All right, uh good evening, everyone, and welcome to the uh January thirteenth, twenty twenty-six planning commission meeting.

I'll call the meeting to order and ask everybody to please stand, say pledge of allegiance.

Under God, individual liberty and justice world.

All right, I'll ask for a roll call, please.

Vicky Newton.

Zach New Zach Ledford.

Rod Coleman?

Kelly Wilson here, Griffin Hannah.

David Tyler.

Matt Marshall, Sean McCaffrey.

Here.

We have nine commissioners present.

All right, very good.

Um if the commissioners have an opportunity to review the minutes from the December 9, 2025 meeting, I'll entertain a motion for approval or comments.

Right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Very good.

I'll ask staff to present comments and procedures for tonight's meeting.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the January 13, 2026 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.

This evening the planning commission will be reviewing the following items subdivision variances, Platz, rezonings, master land use plan amendments, development plans, and conditional use requests.

Appeals will be presented to the city board of directors at a future study session for action, and those meetings take place in this building, which is the blue lion.

The subdivision variants is a request by Hawkins Weir Engineers, agent for Fort Smith Housing Authority for a variance from Section 2750319, which is the requirement to provide sidewalks for a subdivision and a residential multifamily density zone at 1500 South S Street.

This is associated with the proposed Bailey Heights addition, a 34-lot single-family development.

Approval of the requested variants allows approximately 770 linear feet of public sidewalk along South S Street to be omitted.

And at this moment, I probably should say that the property lies at the southwest corner of South S and South 16th Street and consists of just over eight acres, almost eight and a half acres.

Approval of the variants would allow the developer to pay into the sidewalk fund money in lieu of actual construction of the sidewalk.

The property of about eight and a half acres is the site of the former Bailey Hill Reservoir.

The applicant stated that their hardship associated with their variance request is due to the construction of a street from the south from the center line south of S Street.

They state that the existing infrastructure, which consists of a 24-inch transmission main that is active and it serves the neighborhood, is so shallow that construction of the sidewalk would render the existing water line as substandard by City of Fort Smith standards.

And they go on to say that the grade this as it would need to be graded for the construction of a sidewalk would actually expose portions of this existing transmission main.

And the minimum coverage required by normal city of Fort Smith standards is 30 inches.

So they go on to say that to further diminish that cover would not be acceptable to the city.

Nobody spoke in opposition to the variance request.

Staff comments are that installation of a required sidewalk along South S Street and South 16th Street and the proposed through street within Bailey Heights would constitute nearly half mile of a sidewalk loop for the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood.

Staff feels it important to mention that there are numerous destinations within the general area within walking distance that include public schools, grocery stores, places of worship, medical facilities, and transit stops.

And that given the affordable intent of the proposed subdivision, frequent pedestrian traffic is likely in the area and would provide much needed means of transportation for the community.

Again, the development proposes sidewalks on South 16th Street.

That's to the east edge.

And they propose a sidewalk that would run down the newly proposed street, centrally located within the new subdivision.

Additionally, there is a cross-access easement that would accommodate a 16-foot wide sidewalk, excuse me, a 16-foot wide paved surface that will serve the rears of the of lots 1 through 10.

That is significant from the standpoint that also because of the waterline conflict that has been described to us that no driveways are proposed from those that northern row of houses directly onto South S Street, which has precipitated the construction of that access drive to the south of those lots.

That concludes my presentation about the variants, and I'm going to move on into the preliminary plat.

The subject plat is uh 34 lot single family subdivision on again eight and a half acres or thereabouts.

The lots uh minimum size would be 6500 square feet in this RM3 zone.

In this particular instance, the average site size of these 34 lots is closer to 9,000 square feet.

Um the proposed Bailey Heights lots 1 through 10 would not have driveway access, as I mentioned, um, and would be accessed by a 16-foot one-way cross access drive south of uh the aforementioned 10 lots.

Um the other lots within the subdivision would have conventional driveway access, and improvements to South S Street and to the intersection of South S and 16th Street are proposed as part of this development.

The south half of South S will be completely reconstructed, and South 16th Street intersection will be improved as well.

I can't remember if I mentioned it, but also there's a sidewalk proposed along the entire length of South 16th Street on the east edge that would tie into the existing sidewalk on South T Street that's near the southeast portion of the site.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plant with the following comments.

The developer must agree to meet all franchise and city utility easement agreements.

The subsequent final plat must comply with city subdivision design and improvement standard specifications for public works construction.

Construction upon each lot will require a land survey, site plan, and construction plan submitted for review and approval by the City of Fort Smith prior to issuance of a building permit.

Written shared access and maintenance provisions must be recorded with the Sebastian County Clerk prior to or at the time of final plating.

This refers to refers to that cross access easement I described.

A temporary revocable license or TRL is required for landscape materials or structures proposed within any waterline easement within this development.

That applies specifically to the South S Street frontage.

And then finally, the subdivision variants to pay in lieu of the sidewalk must be approved, or a new sidewalk must be installed in accordance with section 27509 of the UDO.

That concludes my presentation, and I know that the applicant is present uh for additional uh comments, and if you have any questions for me, ask now or in any point.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh the applicant is here this evening.

Uh is there anyone uh else in favor?

Anyone opposed here this evening to this?

All right, yes, sir.

You state your name and administered.

Uh that might come up on this.

All right.

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

A second.

All right.

Any comments or questions or comments for questions for Hawkinswear?

No.

I think we had a concern.

I think we didn't stay session, so it was good.

All right.

If there's nothing else, I'll uh ask for a uh vote then, please on item one, the subdivision variants first.

Sean McCaffrey?

Four.

Brett Taylor?

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman?

Four.

Matt Marshall, Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Zach Ledford.

David Tyler?

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right, I'll uh ask for a vote then on number two, the preliminary plat.

Would you approve with that?

Then I'll ask for a vote, please.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Holman.

Matt Marshall.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Zach Ledford?

David Tyler.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Those uh both passed.

We'll now move to items three and four, a rezoning and a variance all at uh Rogers Avenue and South 74th Street.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The first item is rezoning 2126, a request by Stuart Gann, owner for Planning Commission consideration of a zone request from a plan zoning district to a planned zoning district by classification at 7308, 7310, 7316, and 7320 Rogers Avenue, along with 3106 and 310, South 74th Street.

Approval of this new PCD facilitates a mixed-use site consisting of retail service and entertainment uses listed within the PCD land use chart while also allowing the increase in height for a new hotel as shown on the concept plan.

The PCDE explains that it exceeds the UDO by requiring 60% high quality materials on all front and side facades of each new building that will be constructed on the site.

The PCD will also have more restrictive land uses than previously permitted on the C5 and PCD before.

The PCD will comply with the UDO signage requirements.

However, the companion application does request a variance to allow two business park tenant signs.

Staff does recommend approval of the rezoning request.

The variance 4126 again is requested by Stewart Gann owner for BZA appro uh consideration of zoning variants requested the same addresses from one sign to two sign or multi-tenant business park signs.

Approval of this will allow for one sign to be placed on Rogers Avenue and a second sign to be placed on South 74th Street.

Go here to a picture of the sign.

The applicant states in their hard sit or explains it as their hardship that only one sign per street fringe would fail to provide effective visibility for the large development due to the substantial acreage of it and the depth of it, and also lack representation for the development that is located on two major uh roadways.

Section 2770434B of the UDO state's business park retail centers shall be limited to one sign and shall comply with the general sign standards as well as the sign standards for specific zoning district or overlay district.

The applicant is proposing two 75 square foot business park signs on each road fringe to support this multi-tenant mixed use development for a total of 150 square feet of freestanding signage for the development.

The applicant is proposing one on Rogers Avenue and one on South 74th Street.

Additionally, the applicant has requested uh two location options for the original sign placement placement on South 74th.

However, the applicant has indicated that the actual sign placement will be determined based on future development and occupying tenants.

