JANUARY 16, 2003
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Gary Coley 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 Valerie De'SalMayer, City of Phoenix, DSD Shaun Hill, City of Phoenix, Streets Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Lionel Lyons, City of Phoenix, DSD Joe McElvaney, City of Phoenix, DSD Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD Kevin Reily, City Of Phoenix, Fire
Ex-Officio's Present
Ex-Officio's Absent
Others in Attendance
NOTICE:
|
MINUTES OF November 21, 2002:
Pete Hemingway asked the Board to review the meeting minutes of November 21, 2002 for approval.
MOTION was made by steve Speer, seconded by Gary Coley, to approve the meeting minutes of November 21,2002. Motion carried unanimously. seconded
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee
Scott Mardian stated that this subcommittee did not meet in the month of January 2003. He stated the revenue for the
Development Services Department (DSD) was the most important issue on the subcommittee’s agenda. He stated
that the steps the DSD staff has taken has resulted in revenues being 99.78% of expectations and the shortfall
at this point is only $41,000, which is not significant.
Technical Subcommittee:
No report given.
Process and Procedures Subcommittee:
Ben Barcon stated that a meeting was held on January 10, 2003.
They discussed the review of the Design Review Guidelines.
He stated that most of the documents have been reviewed and are ready to go to
City Council, with a couple of issues that they still need to review.
Mr. Barcon stated that the subcommittee would like to study the interface between the
Fire Department and DSD. Barbara Koffron, who attended the Process and Procedures Subcommittee meeting,
mentioned in their meeting that the Fire Department has Fire Plan Reviewers located on the 2nd floor of
DSD who assist DSD with work and questions. He stated that the Fire Department would have their permits
on KIVA, which would be very valuable in reading comments, etc.
Barbara Koffron stated that the DSD Fire Plan Reviewers have changed their name to the Life Safety Group (Joe McElvaney, Fire Protection Engineer’s group).
Mr. Barcon discussed the interpretation of the height of perimeter fences on retaining walls. Up until this
time, DSD has been measuring that height from the curb. The hearing officer has stated in a letter,
that this must be measured from the top of the footing. There is a six-inch discrepancy between the
curb and the footing. Mr. Barcon continued to explain that this could become a bigger issue if the
footing and the grades are level and higher than the curb is.
Hillside Subcommittee:
Darrell Wilson stated that this subcommittee did not meet for the month of January 2003.
NFPA Building Code Subcommittees:
Administration/Sub Group 1:
Mr. Barcon stated that this subgroup has not had a meeting yet. City staff is still reviewing and making
comments in this area. Rick Doell, Building Official, stated that the Administration draft will be completed
in two weeks. He continued to explain that Chapter 1 is the most heavily revised section of the code and
Staff needs to makes sure that the proper language is in place before the subcommittee reviews it.
Residential/Sub Group 2:
Mr. Hemingway stated that this subgroup has met approximately five times since November 2002.
The subcommittee has gone over several of the chapters that they are responsible for. Additional
comments are expected from the Homebuilders Association that need to be reviewed.
Commercial/Sub Group 3:
Mr. Larry Litchfield stated that three meetings of this subcommittee have been held thus far. In the
first meeting the subcommittee divided up into subgroups A through F to tackle the commercial part of
the codes. The various subcommittees have reported back and will complete the review shortly.
This subcommittee is waiting for some hazardous material information from the Fire Department.
Mr. Barbara Koffron stated that she met with the Fire Department regarding the hazardous material issues. Mr. Scott Stookey, Fire Protection Engineer, reviewed all of the standards of hazardous materials and made recommendations with regards to the code. Ms. Koffron stated that many of the standards conflict with the Building Code. Mr. Stookey met with Joe McElvaney and they both went over his recommendations.
Accessibility/Sub Group 4:
Scott Mardian stated that they have met regularly and are about a third of the way through their review.
