5. Rezone request for Lot 3 & 4 Heslep Commercial Subdivision from R-1 to C-3 and Lots 5 & 6 Heslep Commercial Subdivision from R-1 to C-4. Greg Heslep, Owner. [Public Hearing]

[5. Rezone request for Lot 3 & 4 Heslep Commercial Subdivision from R-1 to C-3 and Lots 5 & 6 Heslep Commercial Subdivision from R-1 to C-4. Greg Heslep, Owner. [Public Hearing]]

FROM R1 TO C3 AND LOTS FIVE AND SIX. HESLOP COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION FROM R1 TO C4. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A THIS IS A REZONE. SO IT DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE ITEM. SEEING NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. YES. MR. WALDEN, SO THIS THIS REQUEST, AS WAS STATED, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THIS IS ON COMMERCE COVE, THAT LOCATION IS HERE ALONG HIGHWAY 107, IN THE NORTH SHERWOOD AREA. THE TWO LOTS RIGHT HERE, LOTS THREE AND FOUR ARE BEING REQUESTED FOR C3. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S ADJACENT C3 TO THE EAST AND R-1 RESIDENTIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH, AND THEN LOTS FIVE AND SIX, WHICH ARE ON THE BACK END, WHICH ACCORDING TO FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, REST WITHIN FLOODPLAIN FLOOD HAZARD AREAS ARE LOTS FIVE AND SIX, WHICH ARE BEING REQUESTED FOR C4. THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS WITHDRAWN APPLICATION. THIS IS AN AMENDED SORT OF REQUEST RELATING TO THAT. IN TERMS OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS, IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES LOTS FIVE AND SIX IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF LOT FOUR AS CONSERVATION AREA. THIS IS LARGELY INDICATED IN THAT MANNER DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF OF FLOODPLAIN. IF THOSE CONDITIONS WERE MITIGATED, THAT

[00:05:06]

WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE IRRELEVANT INDICATION FOR FOR THAT PROPERTY BASED ON THE EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE SUBDIVISION IS IS DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL USES, AND THE SUBDIVISION IS INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND HAS THE CAPACITY TO SUPPORT THAT. BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE REZONE WHERE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT TWO LOTS IN THE REAR WITH TWO LOTS IN THE FRONT THAT WOULDN'T BE ADDRESSED. STAFF IDENTIFIES THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST AS BEING APPROPRIATE. THERE IS A PRECEDENCE FOR C3 WITH IT BEING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE PATTERN OF C4 ZONING THROUGHOUT IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PRECEDENT FOR THAT AS WELL. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT REQUIREMENTS TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES OF FLOOD HAZARDS IN ORDER TO MAKE LOTS FIVE AND SIX DEVELOPABLE, THOSE THINGS WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. BUT WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSION HAS. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN C3 AND C4? WHY WOULDN'T THEY ALL BE C3? C4 PERMITS SOME ADDITIONAL USES THAT ARE SLIGHTLY HIGHER IN INTENSITY, THINGS THAT MIGHT BE CLOSER TOWARDS AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF USE. OKAY. SO TO DO THIS, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION JUST TO TO TO MODIFY IT TO SEE, TO MODIFY THE THREE AND 4 TO 3 AND THEN FIVE AND 6 TO 4 C4. WELL IT'S AND INCLUDE THE THE ADDITIONAL STAFF REQUEST. OR IS THAT JUST GOING TO KNOW THAT. SO THIS BASED ON HOW THIS HAS WORKED THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN. SO I LABELED THIS AS AN AMENDED REQUEST. BUT THIS IS REALLY IN IN WHOLE NEW CLOTH A NEW A NEW APPLICATION. AND SO IT WOULD JUST BE ESSENTIALLY EITHER A VOTE UP FOR IT OR VOTE DOWN FOR IT. OR YOU COULD PARCEL OUT AND SAY, WE WANT WE SAY YES TO THIS, OR WE SAY NO TO TO THIS PORTION.

SO YOU COULD YOU COULD HANDLE IT IN TOTAL OR IN PORTIONS. OKAY. ARE YOU ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN STUFF THAT'S IN THE PACKET THAT, THAT'S THAT'S IN THE BUILDING CODE HERE THAT WILL BE HANDLED WHETHER WE MAKE THE MOTION OR NOT. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S YOUR INFORMATION FOR OUR INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE LOTS THREE AND FOUR TO GO FROM R1 TO C3. AND THEN LOTS FIVE AND SIX TO GO FROM R1 TO C4. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MARTIN A HOSKIN I I PATEL I I. REZONE REQUEST FOR 10225

[6. Rezone request for 10225 Highway 107 from R-1 and C-3 to C-3. That.Church, Owner. [Public Hearing]]

HIGHWAY 107 FROM R1 AND C3 TO C3. YES. SO THIS IS A PROPERTY AS NOTED ON HIGHWAY 107. IT'S CURRENTLY OWNED BY THAT CHURCH. AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN INTERESTING PROPERTY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S INDICATED AS INSTITUTIONAL. THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL USE IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. AND SO WHEN WE EVALUATE CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN, THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT SOME ADDITIONAL FACTORS. THIS PROPERTY IS SPLIT ZONED.

SO IT'S PARTIALLY ZONED R1 AND PARTIALLY ZONED C3. SO WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS THE PORTION THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED R1 TO BE ZONED C3. BASED ON THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST, WE GENERALLY LIKE FOR AN ENTIRETY OF A PARCEL TO BE ZONED FOR ONE PARTICULAR TYPE OF ZONE. AND SO IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE WITH WITH THE STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN PLACED ON THE SITE. IT'S REALLY A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. THIS IS ON A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. C3 IS A COMMERCIAL ZONE THAT ALL OF THOSE THINGS ALIGN IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. FOR C3, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICATION IS APPROVAL OF THE REZONING BASED ON IT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT BEING APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE SITE'S PROXIMITY TO HIGHWAY 107 AND THE FACT THAT IT'S UNLIKELY TO RESULT IN ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, GIVEN THAT IT'S THE SITE'S DEVELOPED AND IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED IN A COMMERCIAL MANNER. OKAY, THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST WHICH DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW FOR ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE ITEM. DO YOU HAVE ANY TO READ? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION QUESTIONS OR MOTION. YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 10 TO

[00:10:12]

2 FIVE HIGHWAY 107 FROM R1 TO C3 TO MAKE IT EVEN. I'LL SECOND. MARTIN A, HOSKIN A, EVANS A,

[7. Preliminary Plat of OLO Addition. Thomas Engineering, Agent.]

PATEL HI CLEF. HI. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OLO EDITION. MR. WALTER. YES. SO THIS ITEM IS A TWO LOT PLAT ON EASTERLY AVENUE. IT RUNS ON THAT PROPERTY AND THEN GOES WHERE THE BIG CURVE IS. I GUESS THEY'RE ON THE CLOSER TO 107. THAT'S IS THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT. THEN IT'S NEAR REAGAN ROAD. IN REVIEW OF THIS, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT STAFF HAD RELATED TO THE LARGE PRESENCE OF OF FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY ON THE LOT. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A FLOODWAY EASEMENT THERE. SO IF THERE IS REQUIREMENTS FOR US, THE CITY, TO GO IN AND DO SOME SOME MAINTENANCE WITH THE CREEK AND THAT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION, THEY'D BE ABLE TO. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WERE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATING RIGHT OF WAY. ALL OF THE STAFF COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION. AND SO ON THAT BASIS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BEING THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? DISCUSSIONS ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MARTIN. I.

[8. Site Plan for Lot 16, Sycamore Commercial Addition. Bond Consulting Engineers, Agent.]

I I I, I SITE PLAN FOR LOT 16 SYCAMORE COMMERCIAL EDITION. YES. SO THIS LOCATION IS JUST EAST OF I-57. BLAKE I GET TO SAY I-57, SAY I-57. I DON'T HAVE TO SAY FUTURE I-57. SAY IT RIGHT. THIS IS AN EXISTING DEVELOPED SITE WITH AN ADDITION OF A 9680 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON THE LOCATION. ALL OF STAFF'S COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE WITH THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION. THERE ARE NO IMPROVEMENTS WITH UTILITIES. EVERYTHING RELATED TO LANDSCAPING AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. AND SO ON THAT BASIS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL THE APPLICATION. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SIGN ON THIS ONE? I DID NOT SEE A SIGN ON THE SITE PLAN ANYWHERE. NO, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE GIVEN THAT SITE. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR LOT 16 OF THE SYCAMORE COMMERCIAL ADDITION. I. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MARTIN HOSKIN, EVANSVILLE I. PATEL. HI. HI. WHEN? COMMERCIAL ADDITION. YES. THIS APPLICATION IS ON

[9. Final Plat of Nguyen Commercial Addition. Bond Consulting Engineers, Agent.]