In staff's opinion, the proposed signage aligns with the goals of the business park retail center signage section by being below the allowable 300 square foot and keeping it at 150 square foot of the proposed signs.

Staff does recommend approval of this contingent upon the following.

The business park signage is limited to one sign located on Rogers Avenue and one sign located on South 74th Street, and the freestanding business park signage will be limited or shall be limited to 150 square foot of signage.

All right, thank you, Tyler.

There are those in favor of this applications, the applicants here.

Correct.

Anyone opposed this evening to these applications?

If not, I will ask for a motion on the rezoning item number three.

Motion to approve with the addition of staff comments.

Any further comments or questions from the commissioners or to the applicant?

All right.

Looks good.

All right.

All right.

I'll uh ask for a vote then on the rezoning.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman.

Matt Marshall.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Zach Ledford.

David Tyler.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor?

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

I'll uh reassess the planning commission and convene the board of zoning adjustment to consider the variance.

Uh item number four regarding the uh signage as for a motion to get that on the floor, please.

I make a motion to approve the staff comments.

All right.

Any further comments, questions make sense to me.

Yep.

All right.

None.

I'll ask for a uh vote on item number four, the variance.

Rod Coleman.

Matt Marshall.

Vicky Newton.

Zack Ledford?

David Tyler.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

That passes as well.

I'll now recess supportive zoning adjustment and convene the planning commission.

Two items, uh, a master land use plan amendment and a rezoning on North Greenwood and May Avenue.

As staff to present.

We have companion applications here, and item number five is the Master Land Use Plan Amendment requested by Dana Rosa of Setterfield Land Engineer of Land Surveyors.

And they are agents for Samuel and Petra Salas for a master land use plan amendment from commercial neighborhood and residential detached to mixed use employment in a proposed plan zoning district area at 1520, 1524, 1530 North Greenwood, and 1525 and 1531 May Avenue.

The planning department has received an application to amend the master land use plan map from commercial neighborhood and residential detached, the existing designated land uses to mixed-use employment to accommodate a proposed plan zoning district on North Greenwood Avenue, just south of North O Street, between North Greenwood Avenue and May Avenue.

The total track contains just over an acre.

It's 1.03 acres with 200 feet of frontage on North Greenwood Avenue and 150 feet of frontage on North May Avenue.

The property is currently zoned commercial heavy or C5 and residential multifamily medium density or RM3.

A companion zoning application request, a PZD zoning district, and the master land use plan as a guide to zoning and development and must be considered with the companion zoning application.

A neighborhood was meeting was held on site last Wednesday, and eight people were in attendance, and there were no parties in opposition to either the master land use plan amendment or the rezoning application I'm about to present.

With regard to the master land use amendment request, the staff recommendation is for approval.

Moving on to the zoning application.

Again by Dana Rosa of Centerfield Land Surveyors for Petra and Samuel Salas for a zoning change from residential multifamily medium density or RM3 to commercial and not two, but uh from RM3 and from Commercial Heavy or C5 to a planned zoning district at the aforementioned properties 1520, 1524, 1530 Greenwood Avenue, and 1525 and 1531 May Avenue.

Approval of the requested rezoning to PZD will apply to three existing parcels that consists of four existing buildings, which are C5, and then there's an adjacent undeveloped former home site that is zoned RM3.

The C5 zoning has been thought of as a little bit too intense for this neighborhood business area.

And then the RM3 zoning does is is utter is not appropriate for the newly acquired uh 1520 North Greenwood Avenue and its conversion to a uh show lot for a car dealership.

The accompanying PZD project booklet specifies the property will be divided into two character areas.

And uh character area A will be the property that faces to the west or fronts North Greenwood Avenue.

That property comprises uses such as a bridal shop, a gift shop, the automobile dealership I mentioned, an auto parts and accessory store, and an indoor tire sales facility.

Proposed character area B faces May Avenue to the east.

And that would comprise more intensive uses such as auto automobile detailing, auto body shop and paint, auto repair, auto glass muffler, and seat upholstery shop.

Notably, in the context of the PCD discussion, again the accompanying land use plan amendment proposes mixed use employment, which would more closely correspond to the uses that exist on the property now and those uses that may be contemplated in the future.

No building construction is proposed as part of this application, and there is a parking lot that is proposed as part of the application.

The project booklet for the PZD specifies some of the following.

And these would these fall under the criteria of the proposed PZD exceeding the requirements of the current zoning districts.

Number one is that all future parking areas must be paved with a hard surface, asphalt, or concrete, including the currently proposed show lot that I mentioned.

All future building renovations and building expansions and associated improvements shall exceed UDO standards by providing 100% high quality materials on facades adjacent to public streets.

All free standing signage would be limited to monument signs only.

Pole signs would be expressly prohibited.

And then finally, vehicles requiring repair must be repaired or removed within 30 days of arrival.

These are all specified in the project booklet.

Staff comments are that the owner is requesting a zone change to allow for the previously demolished single family residential lot to be converted into a show lot.

And that that would be included in character area A with the other more conventional neighborhood uses, and then character area B would be utilized as auto body and more intense automobile repair uses.

Staff recommendations are as follows.

Perimeter landscaping in compliance with the UDO shall be installed for the new automobile vehicle dealer display parking area prior to use.

Number three, all vehicle work must be within an enclosed building.

And then four, any vehicles waiting for repair must be visually screened from the right-of-way and adjacent properties that shall not be on site longer than 30 days.

That concludes my presentation, and I know that a representative of Satterfield Land Surveyors is here if you have questions for him.

Right.

Very good, thank you.

Is there anyone else besides the applicant here in favor?

Anyone opposed?

Right.

Right.

Um any comments from the applicant?

None at this time.

All right.

I'll ask for a motion then to get the uh master land use plan amendment on the floor.

All right.

Um any comments or questions from the commissioners?

I have a few questions.

I I still don't understand why we're doing a PCD rather than conventional zoning on this.

Um what if we did do conventional zoning, what zone would accommodate all of these uses?

Would it be I1 or C5?

It would be a little bit of both, but to answer your first question about why we're approaching this with a PZD as opposed to C5, is the PCD has enabled us to selectively go through the entire land use matrix and remove some of the things that are allowed in C5, and also to segregate these areas of intensity and to allow the applicant or stipulate that the applicant would exceed the UDO requirements in a variety of areas.

Okay.

Can you do a body shop in C5 or is that I one?

Let me double check that.

You can, Kelly.

It requires a conditional use in a C5 to do a body shop.

And I want to be clear, the master land use plan, the reason we recommended an approval of the master land use plan, but then had conditions if you choose to approve the PCD.

Those are two separate applications.

The master land use plan would technically clean up the master land use plan map because it has a little piece of uh residential attached up there on the north in the master land use plan would accommodate the existing zoning now and clean that up.

That's why it was written in that way versus the way the uh PCD was written.

But to answer your question, it requires a conditional use approval for an auto body shop in a C5 zone.

Thank you.

So on number item number five, then the master land use plan amendment.

Would that amend that residential lot to be commercial?

It it would amend that residential lot, the 1520 there on North Greenwood Avenue that uh was recently demolished.

Uh and right here is the master land use plan map.

But as you can see, it would amend all that to mixed use, which would accommodate both residential or commercial development or future rezoning request of something of those natures that that it complies with currently the way it's written, uh that commercial neighborhood where if that was to make stay a house, that's the zoning would not be permitted uh in a commercial neighborhood master land use plan.

Kelly, another thing is that um the C5 zoning district allows a variety of uses that really are way more intensive than we see in neighborhood commercial.

So, all right.

There's our zoning surrounding it.

So to the west, we have I can't read that.

RM4.

RM4.

And what is that where the pointer was up?

C5.

That's C5, okay.

What about on the east?

C5, okay.

I know.

Uh i it's hard to give up residential land for something like this uh for a parking lot, right?