He continued saying that law mandates their part of the code. There are a few changes that the City of
Phoenix policy dictates and a few that City staff want to make. The subcommittee is excellent, they all
work well together, and are very knowledgeable. To date, this subcommittee does not have a completion date.
Energy and Other Systems/Sub Group 5:
Mr. Steve Speer stated that they have met five or six times. He stated that they are almost
complete with their review.
Structural and Materials/Sub Group 6:
Mr. Danny Ortega stated that they have been meeting regularly and are almost complete with their review.
Request for Future Agenda Items:
None
Discussion/Update/Possible Action on the Commercial/Design Review on the Text Amendment of the
Zoning Ordinance:
John Parks, Principal Planner, DSD, stated that the components of Commercial Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
include the City Wide Design Review Guidelines and the changes to definitions, commercial standards in
the C1, C2, C3, and A1 Industrial Districts. There are some proposed changes to parking, parking structures,
and sunsetting of the planned shopping centers and regional shopping centers. This has been through
extensive review for a year and a half. It has endorsement from the Valley Partnership, which represents
the Development Community and Neighborhood Coalition. It’s been through the Village Planning Committees
and the Planning Commission and the Design Review Standards Committee. The Planning Commission has passed
on all of the components except for the parking. A subcommittee has been appointed to review the parking
issues.
On January 15, 2003, The City Council continued the Text Amendment to February 19, 2003. They referred a section back to the Planning Commission for consideration regarding an issue of whether big box (100,000 sq. ft. or greater) needs an additional layer of review. The entire text amendment will be revised by Council on February 19, 2003.
Discussion/Update/Possible Action on the Revised Hillside Ordinance:
John Parks stated that about four or five months ago he made a brief presentation on the revised Hillside
Ordinance to the DAB. Mr. Parks praised the DAB Hillside Subcommittee for the work they did on this
ordinance. This ordinance has been presented to members of the Planning Department. A portion of the
Zoning Ordinance, as well as a portion of the Subdivision Ordinance has been modified. This has had
preliminary review by the Law Department and the Planning Department.
Mr. Parks continued to explain that they cleaned up and clarified some of the set back issues in the Zoning Ordinance. For a slope analysis we’re now allowing either a manual or computer generated process. A few design review guidelines have been added to the new ordinance. The hillside portion of the subdivision ordinance is concerned primarily with grading. There are many hillside-grading waivers that have been submitted. It was decided to combine the allowable grading to a total of 35%.
Mr. Parks recommended that the Development Advisory Board take action on the proposed amendments. He stated that they are scheduled to present this to the Design Review Standards Committee during the week of January 20, 2003. The Planning Department has given this subcommittee the green light to take this to the Village Planning Committee’s.
Mr. Litchfield stated that Mr. Parks and the Hillside Subcommittee has done a great job on the Hillside Ordinance. He continued to explain that all of the issues that Mr. Parks addressed were issues that were under appeal. The items that were mentioned will assist in administering this ordinance and make the hearing officers job much easier, as well as staff. He continued to state that this is an excellent approach to revising this ordinance, which has been in need of this work for quite a while.
Mr. Litchfield made a motion that the DAB accept the recommendations for the changes to the Hillside Ordinance.
Mr. Darrell Wilson stated that he served on the Hillside Subcommittee and he commended Mr. Parks and Staff for their work on this ordinance. Mr. Wilson stated that he would like to make a motion with an amendment. Mr. Litchfield withdrew his motion and so that Mr. Wilson could make a new motion.
MOTION was made by Darrell Wilson, seconded by Larry Litchfield, to approve the Hillside Text Amendment which was presented at January 16, 2003 DAB meeting with a clarification on page 12, second bullet point, under definitions after the words “right-of-way” add “for public utility easements will not contribute to hillside grading calculations.” . Motion carried unanimously.
