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 - October 6, 2026

Planning Commission — Tuesday, October 6, 2026
BodyBentonville, Arkansas
SessionPlanning Commission
DateTuesday, October 6, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:43:27

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

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:46

All right.

0:47

So let me again call to order the tech review portion of the planning commission meeting for October the 6th.

0:55

And the first item for consideration is the minutes from the September the 15th meeting.

1:02

Any changes or modifications there?

Speaker 2

1:04

No.

Speaker 1

1:05

All right, let's see none.

1:07

All right.

1:07

Um several items on the consent agenda.

1:11

Chair would like to remove to the removed to the regular agenda at the beginning of new business items number eight, nine, ten, and twelve.

1:25

Eight, nine, ten, and twelve, I request be removed from the consent agenda.

1:32

Any other items that commissioners would like to have removed from consent.

1:38

Right, seeing none, we'll move on to new business.

Unassigned speaker

1:43

So

Speaker 1

1:43

again, we have um four large scale developments under new business, plus the ones that I just moved there.

1:51

So four, five, six, seven large scale developments, um, and a preliminary plot.

1:58

Uh, since we have limited time, are there any of those items that a commissioner would like to take up first during tech review?

Unassigned speaker

2:11

Right,

Speaker 1

2:11

if you want, let's just start looking now on the list, Mr.

2:16

Adva.

Unassigned speaker

2:18

Okay,

Speaker 3

2:18

item number one, large scale development of the park flex project building one.

2:23

This is at uh regional airport near mill.

2:28

The first uh office slash warehouse building coming out of the gate as succo as its material as approved by the PUE.

Speaker 1

2:38

Okay, so that was on the mind of the question we did it that was approved in the PUD itself.

2:44

Any of the questions on park flex.

Unassigned speaker

2:48

Is

Speaker 1

2:49

that one we'd like to move to the consent agenda?

2:51

Um clearly.

2:52

All right, let's go ahead and move that.

2:54

Any objections?

Unassigned speaker

2:56

All

Speaker 1

2:56

right, seeing none, we'll move park flex building one to the consent agenda.

3:01

Item number two.

Speaker 3

3:03

Number two, Benton Woods subdivision, a phasing plan amendment.

3:07

So this is on uh Winsong, just west of Vaughn Road.

3:13

Uh, we have the applicant here.

3:15

Uh there is a pricey bridge crossing winsong, and the applicant wishes to push that off to a later phase.

3:23

So basically the last 86 lots would uh have that as a requirement.

Unassigned speaker

3:29

So

Speaker 1

3:30

that would be come with phase four.

Unassigned speaker

3:36

Hi,

Speaker 4

3:37

Braden Wines debates and associates.

3:39

Uh quick rundown.

3:41

Um, there's a about a three million dollar bridge that's attached to phase one right now.

3:46

And there's only 51 lots to help support pay that bridge.

3:51

Um, our developers requesting to move that to a later phase, uh, which we spoke with staff and we agreed upon phase four.

3:58

Um that would allow us to have phase one, two, and three to help pay for that that large sum of money.

4:05

Um another thing is that bridge only serves honestly phase five, but after speaking with staff, we're willing to put it phase four, kind of not just throw it towards the

Unassigned speaker

4:18

end.

Speaker 1

4:20

I know staff had a little bit of concern that you know they could finish the first three phases and then have eight to six lots, sell it off to another developer, and we don't get the bridge.

Speaker 3

4:32

That's always the potential.

4:34

Uh in this case, um the road is on our master street plan, but it's not on center.

4:41

So it's kind of a road just to these lots.

4:44

Yes.

4:44

Um it's right on the city boundary.

4:47

And so if a developer wants to develop these lots, gotta build.

Unassigned speaker

4:54

That's part of, you know, the the middle ground we came to was putting it with phase four.

Speaker 5

5:00

Um, you know, there I think there's another preliminary plat out there, not too far from here where it's just like, hey, before this subdivision is finished, we'll get this bridge, or we'll get a bridge somewhere in this vicinity, which I think we've seen come back to us time and time again.

5:17

Discussion about that bridge.

Unassigned speaker

5:19

Yeah.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████61%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████12%
Procedural████████11%
Environmental Protection███4%
Public Engagement███4%
Parking Infrastructure███4%
Drainage Infrastructure█2%
Transportation Safety█1%
Public Safety█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Bentonville Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 2026

The Bentonville Planning Commission held its regular meeting on October 6, 2026, starting with a tech review at 4:30 PM and the public hearing at 5:00 PM. The meeting included the approval of minutes, consent agenda items, two public hearings on rezoning requests, a discussion on the STEM University Master Development Agreement (MDA), and a continued conversation on code amendments. Several large-scale development items were moved from the new business to the consent agenda during the tech review.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved with modifications: Items 1-5 under New Business (Parc Flex Building 1, Bentenwoods Subdivision Phasing Plan Amendment, STEM Campus Public Improvements, AWSOM Whole Health Campus Zone 1, and AWSOM Whole Health Campus McCollum Rd Package) were moved to the consent agenda during the tech review and approved unanimously. The consent agenda also included a number of property line adjustments, lot splits, final plats, and large-scale developments (J-Street Mixed Use, Ozark Ready Mix, Bentonville RV Resort, Harmony Hills Preliminary Plat Extension). Item 12 (STEM University MDA) was removed from the consent agenda to be discussed later.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Lucatoni, LLC / Mark Haney Rezoning (405 NW 5th St): Multiple residents spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Marie Smith (406 NW C St) expressed concerns about increased traffic, parking problems, safety for children walking to school, stormwater drainage, and the cumulative impact of recent nearby developments. Janice Summer (338 NW) echoed concerns and requested a delay until the impacts of a recently completed 12-unit development could be assessed. Eric (address not given) questioned code adherence in recent projects and asked for better enforcement. Jeannie Davidson (address not given) noted the contrast between the well-planned Southeast quadrant and the current state of Fifth Street and C Street, citing narrow roads, parking issues, and storm damage, and asked for a parking study before approval.
  • Orband Rezoning (3006 SE J St): No public testimony was given.

