APRIL 17, 2003
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Mike Colletto Patricia Childs Liz Carabine Michael Fries Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Larry Litchfield Scott Mardian Greg Russell Danny Ortega Steve Speer Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff Karen Beckley, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Bob Goodhue, City of Phoenix, DSD Derek Horn, City of Phoenix, DSD Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Jon Kolstad, City of Phoenix, EAS Department Joe McElvaney, City of Phoenix, DSD Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD Janet Reed, City of Phoenix, DSD
Ex-Officio's Present
Ex-Officio's Absent
Others in Attendance
|
Gary Coley has resigned from the Development Advisory Board, effective immediately. Also Mr Kenneth Roth was appointed yeterday. he has not been sworn in as of yet, so tht is why he is not a member of the Board officially yet. Once he's been sworn in, Mr. Roth will be a member of the Development Advisory Board. He's with Roth Development Corporation. He's the President. He's been in the development industry since 1972, and an advocate for responsible development. He was recommendef in discussion by Councilman Peggy Nealy.
MINUTES OF March 20, 2003:
Pete Hemingway asked the Board to review the meeting minutes of March 20, 2002 for approval.
Barbara Koffron:
On page 10 on my comments on 13R that should be 13R and 13B (inaudible)
Patricia Childs:
On page 14 I think that my comments wre mixed with Andrea Tevlin's comments. It should be that
"I understand your committee" and then the "and my assistant, Sharon Keys" - I believe that's Miss Tevlin's.
Scott Mardian:
Pages 9 and 10. I doubt that I could sound this knowledgeable
Pete Hemingway:
Was that probably Terry Feinberg?
Terry Finley Page 2. (inaudible).
Scott Mardian:
Page 26. (inaudible) I know that for a fact.
Rick Doell:
I believe those were my comments. I think I remember saying something about ...
?? (Male):
Page 28. The conversation with Sara Yerkes. I believe that's not International SOS
Council. I would put in International Colde Council.
Rick Doell:
Also on page 14. Andrea Tevlin's assistant's name is Shawn Ortiz.
Rick Doell:
On page 33, the reference on the bottom of the table. Table 72 should be
7.2.2 and the next reference 741 should be 7.4.1.
Rick Doell:
One more, on page 36. "It happens that I may" should say "we have relief based upon certain
conditins." not. . .
MOTION was made by Larry Litchfield, to approve the meeting minutes with the appropriate modifications, seconded by Danny Ortega, to approve the meeting minutes of March 20, 2003 Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Update/possible update action on the Increase in the requirement of Type A
Dwelling Unins in apartment Complexes in Multi-Family Projects of Four or More Units within
1/4 Mile of the New Light Rail Stations.
Pete Hemingway:
I just want to ask Board Members, if you will look in your packet under Development Advisory Board agenda item
number 5, you have a packet from Miss Tevlin’s office, and you also have some additional information that was
submitted by the Multi-housing Association that depicts the layout of Type A apartments.
Andrea Tevlin:
Note: Andrea’s voice is barely audible over the paper shuffling.
We’ve had a lot of discussion since the last meeting; a lot of…. And a lot of activity. Accessibility issues…
Thank the accessibility subcommittee ….for all of the time and effort that has been put in. It has been
considerable. Let me just report on what has conspired at the State Conference Subcommittee, the
Transportation Subcommittee at the state conference chaired by Councilman Bilsteen. (paper shuffling)
April 9th, and as a result of a lot of discussion that has gone on. At this meeting, last Wednesday,
the subcommittee passed a motion requiring that 6% of all the multifamily units within ¼ mile of all the light
rail stations be accessible. And they asked that this recommendation be forwarded to this Board for action
today. (paper shuffling) . . . I should mention to …. that there was an earlier recommendation of the
subcommittee requiring . . . just within the tranport area, earlier recommendation for a citywide increase
of 5% from 2%. With the action on the light rail stations that…10%. (paper shuffling) The 3% recommendation
within ¼ …That was the original staff recommendation of the board. . . but subcommittee for 6%. At the
subcommittee I presented a recommendation from staff at 3% as I mentioned. The Arizona Multi-housing
Association opposed the …but after considerable dialogue… they did indicate that 5% was a number that
they felt that they could live with…. The recommendation for 6% for the ….. come through and compromise
the position. They also recommended the addition of 6% as just an interim recommendation. They’d like
action now, but they would like the Multihousing Association and City staff working with the commission to
undertake a study as quickly as possible. (inaudible) to get better information. We have estimated that
there (inaudible). We have estimated that there are 1850 …units possible around the light rail stations.
