April 19, 2001
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary L. Coley Peter Hemingway David Kelly Scott Mardian Gary Morris Herman Orcutt Danny Ortega Judy Pavsek Greg Russell Steve Speer Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff and Interested Parties
Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Frank Dolasinski, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Fitz, City of Phoenix, DSD Ryan Gregory, City of Phoenix, CED Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Barbara Koffron, City of Phoenix, Fire Larry Litchfield, Development Services Lionel Lyons, City of Phoenix, DSD Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Alan Olson, City of Phoenix, DSD John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD John Verdugo, City of Phoenix, Planning Jon Wendt, City of Phoenix, DSD
Rus Brock, Home Builders Assoc. of Central Arizona |
Gary Coley, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:03 p.m.
MINUTES OF March 15, 2001:
MOTION was made by Judy Pavsek, seconded by Greg Russell, to approve the meeting minutes of March 15, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Herman Orcutt requested a public hearing for the proposed Development Services fee adjustments.
Mr. Darrell Wilson requested that on the May agenda, the Board consider possible action for recommendations on the Black Canyon Corridor Design Guidelines. Mr. Wilson would also like to revisit the water and sewer easement width issue presented at the March DAB Meeting by Mr. Larson and Mr. Shannon, of the Water Services Department. Mr. Coley advised that he has received inquiries as to whether this was a preliminary proposal or actual implementation items.
Mr. Wilson referred to the minutes of the March 15, 2001 meeting which indicated that the Chair had requested Water Services to return to the DAB to address questions brought forward by the members. Mr. Wilson advised that it was his understanding that the easement width changes have already been implemented.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Executive: No Report
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee:
Mr. Herman Orcutt reported the subcommittee met and received Development Services revenue reports for the third quarter, which will be reported later in the agenda by Mr. Dan Hatch. Mr. Orcutt provided an update on the review of the Development Services Fee Schedule. Interim changes to be implemented in July 2001 are being made with plans to address the fee schedule as a whole over the course of the next year. Mr. Alan Olson will make a presentation detailing those changes later in the agenda.
Process and Procedures:
Mr. Ben Barcon reported the subcommittee met April 18 and discussed a public hearing on a Phoenix program for certification of steel fabricators that will be held by the subcommittee. That hearing is scheduled for May 11, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in Historic City Hall, Second Floor Subcommittee Room. A flier is being distributed to over 115 fabrication firms, as well as an association listing of local structural engineers, and a public posting of the hearing.
Mr. Barcon advised that John Parks updated the subcommittee on the efforts to improve communication between Development Services and Planning Department. The Conditional Permit Process was also discussed and Mr. Derek Horn provided a draft process for subcommittee review.
Technical Subcommittee
Mr. Litchfield advised that the subcommittee has not met, but the public hearing regarding the no-step issue has been scheduled for the May 17, 2001 DAB Meeting.
Zoning and Planning Subcommittee: Ms. Julie Stiak reported that the Hillside Ad Hoc Subcommittee met April 16 and will address the outcome under the reporting for that subcommittee. In the discussion of the phase two considerations, the issue of enforcement was raised. Since recommendations for significant changes are being developed, enforcement is an issue that is becoming more prevalent. Many of the subcommittee members feel that the ordinance should be changed; but if no authority is granted for enforcing it, are the ordinance changes really going to be meaningful?
Mr. Coley advised that he views enforcement as a logical extension of the changes. Ms. Stiak added that a representative from the Parks Department has been attending the subcommittee meeting and suggested that they may be suggesting an interdisciplinary team, as the issues cross beyond zoning and planning issues to other departments.
Hillside Subcommittee:
Ms. Stiak deferred her report to item 5 on the agenda (Discussion/Possible Action on Proposed Text Amendments to the Hillside Development Zoning Ordinance).
Black Canyon Corridor Design Guidelines Ad Hoc Subcommittee:
Mr. Darrell Wilson advised that several things have transpired since the last reporting. Very shortly after the Board meeting in March, a Design Standards Committee meeting was held and at that time it was identified that there was no time remaining for significant review of this document. The committee wishes to move the document forward to City Council prior to their summer break in August.
With that goal, the Design Review Standards Committee would need to forward the document for review by the Planning Commission this month. That document was fowarded earlier this week on a schedule much accelerated from what was anticipated. Mr. Wilson expressed his appreciation to the subcommittee members for their efforts and participation. The subcommittee will meet again on April 26 to compile their comments and DSD staff has agreed to organize and forward those comments to the Design Review Standards Committee. Although the Committee feels compelled to provide this to City Council prior to summer break, they have acknowledged their intent to continue to work with the community to hear and incorporate any concerns that are brought forward. Rus Brock, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, and Valley Partnership are also working diligently to provide input to the Committee.
