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

Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 2026

Planning Commission — Tuesday, June 2, 2026
BodyBentonville, Arkansas
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, June 2, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 35:02

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

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Unassigned speaker

0:23

about the uh minutes questions or revisions to the minutes no um you see any questions or revisions that anyone wants to discuss for the uh consent agenda um before we talk about the new business let's uh does anyone have any questions on the three rezonings under advertised public hearings um um under new business the waiver for the uh least saying it's church parking lot you want to talk about that and give us some perspective on it right so uh the applicant is seeking to place more parking on site than code allows so the land sits today as uh t 4.1 I believe the 4.2 which has uh a maximum parking limit to the spaces so uh the applicant is asking for uh 253 and code limits it to 109 we offered up uh some conditions on the back end of the staff report if the commission is thinking about approving it to um ensure the new spaces are uh constructed with low impact development of course uh obey all laws uh all the new asphalt would have to meet the drainage manual requirements for additional runoff and then maybe some additional landscape buffer along the southerly property this this item is not in public hearing so what whatever questions you have let's ask them well well most churches if the if they're successful have a parking problem okay and that's gonna that's that's the way it is here in downtown churches and and uh they just probably don't have enough enough opportunity to find adjacent parking with other developments that's what usually what happens on most Sunday places but uh I don't think they have much opportunities next door to them do they no that doesn't didn't look like it's yeah um we have a the applicant here would you like to talk about it for us right on where's there we go um hi Cody Sexton with Bloon Associates um pretty much like we explained uh big church the church needs needs more parking um otherwise going by the code I think it was like four spaces per thousand square feet which you know when you math that out in your head that's not a whole lot for the church space um as mentioned we've we've already got planned for additional um green space landscape buffers on the perimeter to you know enhance and shield on the street corridors and we're certainly receptive to anything that we need to do to make it more desirable uh in the process of getting that parking so obviously their goal is they want everything to be nice as well so you can have multiple services I'm sorry you have multiple services uh that I do not know I'm just the engineers because right now multiple services the calculation it is parking is based upon having a service for that particular building size but so many of these towns and churches have multiple services and the problem is the transition people are coming in for the next service and there's still people parking and so the that's just an inherent problem that probably the code doesn't really figure in the the overlap so and I'm looking at it because I just don't see a lot of other options around the property that they can off of you at this time or change later um you mentioned the uh additional screening and staff board talks about to the south what about the other directions between this property and Mercy Clinic and Macaulay place and I street uh at the moment we've just got of course the plans are still fairly conceptual and we've been through the initial meetings with city staff at the moment we've got it on the south we do have typical landscaping on our plans on the other perimeters but nothing additional and it that's in excess of what the code requires at the moment um

Speaker 1

5:04

Uh at the moment we've just got of course the plans are still fairly conceptual, and we've been through the initial meetings with city staff at the moment.

5:14

We've got it on the south.

5:16

We do have typical landscaping on our plans on the

Unassigned speaker

5:20

other

Speaker 1

5:20

perimeters, but nothing additional and it that's in excess of

Unassigned speaker

5:24

what

Speaker 1

5:25

the code requires at the

Unassigned speaker

5:26

moment.

Speaker 2

5:29

Um looks like you're proposing the temporary septic system, I guess, until the city sewer capacity is available.

5:40

Okay, and what's the plan for that space on site once you connect to the city?

Speaker 1

5:46

Um, I don't know there's a specific plan for it yet.

5:50

Figure that out once it's once it's no longer of need and available.

Speaker 2

5:56

Any concern about having a septic field right by Macaulay place?

Speaker 1

6:04

Septic system will be permitted through the state, just like everything else.

Unassigned speaker

6:08

So okay.

Speaker 2

6:11

What about uh there's pretty significant storm and detention facilities for Macaulay place?

6:18

What's what's the plan for addressing that?

