March 15, 2001
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary L. Coley Mike Colletto Michael Fries Peter Hemingway David Kelly Scott Mardian Judy Pavsek Greg Russell Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff and Interested Parties
Ray Acuña, City of Phoenix, DSD Gabriel Bey, City of Phoenix, WSD Shawn Billman, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Frank Dolasinski, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Fitz, City of Phoenix, DSD Ryan Gregory, City of Phoenix, CED Kenny W. Harris, City of Phoenix, DSD Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Keith Larson, City of Phoenix, WSD Larry Litchfield, Development Services Lionel Lyons, City of Phoenix, DSD Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Alan Olson, City of Phoenix, DSD John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD Jim Shannon, City of Phoenix, WSD Mark Syracuse, City of Phoenix, City Manager's Office Dee Thompson, City of Phoenix, WSD John Verdugo, City of Phoenix, Planning John Watson, City of Phoenix, Fire Jon Wendt, City of Phoenix, DSD
Ray Bizal, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) |
Gary Coley, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:06 p.m.
Mr. Coley asked attendees to please join him in observing a moment of silence for Bret Tarver, Firefighter, who gave his life in the line of duty on March 14.
Mr. Coley requested that Board members provide advance notice (24-48 hours prior to the meeting) to either Carole Borrego or Carole Fitz if they are unable to attend a Board or subcommittee meeting. Currently, staff receives either no notification, receives it immediately prior to the meeting, or receives messages after the meeting has already convened.
If members know in advance that they will not be able to attend, please advise DSD staff so that in the event a quorum will not be present, other members may be notified the meeting will be cancelled. A schedule of Board and Subcommittee meetings was distributed to enable members to calendar meetings for the remainder of the year. Unless notified otherwise, meetings will be held as scheduled.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR:
Kenny Harris, Development Services Director, informed the Board that he has accepted a position with the Tourism and Sports Authority (TSA) and introduced Lionel Lyons as the newly appointed Interim Development Services Director, effective March 19, 2001.
Mr. Lyons spoke briefly to the Board and provided them with an overview of his local government experience and education. Mr. Lyons expressed that he is looking forward to learning DSD operations and working with the staff and the Development Advisory Board
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2001:
MOTION was made by Ben Barcon, seconded by Dave Kelly, to approve the meeting minutes of February 15, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Coley called for any future agenda items and advised that members may contact staff with any proposed items.
Mr. Darrell Wilson proposed a future agenda item requesting consideration to bringing Floodplain Administration, currently under the Street Transportation Department, into Development Services Department. He stated that it has always seemed illogical to him to have Floodplain Administration under Streets. Mr. Wilson would like to have some staff input on the viability of moving this area under DSD. Mr. Barcon asked that any financial impact to DSD should also be included in that discussion.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Executive: No Report
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee:
Mr. Scott Mardian reported that staff has implemented a change involving time card record keeping. Time reporting will be done electronically enabling data to be collected for use in development of the new fee schedule. Subcommittee assignments from the January 9th Planning Session were discussed and accepted. Mr. Mardian also advised that Dan Hatch, Accountant III, provided a budget report and that to date, the Department is on target for cost recovery.
Mr. Mardian advised the most pressing issue before the subcommittee involves results from a City Auditor review establishing cost recovery projections for the next fiscal year. Mr. Alan Olson provided background on the budget process and the development of budget recommendations for presentation to the City Council. This is the time of year the City Manager and Budget and Research Department present to City Council a package of department budget requests for their review and priority rating.
The City Auditor has completed an annual user fee analysis (for departments that collect revenue via fees) for a determination of cost recovery. The Auditor's review has indicated that in the areas of Civil and Site Plan review the department will recover its costs, but in Building Safety Plan Review and Permits an under recovery has been projected. The Auditor's office is recommending a ten-percent fee increase in those areas. In addition, Development Services has made a budget request for eight additional positions in the Plan Review area (plan reviewer positions to back-up the team managers and additional staff for the County Projects Team).
To cover the projected under recovery of fees ($1.9 million) and the additional staff positions ($675K), a total budget increase of $2.6 million dollars is being requested (13% fee increase for Building Safety plan review and permits only). Mr. Olson advised that staffs' task is to work with the subcommittee over the next month to put details and background to this information in order to bring proposed fee changes to the Board for their recommendation. Mr. Olson advised that we are not ready to move forward on any overall changes to the fee schedule, but will address the Auditor's cost recovery concerns, plus any additional staffing expenses as an interim fee adjustment utilizing existing fee tables.
