OCTOBER 17, 2002
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary Coley Mike Colletto Michael Friess Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Larry Litchfield Scott Mardian Herman Orcutt Danny Ortega Greg Russell Steve Speer Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff Karen Beckley,, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Darlene Helm, City of Phoenix, DSD Chaun Hill, City of Phoenix, Streets Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Joe McElvaney, City of Phoenix, DSD Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD John Parks, City of Phoenix, DSD John Watson, City of Phoenix, DSD
Ex-Officio's Present
Ex-Officio's Absent
Others in Attendance
|
Pete Hemingway, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:13 p.m.
MINUTES OF September 19, 2002:
Pete Hemingway asked the Board to review the meeting minutes of September 19, 2002 for approval.
Patricia Childs stated that she would like to fill in a space on page 22 of the minutes. The first comment Ms. Childs said on this page should read, “I have two questions. One, I want to ask Mr. Jones if we had the authority to change the code.”
Don Jones stated that his first statement on this page should read, “It’s not part of the 85’-87’ stips.”
With the two clarifications as noted above,
MOTION was made by Patricia Childs, seconded by Herman Orcutt, to approve
the meeting minutes of September 19, 2002. Motion carried unanimously. seconded
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Herman Orcutt stated that he would like to have a public hearing and do bench marking on
the DAB and see how the Board is doing in the eyes of the public/staff. He stated that he
would like to hear feedback regarding all the items that the Board has completed, and if it has
made a difference in the community. Mr. Larry Litchfield, concurred with Mr. Orcutt’s
suggestion.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Executive
DID NOT MEET
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee
Herman Orcutt stated that the subcommittee met. Ms. Judy Lenz, DSD, reported that 72% of the
fee codes are in the process of being described in Phase One. There are 166 codes that need to
be described. There has been a lot of progress made. In this process, Ms. Lenz as developed a
time card so that staff can keep track of projects, along with keeping time of other various
jobs, helping customers, and answering phone messages throughout the day.
Process and Procedures Subcommittee:
Ben Barcon stated that the subcommittee met on October 11, 2002. The subcommittee had
requested an update from the Development Services Department on where the department was with
the number of changes that has been made to the second floor counter area, procedures, the
log-in desk, etc. Deneé McKinley, Development Center Administrator, DSD, attended the meeting
and distributed a packet of information that was very informative. Mr. Barcon mentioned that
the changes in the last couple of years are very positive.
Mr. Barcon mentioned that the code interpretation of adhered vaneers was discussed. This issue came up at the subcommittee meeting due to a question that Rus Brock, HomeBuilders Association, brought up at the last DAB meeting. Mr. Brock wanted to know why was the City was now enforcing the existing code. Mr. Barcon stated that Don Jones, City Attorney responded to Mr. Brock’s question with a letter to him.
The letter stated that the code does exist. There is not an explanation as to why this hasn’t been enforced the way it should have been the last few years. Mr. Barcon went on to say that this is still a problem. This requires a special inspection for adhered vaneer above eight feet.
The subcommittee discussed the fence permit interpretation. There are several interpretations on how to measure the height of fences. The Traffic Department measures from the curb or the gutter line, whereas DSD measures from the grade. Automatically there is a four to six inch variance or difference of opinion. Mr. Barcon stated that this issue needs to examined more closely and interpreted more consistently in the future.
The last issue the subcommittee discussed was concrete curb stamps and sidewalks in private streets. There is a City Council ruling that states, on private streets in front of every residence, there has to be a stamp on the concrete curb that says, “private street, no city maintenance.” In the past homes were about 200 feet apart, now homes have smaller lots and the stamps are about 65 feet apart. Mr. Barcon stated that this makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. Darrell Wilson, will be looking into this matter with different City departments and bring it back to the subcommittee for discussion.
Technical Subcommittee:
Mr. Mike Colletto stated that they did not meet.
Hillside Subcommittee:
Mr. Michael Fries stated that they did not meet.
On-Site Retention/Flood Plain Management:
DID NOT MEET
DISCUSSION/UPDATE/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FINANCIAL STATUS:
Ms. Cindy Stotler, Management Services Administrator, DSD, presented a power point presentation
on Cost Recovery for DSD from the last fiscal year, which ended in June, 2002, along with a
projection of what she projects for the next fiscal year.
The original budget had projected to make 101% cost recovery, and actually adds money to the fund balance. After September 11, 2001, a revised budget was done and revenue was reduced. Expenditures had gone up, based on new staff that was added to DSD, along with service level expansions that were done. The picture was a lot worse, loosing 1.3 million and only made 97% cost recovery. When the revised budget was done, the objective was to minimize the reduction in fund balance. The 12-month actual was only a $500,000 loss, versus a 1.2 or 1.3 million dollar loss. This was achieved by freezing a number of administrative positions that did not affect workload, which were salary savings. Plan review and inspections were contracted as much as possible, along with freezing overtime.
