Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-23 MinutesPlanning Commission June 23, 2008 Page I of 10 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 23, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: June 9, 2008 Approved Page 3 ADM 08-3031: (BANK OF THE OZARKS - JOYCE) Approved Page 3 ADM 08-3032: (CHAMPION CLUB CONDOS PZD) Approved Page 3 LSD 08-3007: (MOUNTAIN RANCH APARTMENTS) Approved Page 3 CUP 08-3008: (MOUNTAIN RANCH APTS CLUBHOUSE, 479) Approved Page 4 ADM 08-3033: (UDC Amendment — Ch. 173 Building Regulations) Forwarded Page 5 ADM 08-3020: (UDC Amendment — Ch. 166.20 Expiration of Plans) Forwarded Page 9 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 2 of 10 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Jeremy Kennedy Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order. Commissioner Trumbo requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present with the exception of Commissioner Myres. Commissioner Myres arrived late. Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the June 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 08-3031: (BANK OF THE OZARKS - JOYCE): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL SPARKS for property located at THE SE CORNER OF JOYCE AND VANTAGE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.00 acres. The request is for a one year extension of the approved Large Scale Development, LSD 07-2584. Planner: Jesse Fulcher ADM 08-3032: (CHAMPION CLUB CONDOS PZD): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL SPARKS for property located at THE SW CORNER OF RAZORBACK ROAD AND 15TH STREET. The property is zoned R-PZD 07-2551 and contains approximately 4.42 acres. The request is for a one-year extension of the approved Residential Planned Zoning District, R-PZD 07- 2551. Planner: Dara Sanders LSD 08-3007: (MOUNTAIN RANCH APARTMENTS, 479): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at SE OF PERSIMMON STREET AND MOUNTAIN RANCH PHASE L The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 15.37 acres. The request is for a multi -family development with 360 single family units proposed, a project which was previously approved and is under construction. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Myres arrived. Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 4 of IO New Business: CUP 08-3008: (MOUNTAIN RANCH APTS CLUBHOUSE, 479): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located S OF PERSIMMON ST. AND E OF MOUNTAIN RANCH PHASE 1. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 15.37 acres. The request is for a clubhouse and a pool, Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facility, in the RMF -24 Zoning District, as previously approved. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, stating that based on findings, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with all conditions as listed in the staff report. Justin Jorgensen, applicant, stated he would be happy to answer questions. No public comment was received. Commissioner Winston asked if the building will feature a stone or brick veneer. Jorgensen stated there would be a stone veneer. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 5 of 10 ADM 08-3033: (UDC Amendment — Ch. 173 Building Regulations): Submitted by Steve Cattaneo, Building Safety Director, requesting an amendment to Ch. 173 of the UDC, adopting the Arkansas Energy Code with local amendments. Steve Cattaneo, Building Safety Director, gave the background on an ad-hoc committee created for reviewing the Arkansas Energy Code. Staff would like to develop a method for new homebuyers to compare homes on energy usage between homes. We would like to educate builders, consumers, and realtors. We would also like to create a competitive market and educational programs. The program would be voluntary, not required. A label would be required to be placed inside the electrical panel, and it would indicate if the home exceeded energy codes, etc., so any potential buyer could see where the home is at. The label will have information that will be useful for future owners to tell about the qualities of the house. Jason Brown, Arkansas Western Gas representative and committee member, stated the committee had settled on a metric of the carbon footprint of a residence. We are currently in process of creating a spreadsheet that would produce a score using a code -compliant residence as a baseline, and with alterations and improvements the methodology will calculate how the carbon footprint has been reduced by those changes. The methodology uses the "manual J" calculation, which is the load calculation of peak cooling and heating loads already required for the city, and are input with the square footage numbers to calculate a baseline to run on. From there, the major energy users in the home such as HVAC equipment, water heaters, washer and dryers, lighting etc. are added into the scorecard, which produces a rolling carbon footprint calculation based on percentage improvement for all the things the homeowner does. It results in a standardized score from 0-100, where 0 means it is merely code -compliant, and 100 means the carbon footprint has been completely eliminated. Information would be readily available to builders and inspectors. The label would include pertinent information including the score and what items contributed to that score for the information for the home owner. John Coleman, Sustainability Coordinator, stated that some of the things we wanted to include were a checklist based on other checklists from other cities and the U.S. Green Building Council, in the process of applying scores to those so we can relate that back to the scorecard. It will be a simple checklist where builders will be able to -- once they provide the manual J, which is the main portion of the scorecards, they can go in and determine what kind of HVAC system has been added, whether they did a programmable thermostat, what type of installations have been done. All these things accrue points in that way. Coleman provided a draft of a scorecard showing how the score is calculated. It will be simple enough so the consumer will be able to easily judge what homes are more energy efficient relative to others. It will also have more pertinent information such as the R value of the roof and ceilings, things they would not notice coming in 5 years later to purchase the home. The minimum requirement would be that the scorecard will be posted in the electrical panel. No public comment was received. Commissioner Graves asked if the certificate in the electrical panel would be the scorecard. Coleman stated that it would be. Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Anthes asked if the request was to adopt the Arkansas Energy Code, which is currently considered but not officially adopted, and then amend it by requiring the scorecard. Cattaneo stated that that was correct. Commissioner Anthes stated she was confused because she was being asked to require this certificate but does not know what is actually going to be on it. It is only a draft at this stage. She would feel better knowing things for certain about the scorecard before approving it, such as: what building elements would be listed on the label, who verifies the numbers listed, who verifies the installed items meet the criteria of the drawing, whose time will be spent doing that, and do we have a budget allocated toward that staff time if indeed staff and not the builder will be doing it. She is blown away by the comment about the possibility of 100% removing the carbon footprint. She stated she is very confused about what is being proposed. Cattaneo discussed the Arkansas energy code; as for the scorecard, it is intended to allow consumers to know where their residence stands. Commissioner Anthes asked if this will add time for inspectors. Cattaneo stated it will add some time, but feels it is manageable with what we're doing already. Brown stated that a significant portion of the discussion among the committee has been about how to make it easy for the inspectors and home builders. Regarding Commissioner Anthes' carbon footprint question, the intent of the committee was to work on the operation of the actual home. It was originally energy efficiency, we chose carbon footprint to be the best metric to judge that by. Commissioner Anthes stated she did not have a problem with the idea of doing this, but asked if we need to know all of the information from this scorecard before we send it forward with a recommendation of approval. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that he thinks that with this presentation and the information that has been presented that it would be appropriate to have it forwarded to City Council, allowing some more details to be worked out. Commissioner Anthes stated she would like to see the code adopted and the program put in place. Williams stated that with the kind of enforcement measures that will not be intense enforcement measures, this is a voluntary program which the committee is seeking acceptance for. As any ordinance or code goes, there are always modifications and improvements, so it will be looked at as a first step, not the last step. Cattaneo stated that the committee did not perceive the amendment as being set in stone, and there would likely be revisions over a period of time. Commissioner Anthes stated she was concerned with the program being meaningful, in that it Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 7 of 10 should be properly verified. Commissioner Winston asked if the sticker goes in with the Certificate of Occupancy, and if you get a sticker whether you take part in the program or not. Cattaneo stated this was correct. Commissioner Winston asked if the sticker could work retroactively for homes. Coleman stated it would be very difficult to do that without inspections in place at the time of initial construction. Commissioner Winston asked about remodels. Brown stated that if you do an extensive remodel - the building block of all of this starts with the manual J calculations, so you have to know the peak heating and cooling loads and that requires an intimate knowledge of the building shell, so it is required to know how much insulation there is and specifications on the doors and windows. So it would be possible to determine the score if the house were to be gutted to the shell, but as time goes by you lose the baseline information you need for the manual J calculation upon which the score is built. So it depends on the extent of the remodel. Commissioner Winston asked if a brand new house was built but did not have major appliances in it, could the house still be able to qualify for the sticker? Brown stated the committee has not yet discussed that. Coleman stated that if the builder is not going to provide appliances and the house has obtained its C of O, it seems reasonable that they would not be awarded any points for those upgrades. The y are not going to send an inspector back out to see if they have added Energy Star appliances after the C of O has been issued. Commissioner Winston asked if there was an allowance for something experimental or unusual, and if people could be awarded "creativity points." Coleman stated he has discussed that and will likely try and do that with this proram. Commissioner Graves asked if the certificate could be changed over time to incorporate experimental things or alterations that might come up. He asked if it could be amended to clarify that we are talking about the operation of the building at the time of construction. Right now it says "energy efficiency measures incorporated into the building," and maybe it could say, "incorporated into the operation of the building at the time of construction." It seems like B-1 could be more flexible to allow Building Safety staff to modify that. Commissioner Trumbo stated he would encourage an amendment to include Commissioner Graves' suggestion. Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 8 of 10 Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to amend part B-1 to read "Every new residence shall have a certificate affixed inside the main electrical panel indicating the energy efficiency measures incorporated into the operation of the building at the time of completion of construction. The certificate may be amended and shall be approved by the Building Official." Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Commissioner Lack stated he had a comment regarding the number 100. He would probably not recommend a "100" possibility, reducing the carbon footprint entirely. He is in agreement with adopting the energy code and using the sticker program. He is also in agreement that the idea of appliances which can be modified readily should not be included in this sticker program. One could change the score by simply not maintaining the appliance. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the ordinance to the City Council as amended, with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 9 of 10 ADM 08-3020: (UDC Amendment — Ch. 166.20 Expiration of Plans): Submitted by Planning staff, an amendment to the Unified Development Code Ch. 166.20, Expiration of Approved Plans and Permits, to permit administrative extensions for projects that meet all code requirements and establish different extension options. Planner: Jeremy Pate Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, gave the staff report and described the amendments. In 2002, the Planning Commission recommended City Council adopt an ordinance establishing two sections of the UDC. One section was essentially a sunset clause for old projects, and gave them a six month time period in which to construct the project or was it was considered expired. A second portion of the code, Chapter 166.20, called Expiration of Plans, was also adopted, which listed out different types of applications that the Planning Commission sees: Conditional Use Permits, Planned Zoning Districts, Large Scale Developments, Preliminary Plats, even sign permits, that have expired after a certain amount of time. In general, the code gave one year from the date of approval for a project to accomplish its tasks. Each project has separate tasks; separate things that need to be obtained. Written into the code is a section allowing a one-time, one-year extension. There have been 48 extensions approved since this code was adopted. They are very rarely ever discussed. In the last 6 years, none have been denied. They usually appear on the consent agenda. In the same period of time, 13 applicants have actually missed that window of opportunity to request the extension and have had to come back and process a new LSD or CUP. Mountain Ranch Apartments' request on the agenda tonight is an example. In looking at projects like that, it takes staff a lot of time: we notify applicants, neighbors, the Planning Commission has to sit through meetings; sometimes those are easy, sometimes they are not. What staff has done is prepared amendments to Ch. 166. In section A, we removed sign permits entirely. Sign permits operate under a separate chapter, and we are required to approve or deny them within 5 days. In section B, what we've clarified for Planned Zoning Districts is that's it's not necessarily one year. Most Planned Zoning Districts have their own phasing plans, so we added the section that they have to comply with their own individual phasing plans that is approved by Planning Commission & City Council. We added "county" to section B 1 E and instead of"start" "completion" of construction of a project. It's really to complete, because they're trying to get all permits associated with completing construction of the project. What we've added primarily are the next 4 or 5 sections. Section 2 states "administrative extension" and is the first addition, so an applicant that has a project that is set to expire within one year from date of approval would be able to submit a letter requesting an extension. My staff would document that and sign off on it and from that date forward they would have one year if they gave a good reason for that request. Extensions that are not permitted administratively may be requested at the Planning Commission within 10 days of the final decision. Why would we not approve an extension? If there was a significant code change, for example if the greenspace requirements for a project went from 25% now to 75% on a project, that is a significant code amendment and would substantially alter that project such that that could not be constructed. Ultimately, the intent of this ordinance is for a project to meet the codes in place at the time of construction. The 48 requests we've seen have that have been constructed have met the codes at the time of construction. We're confident this would continue. Section 3 allows for an extra six months, for example if an applicant misses their deadline for one year for an administrative extension, this allows another 6 month window for a total of 18 months Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 10 of 10 between the time of approval and time of expiration. Section 4 adds one more year of possible time frame which an applicant can request the Planning Commission to extend it, bringing it to a maximum of 3 years whereas now there is a max of 2. We are seeing larger projects coming through that require quite a bit of time for them to obtain all their building permits. Section 5 "ordinance amendments" is to clarify that to receive approval of an extension the applicant shall comply with all applicable zoning and development requirements that have been adopted subsequent to the original project approval, which means that if you get an extension you have to meet the codes in place at that time. However, there are times at which the codes would have caused the buildings to shift location after the foundations and footings have been completed. Section 6 was added to allow variances from that requirement, so the applicant is not required to go all the way through the LSD process just because they don't meet that code requirement, they can simply submit a request to you at the Planning Commission, and request a variance. If you as a Planning Commission feel it is necessary to require that, then that is your decision. If it something minor, you have the ability to allow for a variance. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the amendment to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 PM.