HIGHWAY 107. AND THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT TRICKY. STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT YOU TAKE UP THE WAIVER. WAIVER REQUEST TONIGHT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THIS. THE REASON BEING IS THE WAIVER IS THERE'S A REQUIREMENT IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT BASICALLY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL PIPESTEM LOTS. I'M SORRY, COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? THE COMMERCIAL PIPESTEM LOTS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT ABOVE, A PIPESTEM LOT WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW FOR LOT TWO TO HAVE A LITTLE FINGER THAT GOES OUT TO TOUCH HIGHWAY 107. SO ACCESS BASICALLY IT'S IT IS IT IS THERE FOR ACCESS IN THIS SITUATION. IF YOU DO HAVE A LOT ONE AND LOT TWO, ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO IS BUILD A PUBLIC ROAD OR A PRIVATE ROAD THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO A PUBLIC ROAD. IN THIS SITUATION, STAFF SUPPORTS THE REQUEST FOR A PIPESTEM LOT, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS A HOUSE THAT'S BEING SERVED BY THAT IN THE REAR. IT'S UNLIKELY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ANY LEVEL OF HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USE BACK THERE. AND SO FROM A STANDPOINT OF PROVIDING FOR A PRIVATE ROAD THAT HAS ACCESS TO ONE LOT, IT REALLY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR THAT, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT TO BE KIND OF SHARED BETWEEN THOSE, THOSE TWO LOTS. ADDITIONALLY, PART OF THE WAIVER REQUEST IS A REQUEST TO NOT DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ON HIGHWAY 107. THERE'S A LOT OF SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTIES WHERE WE'VE HAD PRECEDENTS, WHERE WE'VE NOT DEDICATED ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE BUILT OUT CONDITION OF HIGHWAY 107 AND LACK OF NECESSITY FOR

[00:15:05]

ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY. SO BASED ON THAT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS TO APPROVE THE WAIVER REQUEST TO ALLOW A PIPESTEM LOT FOR LOT TWO AND WAIVER OF THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, AND THEN TABLE THE GENERAL APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THE REVISE THE PLAT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT WAIVER REQUEST.

SO THE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. WELL, IF WE NEED TO TAKE THE WAIVER UP FIRST, IF IT PASSES, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS THEN VOTE TO TABLE THE FINAL PLAT SO THEY CAN GO. DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THAT WAIVER REQUEST. THAT'S WHAT I ASK. YES OKAY. YES A MOTION A MOTION AND A VOTE FOR THE WAIVER. AND THEN ONCE, ONCE THAT IS DETERMINED, THEN WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS. I DON'T ASSUME IT PASSES. SO THAT'S WHY I SAY IT THAT WAY.

OKAY. SO BECAUSE IF IF WE MOTION AND PASS A WAIVER WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT. YEAH. SO THEY CAN ADJUST. WE PASS THE WAIVER REQUEST FOR THE. LOCKED LOT. CAN WE SAY CAN WE SAY YOU MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT THE WAIVER. YEAH. JUST THE MOTION TO GRANT THE WAIVER.

HOW ABOUT THAT. ALRIGHT. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE WAIVER TO GRANT THE PIPESTEM LOT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MARTIN. AYE, AYE. EVANS I PATEL.

AYE. AYE. OKAY, SO NOW WE'VE PASSED THE WAIVER. THIS PLAT, THEY THEY NEED TO REVISE THIS PLAT TO SHOW THAT NEW LOT LINE. SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE TABLE THE ITEM THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE FINAL PLAT. DO WE NEED THE WAIVER LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY. Y'ALL STATED IT WITHOUT IT. YES. YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. SO DO WE. ALSO, IF YOU JUST SAY IT AS RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT COVERS IT WELL, DO WE ALSO NEED TO RECOMMEND OR EXCUSE ME, DO WE ALSO NEED TO TABLE THE SITE PLAN. NO. THE THE SITE PLAN. THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE APPROVED UPON CONTINGENT UPON THE PLAT, THE PLAT BEING REVISED. ACTION ON THE PLAT. SO IT IT IT IS NOT GOING TO NEED A LOT OF REVISIONS BASED ON THE PLAT. SO IT'S GOOD IT'S GOOD TO GO. SO WE NEED TO RECALL THAT LAST VOTE AND DO IT AGAIN OR. WE CAN AMEND IT. RIGHT. YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE VOTE IF YOU WANT. AND. THEN EXPUNGE THE LAST THE WAIVER BECAUSE WE FORGOT TO MENTION THE. YEAH. YEAH. THE YES. WHAT I WAS ASKING OKAY. ALL RIGHT I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXPUNGE THE VOTE FOR THE WAIVER REQUEST I SECOND. OKAY. SECOND. YEAH. OKAY. SHE'S GOTTA CATCH UP. YEAH. OKAY. IF YOU DO WHENEVER YOU MAKE WAIVER AGAIN, IF YOU'LL JUST INCLUDE THE PIPE STAMP AND THE RIGHT OF WAY I I'M GOOD WITH THE MINUTES, MARTIN BY HOSKIN EVANS. HI, PATEL. HI. HI. CAN YOU MAKE THE MOTION? NO. YOU MADE LAST TIME SO I DON'T SCREW IT UP. YOU DID THE LAST TIME. YOU'RE FINE.

OKAY, HERE'S HERE'S WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE. HERE'S WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE. WE NEED A MOTION TO GRANT A WAIVER FOR A PIPE STEM LOT IN A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION. AND WAIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENTS. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. THE WAY HE STATED IT. I'LL TAKE THAT. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. I'LL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. MARTIN A HOSKIN, A EVANS, A PATEL. HI. HI, HI. OKAY, SO NOW WE NEED TO TABLE THE FINAL PLAT. IS THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW? CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. LET'S SAY CORRECT. YES, YES. WE NEED TABLE THE FINAL PLAT. OKAY. SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THE FINAL PLAT FOR THIS WIND COMMERCIAL EDITION. OKAY. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. MARTIN A HOSKIN EVANS A PATEL. HI. HI. OKAY. I'M RUNNING OUT OF ROOM ON THAT ITEM. WE'LL LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN. SITE PLAN FOR WIND COMMERCIAL EDITION. YES. SO

[10. Site Plan for Nguyen Commercial Addition. Bond Consulting Engineers, Agent.]

THIS IS THE ITEM THAT WAS RELATED TO THE FINAL PLAT ON THE SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE ON THE PROPOSED LOT ONE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PROPOSED BUILDING THERE IN FRONT THAT ESSENTIALLY BE A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE 50 BY 75 THAT IS INTENDED FOR LEASE SPACE IN TERMS OF REVIEW AND LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, WHAT

[00:20:06]

YOU'VE GOT IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING ON THE FRONT. YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING STRUCTURE JUST BEHIND THAT WITH THE PROPOSED CANOPY TO EXTEND. WE DID REVIEW THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR NONCONFORMING REGULATIONS. ADDRESS THAT. AND THEN THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE IN THE REAR. STAFF DID RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT THAT THEY CONSIDER REZONING LOT TWO TO SOME FORM OF RESIDENTIAL IN THE FUTURE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT TAKEN THAT UP AT THIS TIME. BUT THAT DOES PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF LIMITATION ON THAT EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. BUT IN REVIEW OF THIS, ALL OF OUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. AND SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS APPLICATION IS TO APPROVE, CONTINGENT UPON FINAL ACTION ON THE FINAL PLAT. AND I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IS THAT IS THAT WORK FOR YOU PENDING THE FINAL PLAT? YEAH, I'LL SECOND THAT. YEAH, YEAH. HE MADE IT CONTINGENT OKAY. APPROVAL. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT. MARTIN, YOU GOT A SECOND? YEAH. OKAY. SORRY. I. HOSKIN. EVANS, I, I I. TRUE FINAL PLAT

[11. Final Plat of Lot 1, Roundtop Place. Bond Consulting Engineers, Agent.]

