All right.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the August twenty twenty-five Planning Commission meeting.

And I said everybody stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God in individual with liberty and justice for all right.

Vicky Newton.

Here.

Zach Ledford.

Rod Coleman.

Kelly Wilson here.

David Tyler.

Matt Marshall.

Sean McCaffrey.

Here.

We have eight commissioners present and one absent.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh if the commissioners have had an opportunity to review the minutes from the July eighth meeting.

Any opposed.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the August twelfth, twenty twenty-five planning commission meeting.

The planning commission is comprised of a group of volunteers appointed by the mayor who offer diverse expertise and perspectives guiding the development and growth of Fort Smith.

The master land use plan amendments and rezonings if receiving approval of the planning commission with a minimum of five yes votes will also be presented to the city board of directors for their review at their September 2nd, 2025 meeting at 6 p.m.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment, which consists of members from the Planning Commission will be reviewing variance requests this evening.

The action of the Board of Zoning Zoning Adjustment will be final unless appealed to a court of jurisdiction.

All right, and thank you very much, Maggie.

Our first items this evening are consent agenda items.

They consist of preliminary plates and final plates at Vienna Hills, which we've seen before, and also a development plan at 2801 Kavanaugh Road.

I'd ask the city just to briefly show those on the screen.

Yes.

Okay.

Is there uh anybody here that wishes to speak against these applications?

All right.

If not, I will then ask for a roll call vote or ask for a motion to uh to move forward with these items.

All right.

All right.

All right, I'll call for a roll call vote then.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Fullman.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

David Tyler.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

We will now then uh move to items two and three, which are conditional use application and a variance at uh 6101 Arkansas Highway 45, 606021 Arkansas Highway 45.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Conditional use 7825 is a request by Brett Abbott agent for Montana Properties Incorporation for conditional use approval for a contractor shop and storage yard in a commercial five or a commercial heavy zone at 6021 and 6101 Arkansas Highway 45.

Approval of the conditional use and companion variance application will facilitate the construction of three 2800 square foot contractor shop buildings and one 2100 square foot contractor office and showroom and two 3100 square foot office retail buildings.

The site will utilize two driveways.

Both of the driveways, and we'll get into the variance request here in a minute, will have driveway separations of 130 foot from the northern and southernmost driveways.

A 10-foot wide perimeter landscaping strip with parking lot streaming strip screening is located on Arkansas Highway 485 along with interior landscaping that complies with the UDO.

The plan indicates that all trash receptacles and HVAC units will be completely screened.

The parking does comply with the UDO as well, providing 35 parking spaces.

Additionally, the uh development plan proposes three new monument-style 30 square foot signs.

The three contractor shops and office buildings and showroom facades will be constructed with brick veneer and metal wall panels at the minimum 51% is required by the UDO.

The retail and office buildings exceed the UDO requirements by providing 100% high quality materials on all of the facades with brick and eFIS.

A neighborhood meeting was held on July 29th at 6 30 p.m.

on site.

No neighboring property owners attended the meeting.

Staff does recommend approval of this request or the conditional use request with following comments.

Construction must comply with the submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those tried in section 27 3307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than those described in that section will require planning commission approval.

The property must be plied into one lot consistent with the submitted development plan and no outdoor storage is permitted.

The variance request 23825.

Again, this is Brett Abbott agent from the Montana Properties Incorporation will be from 200 feet to 130 and 200 feet from 130 from the southern and northernmost drives.

Right here, you can see there on the north and to the south.

The applicant is requesting this variance from that because AR Highway 45 is classified as a major arterial.

However, currently, as it sits the two lots would have access, but since we are plating those into one lot, that is where we're running into that 130 foot uh square or the 130 linear foot, and that's what the applicant states in his um hardship.

Um the Arkansas Department of Transportation and the City of Fort Smith Engineering Department both reviewed this plan and support the variance request for the two new driveways with a minimum of 130 foot uh separation.

Additionally, the current parcel is applied into the two individual lots, both of which would be allowed to have individual driveways and require a variance to comply with the required separation.

The new development proposes to plot both lots into one lot and provide the development of two driveways.

Staff does recommend approval with the following comments.

Again, construction must complete uh comply with submitted development plan.

Changes are greater, uh changes or amendments rarer than those submitted within this plan are permitted but limited to those tried in section 27 3307 of the EDO.

Property must be plied into one lot consistent with the development plan, and again, no outdoor storage shall be permitted.

All right, uh, thank you very much, Tyler.

I see Mr.

Abbott on behalf of the applicant here.

Anyone opposed to this application or these applications?

Items.

All right.

I will ask for a uh motion to get this on a floor from the commissioner's hand.

All right.

On the conditional use, we'll take that first.

Any comments or questions from the commissioners?

None.

We have a motion and I'll ask for a vote on the conditional use.

Rhett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson for Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall?

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

We will now reassess the planning commission and convene the Board of Zoning Adjustment to consider the uh variance item.

Uh again.

Um to get this on the floor by the commissioners.

I'll make a motion to approve with staff comments.

All right.

Any comments or questions on the variants?

All right.

All right.

Very good.

And I will ask in for a vote on the variance.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman?

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rhett Taylor.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Uh the variance passes as well.

All right.

We will now consider a uh another variance at uh 3429 Warner Street, and I'll ask the city to present, please.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Item 4 variants 20-825, a request by Steve Shepherd, owner from 25 feet to 5 feet front yard setback in a residential single family medium height density.

Zone at 3429 Warner Street.

Approval of the variance facilitates the construction of a two 20 feet by 20 feet, two carport.

The subject property is on the northwest corner of Warner Street and north of 35th Street.

The track contains an area of 0.2 acres with approximately 80 feet of street frontage along Warner Street and approximately 110 feet off street frontage along North 35th.

The applicant states that the carport is needed to prevent injury when weather conditions propose a risk.

A neighborhood meeting was held on August 1st, 2025 at 530 p.m.

on site, and one neighboring property owner was in attendance in support of the request.

Staff recommendations.

Should the BZA be inclined to approve this request?

Staff requests that it substantiates its reason for approval in accordance with section 27-337-2 of the UDL and include the following condition.

Construction must comply with the submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those described in section 27-330-7 of the UDAL.

Any changes greater than those described in this section will require planning commission approval.

All right, thank you very much for that.

On the item uh for this uh variance, I assume Mr.

Shepherd is here to speak in case we need all right, and uh those I'll ask are there anybody here opposed to this application for this variance?

I'm not opposed to yes, ma'am.

Please wait if you'll please come forward and state your name and address.

We're being recorded, so my name is Dorothy Love.

I live at 3419 Warner Street.

I am the in the middle of the block, and I too would like to have a carport attached to my home.

Every time there is bad storms, and we've been through several.

The one in 2008, my car was totaled from the hail damage.

This last one, it was totaled again.

So I would truly appreciate to have a carport attached to my home at 3419 Warner Street.

All right.

Appreciate your comments very much.

There is a procedure to go, and I'll ask Maggie to I'm gonna ask one of my team members to get with the to get with Miss Love and walk her through the process.

Thank you very much.

Yes, ma'am.

And I do applaud that the Shepherds truly do need this because Mr.

Shepherd is handicapped and he has health issues.

And we look out for our neighbors.

Wonderful.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

All right, I will uh ask for a motion to get this on the floor, please.

Just have comments.

All right.

Any comments or questions?

Did we discuss a stipulation during the planning session about it?

Full enclosure or something, or what was the question?

This wasn't the one.

Not on this one, on the other one.

Okay.

I think the other ones were non-conforming, and this one was actually gone through the right process.

Okay, that's right.

Yes, sir.

Very good.

All right, if there's no other comments or questions, I will ask for a roll call vote.

Rodman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right, very good.

