? I mean, he just, if he can, he can. If he can't, he can't, you know what I mean?

You said 30 feet off the road, six-foot fence. What kind of material?

Madera? Madera.

I would recommend me personally, because again, we start doing this and other people are buying lots all over Springdale. We're growing. And again, we're opening up a can of worms and we're trying to be as fair to everybody. That's why we vote no on it. I would suggest working with the city like like Sharon mentioned as far as you know the security or that the program that she mentioned to work with you guys to to set something in place to where it's safe and he feels it's safe and there's no there's nothing no issue no nobody going

FAILS EIGHT TO ONE.

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 NEED TO IDENTIFY WHAT YOU THINK THE ERROR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS, AND YOU NEED TO RENOTIFY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

THANK YOU. D26-101L25-29, LUCKY'S INDOOR BARK PARK, PRESENTED BY EXPEDIENT CITIZEN ENGINEERING.

Jason Ingalls with Expedient Civil Engineering. I think she's been trying to build this now for about three or four years. It expired. We got re-approval of it now. I think the bank just wants to make sure this concept will work. So she's proposing to phase the building and only build the kennels. The rest of the civil improvements on site will all be constructed. The only thing that will be phased is she's not building the, it's kind of like a bar with, you know, the bigger part of the building, but the kennels, which are on the far west, is what she's proposing to build now. So the building that's in red would be phase two. The rest of that, everything else that's in green would be built now.

Jason, can you please speak to the variance request?

Yes. So the screening request, I don't know if this got missed on the previous large scale or if it was a new, it was just something that had came up. But there's a huge drainage ditch that goes through on the eastern side of that property. It's got a lot of vegetation along the ditch. But there are a couple houses, residential houses, that front 40th Street. And there's no way... Because of that ditch, there's no way to get plantings directly on to screen against that.

Yeah, it's a difficult one where vegetative screening can count. But for this one, it's close. It's getting there, but it doesn't quite fully meet that intent that we're trying to screen for the residences next door.

So we have a couple of requests before us. The first one for the screening is going to be, there's going to be a fenced-in dog park. Even though it is an indoor bark park, there is an outdoor one as well. And that fence is proposed to not have a break every 50 feet. They just wish to not have a material change for the dogs or to do a landscape pocket because they do want to keep it secured. And then the incompatible use screening to the east, there is that 50-foot drainage easement. And the tree line that you see on the east side of the property, those are all existing cedars and oaks. Hopefully they all survive construction. If they don't, we will request them to be planted back. And the spacing there just does not quite meet that eight-foot opaque along the entire property line. But they are to remain there, and they may not construct within that drainage easement unless it were to be vacated.

Any other staff comments? Anything from the public? Commissioners?

So the 50-foot is something every 50 feet is that?

Yes, so the commercial design standards require that any fence built in a commercial district for commercial use, that that fence line, if it's longer than 50 feet, it has a break every 50 feet. That does vary a little bit in the Southwest overlay, but for this typical zoning here, we would need to see a material change every 50 feet. The intent is to break up a massive fence line.

Just keep in mind with that, too, if you look at this site plan, 40th Street, look how far back those buildings are. So I think the intent of that code is for visible from the public. That's the reason for the variance is we're so far back. This is mainly for dogs, so we're putting in columns for dogs. So I'll just put it that way, too.

We can start with the variance. It's a call for the vote. Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero. We'll go to the phasing plan approval next. It's also a call for the vote. Call for the vote. It also passes nine to zero. B26-103, Jose and Maria Montes and Isabella Velasquez, presented by Jose and Maria and Mario Garcia.

My name is Mario Garcia, and we're requesting a variance for reduction of minimum distance from a residential district from a 200 to 36 properties on 108-990 with Sunset through the back of the buildings. We have a residential district there, and we're planning on building a patio, a dining area. That space right there, that's between those buildings. and mud and stuff. So we decided to make some modifications there. And now we're wanting to add some tables for customers.

Any staff comment? Building and Fire had seen this and signed off. I'm glad the neighbors are working together. I always commend them when two businesses come together.

Anything from the public? Commissioners? Call for the vote. Passes nine to zero. Thank you. B26-104 and B26-107, 1804 South Powell Street Retail, presented by Expedient Civil Engineering.

Expedient Civil Engineering, Jason Ingalls. This is kind of a narrow lot, so the building is, instead of facing the street, Powell, it's kind of the units are facing the south side of the building with the entrance coming on Powell Street. The green space that you're looking at there, it's not really large enough to put in trees and shrubs and things of that nature due to this narrow lot. So what we've done is tried the landscaping that would be required there spread out throughout the rest of the site. So that's the reason for the variance. The other variance is you can see the gravel driveway to the residence to the south. The existing driveway that feeds this building now is currently where we show the new one. It just doesn't meet the ordinance that's required for that driveway separation.

Any staff comments? Public comments?

I will say that the driveway is pre-existing. With our Sunset Powell project, we were gonna put it exactly back where it was, and that would've been too close to the other one as well. And then there's some other structures that make it hard to move, so I don't think we have any issues with the separation.

Commissioners?