Disscussion/Update/on the NPFA (National Fire Protection Association) 5000 Building Construction
and Safety Code:
Mr. Joe McElvaney stated that the adoption of this code is moving forward. On Tuesday, January 21, 2003
at 11:00 a.m. the Ethics and Public Safety Subcommittee will meet in City Hall in the 12th Floor
Subcommittee Room. A status/update will be given regarding the NFPA 5000 Building Code. All NFPA
Subcommittees will be notified by e-mail about this meeting. Also, Friday, January 24, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in
City Hall, Assembly Room B, a free training class will be held regarding the structural portion of NFPA 5000.
A representative from NFPA will be giving a 3-hour training class and everyone is encouraged to attend.
Mr. McElvaney stated that he and Mr. Doell, have been reviewing all the items that have been approved,
thus far, from all the Subcommittees. A package will be prepared for all the rejected items for the DAB’s
review.
Mr. Doell stated that if anyone has any interest in the adoption process to attend the meeting on January 24, 2003. The current plan is to have a final document before Council no later than their summer break. Additional information will be given out at the meeting.
Mr. Gary Coley distributed material, which consisted of information that was given to the City Council and the Mayor’s office. On the top of the packet was a letter from Mr. Grady Gammage addressing the issues of the code review. This letter follows the feelings of Mr. Coley’s constituency in commercial real estate that reviewing only one code, in a very short time period, which means too much review, not enough time to do it in, and historically out of sync with the normal process. He stated that in the past it has not been unusual for the City Code to take anywhere from 9 months to 2 years to be reviewed for approval. He continued to say that only one code is being reviewed under the resolution, which the legal Council that he spoke to says that it’s an incorrect interpretation of that resolution.
Mr. Coley asked to make a motion stating that the DAB request the Mayor and City Council discontinue its single evaluation of the NFPA 5000 Building Code, etc. He stated that there have been 12 to 15 meetings during the week and it’s been difficult to get quorums together at the meetings. A lot of the associations that are involved, BOMA, IRA, IAI, Homebuilders Association, Multi-Family Association, all feel that this process is going too fast, too little input for political reasons. He stated that he and the groups mentioned would like to review more than one building code.
Mr. Hemingway asked Mr. Don Jones, City Attorney, asked if any action can be taken on item no. 7 on the DAB Agenda since it only states “Discussion/Update” and does not state “Possible Action.” Mr. Jones stated that “Possible Action” is not on the agenda, so no action can be taken. Ms. Carole Borrego, DAB Secretary, stated the reason this did not post with “Possible Action” was that City Clerk’s Office called her and stated that no action would be taken on this item and possible action needed to be removed. This item originally posted with “Possible Action” 24 hours prior to the DAB meeting, reposted with “Possible Action” removed. Mr. Jones concluded saying that no action can take place at this meeting due to the fact that it was not indicated on the agenda. Mr. Jones stated that a limited discussion can take place at this meeting but no action can take place at this time.
Mr. Coley stated that the motion has been distributed for the DAB’s review and would like this motion with “Possible Action” on next months DAB agenda. He continued to explain that the Commercial Building and Multi-Family Building Industry is not supportive of this and the timeline. He stated the he and the industry is against the political process that is being used to pass this building code. He stated that if the contents of the motion are put in place that he and the industry are in agreement with whatever code is approved.
Mr. Barcon stated that the list of people who are in favor of this includes the National Association of Homebuilders. He asked Mr. Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association, for comments on this issue.
Mr. Brock stated that he has attempted to attend all of the NPFA 5000 Building Code Subcommittee meetings, excluding Commercial. He commented that this process is going too fast for them.
Ms. Suzanne Gilstrap, Arizona Multi-Housing Association/International Code Council, stated that she attends the Accessibility Subcommittee. They have attempted to get members of the industry involved so that they could have input into this process. She stated that because the meetings are going so rapidly and so many of them are being held within one week, it makes it virtually impossible for anybody, who has a job, other than working at the City, to make any sort of a decent contribution to this process.
Ms. Gilstrap commented that there is no reason to rush this process. The City of Phoenix is the only City in the United States that is given consideration only to the NFPA 5000. The Arizona Building Officials Association, the MAG Building Officials Association have both taken positions calling for adoption of the International Codes.