That passes uh the next variance as uh alluded to 2906 Gary Street.

And I'll ask the city to present that one as well.

Thank you.

Variants number 15-825.

A request by Red Abbott agent for Tara McDonald from 7.5 feet to two feet interior site yard setback in a residential single family duplex low medium density zone at 2906 Garrett Street.

Approval of the variance will facilitate the construction of a two-car metal carport that encroaches the side yard setback.

The subject property is on the south uh side of Garrett Street between South 29th Street and South 31st.

The track contains an area of 0.25 acres with 83 feet of street frontage along Gary Street.

A neighborhood meeting was held on July 29th at 5 30 p.m.

on site.

No neighboring property owners were in attendance of the meeting.

The applicant is requesting a 20 uh foot by 20 foot two-car metal carport on the west of the existing single-family home.

If granted, the variance will allow the new carport to be constructed two feet from the adjacent side yard uh property line.

Should the BZA be inclined to approve this request, staff request that it substantiate its reasons for approval in accordance with Section 27-337-2 of the unified development ordinance and include the following condition.

Construction must comply with the submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted, but not but limited to those described in section 27-330-7 of the UDEL.

Any changes greater than those described in this section, we require planning commission approval.

All right, uh thank you very much.

Um is there anyone opposed to this application this evening to this variance application?

All right.

I will ask for a motion to get this on the floor, please.

Motion approve with the additional staff comments.

Any comments or questions from the commissioners on this variance?

I think uh it's nice that they're matching the shape of the house.

So in this photo, is that car parked in the neighbor's yard?

If there's only a two-foot setback, just trying to do the visual map here.

From the carport or getting the variance as the existing hardware car will they only it will go about over that?

Okay, excuse me.

Okay.

Did everybody hear the answer to that question?

It's going from a one-car carport to a two-car carport, so the carport will be enlarged to the side yard.

They're pouring additional concrete.

Yes.

Yeah, in that study session, I think they're trying to pour the concrete to save this tree here.

But it looks like they're getting pretty close to the neighbors, but it looks like they're doing it the right way in terms of the concrete.

Yeah, that two-foot setback is going to be for what's getting built.

Not existing.

All right.

Any other comments or questions from the commissioners?

I think this is the one that we had talked about.

Um putting a condition on it that they cannot enclose the carport in the future.

Yeah.

So it needs to remain as an open carport, not an enclosed addition to the house.

I would I think that that would be a good thing to put in the motion.

All right.

I will amend my motion to include that this shall remain a carport, not ever being closed to be square footage included.

Is there a second?

All right.

All right.

Any comments from the applicant at all on this?

Okay.

All right.

They would have to come back here, right?

Yeah.

Like they wouldn't have had a right to enclose it.

We can put this in there, but they wouldn't have been able to legally enclose it without coming back to the commission.

That's correct.

Okay.

Their site plan specific.

But it doesn't hurt to make the stipulation.

Sure.

All right.

So we have a uh a motion, an amended motion for the variance, which includes uh a stipulation not to enclose the carport.

So if that is correct, I'll ask for a vote on that amended motion.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hanna.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Callman.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Our next uh two items are a variance and a development plan at 5609 Midland Boulevard.

Thank you, Commissioner McCaffrey.

Uh variant 16825, a request by Architecture Plus agent for Shirley Yeager from the following variances in a commercial heavy zone at 5609 Midland Boulevard.

From the required perimeter landscaping and parking lot screening requirement, and from the required mechanical equipment screening requirement.

Approval of the variants will allow uh reduced perimeter landscaping and parking lot screening adjacent to Midland Boulevard and adjacent to portions of Riverfront Drive to facilitate the renovation of an existing beer, wine, and liquor store with a drive-thru that recently suffered fire damage.

Approval will also allow for the HVAC ductal units at the rear of the building to be unscreened and painted to match the building.

The applicant's hardship states that the existing utility easement on site and adjacent to the right-of-way would take up a large portion of the uh what would normally be reserved for the perimeter landscaping.

The applicant also states that uh to comply with the landscaping requirement of the existing parking lot uh must be removed to be uh create room for the landscaping.

Additionally, the applicant states that the HVAC units can't be moved to the roof screened with a parapet wall because the existing reef structure will not support the additional weight, which uh necessitates the ground units.

Uh a neighborhood meeting was held on July the 22nd at 5 30 on site.

Uh no neighboring property owners were in attendance.

Uh for staff comments, a subject property known as a shamrock liquor warehouse was constructed prior to the adoption of the UDO and did not comply with the required landscaping and mechanical screening requirements.

The structure was damaged by fire in April of this year.

Uh section 27113 of the UDO states that the structure that is destroyed or damaged to the extent that the cost of repair is more than 50% of the value of the structure after repair shall not be rebuilt without planning commission approval.

That's why we're here uh this evening.

Uh staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Uh construction must comply with a submitted development plan.

Changes to the amendments to the uh submitted development plan are permit permitted, but limited to those described in section 27307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than that described in this section will require planning commission approval.

Uh the property must be platted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Uh temporary revocable license for landscaping along Midland Boulevard must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The development must install uh sidewalks adjacent to the riverfront drive or pay in lieu of installation and the ductal work uh must be painted to match the building.

Moving on to the development plan.

Uh development plan 13825, a request by architecture plus agent for Shirley Yeager for a beer, wine, and liquor store with drive-thru in a commercial heavy zone at 5609 Midland Boulevard.

The subject property is on the northwest corner of Midland Boulevard and Riverfront Drive.

The track contains an area of 2.57 acres with approximately 335 feet of street fringe along Midland Boulevard and approximately 355 feet of street fronts along Riverfront Drive.

Some of the uh site design features.

Um the property is currently being replatted to include a portion of the rear parcel, so the dumpster and a driveway are local all located on the same lot.

Uh the owner has petitioned R Dot to abandon a portion of the right of way adjacent to Midland Boulevard as shown on the site plan.

Uh the new uh development will provide shrubs adjacent to uh Midland Boulevard and also interior landscaping islands within the parking lot and perimeter landscaping uh strip along Riverfront Drive as shown on the landscaping plan.

Uh also uh architectural features, the uh exterior building facades exceed the UDO requirements, providing almost uh a hundred percent of high quality material uh consisting of brick, ethos, and uh split-faced uh CMU.

Uh for staff comments, a subject property is being renovated due to the recent fire as we already mentioned.

Uh Shamrock liquor was uh constructed prior to the implementation of UDO and does not currently comply with the perimeter landscaping or the mechanical screening uh which requires the variants.

Uh staff uh recommends approval with the following conditions.

Construction must comply with a submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but uh limited to those described in section 27 3307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than those described in this section will require planning commission approval.

Uh the property must be platted prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Uh a temporary revocable license uh for the landscaping along Midland Boulevard must be obtained prior to the issuance of the building permit.

Uh the development uh must install sidewalks adjacent to uh the riverfront drive or pay in lieu of the installation, and the ductal work must be painted to match the uh building that is it.

All right, uh thank you, Mr.

Kalen for that presentation.

Um there are those anybody here to oppose these applications.

If not, I will then let's consider the variants first.

Uh I'll ask for a motion to get these on the floor, please.

On the variance, motion to approve the staff comments.

All right, there's three variance items in this variance request.

Any comments or concerns from the commissioners?

Mr.

Chairman, I'm staff recommendations.

It number two said the property must be platted prior to issuance of quote a building permit, and it was read C of O.

So I didn't know if there was a so the developer knew what which one is which.

It is going to be the certificate of occupancy and Ms.

Shirley and I had a conversation yesterday in regards, and she's aware.

Perfect.

On the HBAC variants, have we considered this before?

Yes, we actually made an amendment to the to the zoning code that allows it.

This is visible from the right-of-way, which is what requires the variance.

