OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Bentonville, Arkansas/Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Bentonville Planning Commission Meeting: March 3, 2026

Planning Commission — Tuesday, March 3, 2026
BodyBentonville, Arkansas
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, March 3, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:44:18

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:28

So it's 4 30.

0:30

So uh good afternoon, everyone.

0:31

I'm going to go ahead and call to order the tech review meeting of the Venville Planning Commission for March the 3rd.

0:41

And uh we'll begin with the review of the minutes.

0:44

Anyone have any modifications or changes uh to the minutes?

Unassigned speaker

0:50

Okay,

Speaker 1

0:51

see none.

0:52

We'll move on to the consent agenda.

0:54

Any items under the consent agenda that a commission would like to have removed from the consent agenda or any item that you'd like to have further discussion about at that review.

Speaker 2

1:07

Just for the record, uh number one is lot 13, not

Unassigned speaker

1:11

but

Speaker 2

1:11

not blood.

Speaker 1

1:12

Like 10.

1:13

Thanks, sir.

1:18

Okay, hearing none.

1:19

We will retain those items on the consent agenda.

1:24

Move to new business, the echo echelon subdivision waiver request.

1:30

So Tom, you want to walk us through that one

Speaker 3

1:34

of uh subject matter experts.

Speaker 1

1:39

I think we need one.

Speaker 4

1:46

Okay.

1:49

Um the essentially the purpose of this item is we discovered uh an issue with uh Peloton tying into West Third, um, didn't meet the street specs.

2:02

Um we um notified the engineer record um of that discrepancy and requested them to correct the issue.

2:11

Um, and then that's why it is in front of you because we're requesting all the way to the street specs.

Speaker 1

2:19

You so we we have the we kind of have the report, the request from them and and from engineering, but can you just kind of walk us through what the real issue is?

2:29

And um, I know that I read in the report that that during the inspection was identified to them before they poured concrete, but they poured concrete anyway.

Speaker 4

2:38

Yes.

Speaker 1

2:38

So can you just kind of walk me through that?

Speaker 4

2:40

Yes, so our construction inspectors, you know, they perform inspections um right routinely, and as part of that, one of those inspections, um, the grade uh vertical grade was pointed out as being an issue with um how Peloton was tying in to Northwest Third.

2:59

Um, and so at that point I went out and looked at it and determined that yes, the vertical grade didn't meet the street specs.

3:07

Um, and the particular point is that the vertical grade of uh Peloton should meet the vertical grade or the grade of Northwest Third.

3:17

And the way it is constructed today, there's a five-foot gap between um where they've constructed the shared use path and and where it ties into third, and there's about a 10% to 12 and a half percent uh grade difference between those two.

3:30

So what it's gonna create is an issue where

Unassigned speaker

3:33

you

Speaker 4

3:33

know if you're turning into the subdivision, um, there's gonna be a downward grade on third to meet a 10% to 12% grade up to go over the shared

Speaker 5

3:44

use path and go into the subdivision on

Speaker 4

3:46

Peloton.

3:47

And if you can also see the the fire code also states that grade of

Speaker 5

3:52

streets shall not be any greater than 10%.

Speaker 4

3:55

And in this case, it does violate that

Unassigned speaker

3:57

and

Speaker 5

3:57

and our street specs also line up to

Unassigned speaker

4:00

that.

Speaker 4

4:00

Um

Unassigned speaker

4:01

I don't

Speaker 4

4:02

know if there's any other information you

Speaker 5

4:03

want

Speaker 4

4:04

other than that, it's just gonna create an issue where

Unassigned speaker

4:06

um,

Speaker 4

4:06

as I stated in my comments that fire apparatus um has a potential to drag on that, and then also vehicles that are low to the ground, trailers, things like that with that change in vertical grade between third and and uh Peloton will create an issue where they would drag on that concrete and it would damage the concrete, could damage vehicles and also slow down the reactive time for urgency.

Speaker 1

4:34

The people that are turning off some of the impacts third street as well.

Unassigned speaker

4:39

Um

Speaker 1

4:39

is the applicant here wants to want to make any comments?

4:43

Please feel free to come up, tell us your name and who you represent,

Speaker 6

4:48

please.

4:48

Good evening, Kyle Smith, leadership properties.

4:51

And I've got Chase, our engineer of record with us.