The total expenditures and other uses totaled 35.9 million, with an ending fund balance of an increase of 15.4 million. Even though the department lost money in operating, the bottom line fund balance gained because of the excess of the deferred revenue.
The estimated cost recovery for this fiscal year is not so good. The DSD and Fire revenue total estimate is 35 million, which is lower than last year. The expenses are 39.3 million, which will result in a net loss of 4.3 million, based on what the department is budgeted for at the beginning of this year. Based on what DSD did last year, it looks like DSD will be losing a lot of money. The department is looking at what they can minimize, what can be cut and still perform at acceptable service levels and acceptable turn around times.
Knowing that DSD will probably loose money this year, budget stabilization measures will continue.
Some of these measures are:
• A reduction of non-personnel expenditures
• A reduction in the use of contracted plan review (only use when necessary)
• Delaying recruitment of staff vacancies
• Elimination of non-billable overtime hours
• Collecting and analyzing workload trends
• Implementing mandatory time keeping with quality control
• Analyzing costs and matching time keeping reports with fees
• Proposing fee increases if trends continue
• Implementation of a new ICBO valuation table
Mr. Barcon asked if Ms. Stotler had any backup documentation that indicates the permit applications in the first three months of this year are on track for the 35 million. He stated that things were really slowing and he doesn’t see DSD catching up. There is no way of knowing unless there is a comparison with last year’s numbers. Ms. Stotler stated that she does have that comparison. In every permit type and every construction type, everything skyrocketed for the first 3 months of last year. Then September 11th hit and everything dove down. This year DSD is more comparable with the last 2 years prior to last year.
Mr. Scott Mardian inquired about the ICBO table increases and asked if the DAB would make a recommendation to increase the rate. He asked if the ICBO table goes up, does the actual permit go up or is the rate increased. Ms. Stotler stated that the actual permit cost would go up, because it’s based on the valuation.
DISCUSSION/UPDATE/POSSIBLE ACTION OF THE REVISED HILLSIDE ORDINANCE:
Mr. Michael Fries stated that a revised Hillside Ordinance has been completed. He stated that
Darrell Wilson and Julie Stiak has been working on this for the past 18 months. He commended
John Parks, Principal Planner, DSD, for taking on this task with such hard work and diligence.
Mr. Fries stated that Section 710, Hillside Development and Section 3232, Hillside Development
Area say the same thing. They work together to unify and simply this process of developing a
hillside lot, whether it was a hillside lot or a lot in a planned development.
Mr. Parks thanked the efforts of the Hillside Subcommittee. He stated that they spent a lot of time with this ordinance. A lot of different perspectives; private sector, public sector, different city departments, was used in the development of this ordinance.
Traditionally, the hillside ordinance has dealt with two components, one density, the number of units in hillside and the second is the extent of grading. In this revision, the subcommittee has tried to expand this some with design issues. Some appeal issues have come up within the DAB regarding hillside. The subcommittee has added some visional findings and things that would simplify the process.
Mr. Parks went over the changes that he and the Hillside Subcommittee has worked on the past 18 months. These text amendments still need to go through a more intensive Law Department review before they go to the Planning Commission and Village review. Mr. Parks deferred this to the DAB and asked them what action they would like to take thus far.
Mr. Darrell Wilson stated that he appreciates Mr. Parks efforts and work during the past 18 months. He stated that this was a very convoluted project to undertake, but has been culminated into something that is much more manageable from the developers perspective, but as importantly from the Plan Reviewers perspective in terms of how they will be able to evaluate individual projects as they come forward.
Mr. Wilson stated that he suggested to the Hillside Subcommittee that this presentation be made to the DAB as a preliminary presentation and solicit any input regarding preferences or interests that any of the DAB members might have relative to this issue. The Subcommittee would like to take that input and incorporate that into a final recommendation for a motion at our next committee meeting. Mr. Wilson asked the board if they had any input or dialogue that could be taken back to the Hillside Subcommittee.
Mr. Hemingway asked if this is currently going through legal review. Mr. Parks answered by saying that some legal review has taken place to date. He also stated that this text amendment would probably be presented at the DAB January 2003 meeting.
Mr. Wilson stated that there was significant involvement by a diverse group of representatives from the Planning Department, other consultants, DSD Staff, and Planning.
Mr. Gary Coley stated that in lieu of the review that will be going over the next 6 to 8 weeks, he suggested that this item wait until the review has been completed before making a motion.
Mr. Wilson asked that this item be tabled as a future agenda item.