Um it is a show lot.

They're on they are going to screen it.

I assume landscaping requirements will kick in and they'll look all nice and pretty.

Uh yeah, it's a tough one.

It's a vacant lot, but then you know I kind of look on the street around it there that may across from it.

This does look a lot better than that.

So I don't know.

I I understand your concerns about getting rid of residential.

It's just looks like they're taking care of their stuff at least.

Which is good.

I did have a question on the opaque screening.

So where exactly is the perimeter fencing going to be going around?

I couldn't quite tell.

Is it just where it is existing?

Or is it already installed?

Around the lot story, but where will the landscaping be just specifically on this kind of parking lot space?

Just right in the front there?

Okay.

What are the setbacks uh against the residential?

So parking lots do not require setbacks.

However, if a building was constructed there, the setbacks would go to what the PCD setbacks currently are.

And it should have, I would like to look, yeah, 30 when it's adjacent to single family residential.

So by approving this, if they started as a parking lot, decided midway through I want to do something different, would they be permitted to do an auto body shop or something?

So this was anything.

This was split in two character areas, the rear character area B and B, and that's on page 30 of your packet.

Uh they would be able to do the permitted uses in character area A within this front area, which is still quite a few different uses within there, and as long as they met the setbacks, the 30 foot from the side.

The audio the auto body is allowed in the character area that fronts on May, which is where they're currently doing those land uses.

Right.

Or that land use is currently being performed.

So that is the only place that and that was that was part of the reason.

When we staff had a thorough discussion about conventional versus plan zoning district, and the reason we lean towards a plan zoning district, it was is because it allowed us to afford the neighborhood around it a few more protections than what a conventional zone would.

Okay.

And quite frankly, they were they were using this lot already, and I can't remember how it landed back with us, but that's what sort of prompted this conversation because the single family homes that you see around it are they're you know, they're occupied.

You know, and so we wanted to be sure that you know this we mitigated any future issues for those property owners.

I think the staff has done a good job to do that.

I'm just concerned about the cre or we're gonna get a creeping effect as we move forward and what was the nature of the demolition and you know, what's the stop, another demolition, and then we're back here a little bit further down and further down.

It had been converted from a residence into a salon uh that was relatively short-lived, and when that business vacated the building, the adjacent owners purchased it, uh demolished the home in anticipation of that 6500 square foot of their existing compound, if you will.

Um it's one family that controls all that, and I think you have observed pretty much uh what we have with regard to the state that they maintain their property and the segregation of uses.

And the character areas they are part of the approval.

That's part of the staff comments that would be approved.

That can't be changed.

Which includes a map, which delineates the boundaries, and so if that would require another public hearing process, a zone change to go to change that.

All right.

Any further comments or questions from anyone?

All right.

All right.

Uh I believe we have a motion on item number five.

Um I'll call then for a vote on number five, the master land use plan amendment.

No.

Matt Marshall.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

Zach Ludford.

David Tyler.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Grett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Coleman.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, we'll then move to item six or rezoning.

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

All right.

Any further comments, questions?

All right.

I'll ask for a vote then on item six or rezoning.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hann.

Four.

Zach Ledford?

David Tyler?

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor?

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman?

Matt Marshall.

Nine a favor, zero opposed.

All right, very good.

We'll uh reassess the planning commission and convene the board of resoning adjustment.

Uh we have uh two uh one item.

Uh first item under it uh is item seven at Armor Street.

Variance.

Okay, thank you.

Uh variants 1126, a request by Dana Rosa of Satterfield Land Surveyors, agent for Colby Fleming for the following variances in a residential multifamily medium density RM3 zone.

From 20 feet to zero feet minimum street frontage at 4908 Armour Street, proposed lots 2B of Middle and Heights, and from 25 feet to 23 feet front yard setback at 4906 Armor Street units A and B, proposed lots 2A of Midland Heights.

Approval of the requested variances will allow the newly constructed duplex structure to encroach two feet into the required 25 front yard setback.

Approach will uh also facilitate a proposed minor subdivision replat uh creating a second lot for an additional residential structure uh without the required street fringe.

The uh subject property is on the south side of Armor Street, approximately 150 feet west of North 50th Street.

The track contains an area of 0.48 acres with 66 feet of frontage along Armor Street.

Uh the uh hardship of the applicant states that the uh a measuring error resulted in the uh uh recently constructed duplex built encroaching the required 25-foot uh front setback.

The applicant believed it would be a uh hardship to uh deconstruct and the encroaching portion of the structure uh and request the building to be allowed to remain.

Additionally, the applicant states that only the northern 60 percent of the subject lot is buildable due to an existing concrete line drainage ditch uh bisecting the property.

Uh there was a neighborhood meeting uh held on uh Wednesday uh January 7th of 2026.

There were no uh neighboring property owners in attendance.

Uh for staff comment, a building permit was issued for the duplex on September uh 3rd of 2025.

At the time of the inspection, the distance to the open footing ditch uh complied with the minimum required setback measurement.

However, the developer mislocated the property line and corner pins at the time of construction, which was revealed during a post-uh construction survey.

Uh the applicant intends to replat the subject parcel into two lots, allowing for newly constructed duplex on proposed lot A2 and allowing for a new residential structure on proposed lot to B.

Uh the two lots will utilize 20 feet uh 20-foot wide shared access easement for traffic for the three dwelling units.

Uh planning staff notes that the variance request approval is still necessary uh without the concrete uh drainage ditch uh easement uh for the design of a flagpole lot.

Uh additionally, the applicant may be uh unable to meet Section 1452 driveway requirements, in which case an additional variance by the property owner's appeals board uh will be necessary prior to the issuance of a building uh permit.

Uh should the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request?

Staff request that it substantiate its reason for approval and include the following conditions.

Uh construction must comply with the submitted development plan and plat.

Uh changes or amendments to the development plan or uh are permitted but limited to those described in section 27307 of the UDO.

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

Uh second, uh dedicate a uh 20-foot drainage easement, uh 10 feet either side of the center line to accommodate the existing concrete line drainage ditch uh bisecting the uh subject property as part of uh any ongoing or future minor subdivision application.

Uh the third one is uh proper uh or provide a uh revised minor subdivision plat, uh ensuring the concrete driveway is a minimum of 20 feet wide and is placed entirely within the access easement.

Uh fourth, uh in accordance with UDO section 2750314 shared driveways, provide maintenance provisions for the shared driveways proposed as part of the ongoing minor subdivision application.

Uh these provisions must ensure mutual access by residents and uh by emergency vehicles and address maintenance of the driveway shared by uh separate lots.

Uh said provisions must be provided uh for recording prior to or with recording of a minor subdivision plat.

Uh and then uh lastly, the uh proposed lot 2B shall be limited to one single family dwelling unit pending minor subdivision approval.

And this concludes my report.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Kalen.

Um those here to speak in favor of the application.

Anyone opposed?

All right.

I have questions.

Yes, sir.

If you'll if you'll come Sir, sir, will you come up and give your name and address, please?

For the record, we're being recorded.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Uh David Robinson, uh 4415 Young Street, Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Yes, sir.

And I have the lot on Johnson and 50th Street.

So I think that second would run into if the second was built behind that.

Is that correct?

I'm just trying to see is that going to touch um they're proposing to build a sub here.

Well, it crossed that uh levee.

I mean that easement.

It will be a lot.

Okay.

But access would be from the Johnson Street from Armor.

They'll use this driveway right here.

Okay, okay, gotcha.

Okay.

I'm just curious because I got the letter.

I didn't know.

You go back to the map.

Overall zoning map.

So Mr.

Robinson, I'm I think you're right here.

Correct.

Okay, and so that property is going to access off armor on that driveway, that new driveway that you saw.

Oh, okay.

And the house will sit right in front of the property.

Okay.

Okay.

But no access will be coming from his property.

Okay.

Thank you.