With 50% …there would be 111 potential new accessible units around the light rail stations, and that would
be 37 units with the current 2% requirement …. Again, this recommendation will require a change to the
building code. We just …before you today, and we just ask that act on it….council. Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
Any questions for Miss Tevlin at this time?
We do have a couple of cards; people who would like to speak to this item.
Suzanne Gilstrap:
My name is Suzanne Gilstrap, representing the Arizona Multi-housing Association. I think as everybody…our due
process, through the diligence and effort of a lot of people who have shared about the issue….. We … of the
Arizona Multihousing Association is prepared to agree with the 6% that has been recommended. Though, we still
have a concern that that is not validated, and we are going forward with the process to continue to try to
validate it. But what I would like to add. I think we came up with some other very good ideas in terms of,
there’s a lot that came out of this process. We’ve learned about, maybe we’re not doing as good a job of
marketing as we should. We’re going to enhance that marketing, and further down the road, if possible, we’re
also going to look at some grant funding to assist in filling those units. Because the handicapped community
is…to find some housing. The Arizona Multihousing Association wants to have their units filled. So we are
going to have a very strong effort to work together.
Pete Hemingway:
Does the board have any questions for Miss Gilstrap at this time?
Thank you, Suzanne.
Herb Hacker:
I’ve been involved with this thing for well over 8 months, and I certainly support the position this Board
extends.
Pete Hemingway:
(Spoke with David Jones from his seat. David did not wish to speak.)
Any other questions, discussions?
Ben Barcon:
We happen to have another handout by Courtney Gilstrap. If we could, I’d like …hear from Courtney, the
decision on the 6%. I’m not sure quite what the intent was.
Courtney Gilstrap:
My name is Courtney Gilstrap. I represent the Arizona Multihousing Association. The briefing that we have
that’s included in your packet is one of the many things that we discovered as we’ve gone through this process.
Is that there is confusion in the industry as to what is an American National Standards Institute Type A unit
and what is an American National Standards Institute Type B unit. How does that differ from the regular.
What we were trying to show with this handout is the American National Standards Institute Type B unit
(and it’s written at the bottom of your page) what type of unit it is. These are all ground floor units in
an apartment complex, and they are adaptable units. So somebody that may not be in a wheelchair can still
rent a Type A unit, if they are walking with a cane or have special needs. They can be adapted with grab
bars and such. And then the Type A unit is the fully accessible unit for wheelchair access, with the wider
doors, bigger bathrooms, we’ve had those discussions. But we wanted to use this as a clarifying tool to let
you know there are actually more units available out there than just the A units.
Ben Barcon:
So the organization you represent is in favor of the increase to 6%?
Courtney Gilstrap:
Yes
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions?
Darrell Wilson:
Curious (inaudible). In reference to the interim nature of the 6%. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
(inaudible)
Courtney Gilstrap:
6% recommendation to move forward now. (inaudible) The data shows that there are more than 6%. There are
greater evaluation. But they would like to ….. the 6%.
Andrea Tevlin:
6% recommendation to move forward now. There is some thinking that a study that…. If the data shows that
there is indeed more than 6%, they would like greater validation of that. But they would like to move forward
with the 6%.