They're going to paint it.

If it was not visible or adjacent to residential, um, then they could do it without the variants.

Right.

Okay.

Very good.

Any other comments or questions from the commissioners?

All right.

If not, I will ask for a roll call vote on item six of variants.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Howler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Grett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Ronan?

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

Right.

Uh item six passes.

I will now resess the board of zoning adjustment and convene the planning commission to consider the development plan item seven.

I'll ask for a motion to get this on the floor, please.

I'll make a motion to approve the staff moments.

Seven.

Any comments or questions from the commissioners on the development plan?

Lots of utilities.

All right.

All right.

Very good.

I will ask for a vote then on the development plan.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Grant Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Very good.

I will uh now uh recess the planning commission, convene the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

We actually have three items at 2400 Dotson Avenue.

I city to present.

Tyler, please.

Thank you, Chairman McCaffrey.

Uh the first items item will be variant 17825.

This is a request by Tony Tran, owner from 59 parking spaces to 23 parking spaces, uh or the minimum number of parking spaces in a C2 commercial light zone at 2400 Dotson Avenue.

Approval of the variants from the 5923 spaces will allow for reduced parking for the existing church, general office spaces, and an events uh 1,950 square foot event center.

Additionally, the applicant has applied for a remote parking request, which I'll deliver as my third report for an additional 25 spaces be located Caddy Corner at 2423 Dotson Avenue to sub uh to supplement the proposed uh event center church and general offices.

The applicant states in their hardship that the existing building size requires more parking spaces than what is currently on site and has requested approval for the remote parking agreement located there on the northwest corner of Dotson Avenue and South 25th Street to supplement the required number of parking spaces.

Two neighborhood meetings were held, one on March 5th, 2025 at 1 p.m.

And again July 28th at 2025, 3 p.m.

on site.

A total of 10 neighboring property owners attended these meetings with concerns regarding noise appropriateness, supervision, illegal activities, alcohol uses, and late hours of operation.

Additionally, staff received several calls and emails with of those which were at within your packet and at your place settings in opposition to the conditional use request for the event uh event center.

Uh and again, that was included in your packets.

The applicant intends to utilize 1950 square foot of the existing building as an event center.

3,850 square feet will be used as general office spaces, and the remaining 17,850 square feet of the building will be utilized as the existing church.

The total required number of parking spaces for each intended use is 59.

The site currently only has 23 parking spaces on site with the 25 off-site parking spaces for the remote parking agreement that I mentioned earlier.

Should the BZA approve this request, staffer recommends the following conditions for approval.

Approval of the companion conditional use and remote parking requests.

The remote parking agreement must be filed with the Sebastian County Clerk's Office, granting 2400 Dotson Avenue utilization of the parking to the lot north located at 2423 Dotson Avenue and must remain available for the proposed businesses to continue operation.

Hours of uh hours of the operation shall be as follows Sunday through Thursday from 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

and Friday through Saturday from 9 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

Construction must comply with submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to submit development plan are permitted or permitted but limited to those described in section 273307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than that will require planning commission approval.

Moving on to the conditional use request A 825.

Again, this is requested by Tony Tran, owner for an event center in a C2 zone.

This is uh for the existing building to use almost 2,000 square foot of the existing building for event center.

The conditional use, they did provide perimeter landscaping, uh new perimeter landscaping to provide along Dotson Avenue.

An opaque privacy screening fence will be installed on just the southeast portion of the property adjacent to the alley.

The applicant is also installing an opaque screening fence for the dumpster.

The existing building is constructed of 100% brick uh in high quality materials.

Um let's see.

Approval of this request will allow for the 1,950 square foot of the existing building to be utilized as an event center with those operation hours I stated earlier in the variance staff report.

If the planning commission is inclined to approve the request, staff recommends the following comments.

Approval of the companion variants and remote parking request.

The remote parking agreement must be filed with the Sebastian County Clerk's Office, green 2400 Dotson Avenue utilization of the parking lot to the north, located at 2423 Dotson Avenue, and must remain available for the proposed businesses to continue operation.

Hours of operation shall be limited through Sunday through Thursday from 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

and Friday through Saturday, 9 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

And then construction must comply with submitted development plan.

And then construction must comply with submitted development plan changes or amendments rarely than those must comply with section 27307 of the UDO.

And I know a lot of those are the same comments as the previous applications, but they are separate applications.

That's why I repeat that.

Request by Tony Tran, owner for remote parking agreement in a C2 zone at 2423 Dotson Avenue.

The applicant has submitted this request to add the 25 additional off-street parking spaces in conjunction with his existing 23 spaces to supplement uh parking.

One approval of the companion if the planning commission is uh inclined to approve this.

Uh the first comment or the first three comments we'd like you to include with the approval would be uh approval of the commandual and conditional use in a remote parking agreement.

A six-foot opaque privacy fence must be installed on the west and northern property lines as shown on the site plan currently.

Uh and then again, this is for the remote parking agreement.

Uh and the remote parking agreement must be filed with the Sebastian County Clerk's Office, Green 2400 Dotson Avenue utilization of the parking lot to the north, located at site 2423 Dotson Avenue, and must remain available for the proposed businesses to continue operation.

Thank you.

All right, uh, thank you very much.

As indicated in the presentation, there were very robust neighborhood meetings.

I'd like to see uh a show of hands.

Those in favor of this application, if you'll raise your hand, please.

Any those in favor of this application?

All right, Mr.

Tran, the applicant.

What about those opposed this application?

If I can have a show of hands, please.

All right.

All right, very good.

All right.

Um I'm gonna ask for a motion to get uh the item eight with variants on the um on the floor, please.

All right.

All right.

Um with those wishing or those opposed to the application, would anybody like to speak uh regarding your concerns?

Yes, sir, if you'll stand up, please and uh give your name and address.

My name's Leo Strange, and I live uh at 2320 Dodson, just across 24th Street from the building here.

Uh what I have a concern is a safety concern with the parking along 24th Street.

Uh they have a marked off parking spot there that's actually in the street.

Uh I've got some pictures here of that I was just taking yesterday of the people parking sticking out in the street, and that makes it very difficult, especially for my wife, for me to back out of my driveway without hitting a vehicle sticking out in the street out of that parking lot.

And what I propose is turning the parking spaces parallel so they won't stick out into the street, so it won't be a safety issue for people driving down the street and me backing up.

If I hit somebody there, it's gonna be my fault.

And I live on Social Security, and it's hard for me to pay for insurance, and I certainly can't afford my insurance going up any higher than it already is, and then getting a ticket on top of that.

So I proposed turning the parking spaces the other direction, and everything should be fine.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Strain.

Any other neighbors wishing to speak their concerns?

Do not yet please come forward and state your name and address.

Be glad to hear all comments.

My name is Lucy Dooley, and we own the property at 2512 Dodson Avenue.

Uh my husband's an attorney.

Uh we also have our real estate office there, Big D Enterprises Incorporated.

The fact that they want additional cars coming in and out of our neighborhood all hours of the night.

Um we do not know who these people are.

It is a big safety issue.

They're not going to be like a business.

We have a um financial investor right on the corner.

We have TACHO right across the street, so there's plenty of businesses in the area, and we don't need all these additional cars who we do not know.

And when we went to the neighborhood meeting recently, I asked him for a business plan.

What was his plan?

He didn't have one.

He said we're gonna rent the rooms out by the hour.

And that right there brought alarm flags.

They just recently in the last two months put a flag up saying there's a church there.

There's that building has been vacant for over a year and a half, and just now put the flag out showing a church.

So to me that was like camouflage.

He claims he needs a civic center.

We've got plenty of properties all over Fort Smith that they could rent for a civic center.

The public library has free rooms.

All you do is book them.

There's plenty of other real estate that he could be able to have the civic center.