Speaker 1

6:21

Um, our overall plan, and it doesn't show up on here, but we've already got we've got planned out an underground stormwater system that'll be split into two sections, about the north third of it uh will be contained and will tie into the existing stormwater

Unassigned speaker

6:37

system.

Speaker 1

6:38

Um going to the east, and the bottom two-thirds will be an underground system underneath the parking lot.

6:45

And uh we've already had discussions with Macaulay to get a easement granted from them because they've got significant ponds and overall the overall plan is really if those are cooperative, that's just better for everybody.

7:01

So that's that's the plan for our underground system to tie directly into their influent points on their property and then into their pods.

Speaker 2

7:15

Um

Speaker 1

7:19

obviously with the footprints that we have, and that we do need all the parking.

7:23

We don't have a lot

Unassigned speaker

7:24

of

Speaker 1

7:25

spare room on the property to

Unassigned speaker

7:27

put

Speaker 1

7:27

upon, so we're all underground.

Unassigned speaker

7:31

Well,

Speaker 2

7:31

there were actually two two criteria in the code for parking, and they're a little under one of those criteria, but the code says the lesser of these two things and you know our parking spaces for 18,000 square foot search facilities, not gonna be nice.

7:51

Um we have any other questions about this any thought about you want to put this on consent.

Speaker 3

8:04

I'm okay, then I was gonna suggest that yeah,

Speaker 2

8:06

but

Speaker 3

8:08

yeah,

Speaker 4

8:08

with the conditions,

Speaker 2

8:09

well, yeah, with the conditions.

8:10

Well, I'll hang them like that then.

8:15

Um questions on the advertised hearings.

8:20

Eighth and C Street.

8:22

Um you can take a break.

8:28

Eighth and C Street, we have an amendment to the large scale development, Tom.

Speaker 4

8:33

Right.

8:33

Uh the same materials, they just want to bring back some lighter colors.

8:37

This one

Unassigned speaker

8:38

um

Speaker 2

8:40

have any questions about that item that one is not a public hearing.

8:49

Do we want to look at moving that one to consent?

8:56

Okay.

9:00

And then we're to the um next item, the rezoning.

9:06

You want to summarize the revision?

Speaker 4

9:08

Right.

9:08

So at the at the 519 planning commission.

9:13

Uh uh, there was a uh some line work that had a bust, and so some of the 4.2 they were requesting encroached within the suburban neighborhood place type.

9:22

So they've amended that to meet code and then added some 3.1 on the easterly boundary to make a nice transition into that existing

Unassigned speaker

9:31

neighborhood.

Unassigned speaker

9:32

Okay,

Speaker 2

9:32

do we have any technical questions about that?

9:34

Because we're gonna um uh have a time for the public to be able to speak about that as we told them we would probably put on consent.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████41%
Procedural████████████████████████████████████36%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████████10%
Drainage Infrastructure██████████10%
Transportation Safety███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Planning Commission Meeting

June 2, 2026 | Technical Review: 4:30 PM | Public Hearing: 5:00 PM

The Bentonville Planning Commission held a public hearing and business meeting on June 2, 2026, to consider a consent agenda, three advertised rezoning requests, a parking waiver, and a large-scale development amendment. All votes were unanimous (6-0).