OF LOT ONE ROUND OUT PLACE. YES. THIS THIS IS A ONE LOT PLAT THAT IS INTENDED TO CONVERT SOME METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY OFF OF ROUND TOP ROAD INTO A DEVELOPABLE SINGLE FAMILY LOT.

SO IT IS INTENDED FOR FOR SINGLE FAMILY. IN REVIEW OF THIS, IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN R-1 LOT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. WHEN STAFF REVIEWED IT. ROUND TOP ROAD IS A IS A COLLECTOR STREET. STAFF INDICATED THAT THE ROUND TOP ROAD SHOULD BE TREATED AS A RURAL COLLECTOR BASED ON THE CONTEXT. SO BASED UPON THAT, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALK OR HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR ROAD BEING SUFFICIENT FOR FOR THE PARTICULAR USE. ALL OF OUR COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED. THERE IS ONE OUTSTANDING ITEM AND THAT'S REALLY HAVING A WILL SERVE LETTER, EITHER FROM NORTH LITTLE ROCK WASTEWATER OR SOME LETTER FROM THE ARKANSAS HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ADDRESS HOW SEPTIC OR SEWER WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE LOT. BASED ON THAT, OUTSTANDING CONTINGENCY, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH ADDRESSING THAT OUTSTANDING CONDITION OF A WILL SERVE LETTER FOR THE PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN BE DEVELOPABLE. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF REQUEST FOR WILL SERVE LETTER TO BE PROVIDED. I'LL SECOND. DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? MARTIN A HOSKIN. I PATEL I I OKAY ITEM 13. NOW

[13. Amendment to the Land Use Plan for 6327 Jacksonville Cutoff from S-SFR to S-MFR. Richardson Engineering, Agent. [Public Hearing]]

PLEASE AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN FOR 6327 JACKSONVILLE CUT OFF FROM. SFR TO SFR FR.

MR. WALTON. YES. SORRY. I'M ZOOMING ALONG. SO THESE TWO STAFF'S REQUESTING THAT THESE TWO ITEMS BE HANDLED CONCURRENTLY. ONE IS A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE OTHER IS A REZONE. THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE REZONE. SO BOTH ARE ARE REALLY INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ZONING FROM R1 TO R2. THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PLAN LAND USE FOR SINGLE FAMILY TO SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY.

I'LL TAKE THE COMMENTS ON THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FIRST. IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THIS PLAN DETAILS, THE LOCATION CURRENTLY IS BEING SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY. THESE ARE AREAS CHARACTERIZED BY LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT MAY INCLUDE INSTITUTIONAL USES LIKE SCHOOLS AND PLACES OF WORSHIP. THE THE DESIGNATION THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY. IT'S CHARACTERIZED BY COHESIVE MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SLIGHTLY MORE DENSE, SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY IN THE FORM OF DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, AND QUADPLEX STRUCTURES. THE. THE APPLICANT WILL, IF, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, HAVE TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY ONCE ONCE. IT'S AT THE TIME OF PLATTING. ESSENTIALLY. SO THAT'S THERE IS NOT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE WITH THE LAND USE AMENDMENT PER SE.

[00:25:03]

I'LL MOVE TO THE COMMENTS ON THE REZONE AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR WHERE THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IS CURRENTLY SMALL SCALE OR SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL. THE REQUEST IS TO GO TO SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY. THIS REQUEST IS GOING FROM R-1 RESIDENTIAL TO AN R-2 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IN GENERAL, THE THE AREA IS LARGELY SINGLE FAMILY WITHIN THAT LOCATION. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A SMATTERING OF DIFFERENT SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY USES ALONG JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF ROAD THAT ARE KIND OF LOCATED HAPHAZARD. A LOT OF THIS IS RELATED TO THE LAND USE PATTERN THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THIS BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, AND THAT SORT OF IS THE REASON WHY IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED OUT IN THAT WAY, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ZONING AT THAT AT THAT TIME. SO THE ON THE BASIS, IF YOU CHANGE, IF YOU CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN, THEN THE REZONE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. IF YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN, THEN THE REZONE WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT. SO EVERYTHING HINGES REALLY ON THAT. THAT IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THE CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN IN TERMS OF THIS POTENTIAL PUBLIC BENEFITS WITH IT, INFILL DEVELOPMENT OF BLIGHTED PARCELS GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE DIVERSITY OF RESIDENTIAL OFFERINGS. IN SHERWOOD, THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT SIX TIMES AS DEEP AS IT IS WIDE.

REZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR A SLIGHTLY HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A COMPLEMENTARY PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST, SIMILAR TO A DENSITY AT 6305.

JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF AND OTHER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA. THERE IS A SITE PLAN THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, AND IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THE THAT REZONING TO R-2 WOULD HAVE ANY SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, GIVEN THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT AND THE COMPATIBILITY OF R-2 EXISTING WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA. BASED ON THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THAT APPLICATION. IF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IS AMENDED SO THAT THAT REALLY IS, WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD STRONG RECOMMENDATION THERE. IT'S BASICALLY IF THE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT A CHANGE IS WARRANTED IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION AND IS COMPATIBLE, THEN THE REZONE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE. WOULD WE BE CAN I ASK A QUESTION? GO AHEAD. WOULD WE BE AS FAR AS THE LAND USE PLAN GOES, WOULD IT BE JUST FOR THIS PARCEL OF LAND? YES. YES OKAY. YES. OKAY. YEAH. AND I'LL SAY IN TERMS OF REVIEW, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF PRECEDENCE WITHIN THE AREA. BUT WHAT HAPPENS ON A ON A NEARBY ADJACENT PROPERTY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT ABSOLUTELY MUST HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED IN A SIMILAR LOCATION.

IT'S JUST THAT IT IS NOT THE ONLY LOCATION WHERE R-2 EXISTS. THIS WOULDN'T BE NEW FOR THAT AREA. IT WOULD NOT BE. IT WOULD NOT BE NEW. YEAH. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH IT IS.

YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. WALTON. SO THIS IS AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH DOES CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'LL OPEN THE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW TO ALLOW FOR COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST. I THINK WE DO HAVE SEVERAL MEMBERS SIGNED UP. HERE. OKAY.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK. HANG ON. JUST HANG ON FOR YOU AGAIN. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. OKAY. MY NAME IS MARY SPOTTS. I LIVE AT 518 GOLDEN WOOD DRIVE.

OKAY. THANK YOU MA'AM. GO AHEAD. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA.

IF Y'ALL COULD RAISE YOUR HAND SO THAT THEY'LL KNOW WHO WE ARE. WE'RE HERE TO OPPOSE THE REZONING OF 6327 JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF FROM R1 TO AN R2. I KNOW REGULATIONS INTEND TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS IS CONNECTED TO TWO SUBDIVISIONS. ONE IS DEERWOOD AND THE OTHER ONE IS FIERCE LAKE. TRAFFIC CONGESTION. IF YOU REZONE TO R2 WOULD INCREASE THE TRAFFIC VOLUME ON JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF AND LYNNWOOD DRIVE CORRIDOR, ALL ALREADY EXPERIENCING CONGESTION, WHICH WILL PUT A STRAIN ON THE EXISTING ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALSO COMPROMISED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A LOCAL CREEK ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH

[00:30:08]

SUPPORTS THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND WOULD HAVE POTENTIAL HARM TO THE WATER QUALITY, WILDLIFE AND NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS. OUR PROPERTY VALUES, ACCORDING TO UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK, HAS DONE A STUDY IN 2017 THAT SHOWS THAT THE LARGE MULTIFAMILY COMPLEXES CAN NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE SALES AND PROPERTY VALUES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND IT ALSO SHOWS IN THAT STUDY THAT INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE FBI INVESTIGATIONS ON THEIR UNIFORM CRIME REPORT. STATS FOR ARKANSAS IN 2024. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLEASE DENY THIS REZONING REQUEST ON BEHALF OF OUR TWO SUBDIVISIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM.

THERE'S SEVERAL MORE SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? AND BEFORE YOU START, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS MICHAEL HEISTER. I LIVE AT 401 LINWOOD DRIVE. I'M A RESIDENT THAT IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED.