Mr. Scott Mardian stated that the Building Industry is basically neutral. They have the attitude that they will build whatever the architect’s design. There is some design build work/design team work where looking at a single code is his concern (NFPA 5000 versus the International Code). As far as the speed goes, they’re about 1/3 of the way through it. He would agree that the architects would like to have an international single code; building owners, he believes, would be in favor of that, also.
Mr. Hemingway stated to the Board that this process and heightened urgency has made people very much aware of this code adoption, which is a positive. He encouraged everyone to be at the next DAB meeting to be held on February 20, 2003. He stated that this body is advisory to the City Council and the Board is following the ordinances outlined by the City Council in regards to facilitating this process. He stated that this is no surprise that occurred in November of 2002. This has been ongoing for a couple of years, and there has been ample opportunity for people to bring some of these items forward. Now that it’s on the agenda and in the process of approval, now that it’s imminent, everyone has a concern.
He continued to state that he wants as much input to the process as possible. If this is a good code, and everyone is in agreement, then a good code will be implemented. This is the ultimate goal. This is the meeting for people to voice and be in attendance and make this issue known to the Board. Mr. Hemingway invited all constituents to be at February’s meeting to voice their opinion.
Ms. Gilstrap stated that they have been following the NFPA 5000 Building Code for a very long time. This code has been available a very short time and has not been available for comparable analysis. She continued to explain that one of the members on the Mayor’s Council on Disability stated that in Chapter 12, the Accessibility Chapter was very poorly written. They had to start from scratch. She stated that the City is looking at a code that is not quite ready to be adopted.
Mr. Barcon encouraged all members of the various associations to attend the subcommittee meetings.
Mr. Lionel Lyons, Director of Development Services, stated that everyone’s comments are well taken. He stated that DSD is moving with the due diligence in the speed that the City Council has given DSD staff as part of the directive in terms of moving forward with this. He commented that he is reluctant to say and agree that DSD has held off on this. The Mayor and City Council directed staff to move forward on this. When Mr. Lyons acquired the position of the Director of DSD in March 2001, one of his first priorities was to get this code issued. He stated many volunteers, along with DSD staff have done many hours of work in this code adoption. Even with the limited resources, Mr. Lyons, is very comfortable in terms of staff’s due diligence that has taken place. He is proud of the fact that staff has carried out the direction that the Mayor and City Council has given DSD to do.
Mr. Lyons continued to explain that he wants to hear from everyone. The only way that this code is going to be as strong, as powerful, and as meaningful, to the community as it possibly can be is that DSD needs to hear from the public and professionals who can help and guide DSD to make that possible. He stated that staff and everyone involved needs to be open, conclusive, and at the same time be open to objections and concerns of professionals, organizations, etc.
Discussion/Update/Possible Action on Retaining Walls:
Mr. John Parks stated that in 1997 the Zoning Ordinance was changed, which limited the height of retaining
walls to 3’ 4”. In 1997 there was clarification in the intent to the Zoning Ordinance, which in essence
says the intent of the amendment was to measure the height of the visible portion of the retaining wall.
The Zoning Administrator ruled that the height of the retaining wall should be measured from the top of the
footing.
For a better understanding, following is an interpretation on the height of retaining walls from a memo dated January 16, 2003 from Jon Wendt, Assistant DSD Director:
The Zoning Administrator issued a formal interpretation, ZA-702-02, in January 6, 2003 stating that the allowable height of retaining walls is 3’4” measured from the top of footing regardless of the depth of footing. This interpretation supersedes the method that DSD has been using to measure the height of retaining walls stated in a July 7, 1997 memo that considered only the visible portion of the retaining wall when applying the 3’4” dimension. Plans that cannot meet this standard may seek a use permit relief from the Zoning Administrator.
The above interpretation applies to non-hillside property. Retaining walls in hillside property may be 6’ by right.