Consent Calendar

  • Opal Park Phase 1 Final Plat (FP25-0011) – Approved without discussion.
  • Latter Day Saints Church Parking Waiver (WAV26-0008) – Approved with conditions: maximum of 253 parking spaces (code limit 109), enhanced landscape buffer on the south, compliance with drainage manual, and low-impact development (LID) for new spaces where feasible.
  • 8th & C St Townhomes Elevations Amendment (LSD25-0039) – Approved; the applicant sought to use lighter colors for the elevations.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Costello Rezoning (RZ26-0028) – The applicant, Joseph Costello, appeared online; no other public testimony.
  • Barron Rd, LLC Rezoning (RZ26-0029 & RZ26-0024) – Applicant Jason Engles (Expedient Civil Engineering) stated the requests were straightforward; no public comments.
  • Edward L. and Imelda Frail Rezoning (RZ26-0017) – Two neighbors spoke:
    • Vincent Thompson (6506 SW Brush Blvd) expressed concerns about infrastructure availability, spot zoning, density compatibility, stormwater runoff and flooding, and whether the city had proper authority in unincorporated areas (staff clarified the site is within city limits). He argued these issues individually warranted denial.
    • Brent Dyer (6509 SW Brush Blvd) raised concerns about flooding and water runoff, the location of the planned construction entrance (noting previous road damage from construction on Brush Boulevard), whether Brush Boulevard would be connected through the development (impacting traffic cut-through), and where retention ponds would be sized and sited.

Discussion Items

  • Latter Day Saints Church Parking Waiver – Commissioners discussed the need for additional parking given overlapping services and limited off-site options. The applicant (Cody Sexton, Bloon Associates) stated the church needs 253 spaces (code limits to 109 based on 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft). Staff recommended conditions including LID parking, drainage improvements, and an enhanced southern landscape buffer. The item was moved to consent with those conditions.
  • 8th & C St Townhomes Elevations Amendment – Discussed as a minor change to lighter colors; moved to consent.
  • Costello Rezoning (RZ26-0028) – Request to rezone 3 acres from T2.1 (Rural) to T3.1 (Neighborhood Edge) within Suburban Neighborhood Place Type, consistent with the community plan. Approved.
  • Barron Rd, LLC Rezonings – Two companion items:
    1. RZ26-0029: Rezone interior/eastern portion to T3.2 (Neighborhood Transition) within Urban Neighborhood Place Type.
    2. RZ26-0024: Rezone L-shaped portion to T4.2 (Neighborhood Node) within Urban Neighborhood Place Type. Both consistent with community plan. Approved separately.
  • Edward L. and Imelda Frail Rezoning (RZ26-0017) – A three-part rezone of land south of Regional Airport/east of Lee Lane from T2.1 to T4.2 (north), T3.1 (southeast), and T3.2 (remainder), after correcting a survey error from the previous meeting. Staff addressed neighbor concerns: street stubs to Brush Boulevard may be required but could be limited to bike/pedestrian connections; drainage and detention will be evaluated during future development review; construction entrance can be required off Regional Airport Boulevard rather than Brush Boulevard. The commission noted the T3.1 strip along the east boundary provides a buffer of single-family homes adjacent to the existing neighborhood.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda – Approved 6-0, including: Opal Park Phase 1 Final Plat, Latter Day Saints Church Parking Waiver (with conditions), and 8th & C St Townhomes Elevations Amendment.
  • Costello Rezoning (RZ26-0028) – Approved 6-0.
  • Barron Rd, LLC Rezoning (RZ26-0029) – Approved 6-0.
  • Barron Rd, LLC Rezoning (RZ26-0024) – Approved 6-0.
  • Edward L. and Imelda Frail Rezoning (RZ26-0017) – Approved 6-0.
  • Next Meeting – A Greenway Corridor Plan Phase 2 open house was announced for June 9, 2026, 5:30–7:30 PM at Bentonville Public Library.

