Regular meeting, monthly meeting.

I'd ask everybody to read this, why would you not say that the requirements are the uh I'd ask for a roll call for tonight's uh meeting, please?

Rhett Taylor here, Vicky Newton here, Zach Ludford, Rod Coleman, Kelly Wilson here, Griffin Hannah here, David Tyler, Jackson Mendenhall here, Sean McCaffrey.

Here.

We have nine commissioners present.

All right.

Uh with that, there are certain uh well, first of all, we're going I'd ask commission they've had an opportunity to review the uh May twelfth, twenty twenty-six meetings from the last meeting.

And uh if there's any corrections or additions, if not, I'll ask for a motion to approve those minutes.

Motion to approve, second.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

All right, right.

There are certain uh staff uh procedures tonight, which uh Maggie will explain.

So take it away, Maggie.

Good evening.

Sorry, we're having technical difficulties.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the June ninth, twenty twenty-six 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.

Plats, rezonings, master land use plan amendments, conditional use request, development plan requests, and a home occupation.

The planning commission's actions this evening on the plats, conditional use request, development plans, and home occupation will require a majority vote of those members present and voting and will be final unless an interested party appeals the decision of the planning commission to the City Board of Directors.

Yes, votes will also be presented to the City Board of Directors for their review at on at their July seventh, twenty twenty-six meeting at six PM.

Appeals will be presented to the city board of directors for their review at a future study session here located at the Blue Lion, which is at 101 North Second Street.

There are uh four items that are really not in dispute.

Um Tyler, do you do we read these into the record anyway?

And so yes, you will just uh okay, yeah.

Okay, yes, there's a uh final plat, uh high point at Kelly Ridge, a home occupation license 8604 South Ridge Drive, a conditional use on 2201 and 2203 North 58 and a development plan at 8716 Rogers Avenue.

If there's uh any comments or questions from those in the audience tonight, we'd be certainly glad to entertain any comments on these consent agenda items.

If there are none, um I'd ask for a roll call vote on item one.

I make a motion to approve with staff comments.

Thank you.

Uh now I'll ask for a roll call vote.

Thanks.

Sean McAffrey.

Four.

Rett Taylor.

Four.

Vicky Newton, four.

David Tyler, Zach Ledford, Kelly Wilson, Rod Coleman, Van Hannah.

Four.

Jackson Amendon.

Abstain.

Eight in favor, one abstention.

Commissioner Minon.

All right.

Uh we'll move forward then to the master land use plan amendment and a rezoning at 705 Xavier Street as staff to present.

I would I'd like to ask all the planning commissioners, will you hit the button and make sure it turns green and your mic's working?

Mike checked.

Mike check one too.

That's been testing.

So I just need to pull it forward.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Y'all go ahead.

I don't think I need to.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Master Land uh master land use plan amendment uh 4626, a request by Dana Rosa, agent for Dungvoe for a master land use plan amendment from residential detached to residential attached and a proposed residential multi-family medium density RM3 zone at 705 Xavier Street.

Uh the application for an amendment to the master land use plan from residential detached to residential attached will accommodate a proposed residential multifamily medium density RM3 zoning request.

The property is currently zoned industrial uh I-1, a companion zoning application requests a residential multifamily medium density RM3 zoning district to accommodate uh plating the property into two lots facilitating construction of a deplex on each lot.

Uh the master land use plan is a guide to zoning the development and must be considered with a companion application.

Uh the subject property is on the north side of Xavier Street west of Wheeler Avenue.

Uh, the track contains an area of 0.68 acres with approximately 150 feet of street frontage along Xavier Street.

Uh a neighborhood meeting for both the uh master land use plan amendment and the rezoning was held on October, I mean on uh June 1st uh at 5 30 p.m.

Uh one neighboring property owner was in attendance uh with no concerns.

Uh for staff comments, the applicant is requesting a master land use plan amendment to facilitate a rezoning request from RM3.

Uh approval of the master land use plan amendment and rezoning will uh allow the owner uh to plat the property into two individual lots for the construction of uh one duplex on each lot.

Uh the residential attached classification uh classification is appropriate master land use classification for the requested RM3 zone.

Uh stack staff recommends approval.

Uh moving on to the rezoning.

Uh the rezoning of 6626, a request by Dana Rosa, agent for uh Dungvo for a uh rezoning from industrial light I-1 to uh residential multimedia density RM3 zone at 705 Xavier.

Uh approval of the rezoning and companion master land use plan amendment facilitates the plating of the property into two individual lots for the construction of a duplex on each lot.

Uh staff comments the rezoning request is considered an extension of the existing RM3 zoning of the properties located on uh to the south and to the west.

Uh staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

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

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

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

Uh and all construction must comply with a minimum sound transmission class rating regulations for structure structures components as listed within the MCAOD table listed in ordinance 5624.

Any questions?

All right, thank you very much.

Are there any comments or questions from anyone out in the audience tonight?

If not, I'm gonna ask for a motion to get the first of these two items on the floor, the master land use plan amendment.

Motion to approve the additional staff comments, any additional comments from the commissioners, right?

If not, I'll ask for a roll call vote on the item number two on our agenda of the master land yes use plan amendment.

Jackson Mendenhall, Sean McCaffrey, Brett Taylor, Vicky Newton, David Tyler, Zach Ludford, Kelly Wilson, for Rod Coleman, Griffin Hannah, four nine in favor, zero opposed, right?

Uh move to the rezoning, as for a motion to get the rezoning item, that on any additional comments.