DSD Counter 4, will review retaining wall plans carefully to determine if they comply with this interpretation or if a customer needs to redesign or be referred for a use permit.
This interpretation is subject to appeal. This appeal deadline is January 21, 2003. An appeal stays implementation. If this interpretation remains unchanged it will be implemented as follows:
• Effectively immediately for new plans upon expiration of appeal period or upheld upon appeal hearing.
• Applicable to grading and drainage plans that are approved but not permitted as of the expiration
of the appeal period or the date the interpretation is upheld on appeal. DSD Counter 4 will apply as part
of retaining wall review.
• Not applicable to grading and drainage permits issued prior to expiration of the appeal period of
the date that the interpretation is upheld on appeal.
Mr. Hemingway stated that he asked that this item be put on the agenda more as a notification process to the public.
Mr. Barcon stated that the Process and Procedures Subcommittee is concerned that time is of the essence since this will go into affect on January 21, 2003. He’s not sure what the DAB can do to delay this process a while. Mr. Hemingway stated that he believes the DAB can make a recommendation that it not be implemented for a certain time or some time be established or ask the Zoning Officer to consider that. Mr. Hemingway asked Mr. Jones if a formal appeal needs to be made by the DAB to delay this process by January 21, 2003.
Mr. Lyons stated that the ruling involved KB Homes in the South area of Phoenix. From an administrative side, DSD had to decide on where they draw the line. Right now the only outstanding issue impacts KB Homes. DSD has not heard anything from other builders.
Mr. Jones commented that without review of the matter, he cannot be certain that anyone other KB Homes would have the opportunity to appeal this issue. If this is a citywide interpretation and anyone else feels that they are affected, they should appeal it.
Mr. Wilson stated that he is sure that this will affect others. He would strongly endorse a postponement of this action.
Mr. Hemingway asked if DSD has a recommendation as far as possible action that the DAB can take. Mr. Lyons commented that their recommendation would be to follow the determination that was made to the Zoning Administrator. Notification of this process has been handed out at the counters on the second floor of DSD, information has been distributed, it has been presented at the Home Builders Industry, and by e-mail. If the public had concerns with this, they would take appropriate steps to appeal it. The only initial action has been from KB Homes.
Mr. Parks stated some entity has to go to the Planning Department, appeal it to the Board of Adjustments and will stay there until that appeal is resolved.
Mr. Coley asked if DAB and the Zoning Administrator have a chance to then try and work something out as far as an interpretation goes. Mr. Parks stated that this would be a hearing before the Board of Adjustment and anyone can go to the Board, which is a public hearing.
Mr. Mardian asked Mr. Brock if he was aware of this and has he received notification of this. He also asked if this has been discussed through the Home Builders Association. Mr. Brock stated that they were aware of this and has spoken to the attorney from KB Homes.
Ms. Sandy Zwick, Planning Department, stated that as of the afternoon of January 16, 2003, KB Homes did file an appeal regarding this issue.
Discussion/Update/Possible Action on the Fire Department Air Standpipe Systems:
Mr. Kevin Reily, Deputy Chief, Phoenix Fire Department, presented a power point presentation on the Fire
Department Air Standpipe Systems. He stated the building code puts a great amount of importance in providing
a water supply for high rise fire fighting. At most buildings, there is a knox box located on the outside of
the building. In the knox box there is a key to access the system. Once the system is located the fire
fighters hook up to it. This consists of a pressurized air hose. The fire fighter has initially 17 minutes
of air. This would consist of ten minutes of working time and the remanding minutes to change the air tank.
To change out an air bottle it takes about 1½ minutes for each fire fighter, so for a crew of four, about six
minutes is lost, plus the time there and back, plus the manual work of carrying the bottles, which are
about 20 pounds apiece.
Mr. Reily continued to explain that this a is system that Phoenix has used for the last eight years. An Air Standpipe System would be a very viable solution for the Fire Department. There is a panel located inside the stairwell that holds four pressurized hoses. Four fire fighters can fill up their air bottles in 45 seconds and this can be done without removing the mask or going to a safe haven to do this. This is a lot more efficient and a lot safer for the fire fighters. If the fire fighters are able to stay on air, they will be able to facilitate rescue and continue fire fighting.
