Planning Commission Minutes
Monday, August 5, 2024, 6:00 PM
Greenland Community Center
170 North Letitia

 

Members Present: Brenda Reynolds, Charlotte Carnes, Bill Yoes, Dan Cypert, and Colbi Johnson

Meeting called to order at 6:00 pm.

Chair entertained motion to amend Agenda to add Stewart lot split tabled from last month; Motion by Carnes, 2nd by Yoes, passed 4-0

1. Debra Stewart – Lot Split: Brought back corrected documents for lot split request. Re-deeding was done to correct ownership issue of the three tracks to one person; per Washington County site, ownership was verified Commissioner Cypert. Request can now be heard. Motion by Carnes; 2nd by Johnson; Passed 4-0

2. Administrative Review

Chair reviewed new map that was sent by NWARP. Draft zoning map appears to be missing R3 zoning color, Chair will contact NWARP for updating that item; all other aspects were fine. Proposed ordinance adopting map was reviewed—approved to pass on to Council. Once the finalized map is received, the Ordinance, which will attach Exhibits A,B,C,D as sent by NWARP, will need to be put on Council Agenda for adoption. (proposed Ordinance
and exhibits are attached to Minutes for reference).

The Chair addressed the RV campers off Napier, abusing the “temporary permission” while construction is ongoing and allowing a second RV to move in with more people living in it. They are also hooked up to utilities—but unsure how that has occurred.

Applying Code, a “residence” must be 24 feet in width and be on a permanent foundation.

The Chair provided suggested language to put into the Code addressing this type situation

Suggested language regarding temporary RV use as a residence: RV campers or other portable methods of living quarters shall not be used for
residence or housing in any R zone. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a person may be granted temporary permission and be issued a permit for one (1) RV camper, which shall not exceed six (6) months in duration, to live in an RV camper in any R zone which is undergoing house construction, in which case the construction must demonstrate continual progress towards completion. Said RV camper shall have only standard RV utility hookup and shall not connect to city utilities. The building site shall be inspected on a monthly basis for visible progress, for which such inspection fees shall be made known to and incurred by the building permit applicant. Absent proof of such progress, the temporary permission may be revoked. Any applicant whose six (6) month period expires may reapply for an extension but must show good cause and any extenuating circumstances as the basis for the request. Any person violating this section and using an RV as a residence or living quarters in any “R” zone shall be
fined in accordance with Greenland Municipal Code provisions, each day constituting a new offense.

3. Public Comments

Ronda Crider – Questions regarding lot split and the utilities.
PC advised she will need to get with Fayetteville for waterline/meter locations; need to proceed with lot split request, which shows where “proposed service lines” would go to the new lot, once the split is done, then get with Fayetteville to establish those connections.

The secondary lot will have to show water access, but the water line does not have to be installed prior to, or at, the time of the lot split, but would have to be done before any development can occur on that secondary lot.

 Nathan Ogden – Questioned development down Lillie lane about design standards not being met.

Building Inspector advised the buildings in question are still under a temporary CO.

Chair and PC discussed temporary COs and proposed language which would limit/set parameters for temporary COs.

After significant discussion, it was determined that any parameters set can still be ambiguous as to when, who, how, it gets set and does not resolve to a “black and white” process for Code compliance.

Agreed by the PC to recommend to Council that:  

“Temporary Certificates of Occupancy” not be issued, which is what many
other cities do.

Businesses operating under TCOs are to be notified that the ‘temporary CO’ has  expired and they have XX number of days to obtain their final CO. 

(Council will need to establish timeframe, but PC recommend a short time period being established by Council since significant time has passed under the TCOs).

Any business not obtaining their final CO will have business license
suspended until such completion.

Stephen Davis – originally on Agenda, requested to be moved to next month’s Agenda, but came to address his building height on his property. Chair advised the PC was not ready to address the matter at this meeting, but Mr. Davis requested initial discussion.

PC understood the building had already started before the annexation happened; however it had not. Misrepresentations have been made throughout the entire process.

The Chair addressed expired building permit status; addressed applicant decisions which led to the Fayetteville ‘stop work’ order; and now decisions which has created the current ‘stop work’ order; Chair advised that the project obviously changed and grew larger throughout the process or the building would not have ended up being in the setback area. The choice to ‘expand’ was a personal decision, not a decision that was “not in the property owner’s control”.

The Chair addressed that Mr. Davis, in an email he sent, addressed the “height should be well below other residences” and so even though Chair addressed height in subsequent emails, it was assumed Mr. Davis would not have a “height” issue by his own written admission.

The Chair addressed that even though height was said it would be lower, now a variance is being requested for height—a situation which was always within the applicant’s control, and variances can only be granted in situations where it was “not by any action of the applicant and something outside the applicant’s control”.

The Chair addressed email by Mr. Davis, wherein it was stated “will comply with Code to the best of ability” and that has not happened; height, size, setbacks were addressed in several email communications;

The Chair also addressed the square footage being bigger than his home. Although addressed in email communication, and he requested that “only the height issue be considered”, Chair advised this issue must also be addressed as it does not meet Code.

Mr. Davis referenced the “chimney” height—Chair rebutted this is not the Code standard; Mr. Davis inquired about updating his current residence so it is taller. Chair rebutted that it is the “current status that is viewed, not some potential, possible standard that may or may not ever occur- PC does not deal in hypotheticals, but rather the Code and what is in existence at the time of the request.

The PC advised Mr. Davis he will have to lower his building height to come into compliance. This is the same process was already required on another parcel application must be consistent throughout the city.

The PC advised he will have to reduce the size of his structure and he can then have a large concrete deck on one end; Mr. Davis advised that is impossible and would not work; Chair advised either it works, or there is no building a choice will have to be made. Chair advised the PC always looks for ways to allow a person to do their project while still meeting Code, but in this instance, there are not any options seen other than to reduce height and size. Chair asked PC for any other available options seen, the consensus was “there is none.”

The Chair stated that since all matters had been extensively addressed at this meeting, not sure if the applicant wants to come back next month to pursue the variance request because the same discussion, same outcome will result.

Motion to adjourn by Yoes, 2nd by Carnes Pass 4-0

Meeting adjourned at 8:01 pm