January 18, 2001
| Members Present
John Augustine Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary L. Coley Stephen Elssmann Peter Hemingway David Kelly Scott Mardian Herman Orcutt Judy Pavsek Julie Stiak
Members Absent |
Staff and Interested Parties
Shawn Billman, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Frank Dolasinski, City of Phoenix, DSD Lynn Favour, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Fitz, City of Phoenix, DSD Ryan Gregory, City of Phoenix, CED Chris Hartye, City of Phoenix, Mayor's Office Dan Hatch, City of Phoenix, DSD Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Larry Litchfield, Development Services Deneé McKinley, City of Phoenix, DSD Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Alan Olson, City of Phoenix, DSD John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD Joe Parma, City of Phoenix, NSD Janet Reed, City of Phoenix, DSD Mark Syracuse, City of Phoenix, City Manager's Office Jon Wendt, City of Phoenix, DSD
Rus Brock, Home Builders Assoc. of Central Arizona |
Gary Coley, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
MINUTES OF December 21, 2000:
Julie Stiak asked that the spelling of her first name be corrected in the December 21, 2000 minutes.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Julie Stiak, to approve the meeting minutes of December 21, 2000, as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF January 2, 2001 Special Meeting:
Gary Coley advised that the spelling of Ms. Stiak's first name should also be corrected in the January 2, 2001 minutes.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by John Augustine, to approve the meeting minutes of January 2, 2001, as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Ben Barcon mentioned that an update was to be scheduled for this month by Phoenix Fire and the State Fire Marshall in regards to their progress in regards to efforts being made bringing jurisdictions together on the acceptance of common Fire codes and interpretations. Mr. Gary Morris was not present to advise the status on this issue and an update will be requested for the next meeting.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Fiscal Subcommittee
Herman Orcutt reported that the subcommittee met just prior to the Board meeting and were visited by Kenny Harris who asked for their recommendation on fees for phased plan submittals. The current fee structure is not equitable in regard to phased plans.
Mr. Orcutt stated that the subcommittee recommended that DSD return to what was standard practice years ago, which was doubling the fee rate for phased submittals. Mr. Orcutt stated that staff feels that would be adequate to recover costs. Mr. Coley asked if the department would be implementing the double fee for phased projects until the total fee structure review is completed? Mr. Olson responded that staff was seeking input from the subcommittee regarding specific projects, but also a general philosophy.
Mr. Orcutt added that the subcommittee continues to work on the fee study effort. Jamie Fox advised the subcommittee that per the latest study, the fully loaded cost for DSD is now $105/hour.
Mr. Barcon asked if an ad hoc committee should be formed in regard to the fee structure, due to size and complexity of the review. Mr. Orcutt responded that he felt the Fiscal Subcommittee identifies this as one of their main priorities and they will continue focusing on this item, which falls in line with the subcommittee's responsibilities. He is satisfied that it should remain with the Fiscal Subcommittee.
Process and Procedures:
Mr. Barcon reported the last meeting was held January 12. The subcommittee received a presentation made by staff and industry representatives regarding steel fabricators and lack of certification. Mr. Barcon stated that this issue is a bit more complicated than it appears and involves over 125 shops that do fabrication in Phoenix, of which only 13 are certified. This issue is continued on the subcommittee agenda for the next meeting to enable the subcommittee to fully understand all the associated problems before making a recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Scott Mardian asked what the costs would be for a shop to become certified and would it present a hardship? He acknowledged that this is a safety issue and that cost is secondary, but he would like to know what it entails. Mr. Barcon advised that the recommendation was that we accept certifications from other identified agencies, so that if a shop were already certified from those agencies, additional certifications would not be required. Peter Hemingway advised that certifications vary from $1000-$6000 depending upon the certification agency and the size of the shop. Mr. Mardian stated that his concern is what it would cost an individual if they wanted to start this type of business in the City of Phoenix and had to obtain this certification and qualified/certified personnel, etc.