Griffin Hannah?

Four Jackson Mendenhall Sean McCaffrey.

Rhett Taylor, Vicki Newton, David Tyler, Zach Ludford, Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman, nine in favor, zero opposed.

Alright, um, I'm gonna recess the planning commission, convene the board of zoning adjustment.

Consider item number four, a variance at um 4300 Johnson Street, Victoria.

Thank you, Chairman.

Variants 13626 is a request by Jose Sanchez owner for the following variances in an RM3 zone from 60 feet to 50 feet, minimum lot width in seven and from 7.5 feet to 1.5 feet, interior side yard setback at 4237 Worsing Avenue, and then from 60 feet to 50 feet, minimum lot width at 4300 Johnson Street.

Approval of the variants will facilitate a lot split and accommodate the construction of a single family dwelling on proposed lot 5A block one uh Broadmoor edition.

The track contains an area of 0.33 acres with 50 feet of street frontage along Worsing Avenue and 50 feet of street front frontage along Johnson Street.

The applicant hardships stated that they will not be able to build a new residence on Johnson Street side of the property without replatting.

A neighborhood meeting was held on June 2nd, 2026 at 5 30 on site, and no neighboring property owners were in attendance.

The applicant intends to replat the subject property into two lots, allowing the single the existing single family residents to remain at 4237 Worsing Avenue and construct a new single family residence at 4300 Johnson.

If the Board of Zoning Adjustment is inclined to approve the request, staff request um it be contingent upon the proposed lot 5A block one Broadmore edition be limited to one single family dwelling unit, and that's all I have.

Alright, thank you very much.

Are there those here in favor of the application tonight?

Anyone opposed?

Alright, I'll ask for a motion to get item four on the floor, please.

Motion approved with the addition of staff comments.

I'll second.

Any additional comments, questions from the commissioners.

Alright.

Um I'll ask for a roll-call vote then on item four.

Rod Coleman, Griffin Hannah?

Four Jackson Mendonhal.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey, four.

Brett Taylor?

Four.

Vicky Newton?

Four.

David Tyler.

Zach Lefford.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Nine in favor.

Zero opposed.

Yes, Taylor.

Taylor.

Alright.

We have several items at 606 South 22nd Street.

The first item is a variance.

That's Tyler to present.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The first item variants 14626.

All four of these requests will be by Anthony Lerares agent for Gilbert properties.

And the variance request is from the required street access of a residential collector or hire to a local road in a proposed transitional zone at 606 South 22nd Street.

Approval of this variance will facilitate rezoning to allow construction of a single story professional office.

The applicant states in the variance hardship that strict enforcement would prevent automobiles from accessing the driveway on South 22nd Street, which would be unusual and would not work due to the fact that virtually everyone visiting this site will drive an automobile.

A neighborhood meeting for all four applications was held on May 28th at 5 30 p.m.

on site.

Five neighboring property owners attend the meeting and did not have any expressed oppositions to the proposal.

The attendance record was in your packet.

Again, approval of this variance and the companion applications will facilitate the construction of the single story professional office building on site to support the expansion of the existing law office located to the west at 605 South 21st Street.

The proposed office will utilize predominantly alleyway parking as you can see on the site plan with additional parking for two cars access from the South 22nd Street side.

Staff does recommend uh approval of the variants subject to the two comments here.

Construction must comply with submit development plan.

Changes or amendments to that development plan are permitted but limited to section 273307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater will require Planning Commission approval.

Approval of the accompanying master land use plan amendment, rezoning and development plan.

As for the master land use plan amendment, this number is 5626.

This request again is by Anthony Larrera's agent for a master land use plan amendment from residential detached to a mixed-use residential for a proposed transitional zone at the subject site.

The applicant is requesting this to facilitate that rezoning request and again ultimately for the construction of the professional office building.

The mixed use residential classification of the master land use plan is appropriate for the zoning district.

The staff recommends approval.

Rezoning request 7626 is a request by Anthony Lorera's agent.

And this rezoning request is from an RM4 or residential multifamily high density to a transitional zone by extension.

Approval will facilitate uh the construction or the development plan approval for the uh 2,698 square foot single story professional office.

Staff does recommend approval contingent upon construction complying with submitted development plan.

Any changes greater than that?

Uh section of 273307 will require planning commission approval.

Now moving on to the development plan.

This is 5626 development plan, and this is for approval of the uh professional office in the transitional zone at 606 south uh 22nd street.

Approval will facilitate as I'd said almost 2700 square foot single story office with six parking spaces.

The proposed office uh will have primarily parking from the alleyway with those two parking spaces located at the front.

The proposed landscaping there as you can see complies with what the UDO requires for that type of commercial development.

The plan does uh propose screening fences on both sides to comply with the screening uh requirements and mechanical screening as you can see there on the plan as well.

The parking space numbers complies with the UDO, the height and uh area again almost 2700 square foot set 2698, and the building height is twenty-five foot, which complies with that zoning district.

Um staff does recommend approval of this development plan subject to construction complying with this development plan.

Any changes rarely in Section 273307 of the UDO will require your planning commission approval, and that's all for reports.

Thank you, Tyler.

Alright, the um I see Mr.

Rares is here for the applicant.

Is anyone opposed to these applications in the audience?

Alright.

Um I'll ask for a motion then for the variance, please.

Second.

Any additional discussion?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Line and Marcus.

Yes, sir.

If you'll come up and state your name and uh address for the record, we're being recorded.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Marcus Woodward.

I live in the house as you see to the left.