MY HOUSE WILL THEN BECOME A THOROUGH FLU. I LIVE RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER. IT WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT MY VALUE. I'M OPPOSING THIS MEASURE NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF MY PROPERTY VALUE, BUT ALSO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON JACKSONVILLE. CUT OFF ROAD FOR THE SIDEWALKS. ON MY WAY HERE TODAY, I TOOK A PICTURE OF A DISABLED PERSON DRIVING ON THAT ROAD. JACKSONVILLE CUT OFF TO ACCESS THE ONLY GROCERY STORE WITHIN THAT REGION. WE ARE. WE ARE ADAMANT THAT THIS R2 IS GOING TO DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY AND MAKE IT LESS SAFE.

UNLESS UNLESS THE CITY OF SHERWOOD CORRECTS THE JACKSONVILLE CUT OFF SIDEWALK, THAT IS NO IS NOT PRESENT. THERE IS NOT A SHOULDER FOR ANYBODY TO WALK ON. AND CHANGING IT FROM R1, WHICH WOULD THEN BE LOCAL FAMILY DRIVING THEIR OWN VEHICLES TO THEIR OWN RESIDENCE, TO R2, WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY. MULTIPLE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THAT AREA. IT IS DANGEROUS FOR OURSELVES. IT'S DANGEROUS FOR THE NEW RESIDENTS. IF THAT IS APPROVED, R2 IS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THANK YOU. AND I GOT THAT PICTURE IF YOU NEED IT.

THANK YOU THOUGH. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YEAH. COME FORWARD PLEASE. MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR IT INDICATES THAT FOLKS ARE NOT GETTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE. WE NEED THEM TO GET INTO THE MIC SO THEY CAN. COMMENTS CAN BE HEARD. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. MY NAME IS CHRIS. FILES LIVE AT 312 PIVER ROAD. AND THIS OUR PROPERTY ALSO IS ADJACENT TO THE TO THE LAND THAT'S BEING REQUESTED TO BE REZONED. WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY FOR FOR IN OUR PERSONAL OPINION. I MEAN SOMEBODY THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY AND WANTS TO BUILD WHAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED THERE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IN REFERENCE TO BUILDING MULTI-DWELLING APARTMENTS AND SO FORTH, IF IF YOU TAKE A DRIVE AROUND THE AREA AND YOU NOTICE THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE THERE AT THIS TIME, THEY ALL BEGIN NICE. THEY ALL BEGIN LOOKING REALLY SHARP, REALLY NICE, REALLY FINE. BUT OVER TIME, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IN JACKSONVILLE HAS GONE DOWNHILL AND RUN DOWN JUST DIRECTLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE HE WAS SAYING BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IT WAS DONE BEFORE SHERWOOD ANNEX, JACKSONVILLE. BUT THERE'S A ROW OF APARTMENTS AND THAT AND THAT PLACE AND THEY LOOK LIKE THEY WERE THEY WERE BUILT LIKE METAL STORAGE SHEDS IS WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. AND AND THEN EVEN SOME OF THE NEWER PROPERTIES, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK IN SHERWOOD, SUCH AS. HOLD ON. SHERWOOD TRAILS IS A

[00:35:04]

NEWER. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT IN IN REGARDS TO TO THE APARTMENTS IN IN THE AREA. THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS LOOK NICE BUT I WENT IN THERE RECENTLY TO TO VISIT SOMEONE AND THE PROPERTY IS TRASHY AND RUNDOWN ITSELF. THE BUILDINGS LOOK NICE, BUT THE PROPERTY PROPERTY IS NOT KEPT UP AND IT JUST SEEMS TO BE THE NATURE OF THAT TYPE OF PROPERTY. IT'LL LOOK NICE FOR A WHILE, IT'LL BE NICE FOR A WHILE, AND THEN EVENTUALLY IT JUST STARTS GETTING LET GO AND GETS GETS RUN DOWN. AND AND YOU KNOW, BEING BEING ONE THAT HAS PROPERTY BUTTING UP AGAINST THIS PROPERTY AS WELL. THERE HAS BEEN A REPUTATION FOR FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND, AND THE GRAVEL RIDGE AREA TO HAVE BAD REPUTATIONS AS FAR AS DRUGS AND DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON IN THEM AS WELL. AND ANYWAY, SO SO WE'RE WE'RE DEFINITELY AGAINST REZONING THIS PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. JUST ONE MOMENT. SHE'S GOT A LETTER.

JUST SO WE'RE GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD REAL QUICK. OKAY. THIS LETTER IS FROM BARBARA JOHNSON AT 507 GOLDEN WOOD. SHE SAYS I'M UNABLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON RICHARDSON ENGINEERING'S REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 6327 JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF, FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY.

I'M VERY OPPOSED TO GRANTING THIS REQUEST FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. THANK YOU. OKAY, SIR. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

HOW ARE Y'ALL? I'M TRISTAN PHILLIPS HERE REPRESENTING RICHARDSON ENGINEERING AND THE OWNER. SO WE'VE SUBMITTED THIS REQUEST TO REZONE TO DEVELOP THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S VERY UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY BEING THAT IT'S IT'S A VERY NARROW STRIP OF LAND BEING VERY DEEP. SO THERE'S NOT VERY MANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE CONDUCIVE TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO THAT IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE REZONE IN ORDER TO DO DEVELOPMENT. IT IS NOT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BY ANY MEANS. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SCROLL UP THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. WE HAD THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN SHOW THAT YOU COULD? YEAH, IT'S LIKE YOU'VE GOT CONTROL, YOU'VE GOT THE POWER. HERE IT IS. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE NOW. OBVIOUSLY IT DOES HINGE ON THE REZONE GETTING APPROVED AND THE LAND USE AMENDMENT GETTING APPROVED. BUT THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE KIND OF HAVE A PICTURE DOWN ON THE BOTTOM SIDE OF THE PAGE OF OF WHAT WE'RE THE IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE USING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO IT'S REALLY NICE, YOU KNOW, DUPLEXES, NOT APARTMENTS OR TRIPLEXES OR QUADPLEXES. THEY'RE ALL DUPLEXES, TWO STORY WITH GARAGES OUT IN FRONT. REALLY NICE DEVELOPMENT. WE FEEL THAT IT YOU KNOW IT. IT WOULDN'T HURT PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA. THERE IS SOME DRAINAGE THAT FLOWS THROUGH THE PROPERTY LIKE THE THE FIRST LADY SAID. IT DOES COME FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST FROM THAT SUBDIVISION. SO THERE'S SOME DRAINAGE THAT KIND OF ROLLS ACROSS THIS PROPERTY FROM THAT DEVELOPMENT, THAT OTHER SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT. WE FEEL IT WOULD IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THIS AREA. AND BETTER THAN THE THE OTHER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS AROUND IT. SO WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THE OWNERS ARE LOCAL. THEY DO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS IN SHERWOOD, IN THIS AREA, IN THIS COUNTY. SO THEY THEY DO LIKE TO TO DO QUALITY NICE DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE COUNTY.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU I GOT A QUESTION.

THERE IS A QUESTION. ARE THESE GOING TO BE RENTAL UNITS. ARE THESE GOING TO BE FOR SALE TO INDIVIDUALS. NO THEY'RE GOING TO BE RENTALS BECAUSE THIS THIS PROPERTY IS SO NARROW THAT YOU CAN'T SUBDIVIDE IT. SO IN ORDER TO SELL IT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO SO. YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE IT. AND THERE'S NOT ROOM FOR THE ZONING CODE AS FAR AS THE REGULATIONS OF LOT SIZES AND RIGHT OF WAYS AND SUCH TO, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING A PRIVATE STREET. IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OWNER. THEY'LL THEY'LL OWN THEM AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL MAINTAIN THE, THE UNITS AND THE ROAD THEMSELVES. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. I NOTICED THAT YOU HESITATED WHEN YOU SAID THIS WASN'T GOING TO AFFECT OUR PROPERTY. SIR. SIR, NO QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP HERE AND ASK A QUESTION IN A MINUTE, YOU CAN COME UP HERE AND ASK A QUESTION. IF HE WAS DIRECTING HIM, HE ASKED A QUESTION. SO YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. SO YEAH. SO THERE'S YEAH THAT'S NOT PUBLIC HEARINGS. YOU CAN WALK BACK UP