Staff presented an update on the conditional permit process after reviewing the process and examining other avenues with a goal of issuing permits after one review. Mr. Barcon stated that the subcommittee feels that if permits could be issued after one review that costs and workload could be reduced. Derek Horn provided a presentation on a comprehensive conditional permit process, an entirely new process that would require a new review team, additional staff, etc. The subcommittee asked Mr. Horn to revisit the process and produce a plan that would not require additional staff or a new procedure. Mr. Horn will be providing a recommendation at the next meeting.
Mr. Barcon stated that water meter set process/timing and associated problems are scheduled to be addressed at their next meeting.
Hillside Subcommittee:
Julie Stiak reported that the subcommittee met on January 16. DSD staff philosophically endorsed and validated the computerized method for determining slope and density versus the manual method. Ms. Stiak advised they would be providing more detailed recommendations at future DAB meetings. The subcommittee is still working on their phase two recommendations for presentation to the Planning Commission.
Technical Subcommittee
Mike Colletto, subcommittee chair was not present at the meeting. Larry Litchfield advised that a meeting was held December 18. The subcommittee is awaiting a package that was to be provided by one of the builders, Shea Homes, before scheduling another meeting. The basic proposal is a requirement that a substantial number of the models be handicapped accessible.
Black Canyon Corridor Design Guidelines Ad Hoc Subcommittee
Mr. Darrell Wilson, subcommittee chair was not present. Mr. Mardian advised that he was not prepared to give a report, but he did want to make the Board aware of the importance of this issue and his concerns about the direction the Commission is moving in. He encouraged anyone that is interested to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. John Parks provided some background and advised that the Design Review Standards Committee is also meeting on this issue. Mr. Parks also advised that the Development Services Department, Planning Department and Parks Department are meeting next week to see if they can reach consensus on these proposed guidelines.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FROM JANUARY 9TH PLANNING SESSION:
The Board reviewed the listing of proposed subcommittee assignments from the Planning Session. Mr. Coley expressed that he was in agreement with the suggested assignments and proposed name changes. Ms. Stiak advised that the Hillside Subcommittee would discuss the formation of the Zoning and Planning Subcommittee. They feel that the Hillside Subcommittee should be maintained (ad hoc), due to its unique group of community, industry, DSD and Planning staff versus creating another subcommittee for the Zoning Ordinance issues.
Mr. Barcon stated that it was agreed at the session that the listing of subcommittee items would be reviewed by each subcommittee and recommendations brought forward to the Board. Mr. Barcon felt that it might be more appropriate to wait until the next meeting to finalize the assignments. Mr. Coley and the Board agreed that assignments would be tabled until the next meeting.
It was agreed that the Fiscal Subcommittee would be renamed Fiscal and Performance; Process and Procedures, Technical and Executive Subcommittees would remain as is; Hillside would become a subcommittee (ad hoc) with Zoning and Planning as the standing subcommittee (same Board participants).
Mr. Litchfield advised the Board of a change in the Deputy City Manager structure. Effective January 8, Alton Washington became the Deputy over the Development Services Department as well as a realignment of the Planning Department under Mr. Washington.
Mr. Hemingway asked if a summary could be prepared to determine what items over the past year have been finalized by DAB, and which are still outstanding and need closure. Mr. Litchfield advised that staff would provide a listing for the next meeting.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE BARBED WIRE TEXT AMENDMENT:
John Parks and Lynn Favour (Planning Department) provided a review of the amendment, originally presented to the Board in July 2000. The Technical Subcommittee met on this item and made suggestions for some minor changes. Mr. Parks asked the Board for their recommendation on this text amendment. The amendment will go before the Planning Commission on February 14, will be going before the Village Planning Committees and has already been reviewed by the Design Review Standards Committee.
The existing ordinance dealing with barbed wire is in the City Code, Section 23-31. Several years ago a fencing task force formed by the City Manager's Office made a recommendation that all the regulations dealing with barbed wire and fencing be moved and consolidated in the Zoning Ordinance. This is one of the items this amendment will implement.
