June 21, 2001
| Members Present
John Augustine Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary L. Coley Mike Colletto Stephen Elssmann Peter Hemingway David Kelly Scott Mardian Herman Orcutt Judy Pavsek Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff and Interested Parties
Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Fitz, City of Phoenix, DSD Mary Helen Giustizia, City of Phoenix, DSD Derek Horn, City of Phoenix, DSD Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Judy Lenz, City of phoenix, DSD Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Alan Olson, City of Phoenix, DSD John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD Carnell Thurman, City of Phoenix, DSD John Watson, City of Phoenix, Fire Jon Wendt, City of Phoenix, DSD
Jeff Clark, City of Phoenix Resident |
Gary Coley, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:08 p.m.
MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2001:
MOTION was made by Judy Pavsek, seconded by Dave Kelly, to approve the meeting minutes of May 17, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Gary Coley stated that the DAB subcommittees are struggling to form a quorum at their monthly meetings. He suggested that the Chair of each subcommittee looks at the membership and possibly reduce the number of members, which may help the subcommittees to more easily reach a quorum.
Steve Elssmann stated that a homeowner who pulled a swimming pool permit contacted him. The homeowners became very frustrated with the fact that the permit required them to conform to the on-site retention for the water that was to remain on their site according to the original design and construction of that neighborhood.
Mr. Elssmann mentioned that most homeowners don't even know what on-site retention is. In this case, the pool company completed half of the construction and during inspection it was noticed there was not adequate on-site retention. The inspector advised that the problem needed to be resolved before he allowed work on the pool to advance into further stages of construction. The homeowners were confused because they didn't understand the permit relative to maintaining the similar site condition. They could not proceed until they prepared an informal analysis to determine the original amount of water that was to remain on that site. If they had rain, where would that water go and how could the site retain the water.
The homeowner met with the inspector, his superior, and called the City. They finally ripped out their entire front yard landscaping and dug a hole so that the water could drain down the side of the house to the front of the yard. Mr. Elssmann stated that after they received their green tag and the pool was completed they would probably fill in the hole and return the yard to its former state.
Mr. Elssmann mentioned that this was not the first incident he's encountered. He stated that altering the landscaping temporarily is being used as a solution for the purpose of obtaining a green tag, but is not solving the problem. Mr. Herman Orcutt suggested that one solution would be to disallow individual retention. This would mean that individual houses could not be retention basins, there would have to be off-site from the subdivision.
Mr. Coley stated that this discussion began about six months ago and questioned as to where the responsibility for ensuring on-site retention lies. Is it with Site Planning or Building Safety? Who should be dealing with this issue? Mr. Coley suggested that an ad-hoc committee be appointed for further discussion.
Mr. Elssmann stated once there was a time in new home development where R1-6 allowed for on-site retention. Currently, a neighborhood must have a minimum of an R1-8 lot before they would even consider on-site retention. Mr. Darrell Wilson stated that this is not a function of zoning category but of lot size, which is 8,000 square feet.
Mr. Elssmann stated that in this particular neighborhood the lots are 6,000 SF. With the new situation set aside, there are hundreds of neighborhoods that have been built in the last six to nine years that have smaller lots. Typically five to seven years later, people start to make improvements, which include swimming pools. He believes that this will become more of an issue for Building Safety.
Mr. Coley stated that this would be put on the future agenda item listing.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Executive: No meeting held-no quorum
As an information item, Mr. Paul Kinshella, City of Phoenix, Water Department, was invited to the meeting to go over the Proposed Water Department/Sewer Easement Width. The Water Department and Development Services will attend the next Executive Subcommittee meeting with updated information.
Mr. Darrell Wilson asked how Development Services is currently handling this issue. He stated that projects are currently going through. Since there some questions on this issue, how is this currently being handled? Mr. Coley stated that this is a Water Department issue and that they are showing some flexibility in dealing with the cases that are coming through the system.