It's a family house.

It's been there for over a hundred years.

I missed the initial meeting.

I apologize and I have no objection.

They're wonderful neighbors to them building on that site.

Thank you very much.

Alright, thank you for those comments, sir.

Appreciate you coming tonight.

Thank you very much.

If you're with your permission, may I leave?

Yes, absolutely.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I believe do we have a motion and a second?

Yes.

All right.

All right.

So I'll ask for a vote then on the variance.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

Jackson Mendenhall.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rhett Taylor?

Four.

Vicky Newton Newton?

Four.

David Tyler?

Zach Ledford?

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

I'll uh recess the board of zoning adjustment and convene the planning commission to discuss the remaining three items.

Uh the first one is master land use plan amendment.

Uh no further discussion.

I'll ask for a motion on item six.

Motion to approve the additional staff comments.

Second.

Any other comments?

Alright.

Uh asked for a roll call vote on six.

Zach Ledford.

Four.

Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman?

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Jackson Mendenhall.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rhett Taylor.

Four.

Vicky Newton?

Four.

David Tyler?

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right, that as for a motion on the rezoning.

Motion to approve of the additional staff comments.

Second.

All right.

Any additional comments?

All right.

Alright, I'll ask for a vote on the rezoning.

David Tyler.

Zach Ledford?

Kelly Wilson?

Four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

Jackson Mendonhal.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Right, and the last item is the uh development plan.

Uh for a motion on the development plan.

I make a motion to approve the staff comments.

So no comments as for a roll call vote.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

David Tyler.

Zach Ledford.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

Jackson Menon Hall.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rhett Taylor.

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Alright.

That takes care of all of those items in.

Thank you, Mr.

Rares, for trying to uh accommodate the neighbors and with your design and all that looks good.

Thank you.

Uh we'll move forward then to the rezoning at uh 5300 South Zero Street and 5991 Grand Slan Loop.

Thank you.

Rezoning 8626, a request by Tyler Teague and Isaac Lee, agents for Grand Slam Business Park LLC and INP Commercial Investments LLC for a rezoning from the Plan Zoning District PZD ordinance 2123 to Plan Zoning District PCD at 5300 South Zero and 5991 Grand Slam Loop.

Approval of the PZD facilitates a rezoning of the entire 17.72 acres with two character areas known as character area A and Character Area B.

Character Area A will include the six most northern lots of the southern of the subdivision, allowing heavier commercial land uses, and character area B will be the 10 southernmost uh lots of and will permit uh less intense commercial uh land uses uh the subject property is on the south side of zero street between Remington Circle and Prairie Drive.

Uh the track contains an area, as I said, 17 uh.72 acres with approximately 500 feet of uh frontage along uh South Zero.

A neighborhood property meeting was held on Monday, June the first uh at 5300 South Zero.

Uh one neighboring property owner attended the meeting and had no objections to the project.

For staff comments, the uh ordinance 21-23 rezoning uh the property from industrial moderate I2 to PZD ordinance 2123 uh facilitated mixed commercial industrial developments, including warehouses.

The owners are requesting a new PZD with two character areas known as character area A and character area B, expanding the list of allowable uses.

Uh character area A allows slightly more intense commercial land uses such as auto vehicle dealers, uh liquor stores with drive-throughs, uh consumer rental centers as shown within the land use chart.

Uh staff supports the request and recommends approval.

All right, very good.

Um, believe the applicant is the applicant here this evening.

Yes, all right.

Thank you.

Um anyone here opposed to this application, right?

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

All right, we had a lot of good discussion at the planning commission study session.

Any additional comments from the commissioners?

Uh, I've got one question.

I apologize I missed the study session.

Is there any uh I don't know if character area A is done?

Would that trigger any traffic study or apologize if you guys already talked about all that?

Yeah, um so we visited with our engineering department, and on the original approval, they did have a traffic study and numbers.

Since these lots will develop individually as the building permit moves forward, our engineering staff or the city will uh request you know engineering studies or the traffic studies depending on each developer.

Uh so you know if he has something say, you know, like a restaurant on there, then you know, maybe a warehouse on lot five.

That way they can make sure that traffic still flows good through there.

Right.

Any other comments or questions?

I'm sorry, so did we take out residential from this altogether?

Okay, thank you.

All right, and again appreciate the applicant working with the city and the city working with the applicant as always do a good job.

Um, all right.

Uh we have a motion and second, no other comments.

I'll ask for a vote on item nine.

Brett Taylor, Vicky Newton, David Tyler, Zach Lefford, Kelly Wilson, 4, Rod Coleman, Griffin Hannah, Jackson Men and Hall, Sean McCaffrey.

Four nine in favor, zero opposed.

Alright, very good.

Uh recess the planning commission.

Convene the board of zoning adjustment.

Uh have an item, the variance 1320 Jacobs Avenue.

156.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Uh variants 15, 626, a request by Dana Rosa, agent for land family trust from the following variances in a transitional zone.

Uh, from five feet to 1.5 feet side yard setback at 1320 Jacobs Avenue Unit A, uh, and uh from 50 feet to zero feet minimum street frontage uh and from 50 feet to zero feet minimum lot width at building line at 1320 Jacob Avenue units B and C.

Approval of the variants will facilitate a uh lot split and uh accommodate the construction of a duplex on proposed lot B, uh block G, Brazil, and Jacobs home uh home site acres.

Uh the applicant states that without the variants, the lots cannot be subdivided into two lots uh for the proposed duplex development.