Currently, it takes one fire fighter to take up two bottles of air, which is about 90 pounds to take up the stairwell. Half of the workforce is committed to take air bottles up and down the stairs. The City of Phoenix Fire Department does not have the resources to operate this way. They need to get much more effectiveness out of the personnel they have.
This system is made out of a 3/8” stainless steel pipe that is actually called tubing. It’s very, very small and very nonintrusive. The Sacramento Fire Department actually began this process about 11 years ago. This is now a fire code requirement for them in the entire state.
Mr. Reily stated that what the Phoenix Fire Department propose is the most cost effective and efficient system that will support the fire services and public safety effort. The outside panel is $2,000, which is the most expensive part of the equipment. We propose that we put these on the odd floors in the stairwells, with each panel costing approximately $1,000. A quote from the Pipe Fitters Union in Phoenix is $25 per foot for the piping. There is no charge for the exterior panels in the 3rd floor, but from the 3rd, floor up there is a piping charge. Meetings have been held with business owners, and many of them support fire fighter safety.
Ms. Koffron stated that the reason this was presented to the DAB is that the Fire Department is proposing that this be installed into buildings and be a part of the building codes. The Fire Department wanted the Board to see what it was they were talking about. They are going to put in a proposal in Chapter 55, which is the Building Services Section. In this section there is a list of items that must be put in, and this would be added to the list. Ms. Koffron stated that this is a very small expense, but this is immensely helpful. The Fire Department would like to propose that this system be put in buildings five stories or more. Ms. Koffron stated this issue would go through the NFPA 5000 Energy and Other Systems Subcommittee for consideration. Then this will go through the DAB.
Continuation of Discussion/Update/Possible Action on Roadway Cross Sections:
NOTE: Damage to tape did not get full discussion of this item.
Mr. Rus Brock stated the request is to add option in lieu of the vertical curb to have a rolled curb.
Ms. Sandy Zwick, stated that she was representing the Planning Department. A number of years ago the Planning
Department had a major part in the whole issue of the cross sections and the detached sidewalks with the
landscaping in between. The Planning Department is not supportive in changing the street cross sections to
allow detached sidewalks with a rolled curb. Some of the reasons being:
• Automobiles will tend to pull up over the rolled curb and park.
• This will cause a significant increase in maintenance problems for maintaining the landscaping that would be in the detached portion.
• This will cause the Homeowners Association an enforcement problem.
• This will cause maintenance problems.
• There will be an additional amount of violations.
• There will be an additional amount of complaints to the Homeowners Associations to comply with and deal with.
• This will cause decomposed granite to be kicked out into the street with the rolled curb.
For these reasons the Planning Department is recommending not changing the cross section for the street as a vertical curb.
Mr. Walt Cicioni stated that he has approved several private developments that have rolled curb with set back sidewalks with the developers telling Mr. Cicioni, that the associations will be strong and will maintain that. He stated that he doesn’t know if the maintenance is taking place, as he hasn’t gone out to check. He has asked Mr. Brock to send some of his association members out to check this to see if this working or not.
Mr. Hemingway commented to Mr. Cicioni that he has approved some of these with a rolled curb. He asked, as a developer how can he make this happen? Mr. Cicioni stated that he can do a private street and it can be approved with a rolled curb. If a public street is done, the City Council’s policy dealing with public streets and the vertical curb policy is enforced.
Mr. Wilson stated that he is familiar with some of the subdivisions that Mr. Cicioni has referred to. It is his understanding that there has not been a problem with car encroachments going into any particular areas. It stated that this issue should be analyzed to determine whether this concern should be manifested or not. Assuming that this is probably not as problematic as the concern might be, the value of employing a narrower street for traffic calming purposes, is a benefit to the given community. Mr. Wilson stated that he respects the concerns of the Planning Department, but he is not willing to cast this issue aside altogether. He commented that this is worthy to research some of the private communities to have the rolled curb versus the sidewalk to learn more about their specific problems, if any problems are related to it.