[00:40:01]

TO THE MICROPHONE AND ASK A QUESTION. YES, SIR. IN YOUR DRAWING, THE VERY LAST STREET IS CONNECTING TO KNOTWOOD DRIVE. YES. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? YES WE ARE. THAT IS A STUB OUT STREET INTENDED FOR THAT USE FOR FOR CONNECTIVITY PURPOSES. IT'S A PRIVATE STREET, RIGHT. THIS STREET IS GOING TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IS IT GOING TO BE GATED. DO. WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE. GATED. GATED THAT I'M NOT SURE. WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. THIS IS FOR NOW. THIS IS JUST STRICTLY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

WE HAVE TO GET THE REZONE AND LAND USE PLAN APPROVED FIRST. MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS, WE'RE ON 13 ITEM 13 R I NOT I KNOW WE'RE HAVING PEOPLE SPEAK AGAINST THE REZONING, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THEY'RE VERY MUCH INTERCONNECTED THOUGH. OH I KNOW THAT. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STILL ON THE AMENDMENT. YES OKAY. WE ARE ON ON 13 BUT 14. SO WE DID 12. NO. 1212 IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH. YES 12. YEAH. SO TYPICALLY IF THE REZONES AREN'T APPROVED THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE REZONING. THE LAND USE ARE NOT APPROVED AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY REASON TO TO VOTE ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU DO ADDRESS THE LAND USE PLAN, IF THAT PASSES THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE REZONE. IF THAT PASSES THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'S THE REASON FOR THE. SO THIS IS ITEM 13 SIMPLY THE LAND USE PLAN. ALTHOUGH THEY ARE VERY INTERCONNECTED. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? NONE FOR ME. THANKS, SIR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME SPEAK NOW? AND AGAIN? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. MY NAME IS DAN SEATON. I LIVE AT 310 RIVER ROAD. I HATE PUBLIC SPEAKING, BUT I FELT IT WAS IMPERATIVE TO COME UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME UP REPRESENTING THE ENGINEERING FIRM SAID THAT HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE HAVE A LOT OF EQUITY TIED UP IN THEIR PROPERTY. THE HOUSING MARKET ISN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE. YOU CAN'T JUST PULL UP STAKES, AND IN SOME CASES ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR EQUITY. I HAVE RESEARCHED IT, AND IT SEEMS THAT OFTENTIMES DUPLEXES IN AN AREA REDUCES YOUR PROPERTY VALUE.

WHAT MAKES HIM THINK THAT THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT NEGATIVELY OUR PROPERTY VALUES? I MEAN, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOOKS DECENT. THE BACK KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A BILLBOARD WITHOUT AN ADVERTISEMENT ON IT. IT'S IT'S NOT ATTRACTIVE. ANOTHER THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS YOU CAN SEE AREAS WITHOUT HOUSING IN IT, WHICH IS WHERE WATER IS SUPPOSED TO COLLECT AFTER STORMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE HAD ISSUES WITH THE WATER COMPANY THAT WENT ON FOR YEARS.

THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE WHERE THE WATER COMPANY WOULD COME OUT AND SAY, WELL, THIS IS KIND OF SWAMPY AREA THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL. IT'S NOT A WATER LEAK, IT'S JUST THE AREA SWAMPY.

WELL, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. SO WATER TENDS TO COLLECT AND STAY THERE FOR A LONG TIME.

RESERVOIRS TO HOLD THAT WATER IS NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD THING IF IT TAKES THIS LONG, WITH THE GROUND BEING FLAT, DUG OUT, AREAS FOR WATER TO ACCUMULATE, JUST GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE.

AND THE MOSQUITOES THERE ARE RIDICULOUS ANYWAY. SO THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM. BUT. IT CONCERNS ME BECAUSE I ALSO WOULDN'T REFERENCE THE SMATTERING OF MULTI RESIDENT DOMICILES IN THE AREA AS. WELL. IF YOU LIVE IN THE AREA AND YOU'VE SEEN THEM, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD BRAG ABOUT. THERE'S DUPLEXES. IN FACT THERE'S A COUPLE MY PARENTS LIVED IN SOME YEARS AGO. NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD CHAMPION IF YOU LIVED THERE. IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE. ONE OF MY ISSUES IS IT'S 52 UNITS. THAT'S POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF NEW PEOPLE IN A 6.66 ACRE LOT. THAT'S LESS THAN FOUR TIMES THE SIZE OF THE AREA IN WHICH PEOPLE HERE WERE CALLED IN TO, TO LOOK. HOW CAN YOU CONDENSE THAT MANY PEOPLE IN SUCH A SMALL AREA AND NOT EXPECT PROBLEMS? I MEAN, WE HAVE SOME DEGREE OF ISSUE NOW, LIKE I WAS SAYING, WITH THE WATER LINES AND STUFF, BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE SERVICES, ALL THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED. AND I UNDERSTAND TO SOME DEGREE THERE'S A REVENUE ISSUE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ON THE CITY'S SIDE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE TYING INTO LINWOOD, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A NEW STREET THERE. AND THEN HOW ARE WE GOING TO FACILITATE THAT? MUCH MORE TRAFFIC AND RESIDENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES ALONG

[00:45:05]

WITH IT NOISE POLLUTION, LIGHT POLLUTION, EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE PRODUCE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE 52 UNITS, EACH ONE OF FOUR FAMILY RESIDENT OR SO. YOU COULD REASONABLY HAVE 208 ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN A QUARTER, LESS THAN A QUARTER OF THE SPACE AS THE ENTIRE REST OF THE AREA. I THINK THERE'S SOMEWHERE AROUND 60 SOMETHING RESIDENTS IN THE ENTIRE 300FT SURROUNDING THIS NEW PROJECT. AND I JUST I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. AS THE MAN SAID, THIS IS A NARROW AREA. IT'S A RESERVED AREA AND NOT EVEN ALL OF IT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 52 UNITS IN, IN IN WHAT LOOKS TO BE LESS THAN SIX ACRES BECAUSE OF THE STORM DRAINAGE AREAS. THE WHOLE FRONT HAS NO RESIDENCES AND IT'S ONLY 6.6 AS IT IS. SO YOU GOT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN FIVE ACRES? I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. I'M AGAINST IT. I DON'T THINK THE COMMUNITY CAN HANDLE IT. AND I THINK IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE ESTABLISHED FOUNDATION IN WHICH THIS COMMUNITY WAS FORMED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST IT. AND TO MY POINT, I DO WANT TO KNOW WHERE, CONTRARY TO ALL THE THINGS I'VE SEEN, DUPLEXES WILL NOT AFFECT OR HELP OUR PROPERTY VALUE. THAT'S ABOUT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT, SIR. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE. TWO MORE, TWO MORE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST. I WANTED TO GIVE EVERYBODY ELSE FIRST. YEAH, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING BEFORE YOU COME BACK. OKAY? OKAY. I JUST IF YOU'VE SIGNED UP, I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. I HAVE NOT SIGNED UP. MY NAME IS TOM. I LIVE AT 322 KIRKWOOD DRIVE AS THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS REPRESENTING RICHARDSON ENGINEERING SAID. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH IT. WELL, YOU GOT 52 UNITS IN IT. I'M SURE AN ENGINEERING COMPANY CAN GET IN THERE AND MAKE IT 4 OR 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO I I'M IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. SO. MICHAEL HESTER, A 401 LINWOOD DRIVE. SEEING THE 52 LOTS EXACTLY LIKE IT IS TWO STORY IS NOT THAT OUR LINE OF SIGHT. ANYBODY ON THE SIDE OF LINWOOD. WE OUR LINE OF SIGHT WOULD BE THE BACK OF A BUILDING ALSO. IN ADDITION, THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS CURRENTLY ON JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF IS VERY MUCH LACKING. I'VE SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES. I'VE COMPLAINED ABOUT IT MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THERE IS NOT AN ACCESS FOR ANYBODY TO DO PEDESTRIAN ON ANY OF JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY'RE OPENING UP OUR SUBDIVISION TO THEIR LANE OF TRAFFIC. SO THEY THEY'RE GOING TO EXTEND MY ROAD RIGHT THERE AT LINWOOD DRIVE.