A neighborhood meeting was held on June 3rd at 5 30 p.m.

on site.

Uh six neighboring property owners attended the meeting and did not express opposition to the proposal.

Uh, the attendance record is on file.

Uh for staff comments, the applicant intends to replat the uh subject property into two lots, allowing for the existing single family residents to remain on proposed lot uh 8A and Jacobs Home Site Acres and propose uh to construct a new duplex on proposed lot 8B.

Uh should the Board of Zoning Adjustments approve the request, staff request that is substantiated treason for approval and include the following conditions.

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

Uh changes or amendments to the submitted development plan are permitted but limited to those described in sections 27 through 307 of the UDO.

Any changes greater than those described in this section will require Planning Commission approval.

Uh all construction must comply with a minimum sound transmission class rating and regulations for construction components as listed with the MCAOD table listed in ordinance 56-24.

In accordance with UDO sections 27503-14, shared driveways provided uh provide maintenance uh provisions for the shared driveway proposed as part of the ongoing minor subdivision applications, which will be a separate submittal.

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

Uh said provisions must be provided for recording prior to the recording of the minor subdivision plat, and uh all parking must comply with sections 14-52 of the municipal code, and that is it.

Any questions?

Right, uh anyone opposed to this application in the audience tonight.

All right.

If not, I'll ask for a motion then to get item 10 on the floor.

Motion to approve the addition of that balance.

Second.

Any other comments, questions?

Are there any other lots in this area that have the split, or are they all on that street that go to Ingersoll?

Does that question make sense?

That there is one on the screen right here, it has 5A, 5B, 5, uh C and D there.

A lot of these are lots that have the multiple structures, but there's still one lot.

None of the lots, if you're asking, have access to Ingersoll, though.

Not one of the lots do.

And just to confirm, there's a permanent access easement on 8B, right?

That is correct.

Right here on the screen that will be required for them, and it has to be 20 foot wide uh per the fire marshal.

Okay.

So are they proposing to keep that house that's there?

Yes.

That's the one and uh 1.6 set back there on the carport side.

Yeah, okay.

I noticed when I drove by there, there's a ramp and there's stairs that come out that side of the house.

Sure.

Now, how is that that's an awful narrow that that's that's on the plan?

We have them put on the plan that those will have to be removed.

Because there's not a lot of space when you have that ramp and the stairs.

I would have to go all the way over the computer, but it's kind of hard to see if it says proposed to be removed, and the same with these two sheds proposed to be removed right there, right?

This this to me seems I mean, I understand putting more structures on a lot.

Um, but I I and I like the way that some of the ones on that street have multiple structures with one shared driveway.

Um, this seems like we're putting a house in somebody's backyard.

So I might be the only one that thinks that though.

I see where you're coming from, but if it wasn't already on like a couple of lots like all around it, I mean, I would agree.

If it was the first one, we'd have issues, but my concern is if they're gonna leave the door there, you know.

You've got a door there, so you're taking steps, you're taking a ramp that was necessary at some point.

So they're taking out that ramp there, and I suspect the tree.

But there's the door that comes out right there.

So that's gonna be a hazard.

I mean, if somebody's coming back and forth from that duplex in the back.

You're taking out the tree.

It's pretty tight.

It also seems like especially if you're in a fire truck or an ambulance.

Uh Dana Rosa was settled for Lancer as a representative owner.

Uh they will be taking that out, and it's a rental house, and they do plan to take the door out to where it's not accessible.

They're going to wall that door off, you know, like take it out and just have a wall.

It's just a single family home, so they have a front door, and then there's another door on the side where the carport is.

Any other comments?

Okay, uh, we have a motion and a second.

I'll ask for a vote then on item 10.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rett Taylor.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

David Tyler.

Zach Lefford.

Kelly Wilson against Rod Coleman.

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Jackson Mendonhal.

Four.

We have one, two, three, four, five, six in favor, three opposed.

Okay, that's okay.

That passes then.

And we'll move on then to item eleven uh variants at 1708 and 1710 Jacobs.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh six uh variants 16626.

Uh this is a request by Dana Rosa, agent for uh the NGA Lamb H family Trust from 50 foot to zero feet minimum uh street frontage and from 50 feet to zero feet minimum lot width at building line in a transitional zone at 1708 and 1710 Jacobs Avenue.

Approval of this variance will facilitate a lot split and accommodate the construction of a duplex on individual lots.

So it will be two lots with a duplex on each lot.

The applicant states without the variances the lots cannot be subdivided into the two lots proposed for duplex development.

A neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday, June 2nd at 5 p.m.

on site.

No neighboring property owners attended the meeting.

Again, this applicant is uh requesting the variance uh to reply the property into two lots.

Um lots uh I'm sorry.

Uh was it can you go back to the plan there?

As the lots you can see there, the lot eight uh uh B and 8A there.

Should the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the staff request that it substantiate its reason for approval include the following conditions?

Construction must comply with this submitted development plan in that plat as shown on the screen there.

Any changes rarer than section 273307 of the UDO will require playing commission approval.

The second comment is the construction must comply with the minimum STC rating regulations for structure components listed within the MCAOD uh overlay district table listed in ordinance 5624, and in accordance uh with UDO section 2750314 shared driveways, provide maintenance provisions for the shared driveway proposed as part of an ongoing minor subdivision application.

These provisions must ensure mutual access by residents and emergency vehicles and address maintenance of driveways shared by separate lots.

Set provisions must be provided for recording prior to uh or with recording of the minor subdivision plat.