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee:
Mr. Herman Orcutt announced that the Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee has never missed a meeting! Mr. Orcutt stated that the subcommittee was delighted that their recommendations on the Fee Increase were accepted.
Currently the subcommittee has been prioritizing for the next year. The following are the items are on their list for completion:
· Evaluate the staffs' valuation tables for building permits without new construction
· Continue fee simplification
· Develop steps for continued transition on evaluation based fees
· Determine priorities for fee simplification
· Reduction of fees on Site Planning and Civil Engineering
· Create a written policy for the handling of the stabilization fund
· Create a business plan for Development Services
· Benchmark Development Services responsibilities and time frames with other cities, along with developing performance standards for the development process
Process and Procedures: No meeting held - No quorum
Mr. Ben Barcon mentioned that the subcommittee is very close to finalizing the Conditional Permit Process. They are also looking into the assignment of addresses and water meter sets.
Technical Subcommittee: No meeting held.
Mr. Mike Colletto thanked the DAB for the "No Step Entry" vote.
Zoning and Planning Subcommittee/Hillside Ad Hoc Subcommittee:
Mr. Darrell Wilson stated that the formation of this subcommittee has been very beneficial. He mentioned that several issues are being addressed regarding text amendments for consolidation to simplify the interpretation and understanding of the hillside requirements. This subcommittee is also working on consolidation of policy items that evolved and been implemented by DSD staff over many years. The next major item on the agenda will be the Planned Residential Development aspect of the hillside application. They are working on the first phase of the action on this to go on to the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Parks stated that this subcommittee is working on documenting the unwritten policies. They are working on deciding whether they should be definitions or guidelines in the ordinance. They are developing drafts of both the zoning and subdivision ordinances are being developed and forwarded to the Law Department for their review.
Black Canyon Corridor Design Guidelines Ad Hoc Subcommittee:
Mr. Darrell Wilson stated that he didn't have anything to report, as it has been difficult to meet a quorum. He stated that the development community has stepped up and well represented themselves and their interests in regards to this issue. To date, there has been no activity or meeting regarding this issue. Mr. Wilson doesn't expect any activity in the future on this issue.
Ad Hoc Planned Community District Subcommittee: No Report.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON BLACK CANYON CORRIDOR GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATIONS:
Mr. Coley stated that it was his understanding that this passed the Planning Commission and is going to City Council. Mr. John Parks stated this item would be going to City Council on June 27 with the option to continue discussion to July 5.
Mr. Darrell Wilson mentioned that the Development Community is very much involved in this issue with staff and the Design Review Standards Committee. He stated that there is a great deal of momentum with this item moving forward and that everyone has reached a reasonable level of comfort with the Master Planned Community and individual developers.
Mr. Wilson stated that he is interested in hearing input from the development community to see if they are comfortable with the motion actually taken by the Planning Commission. Ms. Maeve Johnson, Valley Partnership, who represents the real estate development industry for commercial, industrial, and master planned community development, spoke regarding this issue. This is a 500-member company and has a diverse membership of anyone who touches real estate development industry.
Ms. Johnson stated that there are some areas related to the Black Canyon Corridor Guidelines that they have concern over. Although the document has progressed very quickly, Valley Partnership is very pleased with this document. She stated that John Parks, Ray Quay and Darrell Wilson have spent hours on this document, which is extremely complex and establishes a precedent for almost 90 square miles of the city.
Mr. Wilson stated that there has been remarkable progress with this document. The percentage of open space was received with a great deal of scrutiny, which dealt with percentage of open space adjacent to preserve areas. There are two classifications of preserve areas, which are private preserves and public preserves.
Mr. Wilson stated that Valley Partnership had requested that certain items be incorporated into the final action. These were expressed before the Planning Commission with issues of applicability still that were outstanding. There was one PCD that had been given some dialogue during the meeting before the Planning Commission to provide opportunity for exemption of certain obligations because of zoning case stipulations that already applied to it. Mr. Wilson asked process-wise, will the concerns that are still outstanding be addressed and implemented between where we are right now and City Council?