Mr. Ben Barcon asked if the subcommittee was involved in the review of the DSD budget that was made a part of this package? Mr. Olson advised that they have been involved in the budget submittals (wish list) of supplementals. What has survived through the budget process is about half of those items. The City Auditor's cost recovery report just recently became available.
Mr. Barcon stated that because of the short timeline he felt that the Board would only be able to give these items a cursory review. Mr. Olson advised that this would be the Council's first review of some of the requested items. Council has approximately a month to review and make their recommendations to the City Manager, who will in turn put together the final budget recommendation for City Council that will go out for public hearings and final Council action in June. This is just the beginning of the process.
Mr. Mardian advised that he anticipates discussion from the Board as well as the industry. He suggests that we obtain as much input as possible prior to the April subcommittee meeting. Mr. Mardian stated in the next ten days he will provide staff with questions he anticipates will be posed by the industry, so responses can be provided on those items prior to the April subcommittee meeting. Mr. Mardian advised that the subcommittee would consider meeting prior to the regularly scheduled April meeting.
Mr. Barcon asked when the last rate increase took place? Mr. Olson advised the last fee increase was in 1997. Mr. Barcon inquired if this increase takes into consideration money that is held for fees that were paid this year, but work won't be performed until next year? Mr. Olson responded that the carry-over amount is determined by the actual projects with fees collected in the last months of the fiscal year. If a large project is logged in for plan reivew/permit, a portion of those fees are carried over. The carryover is not a fixed percentage year-to-year. The actual amount of dollars carried over from one year to the next is about the same at the beginning of the year as what was deferred at the end of the next year - basically, a wash.
Process and Procedures:
Mr. Barcon advised the subcommittee met March 9 and discussed a proposed City program for certification of approved steel fabricators. He advised that representatives of the industry were present and provided input. The subcommittee has decided to conduct a public hearing on the certification issue so that more feedback could be collected. The hearing will be scheduled for either April or May and would be scheduled as part of their subcommittee meeting.
Technical Subcommittee
Mr. Mike Colletto reported that the subcommittee met on March 12 to review the single-family, no step entrance issue. The subcommittee has approved draft language to present for full Board approval. Mr. Colletto advised that the accessibility issue was primarily an ad hoc subcommittee and following resolution of the no-step issue, that portion of the committee will be dissolved and the Technical Subcommittee reformed.
Zoning and Planning Subcommittee:No report
Hillside Subcommittee:
Ms. Julie Stiak reported the subcommittee met March 6 and is still deliberating on the substance of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments. Ms. Stiak wished to commend DSD and Planning staff for their commitment to this process. Ms. Stiak advised a second special meeting will be held March 20 to attempt to finalize recommendations for the grading waiver percentages on hillside lots. The subcommittee is seeking to delineate between single lots of less than one acre vs. larger lots. She advised that there would be more to report at the April DAB meeting.
Black Canyon Corridor Design Guidelines Ad Hoc Subcommittee:
Mr. Wilson advised that the subcommittee met on February 22 and received a report from Sally Heinrich, Planner, on the current status of the proposed guidelines. Ms. Heinrich reported there would be one more draft revision for review by the Design Standards Committee, which will meet on March 20. An update meeting is being scheduled for March 26. If adopted at that time, the guidelines will be distributed to the industry (Home Builders Assoc., Valley Partnership, DAB, etc.) prior to being forwarded on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilson expressed his hope that they would be able to report on the final version going out for public comment, or possibly have a representative from Planning Department provide an overview at the April DAB meeting.
Ad Hoc Planned Community District Subcommittee:
Ms. Stiak reported the subcommittee met March 9. Copies of the proposed revision of amendments to the Planned Community District (PCD) Zoning Ordinance were provided to the Board. Ms. Stiak advised that developers, Planning Department staff, DAB members and DSD staff have all provided input and participated in the development of this document.
Mr. Dolasinski stated that the current draft will be going to the Village Planning Committees within the next thirty days and the Planning Commission will hear this amendment on one of their May agendas. Mr. Coley asked if the neighborhood committees will have completed their meetings and provided input prior to the next DAB meeting? Mr. Dolasinski stated it was his understanding that the majority would have reviewed it by that time. The subcommittee hopes to have those comments for discussion at their next meeting. Mr. Coley asked if at that point a final draft would be available? Mr. Dolasinski responded that the draft is normally kept intact through the entire hearing process until all comments and input are received. The draft is not changed until that process is completed, in order that all parties are reviewing the same document. By the next DAB meeting a draft and comments from neighborhood groups should be ready for the Board's potential approval.