And then uh the last comment would be that all parking must comply with section 1452 of the municipal code.

Alright, thank you, Tyler.

We do have the applicant, anyone opposed here this evening, right?

I'll ask for a motion then to get item 11 on the floor.

Motion to approve with staff comments, second.

Any other comments, questions?

There's the thoughts.

So this is I2.

Should there be some rear screening buffer conditions?

Yeah, so residential does not have to screen from any industrial, and then uh, you know, it's right-away right there, although there is a what we discussed at the hate or at the uh state session.

There's a height strip you can't see on that plant, a five foot where they're doing the testing uh for the old whirlpool, but with the right-of-way there, no, and then two residents doesn't have to screen from any commercial or an industrial, it's vice versa.

Yep, that's true.

So they would have to screen this industrial, yeah.

That makes more sense, all right.

Any other comments or questions?

And I think it generally you know reflects the area here.

So I'm okay with it.

Um, and there's there's not I'm sorry, there's not a existing structure on this, right?

That's great.

Shows a yeah, okay.

That structure there is no longer there.

This is this one makes more sense than the last one.

All right, very good.

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

Then, Jackson Mendonhal.

Sean McCaffrey.

Brett Taylor?

Vicky Newton, David Tyler, Zach Lutford, Kelly Wilson, or Rod Coleman?

Griffin Hannah.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh we'll now move forward with a development plan.

Excuse me, a variance in the development plan at uh 5400 South Sixty Sixth Street.

Thank you, Chairman.

Variance 17626 is a request by Brett Abbott, agent for James Stoddard Revocable Trust from Section 2744 1091 from 30 feet to 10 feet security military compatibility airport buffer in an industrial light zone at 5,400 South 66th Street.

Approval of the variance request and companion development plan facilitate construction of a new 3,218 square foot office and warehouse that encroaches the security military compatibility airport buffer.

The track contains an area of 2.59 acres with approximately 300 feet of street frontage along South 66th Street.

The applicant states that the hardship is that the layout of the lot is not deep enough with the right-of-way from the uh industrial classified street to allow the proposed structure.

Additionally, the applicant states that the existing RPZ restricts the building location from moving out of the 30-foot setback.

Staff comments, are the subject property is within the security military compatibility area, which requires a 30-foot buffer of no construction from the airport boundary line, including property adjacent to the railroad.

The applicant has requested a variance from 30 feet buffer to 10 feet.

Airfield operations manager Master Sergeant Kyle Loney with air with the 85th Air Fighter Group stationed at Ebbing Air National Guard base was contacted by staff regarding the variance request.

As long as the development included the installation of obstruction lights on top of the building to allow for pilots to identify possible obstructions adjacent to the right-of-way, and staff recommendations will be presented with the companion development presentation.

Development plan 6626 is a request by Brett Abbott at 5400 South 66th Street for an office and warehouse.

The development includes a new driveway to on the northeast corner of the property located on South 66th Street and also utilizing the existing driveway on South 66th Street for a total of two driveways.

Although the development did not require perimeter landscaping, the plan includes a five foot perimeter landscaping strip along South 66th Street.

The proposed development complies with UDO requirements for screening utilizing a fence for mechanical screening and dumpster screening.

The site plan proposed five new parking spaces with 10 existing parking spaces in compliance with the UDO.

All site lighting uh shall be completely shielded and comply with section 276025 of the UDO.

And additionally, all site lighting must comply with the lighting com military compatibility area and include the addition of uh obstruction lights on top of the proposed building.

The exterior facades on the east and south will be comprised of brick veneer and the fac the facades facing west and north will be metal paneling.

The proposed building will be approximately 22 feet in height and 3,218 square feet in area.

1,018 1,814 square foot of the office will be office space and 1,404 square feet will be used for storage.

The neighboring property, um the neighborhood meeting was held uh Tuesday, May 26th at 5 30 at the main library, and no neighboring property owners were in attendance.

The applicant has requested um a comparing a companion variance request from the 30 feet buffer to 10 feet from the security military compatibility area of no construction.

Section 27 3374A of the UDO requires this the middle of a development plan when the variance is requested.

Aside from the proposed variants, um the development complies with the required design guidelines in the UDO and is supported by the military as long as the obstruction lights are installed on top of the proposed building.

Staff recommends approval contingent upon the following 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 27307 of the UDO, and any changes greater than those described in this section will require planning commission approval.

And for dual fixture L 810 or L eight 10 Fruction lights must be placed on the four perimeter corners of the building for compliance with the military safety regulations.

Alright, thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Abbott's here, anyone in opposition this evening.

Alright, if not, I'll ask for a motion on item 12.

Any other comments?

I do have one comment.

Would the military approval would that have I understand it's part of the development plan, but would that have to be part would the approval had to be contingent upon getting military approval?

See what I'm saying there.

I don't know.

Staff, yes, staff would not recommend that you approve it without the military's approval, but we'll run it through them to ensure that they do approve it.

But ultimately the decision would lie with the planning commission.

Okay, so if the military was opposed, we could still vote for yes, sir.

Okay.

All right.

And vice versa.

Why what in the world?

That doesn't make no sense.

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm sorry.

It makes no sense.

That's wild though.

I mean, so I wouldn't even have asked the bonds that are in the but we're voting on it today.

No, I know but what I'm saying about the permission thing.

I think when this whole military.

They're okay with this.

Yeah.

Do we have like anything in writing saying that?

Or is it just one person?

Oh yeah, they're they're fine with it.

This is a long way off from any issues.

And the his only request was to install the the little red lights at the top of the building.