If there are changes from the various groups that the Committee would agree to endorse, the Committee has expressed their intent to forward to the Planning Commission an amendment to the original document incorporating those changes.
Mr. Coley asked if he was confused in his understanding that there were to have been three public meetings on this issue. Mr. Wilson advised he doesn't recall the number of meetings specified, but that he certainly understood that there was time for thorough review by the Black Canyon Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee. In turn the DAB could make their recommendations to the Planning Commission parallel to the Design Review Standards Committee. Mr. Wilson feels that they will be extremely hard-pressed to be able to accomplish their review in this timeframe.
Mr. Wilson advised that at the request of the subcommittee, the Planning Department hosted a meeting at City Hall on April 23 and invited stakeholders in the area. Mr. Wilson felt that attendees at that meeting were also surprised with the shortened timeline. Mr. Wilson asked that this item be on the May 17 DAB agenda for action by the Board to provide their recommendations on this issue.
Ad Hoc Planned Community District Subcommittee:
Ms. Julie Stiak deferred this report to item 8 on the agenda. Mr. Frank Dolasinski will provide a report on the final text amendment.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONING ORDINANCE:
Ms. Julie Stiak referred to an updated list of recommendations distributed to the Board. Most of the items have been discussed with the Board, but the current listing provides more detail. These are the phase one recommendations the subcommittee would like the Board to review and formally adopt for recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Item A addresses computer methodology as an option for calculation of slope analysis in determining hillside density. The manual method would still be available for smaller projects or those firms that choose not to invest in the software required for computer calculation.
Item B, in a move toward simplification and efforts to get as much reviewed as possible at the preplanning meeting, it also recommends slope analysis/density concurrent with rezoning or preliminary site plan/subdivision submittal.
Item C recommends a hillside density waiver review by the Zoning Hearing Officer and Planning Commission prior to City Council. (Waivers currently proceed directly to City Council.)
Item D necessitated several subcommittee meetings to ensure that input was received from neighborhoods, Planning Department and Development Services staff, as well as the development community. This item recommends flexibility in adjusting grading limits for single-family residential lots under an acre.
The current ordinance standards allow 25% grading under roof with a minimum of 10% additional site grading. The proposal recommends allowing a maximum 5% transfer of allowable "under roof" grading to be transferred to site grading. Maximum permanent disturbance would remain at current standards of 35%; 20% under roof with 15% additional site grading. An additional 10% of the site could be graded subject to natural revegetation.
This proposal was a compromise reached to encourage builders not to use the maximum 25% grading under roof, but to take a little less under roof and put it towards additional grading, with an additional provision for doubling the additional grading on the site to 10% for revegetation to encourage maintaining natural vegetation.
Mr. Scott Mardian asked for clarification of the wording "could be." If this verbiage indicated it was up to the owner to take that option, or is it the City's determination. Ms. Stiak advised it would be a collaborative decision between the developer/owner and DSD staff. Mr. Parks added that the intent is that as long as it is revegetated with natural landscaping the owner could take advantage of this option.
Mr. Coley asked if the recommendations were in final language. Ms. Stiak responded that the recommendations are in conceptual language and must be rewritten in text amendment (legal) language for the ordinance.
Mr. Peter Hemingway asked about the software required for the computer calculations of slope analysis. Mr. Parks advised that Mr. Darrell Wilson and Mr. Alan Beaudoin ran a computer analysis of specific sites and DSD staff provided calculations using the manual methods to compare with the computer results. The comparison revealed that the results were very close, with the computer approach yielding even more conservative results than the manual method. Mr. Hemingway stated that he realized that staff couldn't recommend specific software programs, but was concerned with the type or quality of software that could be used. Mr. Parks advised that more technical specifications would be included in the amendments that would clarify those issues.
