Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors challenge notice and scale of 12‑unit South X Street project; commission approves variances and development plan with design amendments
Summary
A 12‑unit multifamily development at 5416 S X Street drew opposition over short neighborhood‑meeting notice and design choices; commissioners approved variances reducing landscape buffer widths and wall‑plane requirements and approved the development plan with added conditions (wider awnings, privacy screens) after back‑and‑forth between the developer and neighbors.
A proposed 12‑unit multifamily development at 5416 South X Street prompted substantial public comment and commissioner scrutiny Jan. 13 as the Planning Commission considered companion variances and a development plan. Staff presented requests to reduce perimeter landscape widths (generally 10 feet to 6 feet, with a 10‑to‑4 foot section adjacent to a dumpster/mailbox area) and to reduce required wall‑plane projections and recesses; the development plan proposed a 12‑unit, ~15,000‑sq‑ft complex with garages and driveways.
Donna Rogers, a long‑time Fort Smith property owner, appeared in opposition and raised two central concerns: (1) she said she and other neighbors received neighborhood‑meeting notice late (postmark evidence suggested mailing delay that resulted in fewer than the code’s seven days of notice), and (2) she said the project’s massing and reduced setbacks would create an unattractive “back‑of‑building” view for her tenants, increase neighborhood congestion near an elementary school and could pressure her to erect fencing to prevent incursions. "The proposed development is not sized for this particular space," Rogers said, calling for redesign or tabling of the proposal.
The applicant’s agent, Brett Abbott of BlueRock Design Build, responded that the project meets UDO standards for parking, will use 100% high‑quality exterior materials and that required fencing and landscape quantities will be provided; he supplied density and unit‑size comparisons to show the proposal is consistent with similar nearby developments. Commissioners pressed both sides on options to visually improve rear facades (wider awnings, vertical screens or fences between units) and on whether private drives could be configured as one‑way circulation to meet minimum drive‑width requirements.
After discussion, a motion was amended to require widened rear awnings (to the width of the rear patio) and a fence/screen between units on the rear facade in addition to staff comments; the commission approved the variance and the development plan (recorded votes showed the variance and plan carried by majority counts presented in meeting). The development plan vote recorded 8–0 in favor for the development plan after amendments; conditions include irrigation for landscaping, sign permits and recording the site into a single lot prior to building permits.