So that's what but the military is fine with this.

Staff would not recommend approval if the military wasn't okay with it.

Okay, so that process has already been done.

Oh, yes.

Okay, that's not true.

But would it but it would still would it still be a contingent?

I guess I'm writing it would not be a contingent.

No, okay.

If they said no, you could approve it.

If they said yes, you could deny it.

When we wrote when we approved that thing, I think that was one of the sticking points some of the members had when we had it was they wanted they wanted the ultimate setting, not the military.

Thank you.

Say that again, Rhett.

I thought when this thing got passed.

The military buffer?

Yes.

It was we had during our discussions and discussed, hey, we want the file site on the on either way.

Yes or no.

But it would never, we also agreed at the time.

It never really would be an issue because we would probably be in the I mean the overlay is in place.

The military compatibility area overlay district of which the security buffer is a part of was a document that was put into place as we were going through that the first process, the first EIS process prior to the ROD landing for the FMS mission.

Okay.

And so this was part of that process to facilitate it.

The city certainly wants to work well with our partners at the airport, including the military.

And so I don't foresee an issue where this body or staff would ever try to bring something that we're not all in agreement on, that would be counter to what ultimately was decided several years ago.

Alright, very good.

Um I'll ask for a vote then on item 12.

Sean McCaffrey.

Vicky Newton, David Tyler.

Zach Ludford, Kelly Wilson, Rod Coleman.

Griffin Hannah 4.

Jackson Mendenhall?

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, our resessor Board of Zoning Adjustment, convene the planning commission for the development plan item number thirteen.

As for a motion on development plan.

I'll ask for a vote then, please.

Rod Coleman?

Griffin Hannah.

Four.

Jackson Mendenhall.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Rhett Taylor?

Four.

Vicky Newton?

Four.

David Tyler.

Zach Ledford?

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, we'll uh recess the planning commission.

Convene the Board of Zoning Adjustment for a variance at 1919 and 2001 St.

Francis Court.

Variance 18626 is a request by Brett Abbott, agent for St.

Francis Crest Inc.

from the following variances in an RM3 zone.

From 30 feet to 12 feet front yard setback at 1912 and 1916, Kathleen Trace.

And from fifth 30 feet to 17 feet, front yard setback at 1919 and 2001 St.

Francis Crest.

Approval of the variance facilitates the construction of a single family residence with an attached garage and pool house that encroaches the double frontage lot.

The subject property is located east of St.

Francis Crest and west of Kathleen Trace and contains an area of.

Submitted a companion development uh companion subdivision variants allowing the double frontage lots to have a driveway access to both St.

Francis Crest and Kathleen Trace, and staff recommendations will be presented with the companion subdivision variants application.

Subdivision variants 2626 is a request from Section 275032G, allowing double frontage lot driveway access on two streets in a RM3 zone at 1912 and 1916 Kathleen Trace and 1919 and 2001 St.

Francis Crest.

The approval of the subdivision variants request facilitates construction of the single family residence with driveway access on two non-intersecting streets.

The applicant does not have a hardship requesting access to both streets.

He states the desired footprint of the uh single family residence will not fit without the approval of the variants.

A neighborhood meeting was held May 26th at 6 p.m.

from the Fort at the Fort Smith Public Library, and nine neighboring property owners attended the meeting and had questions about drainage.

The applicant confirmed that the development will not encroach the existing storm storm drainage, and the neighbors were in support of the request.

The applicant is requesting a subdivision variance from Section 27503 2G, allowing double frontage lots, driveway access to two non-in-intersecting streets.

Currently, the existing neighborhood includes multiple properties with driveway access to two streets on St.

Francis Crest, Mile Tree Drive, Laurel Point, and Rue Madeline Road.

Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard setback to allow for the construction of the single family residence.

If approved, the front yard setback along St.

Francis Crest will be reduced from 30 feet to 17 feet, and the front yard setback along Kathleen Trace will be reduced to 12 feet.

Staff recommendations for both the of the companion applications is approval contingent upon the construction complying with submitted development plan and changes or amendments submitted to the submitted development plan are permitted, but limited to those described in section 27-3307 of the UDO and any changes greater than those described in this section will require planning commission approval.

Thank you very much.

Are there those here in favor of this application?

Anyone opposed?

All right.

Yes, sir.

Come on up, please.

If you'll state your name and address for the record.

People call me when they have when they have questions or comments.

Um, I and Jackie Wallace uh Mrs.

Ken Balls' uh or Ken Balls' wife serve on this committee now.

And uh Tony suggested I get up and speak against it.

He says it will it will, there's nothing this close to the street anywhere in the subdivision.

One thing we as a as a uh architectural control committee are pretty particular about what we approve and disapprove.

One of the things that we just had a roundabout was whether or not a driveway faced the street.

The driveways are supposed to be off uh kind of offset on the side of it.

I can't really tell which way that driveway opens.

It looks like it's it looks like it's gonna face maybe both streets.

But we uh while we don't have any enforcement mechanism as a control committee, uh we do approve or disapprove uh based on on the what we consider to be aesthetic with uh with the um uh uh with our community um one what one lady asked me to speak against it because she was concerned about the drainage not drainage into that basin but drainage out of the back of her house from the side of her house another lady asked me that um why in the world it had to be so close the front of the house have to be so close to the street that couldn't something be designed to to change that and move it back away from the street it's the aesthetics of it that most of us would be concerned about um like I say it's uh it's the only it's the only um it would be the only home in the in the neighborhood and we've we've been pretty particular over the years um I understand the need to to build a nice house um we just uh I've had quite a bit of concern expressed to me about it um Mrs.