The amendment also includes the prohibition of several issues that have not been regulated in the past, i.e., opening fencing on the roofs of buildings (no current regulations), barbed wire on buildings (no current regulations), and cut and broken glass on fencing. Another provision is the prohibition of barbed wire in residential districts (with the exception of temporary construction fencing). With the recent arson issue in preserve areas, the City Council Subcommittee recommended that barbed wire construction fencing be allowed to safeguard homes under construction (with a valid building permit).
Mr. Barcon asked how this applied to residential horse properties. Mr. Parks advised that the City Code has always prohibited fencing made entirely out of barbed wire. The S-1, S-2 districts, which are rural farm districts are not technically residential districts; so in those agricultural zones, barbed wire would be permitted.
Mr. Coley asked how the ordinance would affect properties with existing barbed wire that were annexed from the County into the City. Would they be grandfathered? Ms. Favour advised that such properties would be considered a nonconforming use. Mr. Mardian asked what would happen with existing properties in the City? When they go for a permit for an addition, etc., would they have to bring their fencing up to the current code? Mr. Parks responded that if the existing fence met the requirements in place prior to this amendment, the use would again be nonconforming. Mr. Coley inquired about a representative of the fencing industry that had attended the initial meeting presenting of this text amendment. Mr. Parks advised that several representatives attended at least one of the subcommittee meetings and seemed satisfied that their issues had been addressed.
Mr. Mardian again asked for clarification on the nonconforming properties. If those properties came in to DSD for permitting on some type of construction or renovation, would they be required to meet the new guidelines? Mr. Parks confirmed that if any changes were being made to the property that they would be required at that point to bring the property into conformance or obtain a variance.
Mr. Augustine asked if C-3 properties on major streets applied for a permit and needed barb wire, would that be permitted? Mr. Parks advised that the recommendation is for restriction of barb wire on a major street. If the applicant did not want to make the attempt to screen the barb wire in some fashion, then a variance would have to be obtained. Mr. Augustine asked about the use of landscape as screening. Mr. Parks advised that it would be possible depending on the type of landscape.
Mr. Mardian advised that he was in contact with three representatives of the fencing industry and after speaking with them he is comfortable with recommending adoption of the amendments.
MOTION was made by Julie Stiak, seconded by Herman Orcutt, to recommend approval of the barbed wire text amendments as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AMENDMENT:
Janet Reed reviewed proposed text amendments originally presented to the Board in June of this year. Ms. Reed advised that the Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues, Planning, Police and Fire departments have reviewed the amendments and a presentation has also been made to the Design Review Standards Committee. The amendment is scheduled to be heard at the February 14 Planning Commission meeting and due to be presented to the City Council on March 21. Copies of the amendment were included in the DAB agenda packet and no major changes have been made since it was originally presented to the Board in June.
The purpose of the text amendment is to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with changes made to the Federal laws (American Disabilities Act/Fair Housing Act) since the Zoning Ordinance text was written, as well as to bring it into alignment with the Phoenix Construction Code. Some language on signage was also changed to assist the Police Department with enforcement.
Ms. Reed addressed questions provided to Mr. Coley by the Multi-Housing Association and the development community. Ms. Reed responded to the questions, adding that the changes being made to the Zoning Ordinance only bring the ordinance into conformance with requirements already existing in either the American Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, or the Phoenix Construction Code.
Ms. Reed clarified a question on a provision under Section 702.6.a, Subsection 2(b) - "Not less than 2% of each type of parking space, such as carports, garages, etc." Ms. Reed explained that 2% is the requirement, but distribution would depend on the size of the complex and on occasion the requirement may be slightly more or less than 2% of the total parking. The purpose being to provide an even distribution of accessible parking in all areas.
Another question addressed the size of accessible parking spaces, and the use of shared aisles in adjacent accessible spaces. Ms. Reed responded that in most cases the requirement for accessible dwelling units (with assigned spaces) to be dispersed on the site, rarely are two spaces placed together. Occasionally two spaces will be placed together for a commercial use or a clubhouse, but not in an assigned resident situation. Mr. Olson clarified that the 14'2" space requirement is intended to match the Fair Housing requirements that includes the access aisle and is still a reduction in total width from the prior requirement of 16'2", even with a shared aisle. Mr. Coley suggested that some wordsmithing might be needed to clarify the configuration of the parking.