DISCUSSION/UPDATE/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE COMMERCIAL REVISION TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE:
Mr. Parks stated that the Commercial Revision Text Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance is a
major text amendment that is currently going through the process. The text amendment has
been under review by the Village Planning Committees over the course of the summer.
The components of this text amendment are:
• Updating the citywide design review guidelines
• Enhancing adopted planing areas
• Standards for large (big box) commercial areas (100,000 SF and above)
• Parking Ordinance
• Urban Development Areas
Mr. Parks stated that this has been given to the Village Planning Committees and the Design Review Standards Committee for review. The Design Review Standards Committee is reviewing the Citywide Design Review Guidelines, as well as the adopted plan area upgrade. They will begin reviewing the “big box” standards, along with parking standards on October 29th. The Planning Commission will meet on December 18th, along with a follow-up meeting on January 15th, with tentative City Council hearings on February 5, 2003.
INFORMATION/PUBLIC INPPUT/POSSIBLE ACTION OF THE REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE RECOMENDATIONS OF THE MAYOR'S
ADHOC COMMITTEE:
Mr. Jon Wendt, Assistant Director, went over the Summary of DSD Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations.
Mr. Wendt stated that the Mayor and City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Subcommittee in
September 1997 and conducted twelve sessions. There were 40 individual recommendations.
Mr. Wendt explained the major recommendations and current status, which are listed
as follows:
1) Citizen Oversite
• Establishment of DAB
2) Single Source Contact Point
• Establishment of multidisciplinary plan review teams headed by a team leader
3) Coherent Department Organization
• Organized according to major project lines – Residential Services, Commercial Services
•Plan review and inspections combined under management of an Assistant Director for both
Residential Services and Commercial Services
4) Customer Convenience
• Development Assistance Center
• Central Log In
• Improved lay out of customer counters on the 2nd floor
5) Automation
• Single computer system for the entire Department
• Plan review and inspection information available on line
• Inspection requests automated
• Remote inspector implementation in process to produce real time inspection results on
line
• Process information, check lists, and forms available on line
6) Customer Information
• External newsletter
• Public Information Liaison
• Continuing effort to produce information brochures and check lists for posting to web site
7) Interdepartmental Coordination
• DSD input into zoning process through attendance at weekly staff meetings and Planning Commission meetings
• Formalization of referrals to Planning Department for interpretation of Zoning Ordinance and rezoning stipulations
• Fire Department outstation in DSD
• Future Water Services Department outstation in DSD
• Regular contacts with other Departments to improve coordination and consistency
Mr. Orcutt asked if there are any other issues that DSD is working on at this time. Mr. Wendt stated that the City of constantly doing process improvements. Currently, DSD is working on the remote inspection program, along with refining the relationship between plan review and inspections. We are continually working on refining current processes and making the DAB aware of these changes.
Mr. Orcutt stated that having been on the Ad Hoc Committee, he is delighted with the response that the City had to these recommendations. He stated that DSD has made a lot of progress and he really appreciates their efforts.
Mr. Barcon asked if Mr. Wendt could give him an update of the recommendations listed in a memo to Kenny Harris from George Britton, dated October 6, 1998. Following are the recommendations listed in the memo:
Mr. Orcutt asked if there are any other issues that DSD is working on at this time. Mr. Wendt stated that the City of constantly doing process improvements. Currently, DSD is working on the remote inspection program, along with refining the relationship between plan review and inspections. We are continually working on refining current processes and making the DAB aware of these changes.
Mr. Orcutt stated that having been on the Ad Hoc Committee, he is delighted with the response that the City had to these recommendations. He stated that DSD has made a lot of progress and he really appreciates their efforts.
Mr. Barcon asked if Mr. Wendt could give him an update of the recommendations listed in a memo to Kenny Harris from George Britton, dated October 6, 1998. Following are the recommendations listed in the memo:
1) Move Enforcement of Operational Stipulations from Neighborhood Services (NSD) to Development
Services (DSD):
• Mr. Wendt stated that the enforcement of Operational Stipulations was moved from NSD to
DSD for a period of four years and it didn’t work. Operational stipulations are things that
you can measure such as landscaping, sidewalks, ADA ramps, etc. NSD was responsible for this
post C of O. It was thought that since DSD gave approval and the department had the files,
they knew the background and history that DSD would be in a better position to enforce this.
The move of this job was unsuccessful. It was a disconnect between the regular work of NSD in
maintaining the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, which overlaps with the Zoning Stipulations.
2) Move Accepting of Right-of-Way Landscaping from Parks, Recreation, and Libraries to
Development Services:
• DSD would approve landscaping plans in the right-of-way and accept it after it was installed.