THIS THIS POINT HERE, I'M PARKED RIGHT HERE. I'M RIGHT HERE. SO I GET TO STARE AT THE BACK OF A BUILDING. I WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I WENT TO A REALTOR AND SAID, THIS IS EXACTLY THE HOUSE I WANT BEFORE MY HOUSE WAS ON SALE. AND THEN IT WENT ON SALE. AND MY REALTOR BOOKED ME IN, GOT ME THERE, AND I PAID FULL PRICE FOR IT. WHAT I'VE SEEN IS IF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, IT BEHIND OUR HOUSE, IN ADDITION TO THE WATERSHED PROBLEM, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HUGE WATERSHED PROBLEM. I WALK BACK THERE PRETTY REGULARLY AND IT'S IT'S SWAMPY. IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE A REAL CONCERN, NOT TO MENTION THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THE INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE IS GOING TO OVERWHELM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE AND THEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOT TRAFFIC ON 107 IS GOING TO CREATE A VERY DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT. I SEE IT PROBABLY FOUR TIMES A WEEK THAT SOMEBODY IS WALKING ON ONE OF THE JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF. WITHOUT PROPER, THERE'S NOT EVEN A SHOULDER. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS AS R-2, THEN THE CITY OF SHERWOOD IS GOING TO HAVE TO CORRECT THIS, THIS LANE OF TRAFFIC. I, I VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO THE THE 52 UNITS GOING FROM R-1, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHAT'S IN THE AREA IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. TO GO FROM R-2 IS WHERE THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO DRAW THE LINE. R-1 YES, WE ACCEPT THAT, YES, THEY OWN A PROPERTY AND YES, THEY COULD BUILD, BUT R-2 TAKES IT FROM ALMOST UNMANAGEABLE THE LANE OF TRAFFIC THAT THAT I WOULD BE. IT WOULD DIRECTLY

[00:50:06]

IMPACT ME BECAUSE I'M ON THAT LANE. I'M THE NEIGHBOR. SO WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH SPEEDING AND TRAFFIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S JUST GOING TO GO TIMES FOUR. IT'S GOING TO INCREASE BY FOUR. SO AT THIS TIME I DON'T APPROVE. I, I VERY MUCH REJECT THE IDEA OF 52 UNITS BEHIND MY HOUSE. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR COMMENTS I'M SORRY. ALL RIGHT.

SO. IF I NEED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AGAIN, IF, IF YOUR COMMENT IS GOING TO BE REPETITIVE TO THE LAST SEVERAL WE'VE HEARD IT, I MEAN, I DON'T YOU'VE YOU'VE SPOKEN ONCE. YEAH.

AGAIN I YOU'RE TAKING OUR TIME AND AND THE AUDIENCE'S TIME UP. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ADDITIONAL ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO SAY IT. BUT IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING THAT I CONTROL. AND SO THAT IF YOU'RE IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT IF IF YOU'RE GOING TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, WE'VE HEARD IT. OKAY.

BUT THEN LIMIT LIMIT THEM TO THE BEST YOU CAN. WE'VE GOT OTHER ITEMS TONIGHT AS WELL.

OKAY. I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON LINWOOD DRIVE BECAUSE IT'S TWO SUBDIVISIONS, FIERCE LAKE AND DEERWOOD. HE THE ENGINEERING RICHARDSON ENGINEERING MENTIONED ABOUT CONNECTING TO LINWOOD DRIVE THROUGH KNOTWOOD. BUT KNOTWOOD IS JUST A LITTLE PATCH OF ROAD FOR 401 AND 317 TO GET INTO THEIR DRIVEWAYS. IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT Y'ALL KNEW THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE MISLEADING EARLIER. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. ARE YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? I DIDN'T GET HERE IN TIME TO SPEAK, SO. OKAY, I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE, SEND YOUR COMMENTS CAN BE HEARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. OKAY. MY NAME IS DEBBIE DOBBINS AND I LIVE AT 6412 JACKSONVILLE CUT OFF ROAD, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM PIPER ROAD. AND I'M OUTSIDE QUITE OFTEN. AND RIGHT NOW MY ISSUE IS THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING UP AND DOWN. JACKSONVILLE CUTOFFS. THAT'S LESS THAN DESIRABLE WITH THE PEOPLE. SOME PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE ROAD ITSELF AND THAT AREA RIGHT NOW IS A WOODED AREA WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF DEER THAT LIVE OUT THERE, AND I DON'T WANT MULTI-FAMILY HOMES IN THAT AREA BECAUSE I HAVE A PRIVATE HOME. I ACTUALLY OWN TWO HOMES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THERE, AND I HAVE HAD OCCASION TO HAVE TO CALL POLICE OFFICERS ON PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE ROAD COMING DOWN THROUGH THERE. AND I WANT TO KNOW IF THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX IS GOING TO BE LIKE SECTION EIGHT HOUSING, AND IF IT IS, THAT'S GOING TO CREATE AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE DRUG TRAFFIC OUT THERE. THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN BECAUSE I'M OUTSIDE A LOT, AND I'VE BEEN SCARED A LOT ENOUGH TO WHERE I'VE HAD TO CALL THE POLICE AND PEOPLE COMING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD CUSSING AND CARRYING ON, FIGHTING WHILE THEY'RE GOING DOWN THE ROAD. AND WE'RE WALKING OUT INTO TRAFFIC, LITERALLY. AND THAT THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN IS WHAT KIND OF FAMILY HOUSING IS THIS GOING TO BE? IS IT GOING TO TURN INTO LIKE SLUMLORDS? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I NEED TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE IF SO, I NEED TO SELL MY HOUSE AND GET GET AWAY FROM THERE BECAUSE I CAN'T TOLERATE MUCH MORE OF IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BAD ENOUGH AS IT IS. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING IN THAT MANY MORE FAMILIES, IT'S A BIG CONCERN. NOT TO JUST ME, BUT TO MY NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE SMALL CHILDREN AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE ISSUES ARE NOT EVEN BEING ADDRESSED AND THERE'S NO WALKING PATH DOWN THROUGH THAT ROAD EITHER. SO THEY'RE RIDING BICYCLES AND WALKING AND WALKING OUT INTO TRAFFIC AND WHEELCHAIRS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND IT'S JUST DANGEROUS. AND YOU BRING IN HUNDREDS OF MORE PEOPLE, AND IT'S GOING TO EXACERBATE THE SITUATION TOTALLY. AND I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THIS. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK MY PIECE AND SAY HOW MUCH I OPPOSE IT, BECAUSE I'M DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT AND I DON'T WANT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. THERE'S TWO MORE SIGNED UP, BUT

[00:55:09]

BUT THE COMMENTS HAVE BECOME REPETITIVE. SO UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT THESE TWO PEOPLE WILL ADD, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO NOT SEE THEM STANDING UP. SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONERS. QUESTIONS.

COMMENTS. EMOTION. THIS IS THE ITEM FOR THE LAND USE PLAN. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN FOR 6327 JACKSONVILLE CUTOFF I SECOND THAT. HANG ON.

OKAY. THE THE WORDING OF THE MOTION IS TO DENY IT. SO AN I VOTE IS A IS A DENIAL VOTE.

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYONE BEFORE WE VOTE. OKAY. YES I VOTED BACKWARDS. YES. YEAH. WE WE'VE HAD THAT ISSUE IN THE PAST. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. THAT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION. YEP. OKAY. MARTIN I. I PATEL I, I. REZONE REQUEST

[14. Rezone request for 6327 Jacksonville Cutoff from R-1 to R-2. Richardson Engineering, Agent. [Public Hearing]]

FOR 6327 JACKSONVILLE CUT OFF FROM R1 TO R2. SO THIS IS A SISTER ITEM TO THE ONE WE'VE JUST HEARD. MR. WALDEN GAVE THE STAFF REPORT CONCURRENT WITH THE PREVIOUS ITEM. THIS ALSO THIS ITEM ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH I SUSPECT ALL THE COMMENTS WILL BE VERY MUCH SIMILAR. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD FOR THE REZONING OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS NOT STATED DURING THE LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO AT THIS TIME. OTHERWISE WE UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS OR THE SAME FROM THE PREVIOUS ITEM TO THIS ONE. I CAN UPDATE THE STAFF RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE PREVIOUS ACTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DENIAL, CORRECT? OKAY, SO IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ANYTHING THAT WASN'T SAID FOR ITEM 13? SEEING NONE, I WILL CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A CLOSE. COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS THE ITEM TO REZONE IT FROM R1 AND R2 NUMBER 14 ON THE AGENDA MOTION TO DENY THIS, I ALSO SECOND MARTIN, SAME. SAME AS THE LAST VOTE. THIS IS A MOTION DENIAL. SO I VOTE IS A DENIAL VOTE. OKAY MARTIN I HOSKIN.