Mr. Litchfield expressed his support of the move for inclusion of more flexibility in the ordinance, which would allow for more reasonable and timely resolutions to the problems encountered with hillside issues.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Peter Hemingway; to approve the conceptual recommendations made by the Hillside Ad Hoc Subcommittee for amendments to the Hillside Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ADOPTION OF 2000 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE (UMC)
Mr. Danny Ortega advised the Board that the Ad Hoc Mechanical Code Subcommittee is still working on the finalization of the code amendments and anticipates the need for two more meetings to finalize their work. Mr. Litchfield stated that a meeting is set for Monday, April 23 and another meeting will be scheduled prior to the May 17 Board meeting. It was agreed that a public hearing would be held at the May 17 meeting to hear comments (draft amendments will be distributed with the DAB Board packet for the Board's review) and action could be taken following the hearing.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED CODE CHANGES REGARDING JOURNEYMAN LICENSING PROCEDURES
Mr. Litchfield advised materials distributed with the packet explain proposed changes to the Journeyman licensing procedures. The license, referred to as a "Mechanics License," is currently renewed annually. It is proposed that the license be known as a "Journeyman License" and that renewal period be changed from a 12-month to a 36-month cycle. We currently have 3,600 licenses in the system (with some 600+ apprenticeship licenses) creating a workload problem with the 12-month cycle. The proposal is to divide the 3,600 existing license renewals into twelve pieces (300 each month) with letters sent out, testing and renewals given for a three-year period. This will spread the renewal process out over the course of the year into a more manageable workload.
The initial fee and test would remain the same ($50) and the renewal fee would change to $40 rather than the current $20 per year for three years ($60); saving the customer money, plus saving time and reducing the workload for Development Services. A public hearing is suggested for May 17 so that the Board may receive public input regarding the proposed code change and provide a recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Darrell Wilson asked the industry position on this change. Mr. Litchfield advised that the industry wishes to continue journeyman licensing. DSD staff supports the program because the quality of the workmanship is improved by the licensing process. Mr. Coley added that he believed it was also supported by members of the City Council that are a part of the industry.
Mr. Greg Russell asked that as the test for the renewal is an open book test, how is this license and fee nothing more than a tax? Ms. Kelly O'Neal explained that the initial test is not open book and is monitored by staff; the renewal is an open book test with the goal of ensuring that the current code is being used. Mr. Danny Ortega added his support of the program and its value.
MOTION was made by Danny Ortega, seconded by Herman Orcutt, to conduct a public hearing on May 17, 2001 to receive public input regarding the proposed code changes to mechanical journeyman licensing procedures.Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD) TEXT AMENDMENTS
Mr. Frank Dolasinski advised that proposed text amendments provided to the Board have been scheduled for hearing with the Planning Commission the first week of May and with City Council the first week of June. No changes have been made to the draft amendments initially presented to the Board last month. Mr. Dolasinksi gave an overview of the proposed changes including:
Mr. Mardian asked when someone purchases a piece of property that is a PCD, is that information available to the purchaser via the escrow documents? Mr. Dolasinski advised that a development agreement would be filed with the County Recorder and would be revealed in the title search and subsequent escrow documents.
MOTION was made by Julie Stiak, seconded by Judy Pavsek, to approve and recommend for adoption the Planned Community District (PCD) Text Amendments.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON COORDINATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS IN SUBDIVISIONS
Ms. Barbara Koffron presented information on the joint efforts of Development Services, Water Services and the Fire Department in the development of a plain language policy for the placement of fire hydrants in a subdivision to provide better direction to both developers and plan reviewers.
The City Manager's Office has put together a task force to address issues regarding infill hydrants due to a recent fire in an infill area without an active hydrant. Water Services, Fire and Development Services are all working to ensure that this situation does not reoccur.
One of the issues that arose involves a provision in the Fire Code that specifies when you start construction on a project; you must have a hydrant within 350 feet of combustible construction. Over the years, with the increase in development, enforcement of this provision has become less restrictive. With the recent fires in the Preserve area, the obvious need for available fire connections and enforcement of this provision is heightened.
Development Services has discussed this issue with the Home Builders Association and the Fire Department understands that their organization is supportive of efforts to maintain safety and protect property. Ms. Koffron advised that as soon as the final language is developed, she would see that the Board has an opportunity to review and comment. Mr. Coley asked if the Board would be receiving that information with their Board packet prior to their next meeting, so that they would have an opportunity to review prior to the May 17 meeting and Ms. Koffron confirmed.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ON PROPOSED FIRE CODE CHANGES
Ms. Koffron advised that information regarding the proposed fire code changes has been sent to the DAB along with the Fire Safety Advisory Board agenda. Ms. Koffron added that many of the changes have been in the code for quite some time in the form of a regulation and are now being formalized in the Fire Code.