Unassigned speaker

4:54

Uh, if there comes any math questions, um couple of things we we dispute there.

Speaker 6

5:04

Essentially the uh the concrete was poured because it was as submitted and approved and inspected before before this was called to our attention.

5:14

So that's the real reason we're here uh doing this is because yes, there's concrete in place and and uh it seems wasteful to pull that out if if we can resolve this.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████54%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████████████████22%
Procedural████████10%
Active Transportation█████6%
Public Engagement███4%
Disability Rights█1%
Technology and Innovation█1%
Animal Welfare█1%
Public Transportation█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Bentonville Planning Commission Meeting: March 3, 2026

The Bentonville Planning Commission held a technical review session at 4:30 PM and a regular meeting at 5:00 PM on March 3, 2026. The commission addressed a consent agenda, a waiver request, a planned residential development, and four public hearing items. The meeting also included updates on the ARDOT N/S corridor and public comments on zoning overlays.

Consent Calendar

  • Lot 10, Block 16 of Deming's 2nd Addition (Property Line Adjustment, PLA25-0038)
  • C-Street Townhomes Phasing (Large Scale Development Amendment, LSD25-0039)
  • Townhomes at OZ Phasing (Preliminary Plat Amendment, PP25-0010)
  • Lots 7-10 of Morningstar Subdivision (Property Line Adjustment, PLA26-0001)
  • Lot 12 of Demings 2nd Addition (Property Line Adjustment, PLA26-0003)
  • Rainbow Patio Homes Subdivision (Final Plat, FP25-0004)
  • Lots 1 & 2, Phase 1 of Crystal Lands Subdivision (Property Line Adjustment, PLA25-0020) All items were approved unanimously (7-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Pamela Mag (resident of The Point Apartments) expressed concern about potential commercial zoning near I Street and the regional airport. Staff clarified that the farmland remains zoned as rural (AG) and any future rezoning would require public notice.
  • Rust Chrisco (9562 Michelle Road) asked about the impact of zoning changes on a Methodist church. Staff responded that the Downtown Center Overlay District map was adjusted to stop at A Street, removing the church from the overlay, based on public feedback.
  • Maiva Reckia (owner of 301 SE B Street, a vacant corner lot) requested exclusion from the Downtown Neighborhood Overlay, arguing that the lot's constraints (small corner lot, two 20-foot setbacks) already limit development and overlay rules would add unnecessary complexity. Staff indicated that the block had already been recommended for removal from the overlay.

Discussion Items

  • Echelon Subdivision Waiver (PP25-0003) – A request to waive Street Specifications Section 600.02(d)(2) for the grade crossing at NW 3rd Street and Peloton Lane. City engineering staff stated that the constructed vertical grade (10-12% over 5 feet) violates the 10% fire code maximum and could cause vehicle drag and emergency response delays. Staff also noted the grade was flagged before concrete was poured, but the applicant proceeded. Applicant Kyle Smith (Leadership Properties) argued that the design improves bicycle/pedestrian continuity (using side path standard 9004 A9) and that the actual rise is only 4 inches, not 6-7 inches as claimed. He disputed staff’s timeline, saying the issue was raised after construction. After discussion of potential liability and code compliance, the commission voted 7-0 to deny the waiver.
  • Bentonville B3 Land Development, LLC (The Thickets) PRD (PRD25-0004) – A 421-unit project (281 single-family detached, 140 townhomes) on 50% green space. The applicant (Jamie Smith, Sheafer Mitchell Homes) presented updated elevations with more brick and traditional roofs, relocated the dog park away from a neighboring farm, and added landscaping buffers. Commissioners noted the improvements and approved the project 7-0.
  • Bentonville Community Code – Staff (Tyler Overstreet) summarized changes made since the last meeting, including adjustments to lot width, building heights, side setbacks, use tables (adding animal shelter/kennel definitions), external connection criteria, civic space requirements, material standards, and sign regulations. The public hearing was opened and closed with no additional comments. The commission agreed to bring the code back for a vote at the next meeting, as staff preferred to present a clean document incorporating all discussed changes.
  • Bentonville Zoning Map Ordinance – Staff presented the updated zoning map based on the new code. Commissioner Wright raised concerns about several parcels: (1) parcels at SE Henry and F Street requested T5.1 but were recommended for T4.2; he preferred retaining R1 as originally proposed. (2) A parcel near the community center requested T5.1 but was surrounded by lower-intensity zones; Wright recommended T4.2 as previously proposed. (3) The Echelon property (waiver item) was recommended for T3.1 (single-family) to align with surrounding R1. Commissioners discussed the translation logic and agreed to bring the map back with the code for a final vote.
  • Downtown Center Overlay District Map – Staff noted the boundary was adjusted to stop at A Street, removing the Methodist church and some historic residences. Public hearing held with no speakers. The item will return with the code.
  • Downtown Neighborhood Overlay District Map – Staff clarified setback rules: new construction must match the minimum setback of existing houses on the block, but not exceed 20 feet (base R1). Height may be up to one story taller than the block average, not exceeding base height. Color is not regulated. The map was revised to exclude a block (including 301 SE B Street) based on neighborhood feedback. Public comment from Maiva Reckia confirmed that exclusion. The item will return with the code.
  • ARDOT N/S Corridor Update – Informational: staff noted that earlier alignment drawings shared in January were inaccurate and provided by Garver; the corridor remains under NEPA analysis and is less defined.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda – Approved 7-0.
  • Echelon Subdivision Waiver – Denied 7-0; the waiver was not approved, meaning the applicant must reconstruct the grade to meet street specifications.
  • Bentonville B3 (The Thickets) PRD – Approved 7-0.
  • Gilmore Rezoning (RZ26-0003) – Approved 7-0 (rezoning 337 NW A Street from DN-4 to DE).
  • Bentonville Community Code – Continued to the next meeting (March 17, 2026) for a final vote with minor modifications.
  • Bentonville Zoning Map, Downtown Center Overlay, Downtown Neighborhood Overlay – All continued to the next meeting along with the code.