This property does not have access anywhere near your property.

Does that change the zoning at all?

Um residential commercial.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Robinson.

How do they plan to access the lot across the drainage?

Right now they have no plans to do that.

Because it would be too expensive to build ditch.

A bridge large enough.

Strong enough to I'm sorry.

In a rose of a center for land surveyors.

So that's why he's just focusing on the north side of the ditch.

So we are re-sending the or replatting it to three lots.

Is that the same?

Just two lots.

Oh, okay.

All right.

I missed that.

And at one point we don't know when the ditch was even built, and there was no prior easement from the city to even have that ditch built when it was done.

So we did a little bit of research on that too.

It's there's an easement on the north side of armor for the ditch, but not on the south side.

I bet I bet I could find that.

Engineering helped me some too, and they couldn't find anything.

So there might be more some something somewhere else that could have.

Right.

Uh this is a question for city staff, but um is the engineering have they reviewed this and are they good with uh access to that new single family house?

They had no comments on the uh requested plat.

At first it was just the duplex, and then he saw that you had a little bit more room back there to put the a single family home, so that's what he's trying to do.

Is this not a platform?

Uh no, it's not.

There's dirt on the road, it looked like and they look like the set of pins, right?

Wrong.

Well, I don't know.

There's two variances in front of you.

The first variance is right here.

I want uh if you can look at the screen kind of behind you there, Kelly and Rett, uh it won't work on that one.

Uh it's right here.

This encroaches approximately one and a half foot.

When the inspector was out there for the footing, it actually passed the footing inspection.

However, uh the inspector can only go by the uh stakes that are there in the line that's there uh during the survey was found out actually encroached uh uh foot and a half.

So that's one variance.

The second variance is to split this back portion back here that they can't access, so they can build another or a third unit right here.

Right.

Anyway, okay, so you can approve it all.

You could approve one, you could deny both.

Uh you have a lot of options there on how to handle this if you choose to move forward.

But there are it's it's one variance application, but it's asking for multiple variances.

Two variances, the front yard setback and then the street frontage.

That's correct.

Yes.

So it'd say if you approve the front yard setback, the duplex could stay where it's at, but denied the zero street frontage, the plat couldn't happen, but the duplex could stay for the error on the footing, or you could deny both, and they would have to you know you remediate the the front yard setback and still move a lot, or you could approve both.

Okay.

Thank you.

I mean, mistakes happen in construction.

I don't have a problem with the two feet on the front overlapping the setback.

It's uh it sucks, but it's two feet.

Um I'm just more concerned about having three on the lot, but maybe that's the house will block it.

Because eventually it's gonna get cheap.

The well, no, the triplex would have had an increase setbacks, had a uh uh landscaping on the front, had interior maneuvering for parking.

You could have made it work, you probably could have made the clock and store.

I think it's a great use of land.

You know, the guy got bit over because of the very dish.

He didn't have anything to do with it.

But at the same time, he's got a very good city.

Uh and entertainment?

Can you get back there and buy the house if it's on that?

Yeah.

All right.

Any other comments?

Not I'll ask for a motion on item seven, the variance.

Which includes two items.

Second.

All right.

All right.

Any other further comments?

Not I'll call for a vote on item seven, the variants.

Griffin Hannah Four.

Zach Ledford?

Four.

David Tyler.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Vicky Newton.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Um next item is uh number eight.

Also a variance at River Valley Drive.

Uh I see City to present, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Variance 3126 are is a request by Crane Investments LP for Board of Zoning Adjustment consideration of a zoning variance request from the required mechanical equipment screening in a commercial heavy zone at 3300 River Valley Drive.

The variance allows for visible portions of the rooftop mechanical equipment to be painted in lieu of the screening requirement.

Go there.

The applicant states that the existing parapet screens a portion of the rooftop equipment.

He states that additional screening is not feasible and suggested painting the portions of the visible equipment there they're visible to blend in with the structure.

A neighborhood meeting was held on January 6th on site.

No neighboring property owners attended the meeting.

The subject property received a building permit for the new almost 36,000 square foot crane Hyundai Auto and Vehicle Dealership on January 22nd, 2025.

During the building permit review, staff uh requested additional information confirming the screening of the HVAC rooftop units.

At the time, the architect guaranteed that the parapet was strategically placed and the mechanical equipment on the roof would be completely screened from the rideway and adjoining properties.

Upon site inspection, staff notice the portions of the units are visible from the rightway.

The applicant has requested a variance from the acquired mechanical screening to allow for visible portions of the rooftop units to be painted to match the building versus completely screening the units.

If the Board of Zoning Adjustment is inclined to approve the variants, staff requests the following contingencies.

Construction must comply the submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those described Section 273307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than that will require playing commission approval.

And all equipment visible from the rightways must be painted to match the building.

Staff did go and get some, as you can see right here, some additional photos from the interstate as well.

I had made the comment that the interstate was higher.

However, uh during further reviewing, see here's a good picture from the interstate.

Looking at the contours, it's only about two to four foot taller uh than the actual subject site here off the contour map.

And that concludes my presentation.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh the applicant is here this evening.

And any uh any opposition.

State your name and address for the record.

I'm Jet Ricks with uh Crane Automotive.

I appreciate you guys considering it.

We uh were surprised as well by the by the fact that these were higher than we had anticipated based on the design we hadn't initially approved.

And uh we're asking, as we said, to hopefully paint some instead of putting screening.

You can see in the picture we have some that are just barely barely visible.

Um I I think the uh other approach we would take is if you would allow us to paint the ones that are are just barely visible and we could put screening on.

I think there's one in particular that you can see.

I don't know, uh Tyler, if that very first picture.

Yeah, that unit is the one that's most visible if we could screen that one if you'd allow us to.

I mean, we have some that are literally, I think maybe 12 inches show, not much.

Um if you would allow us to paint maybe the ones that are a little less visible, and then we could put screening on the ones that are a little more visible from the street.

It also I think it's relevant that on these pictures they look pretty close.

You are literally hundreds of feet back, you know, when you're standing on the street looking at the building.

So and it also the the surrounding uses are industrial, so we're not in a you know in a in a residential area or any kind of a heavy commercial area.

So I I'd appreciate any any consideration you guys would give us.

Thank you, Mr.

Riggs.

Any questions or comments for Mr.

Ricks?

Right.

We the plans that we have, we questioned stating that we did not believe the parapet was high enough.

And we have an email.

And we have that in email.

Right.

So we were we were surprised as well, obviously, because we were moving forward.

We didn't design the building, you know, with with the screening initially.

Yeah, because of that.

So you would bet you stuff.

Well, I think it at this point we're we're finalizing the project.

You can see we're pretty far along.

We've got signage up, and and now we have to we we're just looking at uh uh uh an effective way to get where you guys want us to be and also finish the project.

So which all people supposed to be called a uh they're concrete yeah they're they're they're concrete coated with EFIS.

So I guess the option is the code again.

Well we would think that's the first advantage.

It covers everything that's supposed to be covered.

Right.

Versus screening.

Right.

There are several different ways to screen HVAC units.

So like at Creek.

Right.

And it did to me, we just penalized the guy over on the C button off the time.

Uh because we say that's what you said you would do.

And I appreciate this.

I think that I understand you're not a channel, which is from our plan.

But I just wanted to know the working from Smith if I'll come to that.

You did not deliver what you chose.

Yeah, I think his I think he was calculating based on the sight lines from the street, and I don't know how he should be.

I'm sorry, yeah, I think he can calculated it you know with the sight lines from the street, and somehow his calculations were I I'm assuming I'm not sure.

It is hard to calculate the the with the site distance from the area topography around a building.

That's why we are we're usually safer than sorry.

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

And yes, I agree.

A pa taller parapet is nicer than an HVAC screen, especially when they're individual.

You can group them all together, and some and architects will and engineers will usually group rooftop units together in kind of a field and then screen the entire thing.