Mr. Ray Quay responded that a Zoning Hearing would be held on June 24. This will be a public hearing and testimony may be given by anyone who expresses interest in stating something relating to this issue.
Mr. Gary Coley stated that the Planning Commission has the final vote. If people are concerned they need to start with their own district representative and express it to the Council in general. If people are not concerned, the vote will happen without their comments.
Mr. Darrell Wilson stated the he has not read the actual minutes of the Planning Commission and asked if the motion included accommodation of the items that Ms. Johnson addressed. Mr. Ray Quay stated staff was made aware of all the items that Ms. Johnson mentioned. The Commission did include streetlights, which was an item that staff didn't include.
Mr. Wilson mentioned that he brought this forward as an item of concern for the DAB. He stated that an action, either to support or opposition, is not necessary. The involvement between the Development Staff, Planning Staff, and the Development Services Staff have all adequately addressed this issue and has served the development interests that are out there.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED STEEL FABRICATOR PROGRAM:
Mr. Ben Barcon stated that earlier this year, Mr. Derek Horn, Structural Engineer, City of Phoenix, brought to the Process and Procedures Subcommittee a new procedure for an approved steel fabricators program. This program was discussed and reviewed by the subcommittee.
A public meeting was held on May 11, 2001 with many industry representatives in attendance. After considerable discussion of the pros and cons of the program, the subcommittee passed a motion to accept the approved steel fabricators procedure and present it to the Development Advisory Board.
Mr. Derek Horn provided a brief overview of the process. He stated that steel fabricators who produce steel in the City of Phoenix and wished to participate in the program would fill out an application and provide documentation that they have been certified by an agency approved by the City of Phoenix. This would include the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Los Angeles County, Clark County. This approved listing of fabricators will be updated quarterly and made available to other jurisdictions. Once fabricators are on the City of Phoenix list, they will be on the list for the entire state of Arizona. Mr. Horn stated that in order to remain current on the list, fabricators would need to periodically provide documentation that they are still certified.
Mr. Barcon stated that if a company does not wish to be certified, they are still able to do work within the City of Phoenix, but would need to complete certain requirements that would not be required of certified companies. Mr. Horn explained that there is an exception in the current code that allows that an approved fabricator certified by an outside agency, accepted by the Building Official, does not need to have special inspections in that shop. If a shop does not wish to be certified, this does not mean that they cannot erect fabricated steel in the City of Phoenix. It would mean that, according to the code, special inspectors would be required in their shop.
Mr. Horn stated that the City of Phoenix is trying to better construction in the state and encourage a safer environment. Another benefit with this list is that it provides a relatively cost-effective alternative.
Mr. Barcon mentioned that the Subcommittee's concern was that requiring certification would cause an undue hardship on the smaller shops. With this option, they can continue to do business as they do today, without being certified, by meeting the special inspection requirements.
MOTION was made by Ben Barcon, seconded by Peter Hemingway, to accept the approved steel fabricators program as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Herman Orcutt thanked Gary Coley for serving as Chairperson and doing an excellent job.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON WATER/SEWER EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS:
Mr. Carnell Thurman stated that this item would be deferred to a future Development Advisory Board agenda to allow time to provide additional language and documentation to the Board.
Mr. Thurman stated, in response to questions as to how Development Services is handling appeals, that staff has been advised by Water Services to be stringent on new developments, and in existing areas they are looking toward a relaxation of the requirements. Mr. Thurman stated that each situation is being examined on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. John Augustine wanted to clarify that individual homeowners were not being asked for new or larger easements. Mr. Thurman responded that this was correct. Mr. Augustine asked why would we want larger easements? Mr. Thurman stated that in the past mistakes were made and as the infrastructure ages breakage is occurring and repairs are made difficult by insufficient easement widths. Easement widths that were allowed 50 years ago are just not working today.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON MODIFICATION OF CODE LANGUAGE FOR 2000 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE PHOENIX AMENDMENTS SECTIONS 1202.2.1 AND APPENDIX CHAPTER 2, SECTION 1207.1:
Mr. Gary Coley stated that the Subcommittee did not have a quorum and could not meet. This item will be tabled to a future agenda.