DISCUSSION/PRESENTATION NFPA BUILDING CODE:
Mr. Ray Bizal provided presentation on the history and background of the NFPA, development of NFPA consensus codes and their partnering with other consensus codes. He explained that NFPA develops codes and standards and provides support services for those codes and standards, including training, certification, public education and awareness, research, investigations, as well as data collection and analysis.
Established in 1896, the NFPA has been involved in developing codes and standards for over a hundred years and is now in the process of drafting a building code. Mr. Bizal emphasized that NFPA has been involved in building safety for many years through their Life Safety Code (NFPA101). The NFPA is also well known for its Fire Prevention Code (NFPA 1 Uniform Fire Code) and Fuel Gas Code (NFPA 54), as well as the National Electrical Code (NFPA70), which is currently used in the City of Phoenix.
NFPA has partnered with other associations, particularly when it comes to mechanical and plumbing codes. NFPA has decided not to write those codes themselves, but have partnered with IAPMO for the mechanical and plumbing codes and with ASHRAE for energy efficiency codes.
NFPA does not have a separate code for residential construction, those provisions can be found in their building code, mechanical code, plumbing code, or electrical code. There is some discussion going on at NFPA to possibly extract those provisions that are relative to one- and two-family dwellings into a single document, so that the home building community can have a single reference document.
NFPA offers complimentary training and complimentary codes to jurisdictional representatives for states adopting any of the five NFPA codes statewide. Since Arizona does not have a state building code, NFPA has offered to the City of Phoenix, should the City of Phoenix adopt these codes or standards, that NFPA will provide training and code books to City employees for any of those adopted codes and standards. NFPA also provides certification programs and are in the process of developing programs for building officials, building inspectors, plan examiners, electrical inspectors, and electrical plan reviewers that will be up and running next year when the building code becomes available.
The NFPA Building Code is not a brand new code. It has its foundation in the EPCOT Building Code, which began in 1970, which had its roots in the SBCCI Code and the Uniform Building Code. It is a tried and tested code that applies to design, construction and renovation properties in the Reedy Creek Improvement District; Orlando, Florida - Walt Disney World and covers everything from hospitals to fire stations, hotels and amusement park rides. In May of 2002 the general membership of NFPA will hear and vote on recommendations, followed by a review of the Standards Council in July 2002 and by August 2002 the code will be effective.
Mr. Ben Barcon asked about the status of training offered to the City of Phoenix. Mr. Larry Litchfield responded that he and Gary Morris (Fire Department) are meeting to determine the training needs for both Development Services and Fire Department staff. A letter will be provided to NFPA indicating the training needs and possible schedule. The goal is to begin the training while development of the building code is being completed. The City of Phoenix has adopted the 1999 NEC and that batch of training could begin sometime after April 1. A training package will be developed to include Aviation, Neighborhood Services, Engineering and Architectural Services - any department that uses the codes, to provide an in-City series of training sessions. Mr. Bizal indicated that DAB members would be welcome to participate in those training sessions. Mr. Litchfield advised that, for a fee, the public would also be offered the opportunity to attend training sessions. The goal is to have a program in place by May or June.
Mr. Coley asked if on that timeline, the City would plan on implementing the code by 2003? Mr. Litchfield confirmed that it would probably be close to that date. Mr. Coley also asked if there was a timeline for the IAPMO codes, as they have applied for accreditation through ANSI as a consensus code? Mr. Bizal advised that word on the accreditation was expected very soon and that the UPC and UMC will be put into an ANSI accredited process this year or early next year, so that by 2003 the UPC and UMC will have also gone through the ANSI accreditation.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON INCREASE IN MINIMUM WATER/SEWER EASEMENT WIDTHS:
Mr. Keith Larson advised it has come evident that the existing easement width policies of the past are not adequate to deal with current conditions. In the past, it was common that a 15-20 foot easement would be allowed for placement of a water or sewer main that was not in the public right-of-way. As we have moved into a phase of redeveloping land throughout the downtown area and with an aging water/sewer system (many pipes are approaching 70 years old and need replacement). Water Services is seeing many instances of encroachment on those easements and have a need to go into those easements to replace water/sewer mains. Due to these conditions, Water Services is reviewing this issue and wished to bring it to the Board's attention.