So there's several different ways to do it.

But it is it is a coordination effort between the architect and the engineers at the very beginning of the project.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, thanks for saying that.

And I will also point out this is on you mentioned that this was like not by residential and it's an industrial area.

This is right at the exit of exit twelve right at exit twelve.

Going on to Highway 71.

That's a huge exit intersection.

I mean, this is a ton I I drive that every single day, and it is backed up every day.

Right.

I mean.

Yeah, I think from that side, I don't think that you can see it, but yeah, it's that secondary street that we're taking the you know, the frontage pictures from from River Valley Drive, um, which doesn't have as much traffic, but yeah, I agree.

Those are those are obviously heavy corridors through there.

Yeah.

Sure.

You have a company.

So here's our something you could not do before.

Sure.

I should think it's not a person.

Sure.

I do think based on what you're recommending, if uh we looked at each individual unit, whether it's HVAC or what's something that's just shown visibly.

Right.

And we tried to do an enforcement that you could paint this one, you could do this.

It'd be somewhat difficult to accomplish that with this group.

Right, right.

So I'm kind of leaning towards Mr.

Coleman.

Sure, sure.

That's I think at this at this point too in the project.

To your point with the design, you know, that's all addressed on the design side.

We would be looking at screening for the individual units, not extending the parapet wall at this point because the roof structure is already there, and you know, so yeah, that and that's allowed per code, I I think per your for your zoning code.

You can do okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, in lieu of painting, right?

Right.

Okay.

So how many individual just HVAC nerve?

I don't even know what we'd call it, but how many receptacles are shown here that would have to be screened.

That's uh there's a sign back there.

I'm not sure what that sign is that's on the yeah, I don't know what that is.

Yeah, that's not that's not on the roof.

So you can see you can see barely see that one, and then we have this the secondary unit on that front roof, and then we have I think two exhaust vents.

So I think there are four four or five, five or six.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks so much.

All right, very good comments both sides.

Uh as for a motion on the on this variance number eight.

Motion to approve of the addition to staff comments.

Second.

All right.

There are no other comments or questions.

I'll ask for a vote on item eight.

Zach Ladford.

David Tyler?

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

All right now are we if we vote for four, will we voting to allow the variance?

Correct.

Right.

I'm going to vote against Brett Taylor.

Against.

Kelly Wilson against.

Rod Coleman?

Matt Marshall?

Vicki Newton.

Yes.

Griffin Hannah.

Against seven opposed.

One in favor and one abstention.

Commissioner Ludford.

All right.

Um we'll then now move on to uh companion items, a variance and development plan on South X Street, Nassau City to present.

Uh yes, this is uh has two items.

Uh the variance development plan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh at the beginning of the meeting, you may have noticed I put a a large email at all of your place settings that came in earlier this morning that was not in your packet.

Um the first item variance 2126 is a request by Brett Abbott agent for Royal Ridge Holdings LLC for variance requests and uh RM3 zone at 5416 South X Street from the following from 10 feet to 4 feet minimum width of perimeter landscaping buffer and from UDO section 2760 to 4D 5G, the required wall plane projections and or recesses at 5416 South X Street.

Approval of the variance request and companion development plan will facilitate the construction of a new 12 unit multifamily development apartments with a reduced perimeter landscaping width and reduced wall planes and projections.

Uh the landscaping with uh the con the plan there is on your screen.

The majority of the landscaping there on South X Street will go from 10 foot to six foot, but the portion right there that you can see by the dumpster, mailboxes and enclosure will go from 10 to 4 foot.

A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, December 18th at 6 30 p.m.

in the Fort Smith Main Library.

No neighboring property owners attended the meeting.

However, the applicant was contacted by two property owners uh that seem to be in support of the meeting, as is one of those property owners I do believe uh to be is this email that uh uh with following information now as an opposition, I do believe they're here today to uh have some additional comments later.

Um the applicant again is requesting the ten foot to six foot and the ten foot to four foot uh along that brick dumpster screening to construct an almost 15,000 square foot 12 unit multifamily development.

Additionally, the applicant is requesting a reduction reduction of the required wall plane uh projections and recesses, and I want to make sure this is clear because I misstated it during the uh study session.

It will be from six feet to one point five feet at the rear of the building and also of the nine-unit building there, and then also from six feet to five feet uh on the front facades on there.

So the rear and front facades will be both variances, and I want to make sure to get that on record.

Should the BZA be inclined to approve this uh the request, staff does recommend the following conditions.

Construction must comply with submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those described section 27 through 307 of the UDO and anything greater will require plan commission approval.

The required landscaping must be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system.

All signage must be uh must obtain a separate sign permit before installation.

The property must be applied into one lot prior to a building permit being issued, and a temporary revocable license must be obtained for that dumpster enclosure and landscaping.

Move on to development plan 1126.

Uh, again, a request by Brett Abbott, agent for Rural Ridge Holdings uh LLC for this multifamily development uh at the 5416 South X Street.

Again, this will approve for a 12-unit apartment complex at the subject site.

As you can see on the plan there, it will have two new driveways located on South X Street.

I already described the landscaping and the variance requested.

Uh the development does comply with screening requirements for parking lot screening utilizing landscaping, and they are proposing a uh six-foot wall fence or a six-foot wood fence on the eastern property adjacent to the single family.

It currently complies with the UDO parking requirements of two spaces per dwelling unit.

Um the architectural exterior facades will be composed of 100% high quality materials.

Again, I explained the variance for the recesses and projections uh previously.

The apartment complex will be a little bit over 30 foot in height.

Um let's see.

Should the planning commission be inclined to approve, staff does recommend the following of the development plan.

Again, construction must comply with the submit development plan.

Changes or amendments to this plan uh are permitted but limited to Section 27307 of the UDO and must receive Planning Commission approval.

The required landscaping must be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system.

The signage must receive uh and obtain separate sign permits prior to installation.

The site must be plied into one lot, and a temporary revocable license must be obtained for the landscaping and dumpster screening.

If you have further questions, I can stand answer.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Miller.

Um those here in favor of the application, they have the applicant and opposition.

Uh we have Ms.

Mr.

Rogers.

Just take your name and record or address, please, for the record.

Uh thank you very much.

So my name is Donna Rogers, and uh my address is in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Um but I am the owner of this facility here that's on your screen, 2603 South Waltron.

Um my husband and I um own this complex and the proposed um development wraps around this particular complex.

And so I wanted to let you know a little bit about my history.

We um we did not build this complex, it was built in 1974.

Um we purchased it in 1992, some more than 30 years ago.

And we've actually been property owners here in Fort Smith even longer than that, beginning about 40 years ago.

We also um helped develop another set of apartments that are uh one block east and one block um south on South 56th.

Uh quite a few years ago, and we are still landlords uh at that particular location.

And so that's been quite a successful um development for us, and we're quite familiar with the neighborhood, and we're uh quite invested in making sure that the neighborhood retains its uh integrity.

So uh first and foremost, I want to uh request either the planning commission outright disapprove this uh proposal the way it is written or uh alternatively table it for 30 days, uh and that's in accordance with the notification section.

Not having to do with the notification for this evening because that was quite timely.

I was able to be here, even though I live in Shreveport, Louisiana.

So when I have to come to visit, which is quite frequent, and I am happy to make this trip.

It does take five hours, and so being able to plan in advance is is uh it's essential for it to be feasible.

And the difficulty that we had is with the the neighborhood meeting.

The neighborhood meeting was held on the 18th of December.

The notification that was mailed to us was postmarked on the 13th, we received it on the 15th, late in the evening.

We uh attempted to contact the uh the builder on the 16th, we received a call back on the 17th, and that was a very short conversation.

We did learn a tiny bit about the development.

We were um not made aware, but we were made aware of one of the variances but not the other.

Um we got some um incorrect information regarding the fencing.