Meeting Transcript

So it's 4 30. So uh good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to go ahead and call to order the tech review meeting of the Venville Planning Commission for March the 3rd. And uh we'll begin with the review of the minutes. Anyone have any modifications or changes uh to the minutes? Okay, see none. We'll move on to the consent agenda. Any items under the consent agenda that a commission would like to have removed from the consent agenda or any item that you'd like to have further discussion about at that review. Just for the record, uh number one is lot 13, not but not blood. Like 10. Thanks, sir. Okay, hearing none. We will retain those items on the consent agenda. Move to new business, the echo echelon subdivision waiver request. So Tom, you want to walk us through that one of uh subject matter experts. I think we need one. Okay. Um the essentially the purpose of this item is we discovered uh an issue with uh Peloton tying into West Third, um, didn't meet the street specs. Um we um notified the engineer record um of that discrepancy and requested them to correct the issue. Um, and then that's why it is in front of you because we're requesting all the way to the street specs. You so we we have the we kind of have the report, the request from them and and from engineering, but can you just kind of walk us through what the real issue is? And um, I know that I read in the report that that during the inspection was identified to them before they poured concrete, but they poured concrete anyway. Yes. So can you just kind of walk me through that? Yes, so our construction inspectors, you know, they perform inspections um right routinely, and as part of that, one of those inspections, um, the grade uh vertical grade was pointed out as being an issue with um how Peloton was tying in to Northwest Third. Um, and so at that point I went out and looked at it and determined that yes, the vertical grade didn't meet the street specs. Um, and the particular point is that the vertical grade of uh Peloton should meet the vertical grade or the grade of Northwest Third. And the way it is constructed today, there's a five-foot gap between um where they've constructed the shared use path and and where it ties into third, and there's about a 10% to 12 and a half percent uh grade difference between those two. So what it's gonna create is an issue where you know if you're turning into the subdivision, um, there's gonna be a downward grade on third to meet a 10% to 12% grade up to go over the shared use path and go into the subdivision on Peloton. And if you can also see the the fire code also states that grade of streets shall not be any greater than 10%. And in this case, it does violate that and and our street specs also line up to that. Um I don't know if there's any other information you want other than that, it's just gonna create an issue where um, as I stated in my comments that fire apparatus um has a potential to drag on that, and then also vehicles that are low to the ground, trailers, things like that with that change in vertical grade between third and and uh Peloton will create an issue where they would drag on that concrete and it would damage the concrete, could damage vehicles and also slow down the reactive time for urgency.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com