Meeting Transcript

about the uh minutes questions or revisions to the minutes no um you see any questions or revisions that anyone wants to discuss for the uh consent agenda um before we talk about the new business let's uh does anyone have any questions on the three rezonings under advertised public hearings um um under new business the waiver for the uh least saying it's church parking lot you want to talk about that and give us some perspective on it right so uh the applicant is seeking to place more parking on site than code allows so the land sits today as uh t 4.1 I believe the 4.2 which has uh a maximum parking limit to the spaces so uh the applicant is asking for uh 253 and code limits it to 109 we offered up uh some conditions on the back end of the staff report if the commission is thinking about approving it to um ensure the new spaces are uh constructed with low impact development of course uh obey all laws uh all the new asphalt would have to meet the drainage manual requirements for additional runoff and then maybe some additional landscape buffer along the southerly property this this item is not in public hearing so what whatever questions you have let's ask them well well most churches if the if they're successful have a parking problem okay and that's gonna that's that's the way it is here in downtown churches and and uh they just probably don't have enough enough opportunity to find adjacent parking with other developments that's what usually what happens on most Sunday places but uh I don't think they have much opportunities next door to them do they no that doesn't didn't look like it's yeah um we have a the applicant here would you like to talk about it for us right on where's there we go um hi Cody Sexton with Bloon Associates um pretty much like we explained uh big church the church needs needs more parking um otherwise going by the code I think it was like four spaces per thousand square feet which you know when you math that out in your head that's not a whole lot for the church space um as mentioned we've we've already got planned for additional um green space landscape buffers on the perimeter to you know enhance and shield on the street corridors and we're certainly receptive to anything that we need to do to make it more desirable uh in the process of getting that parking so obviously their goal is they want everything to be nice as well so you can have multiple services I'm sorry you have multiple services uh that I do not know I'm just the engineers because right now multiple services the calculation it is parking is based upon having a service for that particular building size but so many of these towns and churches have multiple services and the problem is the transition people are coming in for the next service and there's still people parking and so the that's just an inherent problem that probably the code doesn't really figure in the the overlap so and I'm looking at it because I just don't see a lot of other options around the property that they can off of you at this time or change later um you mentioned the uh additional screening and staff board talks about to the south what about the other directions between this property and Mercy Clinic and Macaulay place and I street uh at the moment we've just got of course the plans are still fairly conceptual and we've been through the initial meetings with city staff at the moment we've got it on the south we do have typical landscaping on our plans on the other perimeters but nothing additional and it that's in excess of what the code requires at the moment um Uh at the moment we've just got of course the plans are still fairly conceptual, and we've been through the initial meetings with city staff at the moment. We've got it on the south. We do have typical landscaping on our plans on the other perimeters, but nothing additional and it that's in excess of what the code requires at the moment. Um looks like you're proposing the temporary septic system, I guess, until the city sewer capacity is available. Okay, and what's the plan for that space on site once you connect to the city? Um, I don't know there's a specific plan for it yet. Figure that out once it's once it's no longer of need and available. Any concern about having a septic field right by Macaulay place? Septic system will be permitted through the state, just like everything else. So okay. What about uh there's pretty significant storm and detention facilities for Macaulay place? What's what's the plan for addressing that? Um, our overall plan, and it doesn't show up on here, but we've already got we've got planned out an underground stormwater system that'll be split into two sections, about the north third of it uh will be contained and will tie into the existing stormwater system. Um going to the east, and the bottom two-thirds will be an underground system underneath the parking lot. And uh we've already had discussions with Macaulay to get a easement granted from them because they've got significant ponds and overall the overall plan is really if those are cooperative, that's just better for everybody. So that's that's the plan for our underground system to tie directly into their influent points on their property and then into their pods. Um obviously with the footprints that we have, and that we do need all the parking. We don't have a lot of spare room on the property to put upon, so we're all underground. Well, there were actually two two criteria in the code for parking, and they're a little under one of those criteria, but the code says the lesser of these two things and you know our parking spaces for 18,000 square foot search facilities, not gonna be nice. Um we have any other questions about this any thought about you want to put this on consent. I'm okay, then I was gonna suggest that yeah, but yeah, with the conditions, well, yeah, with the conditions. Well, I'll hang them like that then. Um questions on the advertised hearings. Eighth and C Street. Um you can take a break. Eighth and C Street, we have an amendment to the large scale development, Tom. Right. Uh the same materials, they just want to bring back some lighter colors. This one um have any questions about that item that one is not a public hearing. Do we want to look at moving that one to consent? Okay.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com