I'm not sure whether that was just confusion, but we really did not have a concept until we received the notification from the planning commission, and we saw the drawings and recognized um the extent of this particular proposed uh development.

And so um, and and for particulars, they're required to give us seven days notice.

Um with the postmark, we could at very, very, very best could have gotten five, and in fact, we only got three.

And so at the very least, we would like to have this postpone, giving us an opportunity to have a neighborhood meeting that actually allows individuals to attend.

And I will note that I came into town just a few hours early, went to the neighborhood, knocked on a few doors, and in fact, one of the people that I met came here tonight to uh to learn a little bit more about the process, and every individual that I spoke with had a similar opinion to mine, which I will get to.

So even though I am asking for this to be disapproved, it is not because we are opposed development.

Um we are very much support new residential development in general.

Obviously, we've done the same ourselves, and um we do definitely support development on X Street in particular.

It's a very nice lot.

It's flat, conveniently located, it's adjacent to an elementary school.

Um it's an ideal location to put a set of townhouses.

Um the proposed development is not sized for this particular space.

This space is 0.82 acres.

I'll note just by happenstance, one of the early ones you discussed tonight was eight acres.

There are 34 lots being put on those eight acres.

This is a tenth of the size, and there are 12 units being placed.

And certainly it is a different type of development, but the way they have sized these, and the hardship that is stated in the variance is that they need to be able to have the depth for the for the driveway, and then for the interior to have a uh a functional living space.

Well, of course, I'm sure everyone can recognize that the reason why they have difficulty making it a functional living space is not because they need 36 and 38 feet deep, it's because they have only sized them 22 feet wide.

And the reason they are sizing them 22 feet wide is to cram as many of them as possible into the space that is there.

And our perspective is that is simply the wrong approach for this neighborhood.

It is a wonderful place to put in townhouses or an apartment complex.

It simply shouldn't exceed the footprint that's available at this particular location.

So anyway, so my perspective is that it should be redesigned with either smaller units or fewer units or a combination of those two.

And I also am concerned about the wall plane variants.

Even though it is on the side of the property, the property that we own, um, it's basically a parking lot for a large section.

So and it is quite a busy intersection.

There's a school there, it's close to Rogers Avenue, there's a lot of traffic.

It will be seen by hundreds and hundreds of people every single day, and it will look like a billboard.

As you come down Waldron towards Rogers Avenue, what you will see is the back of a building that is unattractive.

And although the discussion about the landscaping has to do with the appearance of the landscaping itself, in fact, what it does is create um just a bigger footprint.

And instead of having a nice uh open space for the neighborhood, it basically makes it just very uh rudimentary and large footprint for the space.

So I'm sorry I'm getting a little incoherent here.

Um I I did have one a couple other little comments to make that don't have to do specifically with the variants.

Um but we do have concerns that are related to the impact that are on our tenants and our property.

We of course recognize that the construction would be disruptive to our tenants.

Some of those individuals have been there for more than 30 years.

They're elderly, and this is the very um uh busy area, and we want to make sure that any construction is uh well managed to uh minimize the disruption in their lives.

Um as far as the quality of life, it will also be degraded significantly.

Uh the people that live on one side, their new view will be the back of these apartments.

And so with that billboard effect, it's um it would be quite unattractive, and we would definitely prefer for that setback, or not that it's not called a setback, but it's the uh the wall plane, so that some of the yards would be actually a little bit larger than they are uh currently designed.

Um and the other concern is when we spoke with them on the phone, um we were informed that there would be uh a fence between their property and our property.

Well, it is not required, and it does not show up on the site plan.

And so our concern is that with our parking lot adjacent to those back lots, there would be a lot of um incursion between the two, and that a fence is quite necessary.

If they're not required to put one up, we would find ourselves in the position of having to put one up for a variety of reasons.

We could see easily that any visitors, because even though there is two spark parking spaces, one of them is a garage space, oftentimes those get filled up.

These places have three bedrooms.

We expect the vast majority of these units would have two cars.

Anytime a visitor comes, they would need additional parking.

We can imagine them easily wanting to use our lot, go across our lot, into the back doors.

We can see children wanting to extend their play area into that parking lot.

We see it as a safety concern, and we would definitely, if it's not required, um we would hope that they would put one in anyway, um, but if they do not, that we would feel like that we would have to incur that expense ourselves.

Um that comprises my primary comments.

I want to say that uh we do endeavor to be good landlords, provide our tenants with a comfortable and safe environment, and we are hoping that um the developers who will be our new neighbors have similar values and develop a residential complex that is in keeping with the neighborhood, and that can be a source of pride in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Rogers.

The applicant want to respond here.

Thanks.

Good evening, Brett Abbott, Blue Rock Design Build.

I'm the owner's agent.

Uh I just want to address some of the comments that Mrs.

Rogers made.

Um, first of all, um, you know, in response to what this project looks like, you know, obviously her opinion, but the back of these units are it er the materials on this project is 100% high quality material, as you all know.

So you know, we are meeting that.

Um whether you think that looks bad or not, that's your opinion, but we are meeting what's required by the code.

Um we are doing, I think 65% masonry on the project and Hardy Board or some sort of a Masonite sighting above that.

So again, we're meeting that.

Um she had mentioned if you'll go back to the site plan, I think, just showing her building and our building together, as you're heading north on Waldron, you're only really going to see about three or four of these units before you know it it takes over and it's blocked by the other building.

So not really sure that comment is relevant.

Um the fencing that's required.

I'm sure the developers uh are would be amenable to put up additional fencing if if she requests that, but um, you know, again, RM3 zoning adjacent to RM3 zoning, no fencing is required, so that's why we we didn't show it on the site plan.

We do show fencing along the East property line which is adjacent to single family residential and that's the fence that I mentioned to her over the phone that that we will be we we will be adding so that is there.

And just to kind of I don't really feel like we're comparing apples to apples with that project versus ours either.

We're townhouses that's an apartment complex it's a parking lot we have garages and driveways it's very much more of a residential feel to the project and and again this project is allowed by zoning we're just asking for the variances because of the the depth of the property to uh again you know get the density up a little bit as she mentioned I do have some um some statistics here that uh my owners graciously printed off for me this afternoon so just want to compare a little bit here so you know we're sitting right under an acre about 0.83 on this property um the property in question with Mrs.

Rogers is 0.0 sorry 0.37 acres she has 12 units there we have 12 units uh our property is almost double in size uh what that property has with the same amount of units and with the addition of the garages as I mentioned um you're talking about uh 14 and a half units per acre on our proper our property uh density on uh Mrs.

Rogers property is 32.48 uh units per acre so again almost uh double and a half the density um and our units are bigger uh we're 1200 square feet hers are 700 so um we feel like this is a very good project and a very good property for the neighborhood um the fact that folks can live in this in this uh development and have their kids walk across the street to Bonneville walk to the mall I mean it's it's it's a very good use we believe um for this property so um I think I've addressed everything that uh was brought up let me just make sure here oh and also uh I do want to mention that um you know in in talking about the parking that's required for this project we are three bedroom but the parking that is required is uh one and a half spaces per bedroom which we do meet um with the addition of the garage and the driveway so um you know the if if you go back to the site plan there uh for a second Tyler one of the requirements for this type of project again is that we we're not able to back out directly onto the street so you know again that's part of what is cutting down um the buildable area right because we're building a 24 foot wide um basically driveway within our property so that people will not park in the street uh which is nobody wants that um so if there are guests they're gonna park in the driveway um they're not gonna park in the street so um and then again just I want to I want to talk about landscaping for a second as well um we're required to put the landscaping on waldron which again it does meet the UDO the section along South X that does not meet the UDO that we're asking for a variance for we are going to put in the required amount of trees and shrubs it's just that the actual depth of that barrier or not barrier but uh buffer uh goes from 10 to 6 so um again we are we are meeting the code as far as what's required to go into that buffer it's just going to be a little uh less deep because of the uh required depth on our driveways that's required so um any questions for me all right all right thanks Mr.