Darrell Wilson:
And associated with that process (inaudible)
Andrea Tevlin:
If they were to show that a larger increase were warranted, yes. We’d have to come back because (inaudible).
We were hoping for the fall.
Pete Hemingway:
We’d like to entertain a motion to implement the 6% along the light rail corridor that’s been recommended by
the subcommittee. We’ll entertain a motion to that effect.
Ben Barcon:
I’d like to make a motion that we approve the increase to 6% of multi-family units within ¼ mile of the light
railway stations.
Barbara Koffron:
Second.
Rick Doell:
I need a clarification. Are we considering moving to also change the current code in addition to the
NFPA 5000?
Pete Hemingway:
Yes. Do we need to specify that, or is that understood?
Andrea Tevlin:
It is understood.
Larry Litchfield:
This is a point of clarification. The disability subcommittee recommended 10% change for the NFPA 5000.
The wording can be the same, but our recommendation was to add 10% to the NFPA 5000. So I’m not sure if that
interim, if that would work out for you. You wouldn’t have to go through this process.
Pete Hemingway:
But I think after studying the subcommittee, and everybody’s agreed that 6% is the base
we’re starting from. We’ll adjust it pending the study that will be conducted.
Any further discussion?
Larry Litchfield:
Are we amending the other – the 2% to the 5%?
Pete Hemingway:
We’re just saying 6% in the traffic corridor, within a quarter mile of the transit stations.
Larry Litchfield:
And the rest of the City stays at 2%?
Pete Hemingway:
Right. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor?
Any opposed. Motion carried unanimously.
We will return to Item #4, subcommittee reports. I think most of us have been involved in NFPA 5000. But we’ll go through these quickly.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee
Peter Hemingway stated that this subcomittee meeting had been cancelled
Technical Subcommittee:
Working on NFPA. Two weeks ago they had a meeting where they adopted two Uniform Building Code tables. Today they
had a requrst to require additional elevator doors. That was rejected.
Process and Procedures Subcommittee:
Ben Barcon stated that this subcommittee has not met during the last month due to the
NFPA 5000 meetings that are currently being held.
Hillside Subcommittee:
They had not met.
NFPA Building Code Subcommittees:
We will be take up with Agenda Item 6
Pete Hemingway:
Peter Hemingway Mr. Jones, did you want to speak to item 4? Mr. Jones indicated he will discuss this on
item #6. We have several cards on item # 6 and I would like to get an update from the various subcommittees
and we will proceed from there, administration?
Ben Barcon:
We can go the sub route #1 met and approved the packet in front of us today.
Pete Hemingway:
Residential, we are currently meeting and have some items to be addressed, I believe we have meetings
scheduled for up coming week and after that so we are at least 2 weeks from completing our review. There are
several items we will be submitting to the correlating committee for resolution because they don’t exactly
agree with other committees, i.e “commercial”. Commercial?
Mike Colletto:
The commercial subcommittee met several times and have dispensed with some items, adopting and rejecting so
we are done for all submittals as far amendment that have been proposed to us.
Pete Hemingway:
Accessibility?
Scott Mardian:
The accessibility committee has met every week. We have got through everything and we are in anticipation
with the vote today that we are done.
Pete Hemingway:
Energy and other systems
Greg Russell:
We are complete.
Pete Hemingway:
Structural and materials
Danny Ortega:
We are complete.
Pete Hemingway:
Correlating committee we have heard from. I would like to say to the board before we proceed, we are well
aware where we are from the several meetings we have had so far, and this is an action item on the agenda
today but I would like to open it up for the boards discussion and the general sentiment as far as if we are
going to be proceeding on moving this forward to item #5, but we are at a point now where we haven’t seen
compiled complete documents of all the amendments and changes. But I would like to see this as a committee
and as total DAB and subcommittees so we can go over these before we move it forward to step #5. Now with
that I would like to open it up for the board’s discussion.