Sabiers is uh next to it and she has uh she had some issues uh with her home when she built it because of the drainage and and we as a committee with Tony and I and um have had some experience with building and we worked with everyone to try to determine the proper way to to make things happen where they can happen but uh I just asked for consideration with that I I don't want to keep someone from building her own home but um but uh I have had some uh opposition to it thank you all right Mr.

Kraft thank you for being here for those comments does the applicant have any response I'm Daniel Cocker I'm trying to buy the law oh okay good I suppose you would come in the neighborhood we could have talked about I'll kind of explain I wasn't maybe so sorry that's not um all right so uh there are two houses in the neighborhood that are they're within 30 feet so it's kind of it looks a little weird it says 30 to 17 there's a there's a 50 foot uh easement on uh St.

Francis Crest and Kathleen Trace which goes into the yard by 12 and a half feet so we're not asking to build a house 17 feet from the road we're asking to build it 30 feet from the road.

If you can go back to that map sorry I'm Daniel Cochran, I actually live in Village Harbor.

I'm trying to buy this lot from Mr.

Horn who owns it.

So uh lot 22A right there that's Drew Harman's house the northern corner of his house is 30 feet from the road.

So it's the exact same setback that we're asking for on the front side of St.

Francis Crest and then the house in the very top with the pool like the I don't even know what shape that is it's on the corner of Mile Tree in St.

Francis Crest.

The northern she uh I came she was at the meeting um she has like these concrete balustrade front porch it's 30 feet from the road and then the west side is also 30 for each 30 feet she has like a little jet out of her house so both of those are 30 feet from the road so it's kind of been a standard right there.

The problem is right now we have 42 feet of front yard setback because of the two lots um and talking to Mr.

Horn he had someone under construction or he had someone under contract they wanted to build uh the house facing Kathleen Trace and is what he didn't want is y'all to drive up the road and see into a backyard so he's gonna require me to have a really uh awesome landscape plan and all kinds of stuff so that way when people drive these you know expensive houses um so this is a house for my family uh married four kids we live in uh down in village harbor right up right across the street from uh Mr.

Taylor's dad um don't tell him I'm trying to do this yet he does not know I'm trying to move so um but yeah like uh like I uh there's a bunch of there's 12 people Miss Sagers did show up to the meeting she actually didn't say anything about drainage the only thing that she asked is to leave trees that's a buffer from her her houses just to the east of 22A um and so she just asked to leave trees I said my wife wants to plant more trees uh over there as a buffer so uh the drainage issue was a guy down there in like 37 uh they asked about the detention pond all those rocks are falling off, and he's like, Who owns that?

And I'm like, Mr.

Horn owns that, and that's his responsibility.

There's no HOA assigned to this.

So, other than the guy that's down there, that I guess when that overflows, it goes in his yard.

Um, that was the only question that they had, but um, yeah.

Do you have other questions for me?

Like I say, I I don't want to cause anyone any problem with this.

The people I talked to thought the house was gonna be within 17 feet of the street and within 10 feet of the street, and that was a major concern.

If the house sets back 30 feet, that's that's probably what it's actually on the the thing Brett drew.

If you go back to that drawing, whoever owns the you can see it.

See the can you point to that red line that's right there with Brett on St.

Francis?

Uh, try it here.

Okay, make a little bit of these here.

Or it says St.

Francis.

Yeah, that right that line right there is 30 feet from the road.

That's what that depicts.

It's 30 feet back from the curve.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Yeah.

The reason is because there's already 12 foot for the road easement.

So we're asking 17 feet on that.

Okay.

It's a portico, so the garage opens to the inside.

You won't see the garage doors.

Okay.

That's fine.

An interest in the back with a garage door facing Catholic trades, but from the St.

Francis Crest side, you won't see a garage door unless you look through the portico.

Okay.

Is what the design we're calling?

I think that will answer the questions I've been asked.

Do you have a POA on record?

We do.

Okay, is the PLA does it require approval by the architectural opening of anybody that builds a subdivision?

Yes.

Okay.

Does it have to do this room?

You need to be aware of that.

So there is an architectural, there's no way there's no POA or HOA, just architectural.

So that architecture could change your planning change.

I was going to offer off offer to give him one if we didn't have one.

I'm I'm familiar with Mr.

Abbott's work from cross straight from my house, so I'm I'm pretty good with that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Metal metal windows and I uh track.

Okay.

All right.

Any other comments?

Not I'll ask for a vote on the variants.

This is item number 14.

14.

Yeah.

Uh Kelly Wilson, four.

Rod Coleman.

Four.

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Jackson Menonhall.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor?

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

David Tyler.

Zach Lefford.

Nine in favor.

Zero opposed.

All right.

Uh we'll recess the board of zoning adjustment.

Convene the planning commission to consider 15, the subdivision variants.

As for a motion.

Motion to prove.

Staff comments.

Second.

Alright.

No other comments.

As for a vote on 15.

Zach Lefford?

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Coleman?

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Jackson Mendenhall.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

David Tyler.

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

Thanks, everyone for those comments.

We'll move.

Uh then I'm going to recess the uh planning commission and convene the board of zoning adjustment for item 16, and then we'll have item 17 and 18 as well.

Okay, uh 16 is variants 19626.

This is a request by Brett Abbott, agent for who the O.

Martin is.

From the following variance is in a C2 zone and a proposed C2 zone.