EVANS I PATEL HI I. PRELIMINARY PLOT OF 6327 JACKSONVILLE CUT OFF. BASED ON THE PREVIOUS

[12. Preliminary Plat of 6327 Jacksonville Cutoff. Richardson Engineering, Agent.]

INFORMATION, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD WITHDRAW THE. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF BEFORE I SAY THAT HE. YEAH WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW IT. THE REASON I DIDN'T GET APPROVED.

WE CAN GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND TO CREATE THE PLAN AGAIN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED WITH THE DENIAL OF THE PREVIOUS TWO ITEMS, THE THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE AGENT WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW IT. SO WE NEED A MOTION. MAKE A MOTION PLEASE TO WITHDRAW. SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MARTIN A HOSKIN EVANS DELOREY I PATEL I, I OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 15. NOW PLEASE. FINAL PLAT OF LOT ONE

[15. Final Plat of Lot 1, Carter Addition. Philip Lewis Engineering, Agent.]

CARTER ADDITION. MR. WALDEN. YES. SO THIS IS A FINAL PLAT AT THE THE CORNER OF KEELE AND HOLLIDAY. CURRENTLY THE SITE IS ZONED C-2, AND THERE'S A CONCURRENT ITEM THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. THAT'S A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF A LAUNDROMAT IN THIS LOCATION. HANG ON A SECOND, MR. WALDEN, I IF YOU'RE GONNA IF YOU'RE LEAVING THE MEETING, I'LL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO DO SO. OTHERWISE, WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS TO CONDUCT STILL. GOOD JOB. CAN I TAKE THAT FROM HIM? I DON'T KNOW. IT WAS ALL OVER HERE. IT'S YOUR COMPUTER. OKAY.

CONTINUE. PLEASE. SO THIS IS THIS IS A ESSENTIALLY A ONE LOT PLAT PROVIDED TO CONVERT AN EXISTING METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY INTO A PLATTED LOT. ONE OF THE THINGS TO NOTE WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS THERE'S A PORTION OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT'S SPLIT BETWEEN

[01:00:01]

TWO PROPERTIES. WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO UTILIZE THAT, SO THEY WILL BE PROVIDING A SHARED USE AGREEMENT ACCESS AGREEMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY FOR THAT PURPOSE.

APART FROM THAT, ALL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, EXCLUDING PROVIDING A BILL OF ASSURANCE.

SO BASED ON THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IS APPROVAL OF APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON PROVIDING A DRAFT BILL OF ASSURANCE AND A COPY OF THE SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT AS IT'S RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF COMMENTS AND THE BILL OF ASSURANCE? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MARTIN I, HOSKIN EVANS I PATEL ABSTAIN I.

THAT'S FOUR OKAY. YEAH THAT'S FOUR SORRY THAT PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES. YES. YEP. YEAH.

[16. Site Plan for Lot 1, Carter Addition. Philip Lewis Engineering, Agent.]

LITERALLY OKAY. SITE PLAN FOR LOT ONE CARTER ADDITION. THIS IS AN APPLICATION THE WE'RE REQUESTING TO BE TABLED. WE'VE CONFERRED WITH THE APPLICANT AND WE'VE GOT A FEW MORE ADDITIONAL DETAILS TO ADDRESS. THERE ARE SOME THINGS TO GET IRONED OUT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE SHOWSTOPPER COMMENTS HAVE ALL BEEN ADDRESSED. SO WE ANTICIPATE THIS COMING BACK AND AND BEING GIVEN A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. IT'S JUST NOT READY QUITE YET.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING THAT YOU TABLE THE SITE PLAN UPDATE, WE TABLE IT. THEN SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE A HOSKIN EVANS I PATEL ABSTAIN I. ALL RIGHT. NEW BUSINESS

[18. New Business]

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, MR. WALDEN. YES. SO THIS IS A CODE AMENDMENT. AND THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS NECESSITATED BY ACT 313 THAT WAS PASSED IN THIS LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION. ACT 313. WHILE IT DID TAKE EFFECT AUGUST 4TH. AUGUST 5TH, THE PROVISIONS OF IT DON'T FULLY TAKE EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY 1ST. AND SO WE'RE PROVIDING A CODE AMENDMENT ESSENTIALLY TO ENSURE THAT SHERWOOD'S CODE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THAT NEW STATE LAW THAT ESSENTIALLY PREEMPTED REQUIREMENTS. WHAT THAT STATE LAW DID WAS REQUIRE THAT CITIES PERMIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BY RIGHT. SO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS MOTHER IN LAW'S QUARTERS, A GARAGE APARTMENT, THAT TYPE OF THAT TYPE OF UNIT ON ANY LOT WHERE THERE IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND THAT'S KIND OF THE BASE FLOOR OF WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO ALLOW. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE ADDING AS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS THAT ARE, THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE THE LAW. ONE OF THOSE IS WE'RE ADJUSTING WHAT THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS ARE, SO THAT WE ENSURE THAT YOU DON'T GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE IF THE FRONT EDGE OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, LET'S SAY THE FRONT SETBACK IS 25FT AND SOMEONE HAS BUILT THEIR HOUSE AT 30FT, THAT THEN THEY CAN'T BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THAT. SO WE'VE GOT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE TO ESSENTIALLY IF WHEN A STRUCTURE IS SET AND IT'S SET, YOU KNOW, BEHIND WHAT THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS, THEN THAT BECOMES THE FRONT SETBACK OF THE LOT, WHERE FOR ANY FUTURE STRUCTURES HAVE TO BE BUILT AT LEAST BEHIND THAT FRONT EDGE. ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUIREMENT TO MEET ALL OF THE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR FOR THE LOT. SO IN SOME CODE, SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY CAN BE WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OR SIDE PROPERTY LINE. WE'RE REQUIRING THAT IT MEET ALL OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THIS.

ADDITIONALLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT GENERAL CONDITIONS, IT'S ONLY ALLOWED WHERE THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING. SO YOU CAN'T THIS DOES NOT PERMIT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME. YOU HAVE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THEN YOU CAN CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO IT HAS TO BE. IT HAS TO BE IN THAT ORDER. WHY NOT LET THEM GO CONCURRENTLY IF THEY'RE CONCURRENT? NOT. IT'S THAT THAT IS NOT THE DIRECTION THAT WE WE TOOK WITH THIS AT THIS CURRENT TIME. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WANT TO LOOK AT AND SAY, HEY, WE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO

[01:05:04]

DEVELOP CONCURRENTLY, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE WAY THAT WE DRAFTED IT. WE DRAFTED IT IN THE MOST STRINGENT INTERPRETATION. I WAS JUST WONDERING THE THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT WAS IT WAS THE MOST STRINGENT INTERPRETATION POSSIBLE. OKAY.

A MAXIMUM OF ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING. IT CAN ADDITIONALLY, IN THE LAW IT REQUIRES THAT YOU ALLOW THEM TO EITHER BE ATTACHED DETACHED OR INTERNAL. SO ATTACHED WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. YOU'VE GOT SOME TYPE OF OF ROOF UNDER ROOF AND THEN IT'S ADDITIONAL. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS HERE. SO YOU COULD HAVE EXTERIOR WALLS IN BETWEEN. AND THAT WOULD A OF OF.

IF IT'S DETACHED AT LEAST TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE IN ANY TYPE OF ACCESSORY BUILDING, MEETING THE MINIMUM FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN INTERNAL ESSENTIALLY WOULD MEAN WHILE IT HAS TWO EXITS OUT OF THE OUT OF THE HOUSE. SO THERE'S A FRONT DOOR FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND THERE'S A FRONT DOOR FOR THE HOUSE. THEY'RE ALL UNDER ONE ROOF WITH NO EXTERIOR WALLS IN BETWEEN THEM. AND THOSE ARE THE THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. YOU CAN CONVERT AN EXCESS OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE INTO IT, REQUIRED PENDING THAT IT DOES MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. SO LET'S SAY THAT YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING GARAGE OR SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE BACKYARD. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONVERTED INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. DO WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN THERE FOR IT'S, SAY, A GARAGE IN THE BACKYARD THAT IT HAS TO HAVE A BATHROOM WITHIN THAT. SO IT'S YEAH, BY BY STATE LAW, IT IT HAS TO MEET ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS FIRE PREVENTION CODE.