Michael Fries:
I concur with your conclusion.
Darrell:
I also concur.
Larry Litchfield:
I had a chance to attend a few of the subcommittee meetings, and having a fairly good knowledge of the code,
I got a feeling they don’t have that knowledge and aren’t ready. The residential and accessibility and the
general knowledge of staff - what we have done in the past as we propose amendments - we have the complete
package, and I don’t see that in front of me so I would concur with that thought.
Mike Colletto:
I concur
Ben Barcon:
I think we have got all the committees except 2, those we do not have do they need help?
Pete Hemingway:
It is just a matter of residential in particular for us going through. We have finalized comments on the
list that we received March 31, 2003, so they were close to being completed, but we have some items we are
moving to the correlation subcommittee for final resolution. So it will be prior to the next DAB meeting.
Larry Litchfield:
This whole process has been unique throughout the country, so I would like to take time to say thanks to the
staff and all who have participated. Having spent 34 years in this business, this is the first time I have
seen a lot of people come to the table. I don’t want to lose the positive aspect in this process. We have
people who have never come to the table and participated in the code process before and we don’t want to lose
this momentum. This has been a healthy discussion. The process is good, so we should condone, continue, and
have the subcommittee structure maintain itself whatever happens to the code. Not meet as regularly as we
have - maybe go to meeting bi-monthly, but the process of having the public who it directly impacts involved
in the discussion is outstanding and the staff should be commended. Mr. Doell and Mr. McElvaney have done a
great job of keeping it going and it is a process second to none in the country.
I congratulate and thank everybody for participating, especially in the commercial committee I chaired and I would also like to recommend that this process keeps going and is perpetuated as the code adoption process. Any code needs a continual development process, however it needs to be recognized that we are not quite ready yet for the next step of this process.
Scott Mardian:
I would like to expand on Mr. Litchfield’s comments. Carole Borrego, Joanne Owens and staff have done a
really great job. The only thing I could say that we could do to improve the process is to have additional
architects and maybe a structural engineer on the board for technical expertise. I have four architects on my
committee, and 3 people from the Mayor’s counsel and it was a good group, but it was great to have the
expertise.
Pete Hemingway:
For item # 6 that we will be hearing discussion from the public today , so that everyone is aware - we will
not be taking action today to move this item to the next step #5. So hopefully we will get the sentiment as to
where we are going. If you don’t want to speak, that’s OK. We won’t be offended.
David Jones:
I am President of the Arizona Contractors Association located at 3030 N 3rd Street. Arizona Contractors
Association was founded in 1956 by general contractors, sub contractors, suppliers and professionals who
offered their services to the construction industry. I came today to ask that you do exactly as you have done,
as we have not had the opportunity to present these amendments to our members and we feel we are stake holders
in this process. We want to be good corporate community leaders and provide a resource to the committees that
are involved, and therefore our concerns were today that this might move ahead in a fashion where we wouldn’t
have the opportunity to disseminate and have input and feedback from our members.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr Jones, we definitely encourage you to get this distributed to your members and we would love to hear from
them. Mr. William Koffell.
William Koffell:
William Koffell Nothing further to add.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr Jim Ternosky
Jim Ternosky:
Nothing further
Pete Hemingway:
Rus Brock
Rus Brock:
Mr Brock did not wish to speak
Pete Hemingway:
Carl Triphahn, do you wish to speak today?
Carl Triphahn:
Not audible
Pete Hemingway:
Ed Freyermuth
Ed Freyermuth:
Not audible
Pete Hemingway:
Mr Freyermuth would be in favor of Item #6 if we were taking action today.
Ed Freyermuth:
I actually represent the Arizona Cement Association on behalf of James Wilson who is the executive director.
