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 Summary - August 18, 2026

Planning Commission — Tuesday, August 18, 2026
BodyBentonville, Arkansas
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, August 18, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:48:31

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

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

0:44

All right.

0:44

Again, I hear no one.

0:46

So uh let's move on to new business.

0:49

Item number one is the STEM campus.

0:52

Mr.

0:53

Adler.

0:54

All right.

Speaker 2

0:54

STEM campus.

0:56

So this is uh our very first campus development plan off of the new code, CDP 26-0001, a 14-acre STEM university.

1:06

It's got three main buildings, the academic building, a two, the crucible building, a three, and the residence hall, A1B.

1:15

And uh yeah, so the residence hall is kind of in the back on F Street.

1:20

The other two are right on eighth.

1:24

Um the parking is all gonna be south of eighth.

1:28

There are uh two streets E and D that are gonna be private but normally open to the public.

1:35

There is a um a future phase that's gonna be brought back to the planning commission, as well as the lighting standard.

1:42

It's still being worked on by a BUD, so that one uh we're proposing a condition that if you do prove approve it that it'd be uh conditioned for everything but the lighting.

Speaker 1

1:54

So since this is our first uh CDP campus development plan, um might be helpful if you just kind of walk us through what we are actually looking at and approving tonight.

2:05

Will individual pieces then come back to us?

2:08

What's that process look like moving forward?

2:11

It would just be

Speaker 3

2:12

uh uh the key thing, like what I would describe as a campus development plan is this is your umbrella kind of framework approval.

2:21

So we're looking at the connectivity layout, we're looking at the open and civic spaces, we're looking at the phasing plan.

2:29

Like this is really setting the groundwork for how the rest of the campus itself will develop.

2:35

Um and then yes, to your point, uh the way the code is written, those individual phases would then come through the large scale development process as well.

Speaker 1

2:44

Okay, so it's not like a PUD in the sense that we're approving materials, we're approving those kinds of things tonight, or we are and or we just approving lay uh general layout, the layout of these first three buildings.

Speaker 3

3:00

So the second page that Claire pulled up is the actual kind of written piece of here are the building standards.

3:09

Like here is there are some allow uh modifications allowed within 50-50 c for connectivity, street design, lot and frontage, building orientation, parking and transportation, access management, their traffic mode, and those go go on through there.

3:30

But they're it's not like a PUD in the sense that it still has to meet our building material standards when the large scales are coming through.

3:38

Yeah.

3:39

So it's it's more narrowly tailored and what is allowed to be modified, and all that is included within the summary on page two.

3:49

Not only what they're modifying, but also the justification for doing so.

3:54

And then Claire and Tom with an or Casey and Tom within the staff report kind of uh tailored that down, gave you the the reader's digest version of

Unassigned speaker

4:05

it.

Speaker 4

4:12

Um A Street and Walton and A Street and A, and then it's the eighth street and the drive on one, that'll all be part of the developers cost, and uh not sure what phase that'll be done with,

Unassigned speaker

4:28

but

Speaker 4

4:29

they'll uh um let us know that.

4:32

The public

Speaker 2

4:33

package is actually making its way through the city right now for plan checks, so that'll be one of the first ones that come through

Unassigned speaker

4:39

the gate.

Unassigned speaker

4:40

Yeah.

Unassigned speaker

4:41

I

Speaker 4

4:41

noticed all the street trees are gonna be planted after the buildings are built, right?

4:46

Correct.

4:47

Which makes sense.

Unassigned speaker

4:53

If

Speaker 5

4:53

the

Speaker 1

4:54

applicant's

Speaker 5

4:54

here

Speaker 1

4:55

has any comments that they want to make, you're welcome to come to the come to the podium.

5:01

Or if there are any questions, the commissioners.

Unassigned speaker

5:22

I'm

Speaker 6

5:22

good with it.

Unassigned speaker

5:25

All

Speaker 1

5:25

right, we have a request to move it to consent agenda, or are there any objections?

Unassigned speaker

5:39

All

Speaker 1

5:39

right, this item will be moved to consent.

5:42

Item number two is the J Street mixed use waivers.

Unassigned speaker

5:47

So

Speaker 2

5:47

this is a companion item to the very first item on the consent, the lot split.