Abbott thank you um call for a um a motion for the variance to get it on the floor all right any comments questions from the commissioners on the variance item or the mountment plan what what was issue with going to notice do we oh the required notice well um we're required to give seven days can you come up to that microphone please thanks um our understanding is that the applicant is required to give a property owner seven days notice the meeting was held on the 18th in other words we should have been uh notified by the 11th the uh the notice was actually postmarked on the 13th and we received it on the 15th with only three days notice and we did actually come into town that day for uh additional reasons and unfortunately um due to a variety of reasons we weren't able to get into town in time to go to this meeting which is why we talked to them on the phone instead um but like I said we didn't we were unable to get a a complete understanding or even a much of an understanding at all of the scope of the project and um we would appreciate the opportunity to have had um an actual meeting where people were able not just myself I'm not sure what other people I assume everybody had their notices sent at the same time um and so nobody would have been given seven days notice and

But like I said, we didn't we were unable to get a complete understanding or even much of an understanding at all of the scope of the project.

And we would appreciate the opportunity to have had an actual meeting where people were able, not just myself, I'm not sure what other people, I assume everybody had their notices sent at the same time.

And so nobody would have been given seven days notice.

And as a result, nobody showed up for the meeting.

Does it does the city do we if the required notice is not given uh by proven postmarks?

Do does the city normally proceed or so there's a few different notices, and I don't want to get those mixed up first is the notice that the city does do, and we do that far more for this actual meeting.

We put it in the newspaper signs for this meeting.

We do that a couple weeks in advance.

Um and that's required in the code for our public notice.

However, uh the applicant, and as some of you have been applicants before, is also required to hold a neighborhood meeting, and that neighborhood meeting letter must be mailed seven days prior to the actual neighborhood uh meeting, so that way they can discuss those items uh with uh potential neighbors.

Seven days.

Postmarked seven days before we mailed, but that's approved.

Yeah.

The the code does not say it must be postmarked, it says it must be mailed.

Is that correct, Maggie?

Did you do you have that there?

No.

Sorry, it says shall be provided.

So notice shall be provided seven days prior to the meeting.

We've had people that have physically dropped them off to the surrounding property owners.

It's just that it shall be provided seven days prior to the money.

Yeah, so I I mean I can't speak to when her n her she received hers or whatever, but I mailed the letters out on the 10th.

And I typically, if you as you guys know, I typically hold my neighborhood meetings on on the 28th of the month because it just works that way we have plenty of time for you guys to review and we we get the applicants there uh attendance to the meetings.

Um obviously we had Christmas and New Year's this year, so I kicked it up a little early.

Um but letters went out on the 10th.

Linet uh meeting was on the 18th, so uh again I can't speak to her postmark date, but that's that's what went down.

So we didn't see the postline.

I haven't looked at my calendar to see what day the 10th is or what day the 13th is, but I have evidence that shows that the postmark was on the 13th, and so I can understand if maybe he put it in an outbox somewhere, but um it did not get postmarked until the thirteenth.

And that that is less than the seven days notice required.

And even if he had put it in there on the 10th, it seems very likely that the notice wouldn't be received within the seven days either.

So we'll notice I will say that the notice for this was sent out ten days in advance, and we received it uh it was at our home on the eighth for this meeting here today, and we do appreciate the loss of that.

Yes, that's correct.

Two days.

It was mailed on the thirteenth, we received it on the 15th.

Typically it takes three.

This time it took two.

Is it anything we say about the other one?

No.

I guess your management company one is Marshall.

Marshall's meeting?

Is your management company Marshall's management?

Um Marshall's management.

They are not the owners, and I am not associated with them other than the fact that we employ them to manage our apartments.

No, we do not.

So would you say marchers added often?

Um I would say they are out there very often.

They their office is only a block away.

So did they have a contact you said they're signed up on the block and you something maybe happened?

Um in advance of the neighborhood meeting?

Three weeks?

Well, that the earlier meeting was in December, and we were aware before the meeting that it was happening, but because the notice was so short, we were unable to rearrange our schedules in order to be able to make it to that meeting.

And so that's that's been weeks and weeks ago.

Yes.

Signs go up 15 days prior to the public hearing.

So probably they went up between the week of Christmas and New Year's.

Right.

And that meeting was held the week before Christmas, or that the neighborhood meeting was held the weekend.

Which is fine.

Completely allowable within code.

Any other comments or questions?

I mean I'm trying to grasp all this.

I you know I understand regarding constructive notice and things like that.

I would still say the code says seven days notice, code said seven days notice.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around that, whether that was actually provided or not.

And I know there might be an on-site manager, that sort of thing, but I still feel there's an obligation to follow what the code says.

And I know it may be technicality, we may be just uh kicking this down the the road here for it was perhaps not as you know I I just wanted to give the Ms.

Rogers an opportunity in maybe the neighbors knew or you know they uh I can do but Ms.

Rogers had a right and opportunity to you know garner support or or you know talk to neighbors and I just wonder if she was provided that.

That's what I'm really trying to grasp on this at this point.

And I'm not sure if she was given what I hearing this seven days notice.

I mean, would anybody help me here?

Yeah, we looked at the 18th, it should have been if it needed to be seven days, you would have had to have the meeting on the 20th since the it has been seven days since the only remedy or concern would be if anyone showed up for the meeting.

And if anyone can show up to a new name of the meeting.

I don't think there was any concern at the first name of the meeting, right?

Absolutely not.

It seems like everybody has now at this point gotten the notice.

By the vote.

I feel like she hasn't wrapped that as well.

Whether she needs to be another meeting.

I just I just want to make a we know what we need to done about the bill.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

I just want to make a quick comment too.

She's got a management company that lives a block away.

Could you not send them in as your proxy to the meeting?

You live in out of state, uh just as a suggestion.

Well, my concern um isn't uh entirely obviously with the notice.

My concern is um really the scope of the project.

And I from the few discussions I had with neighbors today, um they have similar views to as I do, that this is um a good thing to do to develop this property.

But um the ordinances that are in place here in Fort Smith provide for uh a good measure of the density that ought to be allowed.

And he did talk about the density of my property versus his property, and of course, pointing out that they are apples and oranges since uh the units that we have are quite small in comparison.

Um I want to be clear that because thus came up a couple of times.

The density of this project is not in question, it does comply.

Exactly.

Well what we're looking at here today is a bit of landscape on South X Street, which they are providing what is required in a space that makes it a little more dense as well as just excuse me, ma'am.

As well as um another variance regarding the back wall.

Now, they could have come in here and said, nah, we're just gonna make it flat all the way across there.

They have not.

They have gone and pushed in and out and in and out.

We've also gone through here and done a hundred percent high quality materials, which I applaud.

Uh I'd like to see more of that in town.

Um my two cents is that this fits it makes sense.

It's a dense part of town.

It's becoming more dense.

I think this is a good looking development, and it fits the site.

I was gonna bring up next.

Are there any other comments or questions regarding the actual variances?

Yes, ma'am.

Um I'm not concerned actually about the number of units or the number of um.

I'm not concerned actually about the number of units or the number of it's that they are trying to both maximize number of units and the size at the same time that forces a hardship that's based on, well, we can't make the uh these units functional unless we exceed the depth.

But the reason for that is because they have made them so narrow.

It is very possible to utilize that space with wider and not as deep.

That would make the um the variance uh unnecessary.

And so that's our argument um as to the scope of the project itself.

And I feel like we weren't given the opportunity to um get a full understanding.

The only time we finally got um really complete information is um after we got the notice from the planning commission and we received um a link that showed the documents that you are showing here tonight, and that was a very, very short time ago, just like uh within this past week.

And if um we had an opportunity to share that with some neighbors.

