Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024, 6:00 PM
Greenland Community Center
170 North Letitia

 

Members Present: Brenda Reynolds, Bill Yoes, Hunter Collins, Charlotte Carnes, Colbi Johnson, Meeting called to order at 6:00 PM.

 

1. Public Hearing: Davis 17 S Napier Ave

Mr. Davis supplied photos with 3 email notification printouts dated 11-17-23, copies of orders for the building, and a summary of the construction problems for the PC to review (attached). He is presenting to request a variance for a 22’ tall accessory structure. Mr. Davis proceeded to read the introduction page of the project he provided to the PC. Afterwards, Chair stated she received information in November that the build started October 1, 2023, and that information was the basis for the Nov 17 email that due to the fact that the building was in the county and not city limits, that his building was “grandfathered in.” This information was incorrect from the start, as the “building” was not started and only rough dirt work was done by the time the permit was obtained on Nov 16.

Chair inquired about whether the height was desired because of using it as living quarters above the garage; Mr. Davis advised no—personal shop only and height is wanted to have an office on one end and height for a car lift.

Chair’s email with Davis on Nov 17 stated “Our code does not allow buildings to exceed the height of the primary structure’s eve—which you have already addressed below, and that should be good.” This reference was to Mr. Davis’ email of same date stating, …So, the height of the gable roof will be well beneath the existing house and also the three houses that were built in front of our house many years ago.”

The property’s annexation effective date was October 25th, 2023, but the building permit was not obtained until November 16, 2023. This means that the building was not “grandfathered in” and that all City codes must be adhered to. A photo of the “rough dirt work” that existed as of Nov 16 is attached.

Per Mr. Davis’ email to himself, which he handed out, 11/16/23- permit issued; 02/14/24 original footing approved; 05/09/24 corrected footing approved; 06/05/24 steel in the floor slab.

Same email states “On 12/20/23…I said I needed to increase the height and size by 2ft…” At this time, the footing had not even been done, and had notice the height could not exceed the principal structure, yet he chose to order the larger building.

In May, when the “corrected footing was approved”, this correction was required because the third time City of Fayetteville checked the project, a stop was placed on construction as the building was now across the sewer easement. This means that either the building was moving or that the building design was growing.

June 5, 2024 when the steel floor in slab was approved—the building permit had already expired. Per the email Mr. Davis handed out, “that building was delivered and partially assembled on 7-1-24”. Again, no valid building permit was in effect.

Commissioner Collins addressed the fact that no plan was submitted with the   application, as required BY the application. So there is nothing to compare the “original plan” vs. what is in existence now; can only go off the emails and there was clear notice in November to NOT exceed the height of the residence.

Regarding the photo from November 16, 2023, showing just rough dirt moving; no foundation footers were dug nor concrete poured. The fact is that the accessory structure cannot exceed the height of the principal structure. Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Yoes commented that they would like to know what constitutes the start of a project or substantial construction; Chair will inquire with City Attorney.

Public Comment:

 Detra Reid: She inquired what information was given to the applicant to make him aware that his property was being annexed and the date at which it would go into effect. Mayor Renfrow stated that certified letters were sent to all property owners that their property was being annexed. They were notified that they could vote for or against the annexation. Chair read the letter from Arkansas Secretary of State showing effective date of the annexation was 10/25/2023, filed 09/25/2023 and dated 09/11/2023; citizens have 30 days to appeal before it is finalized (county court order: CC2023-22).

 Dave Smith: He states that he has no issue with the building being taller than the principal structure. His concern is that the building was not measured correctly. Chair advised that the city building inspector climbed on top of Mr. Davis’ residence and verified the accessory structure will be taller than the principal structure by 3 1/2’.

 Penny Flatt: She recently built an accessory structure. She learned the deadlines and rules of the city, was not hard to find out or follow the guidelines; she understood when a building permit would expire; she would have wanted to build a larger structure but respected the Code guidelines.

 Vallerie Maxwell: She built a new garage on a lot next to the lot with the principal structure. She went to the City and asked for all the codes that they needed abide by in order to construct correctly.

 Sharon Cure – She does not have an issue with anyone building in Greenland as long as it looks nice; addressed the lime green house that is under condemnation; Mayor Renfrow stated that the building is under condemnation and has been for months.