A situation was recently encountered in the City of Tempe where the City of Phoenix has a 72" inch water main that comes out of the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant that is located in the City of Mesa but brings water all the way into the City of Phoenix. When that water main was built in 1970 along the river bottom, it was never conceived that it would be in the path of development. Now, with the advent of the Town Lake project and the redevelopment of that area, situations have occurred where two buildings were proposed by a developer that would be ten feet from this 72" water main and sandwiched between two buildings. It is going to be a very costly project for the City of Phoenix to rectify this situation. Water Services would like to avoid situations such as this one in the future by planning ahead and allowing for the changes in the character of future development.
Mr. Jim Shannon advised that Water Services would prefer not to have easements at all, but prefer to have the water/sewer mains located in the right-of-way. However, there are situations where that cannot occur and they wish to ensure that easements are of a size that gives adequate space for necessary maintenance. To help guard against damage to adjacent property and structures, allow for repair and replacement of aging systems, meet OSHA standards for necessary trenching and vehicle/crane access, etc., they feel an increase of easement width is necessary. New widths would be based on the size of the line (plus the depth of the line for sewer mains).
The following tables list the proposed increases in easement widths:
|
Water Main Less than 16" 16-30" Greater than 30" |
25' easement 15' easement 80' easement |
Sewer Main Less than 16" 16 - 30" Greater than 30" |
sewer main diameter + 22' + 2x depth greater of 50' or sewer diameter + 22' + 2x depth 80' per easement |
Water and Sewer in Same Easement
Width would be larger of water/sewer easement plus 10' to account for separation requirement
OR
A maximum of 80'
Mr. Ben Barcon asked if the minimum sewer easement would be about 37 feet? Mr. Shannon concurred that if you were looking at a seven-foot deep sewer, the easement would be a little less than 40 feet.
Mr. Scott Mardian asked how frequently mains are placed in an easement versus the right-of-way? Mr. Shannon advised that the vast majority of mains are built in the right-of-way, but they are seeing more and more developments with private streets requesting that mains be located in easements (usually for short distances). Mr. Larson estimated that less than 1% of the new mains being installed are being located in easements versus public right-of-way. Mr. Mardian asked if there was a cost reduction with placing the mains in an easement versus the right-of-way? Mr. Larson stated that many times the situation is that private streets can be built to a lesser width, thus a lesser cost than public streets. In the case of development in desert areas with many washes, subdivisions are being laid out to adjust for the preservation of these washes causing the streets to be designed in a non-linear fashion.
Mr. Greg Russell asked what the current easement requirements were? Mr. Larson advised that the standard is 20 feet, with additional footage sometimes requested for larger projects.
Mr. Darrell Wilson asked how often large main failures occur. Mr. Shannon responded that currently these failures don't happen frequently, but as the system ages and degrades, the incidents will be happening more frequently.
Mr. Mardian asked if Water Services was requesting a recommendation from the DAB and if any cost/benefit analyses have been done to determine the costs of repair/replacement versus the cost to the property owner to provide these easements? Mr. Mardian felt he needed something to base his decision on, either public safety or a cost/benefit, etc. Mr. Shannon advised they were just providing this as information to the Board, not requesting a decision today.
Mr. Wilson asked if any input from developers/contractors been obtained? Mr. Larson advised that discussions have taken place with several developers and they haven't offered up the easement increase freely, but Water Services has been successful in obtaining the dedication for the needed easements. Mr. Coley asked Mr. Larson to provide information back to the Board based on the comments and questions by the Board members.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON WATER SERVICES CODE ENFORCEMENT:
This item addresses the process of construction approval and approval of drawings of record (as-builts). Mr. Shannon distributed information to the Board relating to State requirements and City of Phoenix policies and procedures. Mr. Shannon advised that according to State law, "Operations of a newly constructed facility shall not begin until an Approval of Construction has been issued by the Department." Meaning that connections cannot be made to sewer or water services until an approval of construction has been obtained. These requirements include: a final inspection by a registered Arizona P.E., Certificate of Completion sealed and signed by a registered Arizona P.E., attesting that construction conforms to approved plans and specifications and record drawings (as-builts) sealed and signed by a registered Arizona P.E., quality control testing and calculations, O & M manual submitted, and a certified operator has been specified to operate and maintain the system.