The width of fire lines is a significant change that will affect developers. Phoenix is the only city in the State of Arizona that has a 16-foot fire lane (since 1972). The requirement has been changed to 20 feet for school sites to match the State Fire Marshall's requirement. Fire trucks have grown in size and the 20 feet has become more and more important. Ms. Koffron emphasized that this change will not be retroactive and will not affect established 16-foot fire lanes.
Mr. Litchfield inquired if Streets Department had been contacted regarding the 20-foot requirement? Mr. Jon Wendt advised that the standard local street width is 29 feet, with 8 feet each side for parking, leaving 14 feet of travel lane. To increase the fire lane from 16 feet to 20 feet, parking could only be allowed on one side or the street width increased. Ms. Koffron advised that they are typically looking at private as opposed to public streets, that Fire had been informed that Streets Department would not change the width of public streets. Ms. Koffron advised the issue would be revisited with Streets and Development Services and reiterated that the fire lane width really is a critical issue for Fire.
The combustible materials portion of the code is being updated to add mulch and compost, as well as additional conditions for storage of rubbish and recyclable materials. Some of those changes include containment or increased distances between storage and adjacent properties. The Fire Advisory Board would like to receive any comments from the Development Advisory Board regarding these changes.
Mr. Coley felt it wouldn't be economically feasible for businesses dealing with rubbish or recyclables to house these materials in storage buildings as was being proposed. Ms. Koffron stated that direction was given by the City Council strengthen the codes on this, but that the Fire Safety Advisory Board's view is the same as Mr. Coley's; that to require storage under-roof could be industry prohibitive.
Additional proposed changes regarding hazardous materials includes requirements that businesses using hazardous chemicals or materials not store large quantities, that the amount of any hazardous material stored in vehicles be at a minimum level and to ensure that any vehicle carrying hazardous materials is placarded to identify those materials.
Also included is building classification placarding for new construction/buildings. This is a system of color and number identification that informs firefighters if the building has a basement, provides information on the fire hazard (burn information) for the building, roof, etc. This will give the firefighters valuable information for safety and strategically fighting a fire.
Mr. Dan Ortega asked if there was any reference in the Fire Code as to storage of tires. Ms. Koffron advised there is a section that provides information on storage of tires, Fire Code requirements on storage of discarded/trash tires, as well as State of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and zoning requirements.
Mr. Barcon asked if the distance requirement between fire hydrants was being changed. Ms. Koffron advised that the requirement is not being changed, just formalized from an existing regulation and moved into the Fire Code.
This item is for information only, but the Fire Safety Advisory Board would appreciate any feedback from the Development Advisory Board.
DISCUSSION/PRESENTATION ON UPDATE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES (NSD)/ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (DSD) RETREAT
Mr. Jon Wendt briefed the Board on the DSD/NSD retreat and efforts to address common areas of concern, as well as improvement in interdepartmental coordination. An action plan has been developed to speak to those areas of concern. Items listed include: development of a DSD code enforcement policy, creation of a formal policy within DSD for receiving/responding to NSD service requests (addition of a NSD-funded position in DSD to serve as liaison/coordinator with NSD), development of citation authority for the Zoning Ordinance for both DSD and NSD, development of a written policy on the processing of swimming pool complaints, and stipulation development and enforcement.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON UPDATE OF FIRE MARSHALL/UNIFIED FIRE CODE ISSUE
Mr. Gary Morris advised the Board that a joint effort with the Fire Marshall to unify the metro fire codes has been unsuccessful. There is a split among the municipalities as to which code they are going to adopt. However, there is an opportunity to standardize the process of application and review of plans, standardization of forms, etc.
Mr. Barcon asked if the problem was with the State Fire Marshall and the City of Phoenix? Mr. Morris advised that the problem is the determination by each individual municipality as to which code they are going to adopt. There is a "wait and see" attitude to see what is going to happen with NFPA 5000 and many municipalities are split as to which fire code they will adopt.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ON FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 FEE ADJUSTMENTS
Mr. Alan Olson briefed the Board on results of an annual user fee analysis conducted, as part of the City Council's budget process, by the City Auditor and Budget and Research Department. All City fees are reviewed at this time to determine if fees are at the appropriate levels for the approved budget.
This analysis determined that in order for Development Services to maintain their current staffing level, or any proposed increase, DSD would need to raise fees in the building safety plan review/permit area by approximately 13%. Civil engineering and site plan review areas are not affected as they are recovering their costs under the current fee schedule.
Financial data and materials have been provided to the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee for their review and they will meet weekly over the next three weeks to sort through the data to provide their recommendations at the next Board meeting. Mr. Olson asked how much of the review materials the full Board would like to receive. Several Board members expressed interest in the materials and Mr. Olson agreed to provide this information to the Board.