This will be a call for the vote on B26-104. That passes nine to zero. B26107 will also be a call for the vote. Call for a vote. That also passes nine to zero. Thank you, have a good evening. We're gonna move into waivers. W26-41, HKH Resident Trust, presented by Hunter Hart.

Hi, I've recently completed my home on West Miller Road and I was wanting to get my final CFO and there's an ordinance for the eight foot sidewalk and I wanted to ask for a waiver for that. My request is based on my neighbor on the property line to the west. They received a waiver a few years back, and then the other two neighbors along West Miller Road to my east both received waivers for the sidewalk as well. There are three utility poles and a number of utilities that are also within the area along the area where I would need to build the sidewalk that make it a bit more complex. And the distance that I have is 934 feet of frontage. And so as I started looking at what this would cost, it was a bit of a financial burden as well. So I was requesting some help on potentially not building the sidewalk. You don't want to build them at all?

Is that right? You don't want to build them at all? Yes, sir. Staff comments?

I did see in your request that you had planned to plant some trees. I just want to make sure we're not planting those trees in the right-of-way that you see behind the fence.

Okay, so they, okay, we wouldn't want those to go on the north side of the fence?

No, if we do come and improve the road, they would be removed at that time, and then since they're in the right-of-way, Public Works could come and remove them just during regular maintenance as well.

Yeah, I won't do that then. I wanted to build them along Miller Road for just making it nice, but I will not.

We'd love that. It just needs to be just outside that right away. Thank you.

Have we looked at this before? This seems familiar to me.

We have. It's been over a year. So welcome back, Mr. Hart. So we are here.

And what was, what did we decide last time?

Well, it made it all the way to city council and then it got tabled several times and Mr. Hart did not attend. They actually did a motion recommending for approval, but since he wasn't there, the motion died and then a year has passed. So basically we're starting over with a blank slate.

Yeah, thank you. 100% my

I guess my heartburn on all of this is there's a subdivision, you know, there's a view we just saw a little bit earlier that, yeah, that's going to continue to build. And there's a lot of sidewalk in that subdivision. There's a lot of sidewalk on the west side of that road that goes all the way up to the curve. And so, I mean, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that there's going to probably be more development on here and to just say, I don't want to build any sidewalks, knowing that there's probably going to be a desire to have sidewalks to make that. And there's also a school just south of this on Granville Road as well. It's just hard. I mean, I get it's your property and you've got lots of land and you want to build what you want to build and you don't want to do a sidewalk because it doesn't benefit you, but it would benefit the public. It would benefit... people that live in this area. Not today, but in five years, probably. And that's the part, I had a hard time with it last time, and I have a hard time with it now.

I'm curious what the CFO is for, because if we did this a year ago, and you still don't have a certificate of occupancy.

No, I hadn't started, or I just started a year ago. A year ago, I was, for financing purposes, I was trying to get a lot split. And at the time of the lot split, I learned, see my family's lived in the barn dominium for the last four and a half years. And so we actually ran sanitary sewer a really long ways to get to the barn and a water line to eventually support both properties. And as I was going through the lot split process for financing purposes only, I learned that not only about the sidewalk piece, but also that I would have to vacate the sanitary sewer to the barn and move it to septic. And I would also have to run another water line 1,600 feet back to the barn. So after all of that, I went back to my bank and given that I'm planning to be here forever. We just made it an in-house loan, which is more expensive for me, obviously, to a full percentage point. And so that's what I've done to be able to keep my barn on sewer and water. And now I'm finally finished with the house. You have two structures and one parcel. Yes, sir. Exactly. And that wasn't the, I'm sorry.

No, that's, yeah.

There was a proposed lot split at some point.

Yeah, that's what brought it in last time. I think we were looking to, and I think last time, I think our, what I remember I liked was a payment in lieu because I think that that road needs a sidewalk, whether it's today or five years from now. So I think that's where I was last time. And I think that's where I'm at today.

I guess my question is, The reason I'm here is there have been three waivers granted on Wes Miller. We've got to start sometime.

Our goal has been to make sure that we've got sidewalks in parts of the cities that are developing. This area out towards 112, even from this picture, you can tell it's developing. That's probably going to be chock full of houses outside of some of these parcels. We've got to have sidewalks out here. I think last time we were here, there was a guy who talked about how great it would be to have a sidewalk. So him and his son I sympathize with that.

Yeah. It is 1,000 feet of frontage, so it's a really expensive sidewalk as well. So just thinking about the burden of the sidewalk was the other piece that I was- Totally get that, but generally in this chamber, money is not enough for a hardship.

We don't do that with other projects. We've got to be pretty consistent around support on that.

And then one other thing that we had discussed a bit was would it be possible to, I have all of the right-of-way to be able to donate the right-of-way to the city in lieu of the sidewalk?

Yeah, we don't do in lieu of. We would want a different two. So originally he had, I think, a lot split that was going to make the width of what his requirement for the sidewalk much, much smaller that was more reasonable. But with the property line adjustment in the city of Springdale, you're required to dedicate the proper right-of-way that aligns with the master street plan. And then there wasn't an agreement for that. And so the split was never finalized. So that's why he has the full, at least that was the last records I have, is that why we still have the full 900 and some odd.