State law mandates that record drawings must be prepared by a registered Arizona P.E., clearly describe or dimension changes so that plans become record drawings reflecting the project as actually built, and that each sheet is required to be dated, signed and sealed by the registrant.
Mr. Gabriel Bey provided an overview of City of Phoenix policies and requirements for acceptance of water and sewer lines. Mr. Bey explained that in an effort to work with Contractors/developers Water Services has allowed up to 10% of the water meters to be released prior to submittal of record drawings. and that discussion has been taking place as to what the City could do to improve this process. Mr. Bey advised that they would continue to work with developers and the Development Services Department on this process.
Mr. Ben Barcon advised that the Process and Procedures Subcommittee has been working with Water Services, Development Services and contractors on the process for the release of water meters and trying to expedite release of meters beyond the current 10% allowed. The developers have been giving some serious thought to what they can do better and what the City can do. Other jurisdictions have processes that allow meters to be set prior to the acceptance of as-builts, putting the electric meter in the critical path for occupancy. But from what he is hearing today, given that these are Arizona laws, where is the City going with this process? Mr. Bey commented that the plans have to be sealed by a registered engineer, and previously this requirement has fallen into the cracks. The City is liable for having recorded plans that reflect accurate location of water and sewer lines.
Mr. Barcon advised that there would be additional discussion on the release of water meters at the future subcommittee meetings. Mr. Bey advised he was aware of the discussions, but that it needs to be understood that the release of water meters triggers much more than just water connection. It would require a large effort on the part of the City to look at a new system of distribution of information to other entities providing services, such as Police, Fire, Trash Collection that are now set in motion by the release of water meters and connection of water services.
DISCUSSION/PRESENTATION OF SEMI-ANNUAL DEPARTMENT REPORTING - STREETS:
Due to scheduling conflict, this agenda item will be rescheduled to a future agenda.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON CREATION OF AD HOC MECHANICAL CODE SUBCOMMITTEE:
Mr. Litchfield informed the Board that the City Council has deemed the IAPMO Mechanical Code and the State Plumbing Code to be consensus and have given us direction to continue with the Five Step Code Adoption Process for the Mechanical Code and the Plumbing Code. Staff review of the IAPMO Mechanical Code and development of approximately twenty-five amendments has been completed. The next step is formation of a DAB Ad Hoc Subcommittee to review and provide recommendations for adoption of the Mechanical Code and proposed amendments.
The subcommittee would be comprised of two DAB members, a DSD staff representative and several industry representatives. Mr. Coley validated the formation of the Ad Hoc Mechanical Code Subcommittee and appointed Mr. Danny Ortega as chair and Mr. Steve Elssmann as co-chair. Mr. Litchfield advised he had two nominations from industry groups: Mr. Bob Zahn, INCOR Mechanical Contractors and Mr. Chris Burkhart, Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, have volunteered to serve on the committee.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED BUILDING CODE CHANGE REGARDING NO STEP ENTRANCE ISSUES - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES:
Mr. Mike Colletto reported on the progress of this proposed amendment change. He explained the background of its evolution from a proposed requirement for no-step entry into every new single-family home to the current compromise proposal to require a no-step entry and route to the primary entry for at least one model of a model home complex. The subcommittee has passed this recommendation and would like to bring it to the full Board for approval and scheduling of a public hearing.
Mr. Coley clarified that there were also additional requirements, one of which identified that the no-step option would be clearly pointed out as an option. Mr. Mardian wanted it to be clearly communicated to the public by the builders that this option was available. Mr. Peter Hemingway advised that it has been emphasized, but specifications as to how this item is to be marketed have not been detailed, but that it be readily viewable signage.
Mr. Barcon wanted clarification as to the access beginning at the public right-of-way. It was confirmed that access was to begin at the public right-of-way. Mr. Barcon questioned as to how that would be addressed in homes that were located in the mountain areas. Mr. Hemingway advised that those situations would be the exception rather than the rule. Mr. Colletto also stated that, under existing codes, a model home sales office is required to have accessible parking and an accessible route to the sales office.