5:52

And uh you're asking for a uh a little bit of leeway on the 200 foot driveway separations because they have two driveways, one north and one south, and they can't get 200 foot from both, so they have an exhibit that kind of shows

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████55%
Procedural████████████████19%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████9%
Transportation Safety████5%
Historic Preservation██3%
Public Engagement██3%
Technology and Innovation█1%
Drainage Infrastructure█1%
Public Safety█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Bentonville Planning Commission Summary - August 18, 2026

The Bentonville Planning Commission held its scheduled meeting on August 18, 2026, at 5:00 PM following a 4:30 PM Tech Review session at City Hall (305 SW A St). The commission approved a consent agenda encompassing nine items, addressed public testimony on several rezoning applications, and tabled significant code amendment packages pending further city-wide discussion on parking policy.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the August 4, 2026 meeting minutes.
  • Lot Split: Lot 4 of Goldmeier Estates at 1703 SE J Street.
  • Property Line Adjustment: Lot 1 of Airport Road Shopping Center Subdivision.
  • Lot Split: Lots 9 & 10, Block 2, of B-W Heights Subdivision at 904 SE 10th Street.
  • Utility Easement Vacations: Three vacations within the Gilmore's Addition and Dunn & Davis Addition for the pending STEM Campus.
  • STEM Campus Development Plan (CDP26-0001): The city's first campus development plan was approved for the 14-acre STEM university. The approval is conditioned upon the lighting plan being brought back to the commission for separate approval. The CDP serves as a framework for connectivity, open space, and phasing, with individual building phases requiring subsequent Large Scale Development approval.
  • J Street Mixed Use Waivers (WAV26-0009): Three waivers were approved for the mixed-use project at 1703 SE J Street, addressing driveway separation, driveway width, and zone transition landscape buffer requirements.
  • Botanical Garden Waiver (LSD26-0038): A waiver for off-site infrastructure and required frontage improvements at 606 E Central Avenue was approved. The commission overruled staff's recommendation to require a sidewalk on F Street, citing significant utility relocation and drainage issues that rendered the sidewalk unfeasible.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Recchia Rezoning (301 SE B St): Celia Swanson (209 SE 3rd St) spoke in opposition, citing concerns about preserving the character of the nearby Downtown Neighborhood Overlay historic district and opposing multi-unit development on the small infill lot. Applicant Will Kelstrom argued the T3.2 zone provides the best transition and that the undeveloped lot lacks historic character to preserve.
  • Juergens Rezoning (405 NW 5th St): Significant opposition was voiced by residents of the surrounding blocks. Eric Summer raised concerns about building height, existing parking shortages, and the need for a traffic study. David Kosnoff detailed failures in the adjacent associated development including elevated building grades, non-functional garages, and discontinuous sidewalks. Sherry Adkins reported drainage damage to her property stemming from adjacent construction. Dave Faylor described how new development has turned their street into a bottleneck, with party guests parking on his lawn. Marie Smith submitted a petition signed by neighbors opposing the zone change from R1 to T4.2, citing concerns for student safety along school walking routes. Roland Smith accused the developer of a bait and switch regarding the total unit count of the development. Jeannie Davidson raised concerns about safety and regulation regarding parking in the alleyways. Janice Summer urged a thoughtful, gradual approach to density and expressed concern about the precedent of allowing 50-foot structures in a low-density area.
  • Juergens Applicant Comments: Developer Mark Haney acknowledged the neighborhood's frustrations but defended the T4.2 zone as appropriate for the block, citing adjacent zones and the land use map. He committed to working with the city on infrastructure improvements and provided perspectives on the drainage and sidewalk issues.
  • Community Code Amendments: The Mayor of Bentonville addressed the commission, stating that the city regularly hears complaints about parking from residents and downtown visitors. She urged the commission to balance the perspectives of developers who want reduced parking requirements with the public's desire for adequate parking, especially as upcoming parking management changes (signage and enforcement) are implemented at City Hall.