He told us he would not have wedding receptions there.

He told the tenant that wanted to buy the empty lots who has the property adjacent to it, that he was going to have wedding receptions on Saturday morning from 9 till 12.

He told us there would be no wedding receptions.

So we're getting a flip-flop decision on what to do.

He says he wants a return on his investment.

I asked him if he was the owner of the property.

He said no, he represents the owners.

Well, where are the owners?

We haven't seen them.

They did not show up.

And they did not vote verbalize what they want to do with this property.

But we came up with ideas.

There's a preschool there.

There was one.

There could be a daycare there.

He's not interested in that.

I said, have you tried to advertise on the sign out here to see if anybody wanted to lease the buildings?

Because I homeschool our child, and there's a lot of parents that homeschool and would love to rent the classrooms to have a classroom where they do school meetings.

Some parents do certain subjects.

So they could rent them out for that.

No, he's not interested.

Then there's uh, like we have VA, and we have a lot of VA people I've spoken to two of them in the last couple of weeks, had no place to live, had very little money, just their VA check.

Well, he could do it court sort of like a dorm for college, where they could rent the room, and then there's the kitchen facilities.

But he's not interested in any of that, but he does not have a business plan other than the fact that he says we can rent the rooms out by the hour, and there's plenty of other opportunities all over Fort Smith for him to do his civic center that are vacant.

We do not want these cars in and out of our neighborhood.

He said that they could be there till midnight.

Well, my son's 13 years old, and the children are out playing, and then they go to school.

So we're dealing with the safety issue for children as well as the businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Dooley for those comments.

Anyone else like speak?

Yes, Mr.

Strang.

Could I show you uh pictures of the parking?

Show you there is a I believe we were able to we were able to see on our screen, but appreciate that.

We could see the the uh the size of parking space and the and then sticking out as well.

So yes, but appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um any other neighbors, any other opposition.

There it is on the screen right there on 24th Street.

Parking space or on an angle.

Right.

That's the problem.

So you're right, yeah.

Yes, sir.

Any other neighbors, uh opposition would like to speak.

You're more than welcome to voice your concerns.

All right, if there are none, uh I'd ask maybe Mr.

Tran Mr.

Tran, the applicant here to come forward.

Do you would you like to address the concerns?

It seemed like there were a couple of main concerns regarding safety, uh just general increased traffic, and also um uh regarding the the the parking issues sticking out safety on that, and maybe also your plans for the facility.

Uh yeah, so far um I don't think the uh traffic is uh is uh something of concern because the it's a big church, so we always have car in and out there for probably a hundred years already.

So we have enough parking lot, we have access to in and out the charts pretty easy.

There's uh I didn't know there's any accident there, you know.

Um but I know, you know, so um the uh only thing she I heard she was concerned about the alcohols and stuff.

Um I'm gonna rent it out as an inventory, so it's I left the I left the alcohol to whoever gonna rent up the place.

Um I I don't have a license to sell alcohol, so I don't have no plan to sell alcohol there yet.

But um for Smith is the wet county, so I have no control of you know whether we can sell alcohol or not, you know.

So um the uh the location that I'm putting the event is it's a fellowship area, so it's that area is it's been busy for the church.

So whether I'm gonna do the event there or not, it's gonna be busy anyway.

So uh and uh see you asking me like why don't I use this at a daycare like with what it was before?

Um that's not my cup of tea.

I never done that business before.

So um I don't know why the the daycare was closed at the beginning with so you know I'm trying to do something new there.

So if if I don't get a chance to try it, you never know what I'm gonna make it or not.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if we have did we have a motion on the floor for we did okay.

So any questions by the commissioners comments or questions?

Yeah, question maybe for staff.

So one of the property owners had issues with those 10 parking spaces on South 24th.

Has how did that get approved like that?

Just Grandfather Den, I assume.

Exactly.

Okay.

Those at one point in time.

I mean, this church or the former church has been there a while.

And parking spaces like that were legal parking spaces.

But even now with the new development or just with the new plan, those can be used as existing spaces.

Yes, they're considered non-conforming.

The same situation as the building encroaching the setbacks on the lot, it's all considered non-conforming.

Would we have the authority to say you can't use those parking spaces?

Or is that out of our you could you could request that he you could condition your motion on requesting that he reorient them or not being a little bit more.

But the variance, um, he does have a specific parking variance at this point, and that would negate those numbers.

So if you want those 10 spaces, or if they could be readjusted as parallel spaces, this might get too difficult.

But if those ten spaces were then subtracted, could they be added somewhere else?

Unlikely.

Not not on this site.

I mean you could go to parallel there, uh Griffin, but you probably get down to what about six, something like that.

Yeah, ten spaces, that's one for a change.

Well, it's they're at an angle and they're weird and they look wide and they look short.

It's just a relic of a era that it is that is.

Yeah, it's to me I uh the the the event center part of it and and renting by the hour.

I I think that's more of an event center type of deal where like you rent for a reception from let's say 12 to 3 is a lot more uh affordable than renting from nine to midnight, obviously.

Um the noise aspects of this, um just like every event center are governed by no noise ordinances in this town.

Um I think that starts at 11 p.m.

So I think in the notes and the emails we saw that they were willing to to back down to 11 o'clock for stuff like that.

Uh my one concern is that the place where they're gonna have this event center, uh it it kind of backs up to the neighborhood.

If the event center was in the front of the building where those offices were, I wouldn't have a problem with this proposal because the sound and stuff would be going towards Dotson, which is a very busy road.

Um, but since that infant space is going to the back, I uh it's uh it's a little it's a little close to that neighborhood.

Um so just just my two cents.

I wonder if the just I wonder if the church when they were operating rented that uh facility out for other advanced like weddings.

Like I know my church did at one point, I'm not sure if they do now or not.

Do you know?

Does anybody know?

I mean, did they rent it out to uh just the general public?

No.

All right.

All right.

Any other comments or questions from the commissioners?

Do they get loud in the fellowship hall on that district?

No, I don't know.

I've never been on it.

I'm just wondering.

Okay.

So yeah, so obviously this is built for loud noises.

That's something to keep in mind.

What are you saying it is or it isn't?

It's not.

It's not.

I asked if the Baptist church.

I don't know.

I don't know what's there.

It's it's an all brick structure.

It's an all brick structure.

Does it have insulation in the exterior walls?

Look at look at the so is there a shot of the back wall?

And yes, there was one Google.

Yeah, down the alley all brick, all the way around.

Yeah.

But I mean, uh, masonry only could do so much, it's the insulation that does it, the air gap and all that stuff.

So yeah, it does do a little bit.

I mean, it's a church with a fellowship hall.

I I don't think anybody's trying to do anything like a rock and roll concert here.

So it's a 1900 square feet, guys.

I mean it's so what he's only able to put so many people in there.

There's almost 2,000 square feet.

I think that the parking that's been there has been there for it looks like decades.

I don't see any reason to make it parallel now.

If there was a problem, there would likely would have been a problem ten years ago whenever this church was booming.

They're saying it is.

Um just like it's grandfathered in here on that parking structure, but 1900 feet.

I I'm I'm not seeing that this is going to be some big extravagant.

No, I got the uh event center that we're throwing massive rock and roll concerts out of.

I do understand the the community sentiment of not wanting and safety of your of your parking.

Um I do believe that that this individual has every right or every right to come in and and present this to the commission.

I I think that we have to vote on what's presented to us and approve what's presented to us.

We do definitely take in your comments uh to our perspective, but I I don't see any reason not to approve this today.

So I will say that the noise ordinance is applicable here, okay, and that is enforced by the police department and in commercial zones during the day, which is from 7 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

It's limited to 75 decibels, and then from 11 to 659 a.m.

it's 70 decibels.