Mr. Barcon expressed his concern with the provision stating that the routes of travel were not required to have handrails. Mr. Hemingway added that the designation, "The running slope shall not exceed 1:12" was made so that a hazard would not be created. Mr. Litchfield added that the route from the vehicle to sales office is covered by existing ADA regulations. In the new requirements, from the sales office to the model, the 1:12 slope is required, generally would involve short distances and would be a function of lot width, usually about 55 to 75 feet or if a larger lot 150 feet. For practical purposes, the sales office is normally as close to the model as possible. With a 1:12 slope for this distance, that would be very negotiable and would not require handrails.
Mr. Litchfield stated that this regulation should adequately cover 80 to 90 percent of the scenarios. He acknowledged that there would always be unique situations, just as there are in the building code. Should those situations arise, there is an appeals/interpretation process that could be utilized to address those unique situations.
Ms. Judy Pavsek inquired as to the requirements regarding mobile homes. Mr. Litchfield advised that there are current regulations to address mobile homes, but that many of them do not fit the criteria of model home complexes as per the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Colletto advised that the language "…or public right-of-way" was put into the proposed amendment by the home builders. Mr. Coley asked if this was being brought up as a public safety issue or a liability issue? Mr. Coley suggested that as a builder he would certainly ensure that no potentially dangerous drop-off would be created.
Mr. Wilson asked if the wording involving the route of travel should be clarified as "public way" rather than "public right-of-way," since in many instances the route is not necessarily public right-of-way, but is private access. After Board discussion it was agreed to amend the verbiage to read; "The route of travel shall be a continuous no-step path connecting each subdivision sales office or public way to the primary entry."
MOTION was made by Julie Stiak, seconded by Peter Hemingway, to approve the proposed amendment to the Uniform Building Code on the No-Step Issue as amended and schedule a public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Coley advised that the public hearing would most likely be scheduled for the May meeting.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ITEM ON CITYWIDE DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL:
Mr. Ray Acuña provided the Board with information regarding the development of a Citywide Drainage Design Manual. The City of Phoenix is collaborating with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County in the development of a manual incorporating new regulations and methodologies in the management of storm water and drainage.
Mr. Barcon asked if this manual would include requirements for on-site retention for residential lots? Mr. Acuña stated that those issues were addressed and solutions are being developed.
Mr. Wilson asked if there would be a separate subdivision drainage manual or would it be combined with Streets and other agencies' design manuals? Mr. Acuña advised that they would no longer be separate, that efforts are being made to incorporate guidelines into one manual. Mr. Wilson asked when he thought it would be in place and was advised that policies need to be solidified and should be available within the next six months.
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON ASSIGNMENT OF SUGGESTED TOPICS FROM JANUARY 9 BOARD PLANNING SESSION TO APPROPRIATE DAB SUBCOMMITTEES:
Ms. Julie Stiak advised that the Hillside Ordinance issues need to be completed before the subcommittee reverts to the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee. She predicted it might take another year to complete their phase two recommendations.
Mr. Wilson advised that he doesn't see the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee as a replacement to the Hillside committee. He stated that some of the same members may be on the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee, but that is in addition to the Hillside issues.
Mr. Coley agreed that the subcommittees have to prioritize their issues with the input of the Executive Subcommittee. It was agreed that the items that were assigned to Hillside at the Planning Session would be assigned to the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee. Under Code Standardization, ad hoc subcommittees will be formed to deal with code issues specifically. Under Communication Improvement, Mr. Coley felt that these items and the Improve /Develop / Standardize Appeals Process item are more global and would be more appropriately placed under the Executive Subcommittee.
To recap:
|
Section 1 - Interdepartmental Coordination |
Process and Procedures Subcommittee |
Due to the length of the meeting, Mr. Coley stated that chair and member assignments for the Code Standardization Subcommittee would be postponed until the next Board Meeting.
CALL TO PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
None
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Ben Barcon, seconded by Judy Pavsek, to adjourn the March 15, 2001 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Larry Litchfield, PE
Deputy Director, Building Official
Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Fitz, Administrative Assistant I
| c: |
Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks Mr. Washington City Clerk Mr. Lyons Mr. Olson Mr. Wendt Mr. Goodhue Mr. Litchfield |
Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Davila Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Bunyard Mr. Doell Mr. Fleming Mr. Horn Mr. Mundy Mr. Mushtaq Mr. Parks |
Ms. Reed Mr. Singbush Mr. Thurman Mr. Kienow Mr. Taschner Mr. Adams Ms. Fitz |
Last Modified on 06/28/2001 11:38:34