Mr. Rick Doell explained that the Subcommittee met to review the newly adopted language as some of the 2000 Uniform Mechanical Code contains language that is not clear. The plumbing/mechanical review staff and inspection staff requested that the DAB Ad Hoc Subcommittee review the language to clarify the intent. This meeting was scheduled and unfortunately a quorum was not met. It was decided to reopen the Plumbing/Mechanical Focus Group to look at the language and open discussion with City Staff, the public, the Subcommittee, then finally the DAB.
Mr. Doell stated, at this point we will be adopting the language as written. The adoption of the 2000 UMC will go before City Council on the July 5. If Council finds this an issue of concern, City staff will re-write the language and go ahead with the code change.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ON COORDINATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS IN SUBDIVISIONS:
Mr. Alan Olson stated that the Fire Department has had trouble locating fire hydrants and indicated a problem with substandard two-inch water mains that were not functional. The City Manager put together a multi-department task force comprised of the Water Department, Fire Department and other City Departments to respond to these concerns. This lead to a multi-million dollar capital improvement program for expanding water mains, putting new hydrants in on existing water mains, etc. Approximately 5,000 fire hydrants are being adjusted because of this issue.
Mr. Olson continued to explain that aside from that issue the Fire Department has indicated that new subdivisions have been approved with fire hydrants located incorrectly. After researching how this could occur, two issues surfaced: one being that the requirement for a fire hydrant is found in two different city ordinances and the other that the Water Code states where fire hydrants are placed when a new water main extension is installed. Also, the Fire Code states where hydrants are needed for Fire Department operation purposes.
Mr. Olson mentioned that that design engineers and civil engineers designing subdivisions and water mains in residential subdivisions are following the Water Code for spacing fire hydrants: 500 feet apart in residential subdivision and 300 feet apart in commercial areas. The engineers were spacing out the fire hydrants where they fit and where they thought to be efficient. This was causing the Fire Department some operational concerns. Mr. Olson stated that Development Services was directed by the City Managers Office to start checking the fire hydrant designs as they were submitted to make sure they are properly located to Fire Department standards.
Mr. Olson reviewed the handout that was given to the Board members regarding Fire Hydrant Location Requirements. He presented a display of a typical subdivision showing where fire hydrants are currently located, as well as where they should be located. Fire hydrants should be located on the corner of the streets rather than mid-block. Fire hydrants should be spaced 500 feet apart. For cluster home developments, fire hydrant should be located at the driveway entrance into each cluster of four of more homes.
Mr. Barcon asked if a display was completed for commercial development. Mr. Olson stated that it is very difficult to place fire hydrants commercially because placement is dependent on whether or not the building is sprinklered, where the Fire Department connections for the buildings sprinkler system are located on the building, etc. What is written on the policy is no different than what the Fire Department engineers have been requiring on building permits all along. There should be no change on the commercial side.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON NOMINATIONS AND ELECTION OF 2001-02 DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN/VICE CHAIR:
Mr. Gary Coley stated that he has enjoyed serving as the Chairperson and enjoyed the whole process in being involved in a new Board and in doing things in a new way. Mr. Coley is very excited about the Board's future.
Mr. Herman Orcutt nominated Peter Hemingway to move from Vice-Chairperson to Chairperson.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Darrell Wilson, to nominate Peter Hemingway as the new Development Advisory Board Chairperson. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Coley stated that the next item of issue is to elect vice-chairperson for the next year.