So there is a limit, and for an in for as an example, 70 decibels is equivalent to like a washing machine.

Will they be able to have any of their events stuff outdoors?

Or is it all there's no room for any of that?

We have something that wants to speak.

Yeah, parking lot from the front, not near the residential house.

That's all I'm asking.

Or is it just limited to just the 2,000 square feet for the event space?

That's all he's indicated as event space, and so that's what the conditional use would be tied to.

And you can further that if you wanted to in put a condition on the motion to limit it to indoor only.

Yes, ma'am.

If you state your name and address, please as an act 2500 South Hale.

Is there are there some stipulations if you have an event center as to if someone has to be there, you know, you know, to kind of manage it, whatever people are there because sometimes when people have an event until 11 o'clock at night, it can get to be kind of loud, maybe not in the building, but maybe when they leave, or if they're wanting to hang out in the parking lot, or if there's any stipulation about um, you know, if younger people attend and drink or not supposed to drink because they're bringing their own alcohol.

So I just wonder if there's any um rules that you have to follow when you have an event center.

Or you know, I mean, if this is something that you would like to see coming up right on your corner of your neck foot.

That's all.

I mean, you know, I'm just wondering about those things.

City noise ordinance.

So the city noise ordinance would be applicable.

Additionally, I mean, we don't have any, we don't have a separate set of stipulations just for event centers requiring on-site things.

Mr.

Tran, through whatever insurance he has may be required to have a security present based on number of people or whatnot.

And of course, if there is underage drinking going on, regardless, that's against the law, and the police department should be called, and they can certainly investigate as such.

Yes, sir.

Isn't there a coordinates about parking in the street?

That you can't block the ride of ways.

I know the the police have come around in different areas around uh where we live, and they told people get off street and park in the yard or driveway or whatever, and they block the street all the time, and they've got given tickets for that just in our area right here.

It's it's a source of a problem.

But anyway, they've got plenty of parking on the other side of the building over that that's what it's for.

But parking in the street, I can't see I see that as a safety issue.

And they can turn parallel and still have parking there.

There's plenty of other places to park all around that building.

I'm not aware of a specific ordinance or maybe regarding parking.

I guess that the city would be well within their right to issue citations if there were.

I think it's similar to the case.

Well they've been given warnings.

You can call.

Yeah.

They've just been given warnings that they'll get a citation if they don't get it off the street.

So next morning you'll see the street will be completely clearer.

So there is an ordinance for classified streets.

Dotson be in one of those Rogers Avenue, Towson Avenue, and you will see that.

And there's also stipulations where if they have no parking signs on certain streets decided by our street traffic engineers and those that look at those streets on the width.

And in any case, they have to have no parking signs there when they do issue those tickets or citations or the removal of those vehicles.

So to answer your question, yes on some major classified streets, and yes, in some very minor particular situations where they have no parking signs as decided by the traffic engineer.

Go back to what I wanted to show you.

Yeah, we can't really that would be a yeah, yeah, sir.

That I think we understand the issues, and we have the information, I believe, to vote on the matter at the present time.

Um there are any other comments or questions from the commissioners.

All right.

If not, I'm gonna ask then for a roll call vote on the variance item first, please.

David Tyler.

Four Sean McCaffrey?

Four Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman?

Against Matt Marshall?

Again.

Vicky Newton?

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Six in favor, two opposed.

Right.

So the variance does pass.

I'll now uh recess the board of zoning adjustment, conven convene the planning commission to consider the conditional use and the remote parking agreement.

I'll ask for a motion to get the conditional use application on the floor.

I'll make a motion to approve with staff comments.

Second.

Any other comments or questions, additional comments specific to this issue?

This is the uh conditional use.

Yes.

Any other comments or questions from the commissioners on conditional use?

If not, I'll ask for a vote on conditional use.

David Tyler?

Four.

Sean McCaffrey?

Four.

Rhett Taylor?

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman?

Against Matt Marshall?

Against.

Vicky Newton.

Against Griffin Hannah.

Four.

Five in favor, three opposed.

Right.

That passes as well.

The last item is item 10, the remote parking agreement.

I'll ask for a motion to get that on the floor, please.

I'd like to make a motion to approve is written, but I'd also like to add an amendment to correct the street parking to parallel.

That's a that's going to do that.

No, I'm this one.

To approve the uh adjacent across the street.

Fix this.

That should have been number eight.

That would have been better type to the conditional use.

Well, this is the parking agreement.

Yes, but this is specific to 2423 Dodson.

Okay.

All right.

Well, then I retract my motion.

All right.

Is there a second on item 10?

Second.

All right.

Just quick on the remote parking agreement.

So it's made to where it has to be these same owners.

That's that's kind of the crux of it.

It's made to where one cannot go without the other.

Right.

So if this goes away, then these businesses go away.

Okay.

So it could be separate owners though.

If that were to happen.

The idea is that shouldn't happen because if it does, then your business licensing is in jeopardy.

Okay.

Okay.

If there are no other comments, I'll ask for a vote on item 10, the remote parking agreement.

Sean McCaffrey?

Four.

Rhett Taylor?

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman?

Yes.

Matt Marshall?

Again.

Vicky Newton?

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Six in favor, two opposed.

Right.

That passes as well.

All right.

We'll move forward and I'm going to recess the planning commission, convene the board of zoning adjustment.

There are actually four items here on South 11th Street.

First one's a variance.

Thank you, Chairman.

Variance number 19A25, a request by Woodrum holding LLC owner from 20 feet to 13 feet exterior side yard setback in a proposed transitional zone at 1400 South 11th Street.

Approval of the variants and companion applications will facilitate construction of a duplex on an existing corner lot, lot 12 Air's edition.

The subject property is on the southwest corner of South M Street and South 11th Street.

The track contains an area of.16 acres with 50 feet of street frontage along South 11th and 140 feet of street frontage along South M Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the exterior side setback from 20 to 13 feet to construct a 2,042 square feet duplex on the existing corner lot.

The existing lot is the existing lot width is 50 wide, and the proposed transitional zone requires 20 feet of a street site setback, limiting the buildable area to 25 feet wide.

The applicant is requesting a reduction in the exterior side yard setback to allow for design flexibility and accommodated duplex.

If the BCA approves the request, staff recommends the approval conditions.

Construction must comply with the submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those described in section 27-330-7 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than those described in this section will require planning commission approval.

On the master land use plan application number seven-eight-25, a request by Woodroom holding LLC owner for a master land use plan amendment from Office Research and Vide Industrial to Mixed Use Residential in a proposed transitional zone at 1400 and 1404 South 11th Street.

The proposed land use classification of mixed-use residential is intended to provide for dense compatible mix of retail residential employment and production activities designed for all modes of transportation.

And this side uh complies with the criteria for designation of this master land use plan.

And staff recommends approval subject to approval of the companion applications.

Rezoning application 18825, a request by Woodrom holding LLC owner for a zone change from industrial light to transitional at 14 and 1404 South 11th Street.

A neighborhood meeting was held on July 31st at 5.30 on site.

No neighboring property owners attended the meeting.

The subject property was rezoned from transitional to industrial light in 2012 by ordinance 20-12.

The property has remained undeveloped since the previous rezoning in 2012.

The applicant has recently purchased the property and seeks to uh rezone to a transitional zone to accommodate two new duplexes per individual lots.

The new duplex will provide rear access parking spaces and will provide new sidewalks on South M Street and South 11th Street.

Initiating a sidewalk network network within the neighborhood.

Staff recommends approval subject to approval of the companion development plan, variance and master landings plan amendment requests.

And for the development plan application, um both duplexes will have designated access from the alley.

I'm sorry, the application number 15825.

The 22,042 square feet single story duplex will approximately have 16 feet in height and be constructed of brick and vinyl siding.

Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions.

Construction must comply with the submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those described in section 27-330-7 off the UDL.

Any changes greater than those described in this section would require planning commission approval.

The five-foot sidewalk must be installed as shown on the development plan.

And all parking must comply with section 14-52 of the municipal code.

Thank you.

Alright, uh, thank you very much for that.

Anyone here opposed to these applications?

All right.

I'm gonna ask for a motion to get the variance on the floor, please.

Motion motion to approve with the additional staff comments.

All right.

Any comments or questions from the commissioners?

Seems to be a pretty mixed area as it is at the anyway at this point.

I don't I don't see any big issues regarding the development here.

All right, no.

Seems to fit.

All right.

I'll ask for a roll-call vote on item 11.

Red Taylor?

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four, Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

Right.

I'm going to recess the board of zoning adjustment.

Convene the planning commission.

First item is a master land use plan amendment as promotion to get that on the floor, please.

Most approval of the issue of staff comments if applicable.

Second.

Any comments or questions?

No.

Not I'll ask for a vote, please on item 12.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Tyler?

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Grett Taylor.

Four.

Agent favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Next consider the rezoning as promotion to get that on the four, please.

Second.

No comments, I'm assuming if not, I'll ask for a vote on item 13, the rezoning.

Sorry.

Rod Coleman?

Four.

Matt Marshall?

Four.

Vicky Newton?

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

I will uh reassess the planning commission, convene the board of his own adjustment.

Uh again, there are four items all here, and I'll ask the city to present, please.

South 33rd Street.

Did you deal with the 100%?

Oh, we didn't do 14.

We didn't um okay.

Apologies, excuse me.

On item 14 development plan.

Do we have a motion for approval development?

I'll make a motion to approve Steph on it.

Second.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rhett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Thank you.

Age in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Now again, recess planning commission convene and board and zoning adjustment for these four items at South 33rd.

All right.

Thank you, Chairman McCaffrey.

I'll have some repetitive stuff, and I'll try to go quick here.

The first item is variants 21825.

There's a request by Woodrun Holdings, LLC agent for William Jr.

and Maxine Brown Living Trust for the following variance request and proposed residential single family duplex high density zone.

The first one will be from 20 foot to 10 foot exterior side yard setback at 525202 South 33rd Street, which will be lot four on the development plan.

And then the second variants will be from 20 foot to 8 foot exterior side yard setback and from 50 foot to 45 foot minimum lot with it 5224 and 5226 South 33rd Street, and that's that bottom lot there, lot eight on the south end of the development plan you're looking at.

The existing lot is less than the 50-foot required minimum.

And uh again, they're asking 20 foot to 8 foot exterior side yard setback on that variance.

The applicant states that the lots are already plated and the increased setback requirement for corner lots would prevent the current duplex design causing the corner lot units to appear out of place within the overall development.

A neighborhood meeting was held for all four of these applications on August 1st at 530 p.m.

on site.

One neighboring property or attended the meeting with concerns about residential development amits the industrial uses.

He highlighted the deteriorating road conditions, emphasizing that the intersection has been frequently damaged by trucks.

He suggested that the curve and gutter installations are necessary to mitigate these issues.

The developer acknowledged the concerns and said he would adhere to the CEO of Fort Smith's development regulations regarding streets and improvements.

Additionally, staff received uh two emails from neighboring business owners with concerns about the requests listing traffic congestion, traffic safety, zoning and compatibility to the surrounding uses, strain on the public infrastructure, parking overflow onto street, property value, airport traffic noise, and setting precedent for future development.

Staff also received an additional email from existing property owner in support of the request from the actual property owner that's uh selling the property.

A copy of each of those emails were in your packet for your review.

Again, the applicant is uh requesting multiple variances to allow the construction of a 2,042 square foot duplex on both of those corner lots, both on the north and the south there.

The development uh for 5224 and 5226, or that lot eight on the bottom is also requesting the variance from 50 foot wide to 45 foot wide minimum lot width and from 20 foot eight foot exterior side yard setback.

Uh the lot 14 was from the 20-foot to 10 foot exterior side yard setback.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that the applicant has requested the zoning development plan and master land use plan amendment applications for the entire project for seven duplexes, which will be 14 units on site on the existing individual lots with rear alley access to uh parking, as you can see there, and they'll have parking in the alley, new sidewalks, installation of curved gutter, and provide six additional parking spaces that exceeds the UDO minimum number of parking spaces.

Although the property is zoned to industrial light, I would like to also point out that the master land use plan for this property currently has a classified as residential detached.

This property was uh platten in April of 1917 with lots of approximately 50 foot in width.

Should the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request, staff recommends several conditions here.

One construction must comply with the cement development plan changes or amendments to submit development plan are permitted but limited those described in section 273307 of the UDO.

The five-foot sidewalks must be installed as shown on the development plan.

One additional parking space must be added to the development plan for each lot, lots 9 through through 14 for a total of six additional parking spaces for the development.

All parking must comply with section 1452 of the municipal code.

The construction must comply with a minimum STC rating for structure components as listed within the MCAOD, or that's the military compatibility area overlay district table listed in ordinance 5624.

New cover curb and gutters shall be installed in compliance with the standard specifications for public works construction as listed in section 22 of the Fort Smith Municipal Code and approved by the CEO of Fort Smith Engineering Department.

And lastly, no new driveway shall be permitted on South 33rd Street.

Moving on to the master land use plan amendment.

This is request 8825, a request by Woodrum Holdings LLC from a MLUPA to a resident or from a residential detached to a mixed use residential at 5200-5202, 5204, 5206, 5208, 5210, 5212, 5214, 5216, 5218, 5220, 5222, 5224, and 5226 South 33rd Street.

I want to make sure that was on the recording.

Uh to amend this from the residential deed hatch to the mixed use residential.

All of that master land use will be to support a proposed RSD for zoning district.

This master land use that they are uh requesting does meet the criteria for designation.

It is within a redevelopment revitalization areas, transitioning out of industrial land use.

Let's see here.

The master street plan does classify South 33rd, Vicksburg Street, and Waco Street all as local roads.

Let's see.

Staff does recommend to approve staff does recommend approval of the master land use plan amendment.

Now, the rezoning portion, uh again, those same addresses I just mentioned in the master land use plan.

Now the rezoning portion, uh, again, those same addresses I just mentioned in the master land use plan, they're requesting a zone change from I1 to an RSD4 for that duplex development, seven duplexes on individual lots for a total of 14 dwelling units.

The applicant does propose real at rear alley access for all of his parking, new sidewalks, insulate installation of curve and goer, and agreed to provide six additional parking spaces to exceed the minimum required by the UDO.

Should the planning commission approve the rezoning request, staff recommends approval of the companion applications, the variance development plan and master land use plan if you approve the rezoning.

The last but not least, the development plan 16825, all the addresses I listed with this project for seven duplexes on individual lots with floor areas of 2,042 square feet and provide 28 rear alley access parking spaces again on the individual lots, those six that are required uh in additional to those um uh what what is required.

So let's see, the again uh these will be 2,042 square feet.

The applicant did state that they would uh install brick and vinyl siding on the duplexes, although staff cannot enforce that.

I would like to point out one more time.

This development is located in the MCAOD, that overlay district for the airport, and one of the highest ratings of an 80 to 85 decibel level noise level, the applicant is aware of that, and the development must comply with those minimum sounds sound transmission classes or those STCs as required by the MCAOD if they obtain a or go to apply for a building permit.

Should the planning commissioner approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions on this development plan.

One, the construction must comply with submitted development plan, changes amendments to submitted to the development plan are permitted, but limited those tribes in section 27307 of the UDO.

Any changes rated in those will require your approval or the planning commission approval.

The five foot sidewalks must be installed as shown on the plan.