Mr. Orcutt referred to Section 6(1)(b), Outpatient Facilities. He asked about the 10% figure and indicated that it seemed excessive. Ms. Reed responded that it was existing text and she was not sure of its origin. Ms. Reed stated that health care and outpatient facilities require a higher percentage of accessible spaces. Ms. Stiak advised that in her experience in healthcare, patients are being discharged very early and with rising patient numbers that these higher percentages are necessary. Ms. Reed added that the 10% is a requirement of the American with Disabilities Act.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Dave Kelly, to recommend approval of the accessible parking text amendments with added clarification on the size requirements for accessible spaces. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD) AMENDMENT:
Mr. Dolasinski advised that this amendment is currently being reviewed by the Village Planning Committees, is scheduled for the Planning Commission in mid-March and on to City Council from there. It has also been distributed to members of the Home Builders Association.
After discussion, it was decided that an ad hoc committee would be formed. Mr. Coley expressed his interest in serving on this subcommittee. Ms. Stiak added that Patricia Childs and Michael Fries had also voiced their interest in participating.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON CALCULATION METHODS FOR PLAN REVIEW TIMES:
Deneé McKinley provided handouts to the Board explaining a proposed change in the calculation method for plan review times. Ms. McKinley advised that this method provides a more accurate method for determining turnaround times and allows electronically generated reporting. This method will clarify to customer that weekends and holidays are not included in calculating turnaround times.
MOTION was made by Julie Stiak, seconded by Judy Pavsek, to accept the proposed change in the calculation method for plan review times. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON FOURTH QUARTER FINANCIAL BRIEFING:
Dan Hatch stated that since we are on a fiscal year, this would actually be a review of the second quarter. Mr. Hatch reviewed the handout provided to the Board and indicated that revenues are still increasing, but have slowed in comparison to last year and that revenue estimates are being projected accordingly.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON CUSTOMER PARKING CHARGES:
Shawn Billman presented a recommendation to change DSD's customer parking validation policy. Ms. Billman explained that since November 1998, Development Services has provided free parking for all of its customers. Because the cost of this service has grown substantially above and beyond what was originally projected, DSD would like to modify this service, and bring it in line with other city departments, to a partial validation (50%). The original cost estimate for this service was $6,000. Projections for the current year indicate that those costs will total $75,000, with no method to recover these costs through our fee system.
The partial validation (50%) is absorbed through the City's Parking Program, already available in the parking service contract and does not incur any costs to the department. Full validation will still be available on an individual basis for customers that have been called in for meetings or have volunteered to serve on interview panels. Ms. Billman stated that this new policy has received approval from the Fiscal Subcommittee and with the Board's concurrence, this new policy will go into effect as of Monday, February 5, 2001.
Scott Mardian advised that he was originally opposed to the idea, but after receiving more information he concurs, but would like to make sure that adequate notice is given to customers.
MOTION was made by Scott Mardian, seconded by Julie Stiak, to approve the proposed change in the customer parking charges, with appropriate notice being given to the customers. Motion carried unanimously.
CALL TO PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
None
Mr. Coley advised that no action has been taken on the Board's recommendation regarding codes. He also stated that House Bill #2407, introduced a week ago, is very similar in wording to Council Resolution #19015. It would require, at the State level, the same consensus code application that was discussed at the Board's January 2 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Dave Kelly, to adjourn the January 18, 2001 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 4:38 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 City Clerk Mr. Harris Mr. Olson Mr. Washington Mr. Wendt Mr. Goodhue Mr. Litchfield |
Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Davila Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Doell Mr. Parks Mr. Mushtaq Mr. Thurman Mr. Kienow Mr. Taschner Mr. Bunyard |
Ms. Reed Mr. Mundy Mr. Fleming Mr. Horn Ms. Wilson Ms. Fitz |
Last Modified on 06/28/2001 11:38:33