Any other comments? Public. IF NOT, THIS IS A MOTION TO FORWARD THE COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL OR APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER.

I RECOMMEND TO FORWARD THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENIAL.

SECOND.

COMMISSION'S MOTION TO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF THE WAIVER HAS PASSED NINE TO ZERO.

SO, PLANNING STAFF, WE ARE GOING TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO FORWARD IT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 22ND, AND SO THAT WILL BE IN HERE, IN THIS ROOM, 6 P.M. ON TUESDAY THE 22ND. SO WE RECOMMEND YOU SHOW UP IN CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. W26-43, STAIRSTEPHERS LLC, PRESENTED BY ROSS KEPHART.

Good evening, I'm Ross Kephart, and I'm here on behalf of Stair Steppers LLC. This project is located on Maple Avenue, 206 Maple Avenue, and we originally had a non-large-scale development planned for this site, and right before we broke ground, realized that There were a couple of unforeseen situations that caused us to pivot to just a simple lot split and have built two homes and then two ADU units behind those homes on Maple Avenue. There's an existing sidewalk there and all the way down Maple Avenue on both sides that is four feet in width. And so our original plan was to build a, I believe it was an eight foot sidewalk right on the property line and ran into an issue with the location of the water meter. And so in order, I believe you've gotta be three feet off of a water meter. It could be slightly off, but you've gotta be offset from the meter. And so, we looked at a number of options in terms of where to put a sidewalk and potentially pushing it further off of the road, six feet off of the road would give us some space if we built a five foot sidewalk. So we went through a number of different options and ultimately kind of landed on, we would love to build a sidewalk FORGO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGER SIDEWALK, 11 AND A HALF FEET CERTAINLY, JUST GIVEN THAT SIDEWALK THERE TODAY IS COMPLETELY ADA COMPLIANT. THERE'S A MANHOLE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. IF WE WERE TO OFFSET THE SIDEWALK TO SIX FEET, THEN THAT MANHOLE WOULD KIND OF TEE INTO THE SIDEWALK. SO AESTHETICALLY NOT THE BEST. And then I think there's, you guys would clearly know a decent likelihood at some point in time that given that this is a downtown commercial designation that the roadway would be expanded, a larger sidewalk would be put in at that point and we would ultimately have to tear out what we just put in. So with that, I sure would like to answer any questions that you guys have. Any staff comment?

Any from the public? Yeah, I went by this site, and I really wanted to make you do a bigger sidewalk. I really did. Because I wanted it to be more walkable downtown, right? And these small sidewalks don't really make anybody feel great about walking on them, as much as a five-foot or eight-foot does. But as I drove around downtown, every sidewalk in downtown in this area, I had to go all the way across Main Street to find a wider sidewalk. And so I just like, I don't know, can I put burden on one person to do a much bigger sidewalk when the rest of the properties for miles and miles, it seems like, are not. So this was a hard one for me because I love to see wider sidewalks on any new development. But I get, you know, if we did it here, then the next... 300 linear feet would be what's currently there. And it's like, It doesn't seem, only thing on this picture on the left, that sidewalk looks really rough. Maybe that's just a bad image, but I would say, I would love to just see a nice clean sidewalk if you had to replace what's existing, where you've maybe chewed it up during construction or something. And it maybe is not that bad, but it looked pretty rough in this image on the left.

Yeah, Mark, good point. So you can actually see it on this image on the left here real well. So we just put in sod and so all of the dirt. That's right. We will absolutely commit to cleaning it up, filling any cracks where the manhole is currently, the cement collar around the manhole rather. We could do whatever is necessary to ensure that the elevation, there's just a slight elevation change there. Make that transition a little bit smoother. Just got a feeling. So I've been talking to all of the neighbors recently about a fence, which is so much fun. And these are beautiful old homes. And people have lived there, in many cases, for a long time. And so I'm obviously biased in the situation and advocating for myself. But I think an 11 and 1 half foot sidewalk in that section is going to look weird for a long time.

I don't disagree.

So we're kind of at a point where it feels like, and Commission, please correct me if I'm wrong, or add in, that we want more walkables, we want more than four feet, and we want ADA accessible, but that maybe the 11 foot is not conducive to this particular site. Is that... Does the commission agree with that yet today? I would seem to agree.

I mean, I'm walking this every day right now on paternity leave, so I literally was just walking it today. It's hard because you have the bike paths and stuff. It gives you a little bit of a buffer from the road, but again, to Mark's point, it does kind of feel a little scary. not really going to be uniform. And then I'm also thinking back to the last person of like someone eventually has to start it.

Well, yeah. And in that vein of things, would you guys be open to payment in lieu for the 11 foot sidewalk? So the money's there when the city finally does come through and do it. You keep the floor how it is now.

Well, my only thought, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I'm not sure 11 foot is right for this. I kind of agree with you, Mark. I mean, maybe it's six foot. I don't know. I'm not a civil engineer or a landscape architect.