Discussion Items

  • Tech Review and Consent Agenda Adjustments: Commissioner Kerr requested that items 8, 9, 10, and 12 be removed from the consent agenda. After discussion, items 8-11 (J-Street Mixed Use, Ozark Ready Mix, Bentonville RV Resort, Harmony Hills Extension) were kept on consent, while item 12 (STEM University MDA) was moved to the end of the agenda. Items 1-5 under New Business were moved to the consent agenda. Staff and applicants answered questions on specific projects, including traffic impacts, material standards for Ozark Ready Mix, and landscaping for Bentonville RV Resort.
  • Orband Rezoning (RZ26-0045, 3006 SE J St): This was a request to downzone from R-1 (Suburban Single-Family) to T4.2 (Neighborhood Node) within the Regional Center Place Type. The public hearing was opened and closed with no testimony. The commission approved the rezoning unanimously (6-0).
  • Lucatoni, LLC / Mark Haney Rezoning (RZ26-0047, 405 NW 5th St): The request was to rezone from R-1 to T4.1 (Neighborhood General) within the Urban Neighborhood Place Type. Staff explained the differences between T4.2 and T4.1 (height, setbacks, units per building). Commissioners debated whether to approve, with concerns about traffic, parking, stormwater, and precedent vs. the future land use map. Commissioner Davis voted no, citing unresolved neighborhood impacts, and the motion passed 5-1.
  • STEM University Master Development Agreement (MDA): The MDA was presented for commission information only, as it ultimately goes to city council. The agreement covers maintenance of private roadways (D, E, C, F streets), campus development plan as the controlling framework, and provisions for inspections and certificates of occupancy. Commissioners noted that individual large-scale developments aligned with the campus plan could be approved administratively, while significant changes would require commission review. No formal vote was taken.
  • Code Amendments: Staff presented several proposed amendments, including revisions to drive-through facility regulations (requiring screening when between building and street), clarifying “reasonable access” for parking reductions, increasing temporary banner size to 32 sq ft, and adding language for final site inspections. Further discussion is scheduled for October 20, 2026. Commissioners also discussed broader issues around parking minimums and the need for an upcoming downtown parking study.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda: Approved as modified, including 12 items with staff-recommended conditions.
  • Orband Rezoning: Approved (6-0).
  • Lucatoni Rezoning: Approved (5-1, with Commissioner Davis dissenting).
  • STEM University MDA: Discussed and will proceed to city council; no commission action required.
  • Code Amendments: To be revisited and potentially adopted at the October 20, 2026 meeting.
  • Next Steps: Staff will refine code amendment language; future discussions on zoning review standards and downtown parking study are anticipated.

Meeting Transcript

All right. So let me again call to order the tech review portion of the planning commission meeting for October the 6th. And the first item for consideration is the minutes from the September the 15th meeting. Any changes or modifications there? No. All right, let's see none. All right. Um several items on the consent agenda. Chair would like to remove to the removed to the regular agenda at the beginning of new business items number eight, nine, ten, and twelve. Eight, nine, ten, and twelve, I request be removed from the consent agenda. Any other items that commissioners would like to have removed from consent. Right, seeing none, we'll move on to new business. So again, we have um four large scale developments under new business, plus the ones that I just moved there. So four, five, six, seven large scale developments, um, and a preliminary plot. Uh, since we have limited time, are there any of those items that a commissioner would like to take up first during tech review? Right, if you want, let's just start looking now on the list, Mr. Adva. Okay, item number one, large scale development of the park flex project building one. This is at uh regional airport near mill. The first uh office slash warehouse building coming out of the gate as succo as its material as approved by the PUE. Okay, so that was on the mind of the question we did it that was approved in the PUD itself. Any of the questions on park flex. Is that one we'd like to move to the consent agenda? Um clearly. All right, let's go ahead and move that. Any objections? All right, seeing none, we'll move park flex building one to the consent agenda. Item number two. Number two, Benton Woods subdivision, a phasing plan amendment. So this is on uh Winsong, just west of Vaughn Road. Uh, we have the applicant here. Uh there is a pricey bridge crossing winsong, and the applicant wishes to push that off to a later phase. So basically the last 86 lots would uh have that as a requirement. So that would be come with phase four. Hi, Braden Wines debates and associates. Uh quick rundown. Um, there's a about a three million dollar bridge that's attached to phase one right now. And there's only 51 lots to help support pay that bridge. Um, our developers requesting to move that to a later phase, uh, which we spoke with staff and we agreed upon phase four. Um that would allow us to have phase one, two, and three to help pay for that that large sum of money. Um another thing is that bridge only serves honestly phase five, but after speaking with staff, we're willing to put it phase four, kind of not just throw it towards the end. I know staff had a little bit of concern that you know they could finish the first three phases and then have eight to six lots, sell it off to another developer, and we don't get the bridge.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com