The one additional parking space uh access from the alley must be added to the development plan for each of the lots 9 through 14 for a total of an additional six parking spaces.

All parking must comply with section 1452 of the municipal code.

All construction must apply with the minimum STC ratings for structure opponents as listed within the MCAOD table listed in ordinance 5624.

New curb and gutters shall be installed in compliance with the standard specification for public works construction as listed in section 22 of the Fort Smith Municipal Code and approved by the C Fort Smith Engineering Department, and no new driveways shall be permitted on South 33rd Street.

Thank you.

All right, uh thank you very much.

Are there is there anyone here opposed to these applications?

All right, uh sir, why don't you just come forward and state your name and address, please, and give your concerns.

My name is Sean Hunt, and address is 5213 South 33rd, and I'm the one that attended the neighborhood meeting and uh was talking about the trucks being in and out of there all the time, and they constantly get threatened there on 33rd and Waco.

They get hung up there all the time, turn over in the ditch, has been multiple there.

Um the noise level, obviously, with the jets flying directly over, which they fly right over our building all day long, and um property value being another thing of concern for me.

Um, being there is multiple businesses around that area, and um those being my main concerns is that pretty much it.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Hutt.

Appreciate your comments.

Um, let's go ahead and let's go ahead and ask for a motion on item 15 advice just to get this on the floor.

Oh, yes, yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

Again, if you'll state your name and address, please.

Lean Ogen 6405 Atlanta Street.

Tim Nogen, same address.

Um, we're here representing the family.

Um the uh the people, the the trust of Maxine and TW Brown.

Um I've got to know the this family here for the last 13 years, and I know the property around there.

I've been very involved in some of the property around there, and I've seen how uh TW, who was the owner of all this property, who was the handed down owner of all this property out there, how he's um he loved the place.

Sorry, he's no longer here, and it's still hurts, but anyway.

I'm not here to rebut.

I'm just here to say that I know that this area here, all these properties here listed on here, have been in this family for forever.

They've not been anything of progress for that area.

Now I know the noise out there.

I love Airport Nose, and I've always told TW if I could live there I would because I love the solitude that was out there and how it was so vacant.

But that doesn't bother me.

But I just wanted to say that this family right now, they're trying to um they're requesting to go ahead and get this rezoned because of the fact that they want to pro they they want to move forward on progress with this area with this land that's just been sitting there for the last 50 years.

And they're not out there to do anything other than to make progress for the city of Fort Smith.

So again, there's a lot of memories on that land.

There's a lot of cherished memories on that land, but they've decided at this point to let it go, and they're just requesting that it be rezoned.

And whoever decides to buy it.

I know there's a buyer that they're trying to, you know, that that's interested in it.

But whoever decides to buy it, you know, all this infrastructure is gonna basically gonna be in his hands of what he does after that.

Right now they just need to move forward on getting it rezoned so this way they can move forward.

So that's all we're looking for, you know, just to get it resolved.

Just to get an approval just to get in their favor to let it go.

So um that's all they wanted to do, and I'm sorry, because like I said, TW was very special.

Certainly no need to apologize and appreciate your presence and your comments, ma'am.

Um let's go ahead and get a motion uh for item 15 variants, please.

Take a motion to approve of the additional staff comments.

All right.

Um I see applicant.

Uh did they like to address any of the concerns here regarding these items or the presentation?

The concerns that were voiced.

I don't think I have anything to add.

Uh just take your name and address, please.

Sorry, Brandon Woodroom, 584 Brooklyn Road.

I think that everything that uh need to be said, Tyler had it in his presentation in the beginning.

But I'll answer any questions if some come up.

All right, thank you.

Right, I'll open it up to the commissioners.

Had a lot of discussion at stay session regarding those concerns that were uh provided to the city and at the neighborhood meetings, any additional comments or questions.

Not particularly I I drive in this area a lot because I work with a bunch of these people in this um area.

There's a lot of contractor shops in this whole area of Fort Smith.

Um Waco Street and South 33rd Street are very small streets.

I think they're what like 18 feet wide in some points.

Um the drainage is a mess.

You know, they're fixing it, there's a lot of construction around, um, but it still is they're not widening the street in any time soon.

There's a big railroad track to the south right there, um, and then it becomes even more industrial as you go south.

Um, and to me, they're they're trying to fit you know so many duplexes on here with multiple variances to me, it just doesn't fit on this piece of property to put housing next to a lot of contractor shops.

But see, I'm I don't know May I'm just saying so there's housing caddy corner to this lot.

There's housing a block over, a block that way, and all housing a block north.

If it was a contractor yard going into residential, I would have an issue with that.

But going the other way, I don't really have an issue.

If they want to put housing here, I don't I don't find that that's a conflict to the contractor's yard.

Um I've driven in this neighborhood a lot as well.

She used to be my cut through to get to Walmart.

It worked well when I would go to that Walmart back.

But um those 18-foot roads, yeah, they're nice.

Nobody's ever on them.

There's nothing out there.

Um I I just don't think I I don't know.

I I don't see an issue with it.

Yeah, it's packed, but I don't mind.

So at the study session, the applicant talked about 18 wheelers overturning on on that road and at that corner.

I mean, is it made for is it made for 18 wheelers?

No.

But is it made for residential cars?

Sure.

I feel like it's an overbill of the neighborhood.

It's kind of entirely.

Because I drove out there and that 33rd is so narrow, and even though they're gonna have access in the back, I can see people trying to park on that street in the front, you know, and I mean that's not that's not possible.

You know, and I mean that's not that's not possible.

I just I just think it's too much too much for the space.

I I I don't have a problem with the rezoning, the development plan seems a lot.

Okay, any other comments or questions on the yes ma'am?

I just wanted to say um I know that if you come to the microphone, please bring me recorded.

Thank you.

There's a lot of streets in Fort Smith that need improvement.

Rogers being one.

Um so even the what you were saying with the traffic in the trucks, there they shouldn't even be on trucks, shouldn't even be on Rogers.

I live off of Rogers Avenue, and it's horrible.

It's horrendous with the traffic and and top of the trucks.

But my thing is with some of the the buildings that go up the the duplexes, the townhouses that have been just been erected all along Fort Smith.

I'm surprised that half of them are there where they should be.

There's one on the corner of 58th and country club, twoplexes.

You know, that they squeezed right on that corner, and I'm just amazed at the fact that they were even approved to do that.

That should have been just when one house was there, and they made that lot into two duplexes.

All right.

So I mean, you know, to me.

Again, I'm just saying I know that I see Fort Smith.

It's growing, it's progressing, and it it really needs to um there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be improved on these streets in the neighborhoods.

That's all thank you.

I guess I want to ask what what do we want there?

Yeah.

Well, uh I used to own the building right here that you see with the white top roof on 34th, 5104, South 34th Street.

It is very much light industrial, and if we continue to give away light industrial space in Fort Smith for people to come in and build on, I think that um but everything's gonna keep going out to zero.

This is a place that we can add some density.

Do I think it's packed and seven is a lot?

I think probably I think there's there's several there's several they're they're trying to pack in a lot on several lots to Rhett's point.

I'm I'm for uh I'm for a rezoning, so to speak.

Um Vicky, to your point, I think they put likely would I think redeveloping this alley would be good for the neighborhood, and there is a lot of residential around there.

So um I I encourage that the study session for us to approach the city about putting a stop sign on Vicksburg and 33rd, just because there's a lot of people been hit by cars in Fort Smith, though I did mention that to the developer um while he was here during the study session, but I would encourage us just to kind of remember that this is one of the I-1 zonings that someone could come in and put a metal building.

There's not very many of those in this area anymore.

Um so that's that being said, is it?

Actually, actually, you could not because it's adjacent to residential zoning, so it's gonna kick in all of those industrial design standards.