SO THIS DOES NOT RELIEVE ANY REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODE AT ALL. SO. IF I WANT TO BUILD ONE OF THESE BEHIND MY HOUSE AND USE IT AS AN AIRBNB, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO PROHIBIT ME FROM DOING THAT AT THIS CURRENT TIME? NO. OKAY. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE AIRBNB OR SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS. OKAY. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DETACHED, RIGHT? THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DETACHED. YEAH. IF I WANTED TO BUILD ONE OF THESE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN MY BACKYARD AND PUT A WALKWAY FROM MY SIDEWALK THAT GOES TO THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE, AROUND TO THE BACK OF MY HOUSE, TO THAT TO THAT DWELLING. I CAN DO THAT AND USE IT AS AN AIRBNB, CORRECT? YEAH. AS LONG AS YOU MEET ALL THE SETBACKS. YEAH.

AND BASED ON PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, I, I AREAS WHERE THEY HAVE THESE HAVE BEEN PERMITTED FOR A LONG TIME. UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME TYPE OF MAJOR HOUSING CRUNCH, YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF THEM CONSTRUCTED. ROGERS HAS ALLOWED THEM FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THEY MIGHT HAVE, YOU KNOW, FIVE, TEN OF THEM CONSTRUCTED PER YEAR. AND THE REASONING BEING IS THAT CURRENTLY THE THE LENDING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM ARE DIFFICULT. BUT ADDITIONALLY, THE, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BY AND LARGE TYPICALLY IS ALSO THE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BE LIVING NEXT DOOR TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. AND SO IT'S LIKE PUTTING A NEIGHBOR ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IT'S NOT ALWAYS SOMETHING IDEAL. RIGHT.

ALTHOUGH IT CAN BE A GOOD OPTION. AND IT IN TERMS OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OPTIONS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS IN SHERWOOD, YOU KNOW, IN DIFFERENT LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS CERTAINLY IS A IS A GOOD THING FROM THAT RESPECT. BUT BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S A WHOLE GAMUT OF, OF WAYS IN WHICH THIS COULD BE UTILIZED IN TERMS OF STANDARDS AND SIZE. IT'S THE LESSER OF 75% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OR 1000FT■S. SO IF YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT IS 1000FT■S, THEN IT COULD BE 750FT■!S. OR IF IT'S 2000FT■, THEN IT CAN BE UP TO 1000FT■!S.O IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE SMALLER STRUCTURE ON THE SITE. IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 360FT■!S N SIZE. IT HAS TO MEET ALL OF THE MINIMUM SETBACKS. WE CANNOT REQUIRE ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC STREETS OR SIDEWALKS WITH IT. AND THEN WE'VE GOT AN APPLICATION PROCESS THAT INCLUDES A WILL SERVE LETTER FROM OUR, OUR, THE WHATEVER, THE MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM OR THE SEWER SYSTEM THAT'S ASSOCIATED WHERE, WHERE IT IS LOCATED. AND THEN WITH ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, THERE IS A $250 REVIEW FEE FOR THE REVIEW FEE FOR THE ACTUAL

[01:10:02]

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHICH IS ON TOP OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT FEES. SO. ARE YOU GOING TO WANT TO PRESENT THIS LIKE NEXT MONTH FOR THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL? YES. THEY HAVE PRESENT IT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS REALLY FOR FOR TO GIVE THEM GIVE YOU GUYS SOME FAMILIARITY. WE'LL HAVE TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING HERE IN NOVEMBER BEFORE WE GO TO THE COUNCIL. UNFORTUNATELY, I WOULD SAY THERE'S NOT A REAL OPTION THAT YOU HAVE IN TERMS OF YEAH, BUT WE CAN ADJUST THE WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING, BUT WE CAN ADJUST THE LANGUAGE. THERE'S, THERE'S SOME TWEAKS THAT WE CAN TWEAKS. YEAH. IT'S IT'S WRITTEN IN THE MAXIMALLY RESTRICTIVE WAY THAT IS LEGALLY POSSIBLE UNDER THE STATE LAW.

SO BASED ON YOUR EXPLANATION HERE'S YOUR CASE THAT I DON'T THINK YOU COULD WE COULD DO IF SOMEBODY CAME IN WITH A SET OF HOUSE PLANS THAT HAD AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, YOU COULDN'T APPROVE, YOU COULDN'T APPROVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WITHOUT IT. BY WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME. CORRECT. BASED BASED ON THE WAY THAT THIS IS DRAFTED, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO. I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON TO BUILD A HOUSE TO TURN AROUND RIGHT AFTER YOU FINISH IT, TO REMODEL IT, TO DO THAT VERY THING. RIGHT? YEAH. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME PROVISION TO ALLOW IT ON A NEW CONSTRUCTION TO BE BUILT. AND THAT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY A CHANGE WE CAN MAKE.

YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. RIGHT. IF THERE'S SOMEBODY, A YOUNGER COUPLE THAT'S MOVING IN, THEY GOT OLDER PARENTS AND THEY WANT AND WE'RE BUILDING A HOUSE FOR THAT. VERY. YEAH. THAT DOESN'T ALLOW IT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'D WANT. SO MAYBE YOU MIGHT WANT TO PONDER HOW TO HOW TO STATE THAT, HOW TO STATE THAT IN THERE. YOU KNOW, ON A ON A NEW CONSTRUCTION SITUATION.

ESSENTIALLY THE WHERE YOU SEE THAT 14 1016 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED ON A PARCEL WHERE THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, DETACHED DWELLING, ESSENTIALLY, OR CONSTRUCTED CONCURRENT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. YEAH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BECAUSE LIKE I SAY, I THINK FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, YES, YOU'VE GOT A YOUNGER COUPLE WITH OLDER PARENTS AND WE'RE CONSOLIDATING TWO HOUSES INTO ONE KIND OF SITUATION. WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING, YOU WANT TO BUILD THEM BOTH TOGETHER. PLANNING AHEAD FOR IT'S POSSIBLE. WELL, I WILL SAY THERE IS A, A NATIONAL HOME BUILDER THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WIDELY DO IT, BUT THERE IS A NATIONAL HOME BUILDER THAT HAS WHAT THEY CALL THE HOUSE OF TOMORROW, WHICH IS IT SOUNDS VERY FUTURISTIC, BUT IT'S GOT AN INTERNAL ADU ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

SO THAT THAT IT CERTAINLY IS NOT NOT A A FOREIGN, COMPLETELY FOREIGN CONCEPT. NO IT'S NOT.

AND THAT'S I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A HOLD UP FOR THIS SITUATION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE SOMEHOW. SO. SOUNDS LIKE MISTER, MISTER CLIFF AGREES WITH ME. I DO, I DO AGREE. OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT, SO PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS IN NOVEMBER. AND THEN IT WOULD GO TO THE COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER. NO IT WOULD BE ON POTENTIALLY ON THE COUNCIL MEETING IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE WE CAN PASS IT IN OUR NOVEMBER MEETING AND STILL MAKE THE COUNCIL. OH THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, YEAH YEAH YEAH. ALSO OUR NOVEMBER MEETING IS ON A MONDAY.

I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THAT. SO YEAH. JUST SO THE COMMISSION IS AWARE, THE NEXT MEETING IS SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER THE 10TH AT 6 P.M. BECAUSE VETERANS DAY IS A CITY HOLIDAY AND THIS IS THE SECOND TUESDAY. SO IT'S BEEN MOVED UP A DAY. AND I WILL SAY, AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS, IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE DRAFT, WE WILL DRAFT IT TO WHERE IT TAKES EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST. SO AND IF IF NOTHING GETS ADOPTED, THE LAW STILL IT'LL THE ZONING CODE WILL STILL JUST BE PREEMPTED IN THAT IN THAT INSTANCE. RIGHT. OH OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER NEW BUSINESS ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION TO ADJOURN SECOND. MARTIN I BASKIN EVANS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Oct 14, 2025 Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item