Uh it'll be for uh the request and variance from the required perimeter landscaping and parking lot screening at the 176th North 6th Street, and also uh from the perimeter landscaping and parking lot screening requirements, and from uh the access of a major collector or higher to a local road and the proposed C2 section at 1725 North 7th Street.

Approval of the variance uh requests will allow for a 1,200 uh square foot restaurant edition at the 1716 North 6th uh location there, and then facilitated construction of a new parking lot off site at the 1725 there that's shown on the map as well uh for uh in the proposed commercial light zoning district.

The applicant states that the frontage of the existing restaurant is considered 100% concrete, which leaves no room for the required landscaping.

Additionally, the existing utilities located on North 7th Street will prohibit a small portion of landscaping at the very north portion of the lot there.

The variances, if approved again, will facilitate that 1200 square foot restaurant edition and then the uh uh zoning and variances in development plan as well for the 1725 North Seventh will uh also facilitate the uh parking lot off site right there as you can see on your screen.

If the BZA is inclined to approve this variance, staff does request these two comments to uh uh upon the following of the approval is that construction must comply with this submitted development plan.

Changes or amendments to that submitted development plan are permitted but limited section 273307 of the UDO and will require planning commission approval if they exceed that.

And then the proposed uh landscaping located on the parking lot off site must comply with section 276023 of the UDO sizes, species, numbers, moving on to the rezoning.

Uh this is number 9626.

Again, this is Brett Abbott's the agent for Mr.

Martinez, and they are requesting from an RM3 residential multifamily zone to a proposed commercial light zone as shown on your screen there.

The 1725 North 7th Street.

Approval facilitates a zone change permitting parking lot off-site on lots 7 and 8 supporting the additional 12 parking spaces for the restaurant that we previously mentioned.

The applicant submitted a building permit for this restaurant uh or for the addition to the existing restaurant at 1716 North 6.

During review by city staff, it was noted that the owner installed a parking lot off site without a building permit on a residential zone known as lot 7 and 8, uh block 17 Folts first edition.

Staff recommended that the applicant submit a companion rezoning C2 by extension to allow for the development of an off-street parking site supporting this restaurant.

The parking lot will be reconstructed, providing uh concrete approaches, landscaping, and overall compliance with the UDO.

Staff does recommend approval contingent upon construction complying with the cement development plan.

As for the development plan, that is a number 5626.

This is quite by Bret Abbott agent for both that parking lot off-site and that restaurant edition that was previously mentioned.

Again, the parking lot off-site will be at the 1725 North 7th Street right there across the alley with 12 spaces and the restaurant edition will be the 1716 North 6th of 1,200 square foot.

The companion application has requested a variance from the landscaping uh for the restaurant edition and a small portion there on the parking lot off-site.

Uh, as you can see there on the plan that Tori has on the screen, most of that landscaping complies with the UDO except the very tip there of the uh of the plan.

Uh architectural features, the building uh edition will have facades composed of 100% brick, height and area.

The building is approximately 13 to 14 feet in height, and uh will be 2,875 square foot with a proposed 1,200 square foot edition.

Section 273374A of the UDO requires the submittal of development plan when a variance and rezoning uh request is required for conventional rezoning requests.

This development plan has been submitted to satisfy those requirements uh for the off-street parking lot rezoning request and for the new restaurant edition with the landscaping variants.

Staff recommends approval with the two comments.

Construction must comply with submitted development plan.

Changes are permitted, but limited those in section 27307 of the UDO.

Any grade will require your approval.

The proposed landscaping located on the parking lot off site again, must comply with section 276023, the UDO size, species, quantities, and so forth.

That's the end of my presentation.

Thank you, Tyler.

Yep.

All right.

Um, see the applicant here.

Is anyone opposed?

Don't see anyone.

No one else is there.

Alright.

Uh, as for a uh motion for 16, the variants.

Motion to approve of the addition of staff comments.

Second.

Any comments from the commissioners?

Maybe one small comment.

So it was an unpermitted parking spot that was built or a lot that was built?

Was there any civil penalty or code enforcement that's done that occurs?

So when they apply, we do that.

Well, what should happen is when somebody constructs something without a building permit, and then it's realized the building department has a fee that's usually tacked on to the building uh permit.

Good.

Yeah, okay.

Good question.

Um, too.

Too small.

Any uh any further comments?

Small, we're fine.

Not I'll ask for a vote on 16 David Tyler, Zach Ledford, Kelly Wilson, for Rod Coleman, Griffin Hannah, Jackson Mendenhall, Sean McCaffrey, Brett Taylor, Vicki Newton, nine in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, we'll recess the board of zoning adjustment.

Convene the planning commission for the last two items rezoning.

I'll ask for a motion on seventeen rezoning.

Motion to approve the staff comments, second, any comments.

I'll ask for a roll call vote on 17.

Vicky Newton, David Tyler, Zach Ludford, Kelly Wilson, for Rod Coleman?

Griffin Hannah for Jackson Mendenhall, Sean McCaffrey.

Brett Taylor?

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, and our last item is the development plan eighteen.

As for a motion.

Second.

Alright.

Second.

Any comments?

As for a vote.

Brett Taylor.

Four.

Vicky Newton.

Four.

David Tyler.

Zach Ledford.

Four.

Kelly Wilson.

Four.

Rod Coleman?

Griffin Hannah?

Four.

Jackson Mindenhall.

Four.

Sean McCaffrey.

Four.

Nine in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn.

All right.

All right.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jackson.

Your name is really long