MOTION was made by Ben Barcon, seconded by Mike Colletto to nominate Herman Orcutt as the new Development Advisory Board Vice-Chairperson. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Herman Orcutt thanked Gary Coley for serving as Chairperson and doing an excellent job.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ON FY 2001-02 FEE ADJUSTMENT STATUS REPORT:
Mr. Alan Olson distributed the final 2001-02 Fee Adjustments which was approved by City Council with the Development Advisory Boards' recommendation.
Mr. Gary Coley commented that this has been a very long process. This almost meets the goal of leveling this out and making it fair to customers. Mr. Coley is concerned with the public budget issues that needs to be dealt with and stated that this certainly goes a long way to making things work better. He mentioned that the Board would continue to work on the public budget issues that need to be taken care of.
Mr. Olson stated that there are two issues that need to be covered. One issue is what is our budget, which will be addressed by the subcommittee. The second is the fee schedule itself and the simplification. This is phase one of the fee schedule, addressed the Building Safety fees. Mr. Orcutt has suggested that the subcommittee go over the Civil Engineering and Site Planning Fees, and simplifying the rest of the schedule.
A standardized evaluation chart to be used was distributed to the Board. This will be used for a reasonable check of the valuation of new construction permit applications. This goes with the table in the fee schedule, as to how to calculate a fee based on evaluation. Staff and the Fiscal Subcommittee are currently working on the range of standard values for miscellaneous permits, which will also be under the valuation table.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
Mr. Meyer Turken, President of Turken Industrial Properties, 2750 West McDowell Road, spoke regarding an adversarial relationship between City Planning and the attempt in getting permits. He stated that most people are hesitate to comment on this and mentioned that he has had two big problems in the last six months with Planning, Zoning, and Fire. He stated that he's commenting on this in an attempt to get the system changed because the system stinks.
Mr. Turken stated that Mr. Jon Wendt, Assistant Director, was in a meeting with him a few days ago. Mr. Turken mentioned that he was upgrading electrical on a small warehouse. His electrician told him that the plans needed to be on certain size paper, then he was told that the plans needed to be designed by an Engineer. Mr. Turken did was he was told and said that instances such as this kept on happening. He was extremely irritated with this situation.
Another situation developed when he was when attempting to put up chain link around his property. He stated that the Fire Department was involved and gave him conflicting information. He suggested that the City tell the customer what they want once or twice and not change the procedure mid-stream. He stated that this was not the way the City should treat citizens. Mr. Turken mentioned that he is involved with the County jail projects and said that the County is considering doing their own permitting on the rest of the jail buildings. He stated that the County is experiencing the same problems.
Mr. Turken stated that most of the City employees he spoke with agreed that there is definitely a problem. He requested the Development Advisory Board to form a subcommittee to eliminate the adversarial relationships that exist between the City and citizens. He mentioned that his electrician spent 14 hours of waiting time at the 2nd floor counter. He, also, spent $5,000 on drawing fees, planning fees, electrical fees, etc. He expressed his frustration and stated he had he known the required information earlier in the process; he would have only spent $200.
Mr. Turken spoken to Jon Wendt, Kelly O'Neal, and Craig Echaveste about his frustrations and they suggested the he bring this to the Development Advisory Board. His suggestions for these situations would be to educate, train and cross- train at the counter. If there were a subcommittee formed, Mr. Turken would like to be included.
Mr. Gary Coley stated that he understands his problem. He stated this these issues falls under the Process and Procedures Subcommittee. There are a number of items that are currently being studied for improvement of these processes. Mr. Ben Barcon suggested at Mr. Turken attend their next subcommittee meeting and provide some recommendations to better understand these issues.
Ms. Carole Fitz mentioned that on June 27th, City Council will review the DAB member re-appointments for the terms that are expiring July 1. Mr. Coley stated that there are still two vacant positions open on the Board.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Judy Pavsek, to adjourn the June 21, 2001 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Doell for
Larry Litchfield, PE
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. 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 08/24/2001 11:02:29