Mr. Olson explained that City Council would adopt a tentative budget on June 13. Budget and Research would like any ordinance for adjusting DSD's fee schedule to be provided at that time. This is just prior to the Board's June meeting, which is why recommendations to Council must be addressed at the May 17 Board meeting. It was agreed that a public hearing would be held and Board recommendations made at the May 17, 2001 meeting.
The final Council budget decision is June 27, to be effective for the July 1, 2001 budget. If in fact they adopt the increase in the fees, fee adjustments would become effective 30 days following the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Barcon asked if it was an option to be anything less than 100% cost recovery? Mr. Olson responded that policy direction from City Council is 100% cost recovery and that is what the Budget and Research Department is expecting us to demonstrate.
Mr. Barcon asked if this policy shouldn't be revisited or the issue raised? Mr. Olson advised that from a staff perspective that would be a legitimate direction for the Board, but the fiscal reality is that the City Council is feeling a budget pinch this year and these fees are a source of revenue. There are certain areas where general fund amounts are utilized, as services provided in areas not related to construction or permit activity, such as our time in assisting the Neighborhood Services Department explained earlier by Mr. Wendt.
Board members agreed they would like to explore the possibility of a subcommittee for the FY 2002/03 budget year to re-examine the 100% cost recovery policy and the possibility of more general fund support to cover services not directly subsidized by fees.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ON QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Dan Hatch reviewed handouts provided to the Board reporting third quarter financial results for Development Services. Mr. Hatch reported that this quarter revenue figures topped $10M, the largest in Development Services history.
Mr. Barcon asked for clarification on the "Non-Departmental Sources - Fire Prevention" item and the discrepancy between the total budget and the operating costs. Mr. Hatch explained that the Fire Prevention group is currently at 85% cost recovery, indicating that they are not charging enough for the services that they are providing.
Mr. Barcon asked for an explanation of "Outside Plan Review" costs. Mr. Hatch explained this item is reported as a decrease in revenue per Budget and Research Department. The fees collected for plan review are allocated at 75% for the contract plan review costs and 25% for DSD costs to cover plan log-in, routing and overhead. Because these services are on an as-needed basis, Budget and Research has instructed us to report these costs as a decrease in revenue rather than as a permanent budget item.
Mr. Hemingway asked if it was more cost effective to contract out plan review as opposed to hiring more staff. Mr. Wendt clarified that the work that is contracted out is usually only a portion of the project and that it still has to be pulled back in to verify zoning stipulations and coordinate with other disciplines. Mr. Orcutt added that it is probably more difficult when using contractors to maintain the continuity we get with the team approach. Mr. Lyons indicated that the team concept is working, but that we are looking at the allocation of staff to meet the demands. This is one of the highest priorities for the next year.
CALL TO PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
Mr. Rus Brock, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, stated his organization has a concern regarding the requirement that fire hydrants not be over 500 feet apart and the new clarification to locate a fire hydrant at the intersection of each public or private street.
In some of the subdivisions that have fairly narrow lots, there are street intersections at some 270 feet apart. At $2500 per hydrant, plus another $500 to level it and place the reflector in the street, some of the members are seeing a concern with the cost involved with that kind of frequency in intersections. With intersections at this reduced distance, is there some other way to define the distance requirements other than at intersections?
The other rule in the change of clarification causing concern is the change in requirements from one to two hydrants in a cul-de-sac. Ms. Koffron advised that Water Department was revisiting issue and it may be pulled.
Mr. Litchfield reminded the Board that next month's meeting is being held at the Central Library to accommodate the scheduled public hearings.
Mr. Gary Morris, on behalf of the Fire Department, thanked the Board for their moment of recognition for firefighter Bret Tarver at the March 15 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Danny Ortega, to adjourn the April 19, 2001 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Larry Litchfield, PE
Deputy Director, Building Official
Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Fitz, Administrative Assistant I
| c: |
Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks Mr. Washington City Clerk Mr. Lyons Mr. Olson Mr. Wendt Mr. Goodhue Mr. Litchfield |
Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Davila Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Bunyard Mr. Doell Mr. Fleming Mr. Horn Mr. Mundy Mr. Mushtaq Mr. Parks |
Ms. Reed Mr. Singbush Mr. Thurman Mr. Kienow Mr. Taschner Mr. Adams Ms. Fitz |
Last Modified on 06/28/2001 11:38:32