And one of their primary concerns is um uh some of the same concerns we have, even though they of course they do meet the parking requirements, but they are that is some of the concerns that the neighbors have expressed is the parking, the congestion that's a very busy uh intersection with the uh with that elementary school there.

So very good.

Any other comments or questions?

I have some questions.

Um I'd like to hear your opinion too from building their apartments, but um do the awnings that there's so there's awnings on the back of the building, right?

Do those not count for the variation in the wall structure?

And I I mean I think that they should.

No, they do not.

Could we possibly make the awnings bigger to have them count?

And or could we put a screen in between the different units on the back side, like a fence or a vertical screen that would provide some design variation to the back side of the building?

I mean fence is possible.

So short answer is yes and yes, I think.

But uh the buildings are directly up on the rear 10-foot setback, I believe.

So that's that's why we've uh chosen for a sort of an attached canopy on the rear uh without columns because it then it becomes part of the part of the structure that that's within that setback.

So that that is the reason for that.

We we have we we have obviously we've done a little three foot deep um you know, piece of canopy there.

So I did not know that that was not uh included in the in the the bump out requirement.

Yes, um, so what's on the screen now, it actually says wall planes uh or recesses.

So the actual whole entire wall plane has to either go in or project out, and that's once you cross the threshold of a length of 65 foot, then it's three percent, and it could go either way of 20 percent of the building.

Right.

I'm just trying to work with them and figure out different ways to make the back of the build building facade a little bit more interesting.

Um, if the so you can have an awning that goes over the setback.

Sorry about my case to turn on.

You can it can encroach three foot into the setback if two things happen.

One, there cannot be an easement there, and two, the building official has to approve it because you know the it can start running into the fire, depending on the setback.

Some setbacks are five foot.

Uh they start looking at that fire rating.

Would you guys agree to make the awnings a little bit wider?

Uh thousand percent.

Yes, ma'am.

And then also if we could add uh a screen or a fence in between the different units.

I think that would really dress it up.

So that can go on a setback.

That's right.

We we didn't show any separation between the units, but I'm I'm assuming that we would probably have a six-foot you know wood privacy fence between to create a little small yard for a dog or you know that type of thing.

But we did not show those on uh you know on the development because again it it doesn't count against the setback.

I think we would we would love to do a masonry type, you know, as so it matches the building, but then it's it's in the setback.

small yard for a dog or you know that type of thing but we did not show those on uh you know on the development because again it it doesn't count against uh the setback discuss the fence instead of the cosmetically operation on like a little six foot and it's on our issue I think we would we would love to do a masonry type you know as so it matches the building but then it's it's in the setback essentially provide the architectural use of it as well as the and then I know we have his word that he said you know he's gonna provide the amount of landscaping on the property is just not well I guess so yeah we we provided a landscape plan that shows it's a lot of yeah it yes it the quantities of shrubs and trees that are required and the sizes all of that will still have to comply with the the code based off the linear footage of the property.

Okay and I I guess the the city doesn't budge on that 20 foot driveway I mean they could make the driveway shorter and accommodate both of these requests but so the the requirement is 20 foot minimum driveway and when we initially designed this with this with this unit type the driveways were 16 and so Tyler and and the guys in planning they caught that and we that's why we we we that's why we're here for the four foot variants.

Five fire access available I'm sorry we're talking about the actual wide aisle exactly then we're then we then we wouldn't need the I was in the word not that not the not the big driveway each individual yeah okay thank you requires fully single yes he I mean the the private drives could be narrower not less than twenty feet but they'd have to be signed one way did you guys c contemplate that doing a one-way drive state yes Bret out yeah so I I think again the answer is yes but I lost my visual there um there's and Tyler can help me on this but there's a requirement for that driveway alongs the the first one along South X to be so far off of the corner of Waldron.

So if we did one way I think those that unit one and unit two might I see that get a little funky with the one way so um got a motion on the variance number item number nine I would like to I mean there's no David made the motion um would you be willing to amend it with the suggestions that I made larger uh modules I would say wider awnings and also a screen in between the the units.

And then first to have it in between the units.

Right.

So make a motion to approve with the amendments of widening the awnings on the rear facades and providing a fence screen in between the units.

Sorry so this is on record in between right here on the south border and west border uh in between the existing apartment complexes.

I I thought she meant in between the individual townhouses.

In between the individual units on the rear facade.

It would go perpendicular to the perpendicular to the back facade.

And include staff comments.

Yes and including staff comments do you want to say that that awning needs to be the width of the patio yes we're trying to do too vague just saying the thing so the back awning will be the width of the back patio on the rear facade of shown on the 3D views.

So that's not five by five it looks to be five three feet deep and then five feet wide three by five three feet deep by five feet wide awning.

Okay.

We have a second.

A second.

I'm sorry.

We are in vote.

Sorry.

Well, I think we're gonna go ahead with the vote at this point.

Okay.

So we have a motion and a second.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

David Tyler.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Matt Marshall.

Oh, I'm sorry.

He's absent.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hanna.

Four.

Zach Ludford?

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

Okay.

Uh now recess board is only adjustment.

Convene the planning commission to consider item 10, the development plan.

I ask for a motion on the development plan.

Motion to approve with the addition of staff commons.

Any additional comments or questions from the commissioners.

No, I think we all right.

Uh we'll vote.

I ask for a vote on item 10, the development plan.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Zach Ledford?

David Tyler?

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

We'll move to item number eleven, the conditional use.

Thank you.

North fifty.

Okay.

Conditional use 1126, a request by Brett Abbott, agent for River Valley Church of Christ for Planning Commission consideration of a conditional use request to develop a church activity center and parking lot in the residential multifamily medium density RM3 zone at 1923 North 50th Street.

Approval of the conditional use facilitates the uh construction of a 2400 square foot church activity center and new parking lot with landscaping.

Some of the site features include a new driveway proposed on Skywood Drive.

There's landscaping along North 50th and Skywood Drive, which uh includes both the perimeter and parking lot screening landscaping.

Uh there is a uh six-foot opaque privacy fence on the uh west property line uh adjacent to the uh uh single family.

Uh the parking lot, uh there's an existing parking lot with 18 parking spots.

There's a new parking uh spot uh space with uh 12 new spaces uh that will include that will be a total of 30 spaces, which does comply with the UDO.

Uh there was a neighborhood meeting that was held on December 18th at the main branch of the Fort Smith Library at uh 3201 Rogers Avenue.

Uh no neighboring property owners were in attendance.

Uh the ex uh for staff comment the existing church campus intends to install the uh the new 2400 square foot building with a kitchen and a dining center to facilitate uh church activities.

Uh staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Uh construction must comply with a submitted development plan, changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those described in sections 27307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than that uh described in that section will uh require Plan Commission approval.

Uh the other uh condition is a uh sidewalk must be installed along Skywood Drive.

That concludes my report.

All right.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Kalen.

Um applicant is here, I believe.

Any other uh comments from the community?

Or against I'll not I'll ask for a uh motion on the conditional use item number eleven.

Right.

I'll ask any other comments.

Not I'll ask you.

Hey, just out of curiosity.

So by approving this is the property owner still pay property tax because it's a conditional use in an RM3 they're gonna be tax exempt because they're a church.

Even though it's still a zone RM3.

There is no zoning for a church, right?

Well, church is true.

They will always require a conditional use for the in all zoning districts.

Okay.

Schools as well.

Okay.

Which is crazy.

Why wouldn't you want a church or a school in your zone?

Right.

It could be a church.

No more discussion.

Still.

Okay.

All right.

Um motion and a second, I believe.

As for a vote then on the conditional use.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Kelly Wilson?

Four.

Rod Coleman?

Matt Marsh, sorry guys.

Vicky Newton?

Four.

Griffin Hannah Four.

Zach Ledford.

David Tyler.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Eight in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

And with that, we'll adjourn the meeting.

See you next month.