He has asked me to read their support letters as they are in favor of this item. It reads: We are in
support of adoption of the elements of the Uniform Building Code which pertain to structure height and
barrier requirements of architecture under the Phoenix NFPA 5000. In addition, we support 3R rating
requirements for walls exposed to fires. The inclusion of these elements into the new code will provide the
public with a continuance of safety assurance which the city of Phoenix has advocated through previous codes.
That is our position.
Pete Hemingway:
Rick Thornberry
Rick Thornberry:
Mr Thornbery did not wish to speak
Pete Hemingway:
Courtney Gilstrap
Courtney Gilstrap:
Not audible
Pete Hemingway:
Tracy Finley
Tracy Finley:
I represent Shea Homes and am an active member of the residential sub committee. I would like to say thank
you for not putting this item forward.
Pete Hemingway:
Suzanne Gilstrap
Suzanne Gilstrap:
I, too, will briefly thank you for doing the right thing. I know you have been under a lot of pressure to
move this process along. I would like to add that when we have a comprehensive final document that not only
should it be distributed to DAB members, but stakeholders. And I think there should be some reasonable amount
of time, 20 or 30 days perhaps, that we could review that so we can get comfortable with it. In addition,
there has been a lot of discussion about putting or not putting certain things in the code. But in the policy
and procedures, I for one am uncomfortable about adopting a code without also adopting the accompanying policy
and procedure, because the interpretation of certain things can be not what one anticipated. So I would
encourage that as well.
Pete Hemingway:
Mel Ingwaldson
Mel Ingwaldson:
Did not wish to speak.
Pete Hemingway:
Mike Harrel
Mike Harrell:
Did not wish to speak
Pete Hemingway:
Dennis Correll
Dennis Correll:
Mr Correll had nothing to add
Pete Hemingway:
Nancy McNab
Nancy McNab:
Nothing to add
Pete Hemingway:
Joan Borter
Joan Borter:
Nothing to add
Pete Hemingway:
Dawn Faull
Dawn Faull:
Nothing to add
Pete Hemingway:
Brian Cassidy
Brian Cassidy:
I am from _____and Architecture in Phoenix. I am elected president of American Institute of Architects in
Arizona, with approximately1000 members, and we would also like to thank you for slowing down this process.
Our membership would like to see all code amendments to printed in a format along with the original (inaudible)
would also allow people in the city of Phoenix about 30 days to review the (inaudible).
Pete Hemingway:
Mr Cassidy, have you been in contact with Mr McElvaney and Mr Doell?
Brian Cassidy:
We run an email list of the tremendous amount of correspondence that has been going on.
Pete Hemingway:
The reason for my question is because when it is finished and needs distributing, maybe you as an organization
can help us get this document out.
Brian Cassidy:
Inaudible
Rick Doell:
Just to clarify. We are not going to be able to give them copies of the NFPA 5000 in addition to the
amendments. They will have to secure their own copies of incomplete 5000.
Pete Hemingway:
Right, I believe they are available on the internet, from NFPA.
Tina Gobbel:
Nothing further to add.
Pete Hemingway:
Rich King
Rich King:
It was apparent Mr. King had already left the meeting.
Pete Hemingway:
That is all the cards that I have received. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on item # 6 today?
Lioney Lyons:
Is there any specific time that you and the Board are looking to have a hard copy of this document readily
available? In answer to Brian’s question, there needs to be a point of clarity on that. It take us
3 days___________ so I would like to leave here today with it stated that this document will be available at
‘A’ counter on ‘A’ date, so this will help us in terms of aiming our distribution.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr Chair, It seems the first step of that is to get some kind of commitment from the 2 committees,
sub committees that are still meeting, as to when that will be ready, as that will pin down when staff can
finish preparing the document.
Pete Hemingway:
Right, well 2 weeks from today will be May 1st. The residential subcommittee will commit to having our
portion ready and have enough time to get it to the correlating committee before that. We will then go from
there. I would like to establish a goal date to have the document published or ready for distribution for
May 1st 2003, 2 weeks from today. I will check with the residential subcommittee, as I am sure they will work
with us to get this wrapped up. Any further discussion on item # 6? With that we will move to item # 7 – Call
to the Public.