Mr. Coley asked if an association has a private street with rolled curbing and the association stops, would they have to go back in and recut the curbs. Does the City take this dedication under those circumstances? Mr. Cicioni commented that the Zoning Ordinance states that if you have a street built after 1986, it cannot be turned back over to the City.
Mr. Barcon asked if an Ad Hoc Subcommittee should be assigned to over see this issue, gather the information, and return with a recommendation to the DAB. Mr. Hemingway suggested that this issue be assigned to the Technical Subcommittee for further research.
Discussion/Update/Possible Action on Truncated Domes:
Ms. Janet Reed, DSD Architect, stated truncated domes were first developed as part of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. When the accessibility guidelines were put together, truncated domes were included.
Truncated domes are located on walkways for hazardous locations for sight impaired people. These are to be
placed on curb ramps and areas where sidewalks cross-vehicular ways and train platforms.
Soon after the ADA was released, there was a lot of controversy over truncated domes. There were problems
with snow and ice removal, where snow accumulated between the domes. There was a lot of controversy over the
location that they were on curbed ramps along with wheel chairs having difficulty getting over them. For
these reasons, truncated domes were suspended for locations at curb ramps and areas that cross-vehicular ways.
Ms. Reed stated that the Department of Justice issued a suspension. This was suspended twice. The first one came out in 1994 and was extended in 1996. In July of 2001 the suspension expired. In a sense it went back into the regulations. The ADA Accessibility Guidelines was never reprinted without it, the suspension was just listed. Truncated domes are now required.
Ms. Reed continued to explain that Engineering and Architectural Services developed a new detail to the off site curb ramps which includes truncated domes, but it doesn’t match the Americans with Disability Act Accessibility Guidelines. It was questioned on whether they need to comply with ADAG because local programs and projects also had their choice to comply with it.
Engineering and Architectural Services, Streets Department, and the Development Services Department met and additional research has been completed. A suggestion was made at this meeting that they could possibly use UFAS (Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards).
The issue was raised that the Mayor’s Commission on Accessibility issues never looked at this detail and should have been given the opportunity to review it. It was brought up at the meeting if they were required to meet ADAG and not UFAS that the alternative would be to have ask Mayor’s committee what their view is. Engineering and Architectural Services decided that this issue should be taken to the Mayor’s Commission.
Ms. Reed stated that Mr. Thomas Callow, Street Department Director, sent a letter to Development Services recommending that they suspend the use of the offsite detail. A recommendation was made that until further research, it be suspended.
Mr. Doell stated that this is a federal requirement and he wanted to clarify that this is being done now on-site and it must be enforced.
Mr. Hemingway stated that this will be tabled until as a future agenda item.
Discussion/Update/Possible Action on the Status of Applebee’s Restaurant, 4909 East Chandler Boulevard
ISSUE: To create an accessible bar service counter location that meets all current City of Phoenix regulations
and accessible codes as adopted for accessibility in a bar environment.
Mr. Don Jones, City Attorney stated this was an appeal from the Spring of 2002. This appeal was denied by the DAB and was for an accessible bar in their restaurant. Applebee’s took this matter to Superior Court with the report. Their primary strategy is that they are being singled out and that there were many restaurants that were built during this period of time are not being required to have the accessible facility at their bar.
The court took note of their defense and instructed the Law Department to provide Applebee’s with the City’s records to other similar facilities that were built during this period of time in determination of whether or not they are being singled out. A meeting will be held to disclose this information to Applebee’s during the week of January 20, 2003.
A preliminary review of the materials indicates that the substantial majority of the cases shows that the Development Services Department took that the position that the DAB took in making it’s decision last Spring.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Session adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Doell, P.E.
Deputy Director, Building Official
Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, 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 02/25/2003 16:59:18