Discussion Items

  • HWY 102 Townhomes Extension & Amendment (LSD25-0020): The commission reviewed a request for a one-year extension and a site plan amendment for the 50-unit townhome project. Commissioners expressed significant disappointment with the revised architecture, noting a reduction in brick, loss of gables, and a monotonous roofline compared to the original 2025 approved design. The architect was not present at the meeting. The commission voted to grant a six-month extension rather than the requested one year, but tabled the architectural amendment to the next meeting, requesting the developer return with improved designs featuring greater articulation.
  • Recchia Rezoning (RZ26-0039): Discussion focused on the appropriateness of the T3.2 designation for the small corner lot at 301 SE B Street. Staff clarified that the lot's limited size inherently constrains the mass of any development, which mitigated commissioner concerns about the zone change. The commission approved the rezoning 7-0.
  • CC Curated Collections Rezoning (RZ26-0040): The request to rezone 404 SW 2nd Street from R-1 to T3.1 within the Downtown Neighborhood Overlay was heard. There was no public testimony and minimal commission discussion. The rezoning was approved unanimously.
  • Juergens Rezoning (RZ26-0041): The application was tabled due to an improperly mailed public notice. The commission held the public hearing but delayed any action or vote until the first meeting in September, allowing for proper notification and further community input.
  • Community Code Amendments: Staff presented a comprehensive first batch of amendments to the new Unified Development Code. Key proposals included adjustments to minimum yard setbacks for utility easements, parking requirements for commercial uses in T5 and T6 districts, parking space maximums and credits, treatment of temporary construction yards, and transect zone mapping equivalencies. The commission voiced concerns about specific details, such as the potential for small developments in T5/T6 to have zero parking requirements. Commissioner Wright requested that R1 be mapped differently than T3.1 for the purpose of the 'one transect degree' rule. The entire code amendment packet was tabled to align with an upcoming City Council Committee of the Whole work session focused specifically on parking policy.
  • 2026 Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Changes: Staff presented a slate of proposed changes, mostly involving minor corrections and blank area designations. Notable items included recommending no change for a request to re-designate property on Southwest 8th Street to Regional Center and supporting changes to the Walmart Home Office Campus parcel, a Gateway Park trail segment, and areas along Highway 102. The commission voted to approve the complete package of proposed FLUM changes.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda: Approved unanimously, including the STEM Campus CDP (with lighting condition), J Street waivers, and the Botanical Garden waiver (with F Street sidewalk waived by commission).
  • HWY 102 Townhomes: Six-month extension approved. Architectural design amendment tabled to September 1st meeting.
  • Recchia Rezoning (301 SE B St): Approved 7-0 (Rezone from R-1 to T3.2).
  • CC Curated Collections Rezoning (404 SW 2nd St): Approved 7-0 (Rezone from R-1 to T3.1).
  • Juergens Rezoning (405 NW 5th St): Hearing held, action deferred/tabled to September 1st meeting for proper public notice.
  • Community Code Amendments: Tabled pending parking policy direction from City Council.
  • 2026 FLUM Changes: Approved.

Meeting Transcript

All right. Again, I hear no one. So uh let's move on to new business. Item number one is the STEM campus. Mr. Adler. All right. STEM campus. So this is uh our very first campus development plan off of the new code, CDP 26-0001, a 14-acre STEM university. It's got three main buildings, the academic building, a two, the crucible building, a three, and the residence hall, A1B. And uh yeah, so the residence hall is kind of in the back on F Street. The other two are right on eighth. Um the parking is all gonna be south of eighth. There are uh two streets E and D that are gonna be private but normally open to the public. There is a um a future phase that's gonna be brought back to the planning commission, as well as the lighting standard. It's still being worked on by a BUD, so that one uh we're proposing a condition that if you do prove approve it that it'd be uh conditioned for everything but the lighting. So since this is our first uh CDP campus development plan, um might be helpful if you just kind of walk us through what we are actually looking at and approving tonight. Will individual pieces then come back to us? What's that process look like moving forward? It would just be uh uh the key thing, like what I would describe as a campus development plan is this is your umbrella kind of framework approval. So we're looking at the connectivity layout, we're looking at the open and civic spaces, we're looking at the phasing plan. Like this is really setting the groundwork for how the rest of the campus itself will develop. Um and then yes, to your point, uh the way the code is written, those individual phases would then come through the large scale development process as well. Okay, so it's not like a PUD in the sense that we're approving materials, we're approving those kinds of things tonight, or we are and or we just approving lay uh general layout, the layout of these first three buildings. So the second page that Claire pulled up is the actual kind of written piece of here are the building standards. Like here is there are some allow uh modifications allowed within 50-50 c for connectivity, street design, lot and frontage, building orientation, parking and transportation, access management, their traffic mode, and those go go on through there. But they're it's not like a PUD in the sense that it still has to meet our building material standards when the large scales are coming through. Yeah. So it's it's more narrowly tailored and what is allowed to be modified, and all that is included within the summary on page two. Not only what they're modifying, but also the justification for doing so. And then Claire and Tom with an or Casey and Tom within the staff report kind of uh tailored that down, gave you the the reader's digest version of it. Um A Street and Walton and A Street and A, and then it's the eighth street and the drive on one, that'll all be part of the developers cost, and uh not sure what phase that'll be done with, but they'll uh um let us know that. The public package is actually making its way through the city right now for plan checks, so that'll be one of the first ones that come through the gate. Yeah. I noticed all the street trees are gonna be planted after the buildings are built, right? Correct. Which makes sense. If the applicant's here has any comments that they want to make, you're welcome to come to the come to the podium. Or if there are any questions, the commissioners.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com