I just want to okay clarify.

Yeah, thanks for correcting.

Yeah, thank you for the correct on that map on lot 3A.

We have an it there are two duplexes being built right now.

There's actually will you put up the zoning, please?

So cross the hallway or on the back side here, it's mostly regardless of whether those were being constructed at present.

The zoning is residential, so it's gonna trigger it anyway.

I don't think my I don't think my problem is with the development plan or or the or anything that's submitted to the commission here.

I think that um my only issues with the city streets.

Uh it's not it's not with the it's not with what you presented here today, Mr.

Woodram.

I think that you've given us everything that we need to look at and we need to look at that objectively.

Um, but that is something that we need to look at with the city streets and if it's gonna be able to fit seven.

I mean it's three A.

What is three A?

I A duplex, two duplexes, two duplexes 14 units on uh on a pretty small piece, and um it's that's gonna it's gonna pack a lot in it.

Three A is just like the two lots 11 and 12.

Yeah, two duplexes going on it.

I just I mean it's been up there 50 years and nobody's bought it.

Yeah, so I'm pro development of the area.

Do what?

We don't know the history if somebody has offered and they haven't taken a lot of things.

Well, I know I mean has it else.

Somebody has offered it for us to continue to push away development.

That's right.

I'm pro-development and to this.

Yeah, no, I'm a man to I agree that she got some short calls on the corners and stuff.

I don't know how we work through that.

Those two lots on the end, they're tough.

But man, I yeah, what else better fits this than what he's gonna do right here?

And to her point, I think it's uh this is the wish of the former owner, and they've held it for long enough to to start to see some progress on that land, and and that this is progress, and we're trying to add density in Fort Smith, and this is a good place to do it.

All right.

Uh very good comments by everyone.

I I think we're ready for a vote on the variance.

Are there any more comments or questions?

Okay.

So let's uh I'll call for a roll call vote for on the variance, please.

Item 15.

Vicky Newton against Griffin Hannah.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rhett Taylor.

Against variances.

Kelly Wilson against Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Five in favor, three opposed.

Right.

Uh uh reassess the board of zoning adjustment, convene the planning commission.

The first item is a master land use plan amendment.

I'll ask for a motion for item 16.

Motion to approve the staff comments.

Don't think there's any additional comments.

I'll ask for a vote on 16.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

David Tyler?

Four.

Sean McCaffrey?

Four.

Rett Taylor?

Four.

Kelly Wilson against Frog Colleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall?

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Against six in favor, two opposed.

Okay, we'll now consider the rezoning item 17.

Additional comments.

Not I'll ask for a motion for 17.

Motion to approve with the addition of staff comments.

I'll ask for a vote, please.

David Tyler?

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson against Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Against Griffin Hannah.

Four.

Six in favor, two opposed.

Okay, the last item is a development plan.

I know there were some specific comments on that.

Any additional comments or questions?

Yeah, I think it's it's one community duplex.

That's it.

Is there a way you can shrink it down to six?

Well, we just greeted variants though.

Yeah, and I voted against them.

So let's still say no.

Yeah.

Come within the development plan, possibly.

You're you're wanting to uh can they can they amend the development plan here?

Or no, they cannot, can they?

They can go less.

Yes.

He could go to six two places.

So you've you've right now what you've done is you've changed the land use and you've now given him an RSD four zone, which only has 50-foot lots.

So he this property is platted with lots that are substandard at present.

So he could go forward and re-plat the lots to meet the new R4 standards and develop that way.

And if that's what y'all want him to do, how many lots would that be?

What's do you know what your frontage is 300 feet?

So it'd be six lots.

I mean, that's a standard block.

Be my guess.

Does the variance from the 50 to 45 minimum lot width not come into play that?

It it's gonna be well.

That's on the existing 1917 plat.

If you re-plats it, it'll be moved.

But the variance is tied to development plan.

If you don't approve the development plan, it's a move point anyway.

But a standard city block is 300 feet, 50 at 50 foot lots.

That would be six duplex lots.

Six makes sense.

Seven, so we'll agree.

He will have to have the property replotted, yes.

And he's doing all new curb and gutter on the three sides.

Uh the curb and gutter is just on 33rd.

Okay.

Okay, so where are we stand?

We have a motion on the floor for the current development plan.

Do we is there a feeling or to amend the motion or proceed on on that motion?

We can't, we can't.

I'm sorry, there's not motion yet.

Okay.

So let me ask for a motion for the development plan.

I'm gonna motion as written.

So approve.

Okay.

No minute.

Is there a second?

Second.

Yes.

We staff comments.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Any other comments or questions before we vote?

If not, I'll ask for a roll call vote.

Any other comments or questions or amendments or I'm personally fine with seven.

I'm just gonna make the comment.

Okay, I just want to clarify quickly because we've tied the zoning to the development plan, correct?

So in absence of a development plan, this will have to come back for a development plan.

So if the intent is seven, then what you have approved, what you've your motion would stand.

If you want to do less, somebody would have to make an amendment to that development plan.

Or just oppose it.

Right.

Yes.

And what you're saying is we are allowed right now by amendment to adjust their development plan down to six.

Yes.

Okay, okay.

Then I would like to amend my motion to pull this down to six duplexes instead of seven.

As six fits.

Okay, so we have an amended motion.

Is there a second on that on that motion?

Withdraw my second.

You're allowed to do that.

Do I have a second from anyone else?

Second.

Second for the can we ask the developer if he's willing to do that before we just create I would encourage, I would encourage you to talk to Mr.

Woodrun.

Mr.

Woodham, do you have any comments or questions?

Any something you're willing to agree to?

I believe you do you understand what just happened there?

I think uh what Mr.

Taylor is suggesting is that by ordinance you're gonna reply my property from seven to six.

Is that what's happening?

No, they're going to cap your development plan at six duplexes.

So what happens with the seventh lot?

There won't be one.

So there it will be a replat by ordinance.

You would have well, you would have to replat the property, yes.

Okay.

I would like to see a vote as it is.

A vote on the a vote on the current motion before the floor, the amendment.

Correct?

He's about to see it without that amendment.

I think he wants to see it as presented.

I think that's a reasonable request.

Yeah, okay.

The reason I say that, Mr.

Caffrey, is the other half of this block, excuse me, has a currently a sixplex on it, and they're building two duplexes to the south of it.

That's a total of 10 units on half or a quarter of the block where I'm taking a half of the block and doing 14 units.

And so as far as the density goes for this area, that this is not like an inordinate development for density surrounding it.

Um as closest to something adjacent, then you go a few more blocks and you get the same amount of density, just two blocks over on several different developments.

So yeah, I'd like to see it uh stay seven lots.

Okay, with that being said, I'd like to make a motion to approve with staff comments.

Okay.

I would technically need to withdraw my motion.

Yeah, that's a second.

Can we not can we not have a second motion on the floor vote on both?

Yeah, pick each second.

You second it.

Yeah, we did have a second.

So would we he had to return to the side?

So after we vote on that motion, we can have a second.

You can't have two motions, so we'll have to dispense with the first.

Okay.

Okay.

Do we need okay?

Do we need a second for the withdrawal?

He withdrew his motion.

Okay.

So now we're gonna vote on the original presentation as written with staff comments.

I will make a motion to approve as written with staff comments.

And was there a second for that?

I will I will second that.

I will rescind it.

I have res I rescinded my second.

Thank you.

So we are ready for a roll call vote for the original development plan, and I'll ask for a roll call vote on 18 development plan.

David Tyler?

Four.

Sean McCaffrey?

Four.

Brett Taylor?

Again.

Kelly Wilson against Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Four.

Vicky Newton against Griffin Hannah Four.

Five in favor, three opposed.

All right, that does pass.

And with that, I will adjourn the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.