Ben Barcon:
I think, Mr Chair, we may have skipped over item # 3.
Pete Hemingway:
Thank you. Let us go back to that. Request for future agenda items if there any requests.
Request for future Agenda Items.
Filling vacant board seats.
Presentation from the Fire Department on Fire Codes.
Presentation by Planning and Parks staff about overlay district.
Scott Mardian:
If there aren’t any, one of things I would like to ask if we all look at our meeting minutes. When there are
members absent, or there are a couple of people who aren’t on the board anymore, or do not wish to have an
interest on being on the board any more, I am not sure.
Pete Hemingway:
I know we have sent letters out to certain people , I am unsure what the status is on that.
Rick Doell:
Melissa Gallegos has expressed a desire not to be a member of the board anymore.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Hemingway agrees with the board that a letter needs to be sent to a member who has missed 3 consecutive
meetings.
Scott Mardian:
Is there a way to change the makeup of the board so we can get a couple of Architects and a Structural Engineer
on board? We are missing residential right now and the opening has been there for 2 years now.
Rick Doell:
The make up of the board is controlled by the ordinance, we would have to change the ordinance to change the
makeup.
Ben Barcon:
Well I guess what Scott is saying is we would have to go back to that makeup of the board and make sure we
have all the positions filled and get a report for the next meeting so we can either nominate or find persons
that could go in those openings.
Barbara Koffron:
Mr Chair, with regards to future items: can we include a presentation from the Fire Department on Fire codes __________
(inaudible).
Pete Hemingway:
Any further future agenda items?
Darrell Wilson:
I have some knowledge of the planning overlay district being represented by Planning staff and Parks staff.
We should investigate the possibility of coordinating with those staff for presentation to us (inaudible).
Pete Hemingway:
Call to the Public (No Board Discussion)
Pete Hemingway:
Call to the Public. At this time we will hear from members of the general public. The board will not discuss
this, and the board will not take any action in respect to these items.
Rick Thornberry:
Is there any possibility of an indication as to when we can get a schedule from this point on when you
anticipate taking action?
Pete Hemingway:
This will be on the next agenda in May. The same item will be up for moving forward to the next step, # 5, in
the overall process, and recommendation going to City Council, but the board may choose not to take action on
it at that time.
Rick Thornberry:
I am curious, as I have heard some speakers say they would like a 30-60 day window to review documents.
It would certainly be helpful if there was some indication if that’s what this group wants to do, so we can
expect to know when we are out of that phase.
Pete Hemingway:
In response to item 6, I don’t think the board wants to say 30-60 days because of the May 1st deadline and the
time the people have put in at the sub committees and the effort put forth. I think the board has the time
to go through it but will entertain input like when we set the meeting and deadline for March 31st. Part of
that was we set the timeframe when we would be moving it forward, having said that it is up to the discretion
of the board, say in about a month, and the next May meeting. If we are not comfortable with it, we may not
move it forward.
Pete Hemingway:
Any more questions from the Public Hearing?
None, with that we will entertain a motion for adjournment at this time.
Motion to adjourn by Danny Ortega.cond by Larry Litchfield. MOTION was made by Danny Ortega, seconded by Larry Litchfield, to adjourn the April 17, 2003, DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously. seconded
Thank you.
Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Doell, P.E.
Deputy Director, Building Official
Minutes Prepared by:
Niki Davidson, Secretary III
| c: |
Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks Mr. Washington City Clerk Mr. Lyons
|
Mr. Wendt Mr. Doell Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Goodhue Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Bunyard Mr. Fleming Mr. Horne Mr. Kienow Mr. Mundy |
Mr. Parks Ms. Reed Mr. Singbush Ms. Stotler Ms. Owens
|
Last Modified on 05/16/2003 16:25:56