 Luellen Hallet – Lives on Napier across from this project. She cannot imagine building something this large and not finding out about Code first; “if we do not abide by the codes then it is a matter of getting forgiveness rather than permission.”

 Joanne Fontenot– If you want to build something, you should have a plan. She believes he was not in the city when this was designed. You don’t just make a plan and then move on without it. She claims he put money in our pockets by building this structure. Mayor Renfrow stated this is incorrect. The City of Fayetteville had to come out and check that he had moved the footprint out of the building setback. The applicant stated emails were not relevant to this same structure. The applicant changed the footprint and design throughout this process.

 Angela Perett – She owns the property that has the driveway Mr. Davis has been using for access to his project. He does not have an access easement to use this driveway. He is using 507 W Wilson as access to this building; his property access “17 S. Napier” is further up the road. He cut down trees on their property to get supplies for his building
on his property.

 Melville Byron – She owns the house next to his. She gave permission to cut one tree down, but he cut down several. He then proceeded to cut more than one tree down to get his materials on site. It is the responsibility of the builder to find out where to dig and follow code. Where would we be without code? You have to have rules and you must abide by rules. He has had plenty of opportunities to do what he was supposed to do but is then asking for forgiveness. I think rules are rules and everyone needs to follow
them.

Closed public comment 7:14.

2. Davis, 17 S Napier Ave Variance Request

 Chair read the code regarding variance request applicability. Over a full month elapsed between the notification of the building height requirement and Mr. Davis ordering an even larger building than he originally expected.

 Chair advised Mr. Davis he had the opportunity to tell the building company he could not go that high due to Code, but he chose not to do that and ordered the large building anyway. This was a choice—and the variance guidelines do not allow variances for things which are in the applicant’s control. Chair stated that the PC applies the rules and guidelines in the Code to protect the citizens of Greenland. These rules are put in place to protect the public.

Chair advised the City made Mr. Hamby reduce his height to conform with Code; he had to reduce height on his metal posts (similar to this building). If the City does not follow the Code, then decisions become “subjective” and discriminatory in approval. This is why we have the Code—to ensure same application regardless of the applicant. Mr. Hamby would certainly want to know why he had to spend extra money to comply with Code, when we are not making this project do so. Also, if we approve, then it sets a precedent for future projects on “unequal application of the Code”. Closed General Session: 7:25 PM.

Public Comment: Jim Hammer – Why did the city allow him to continue his project without notifying him? The PC stated that the applicant changed his plan multiple times throughout this process. Fayetteville shut him down as his project grew with no plan and upon the encroachment of the sewer easement.

Jimmy Smith – Where do we draw the line if we already did variances? Chair explained that we have not granted any variances, but by the time it is coming before the PC for action, he is already past the points of the variances and the PC sees where “strict enforcement” would, indeed, create an undue burden on Mr. Davis because we could require him to tear everything down. PC is conceding on the location and concrete footprint because of errors which allowed it to get to that point; however this is the first variance request by Mr. Davis, and it comes after choosing to purchase a larger building after having notice of the height requirements. And, again, Mr. Davis’ own words in his email “it will be lower than”…but now seeking a variance because it’s not. He should have had multiple variance applications for this project if this was to proceed. This building should have been caught multiple times before tonight. Mr.
Smith said he now he understands that the applicant was fully aware that his height was not appropriate and he agrees it should not be allowed to continue.

SHORT SYNOPSIS: Applicant had notice of height requirement; chose to purchase an even larger building one month later; now seeks a variance for the height of that larger building.

Collins motion to deny. Carnes second. Denied 4-0.

3. Public Comments

Citizen inquiry about there not being a sign stating “school zone times” when you turn at the stop light from Wilson going north. If the school zone lights are flashing to the south or north, anyone coming from Wilson does not have that notice it is in effect—there needs to be signage of some kind so people have notice. Chair advised this is actually a Council/Admin matter—Mayor will discuss with Chief Stout.

Motion to adjourn by Yoes. Seconded by Johnson. Meeting adjourned 7:49 PM.

Attached document relative to meeting: Davis Variance Request