Then there was a maintenance period to make sure that it was viable. Parks would then go out
and inspect it for acceptance for maintenance in the parks maintenance system. DSD has now
accepted that in the part of the Parks Department, so there wouldn’t be any continuity.
3) Pilot a Conditional Plan Approval Program after the first review:
• This program was the CPR Program that Larry Litchfield helped DSD pilot. This was very
successful and became the foundation for the beginning of the Teams.
4) Develop a mechanism for funding and hiring development related position in Planning, Fire,
and Development Services that is tied to work load and incorporate into the fee schedule:
• This is an ongoing procedure
5) Create a Development Services Advisory Board
• The Development Advisory Board is where all of you are seated now.
INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT - 4.01
Jon Wendt distributed a hand out on the City Policy on the APP General Permit 4.01 Privately Constructed, Operated, and Maintained Sewage Collection Systems, and Lift Stations. Mr. Wendt stated that the Aquifer Protection Program is a state rule by the Arizona Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) that implements the provisions of the EPA Clean Water Act in the United States. Below is some information regarding this program:
• State rule implementing EPA Clean Water Ace provisions governing design and construction of sanitary sewer systems.
• Requires sewer systems serving more than one property with flows of 3,000 GPD or more to be designed and constructed to public (MAG) standards rather than using the plumbing code.
• The builders of these systems must conform to public approval standards regarding certificates for approval to construct approval of construction, and certificate of completion; public sewer testing requirements also apply.
• Operators of these systems must provide evidence of certified operator, as built plans, operation and maintenance manual and financial responsibility.
• This rule impacts occupancies such as apartments, commerce parks, and residential cluster developments that formerly constructed sewer systems to plumbing code standards.
• Development Services and Water Services are proposing an exception to this rule to provide that the plumbing code will apply for sewer lines 6” in size and MAG will apply when the sewer lines exceed 6” as determined by the plumbing code. This is an alternative to the 3,000 GPD rule. ADEQ must approve this alternative.
DISCUSSION/UPDATE/POSSIBLE ACTION 80'WIDE UTILITY EASEMENTS:
Darlene Helm, Civil Engineer III, DSD, stated that in February 2002, the Water Services
Department changed the requirements for water and sewer easements. DSD has been working with
customers in the redevelopment areas where there were issues that the easements were causing
the property to be difficult to develop. DSD has been working with Water Services to attempt
to come up with a reasonable easement width. DSD is working with Water Services on these
easements.
Mr. Barcon asked how many 80-foot wide easements have been implemented since this requirement went into effect. Ms. Helm stated that DSD has probably seen very few, if any, come through DSD.
Mr. Barcon asked Mr. Russ Brock, Homebuilders Association, if he has heard anything on this issue. Mr. Brock responded that he has not heard anything on this. He stated he could do a survey and return it to the Board.
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON BUILDING CODE ADOPTION SUBCOMMITTEES:
Mr. Joe McElvaney gave an update on the NFPA 5000 Code Adoption. He stated that the codebook
has been distributed to staff and DAB members.
Mr. Mike Colletto apologized to the DAB for not holding meetings regarding this issue and stated that he intends to get very aggressive on the meeting schedule regarding the code. One meeting per week, if not more, should be scheduled. The manner in which the subcommittees will meet will be the same as the adoption of the National Electrical Code. Local conditions and user friendly language will be implemented into this code. Mr. Colletto asked if there are any additional members that have signed up for the different subcommittees.
Mr. McElvaney stated that approximately 100 outside people are interested in the involvement of this process. They would like to be notified of all meetings. He asked that the DAB members sign up to be on a subcommittee if they haven’t already done so.
Mr. Barcon asked what types of schedule are the subcommittees expected to keep. Mr. McElvaney stated that the goal is to complete this review by fall of 2002 and have it ready for Council by January/February 2003.
Below is the NFPA 5000 Code Adoption Subgroups:
SUB GROUP 1
ADMINISTRATION
DAB Members: DAB Process and Procedures Subcommittee
Outside Support:
DSD Staff:
SUB GROUP 2
RESIDENTIAL
DAB Members: Pete Hemingway
Outside Support: Russ Brock
DSD Staff: Tom Wandrie, Bob Goodhue, Joe McElvaney, Rick Doell
SUB GROUP 3
COMMERCIAL
DAB Members: Larry Litchfield, Barbara Koffron, Gary Coley
Outside Support:
DSD Staff: Joe McElvaney, Rick Doell
SUB GROUP 4
ACCESSIBILITY
DAB Members: Scott Mardian
Outside Support: Russ Brock
DSD Staff: Janet Reed, Joe McElvaney, Rick Doell
SUB GROUP 5
ENERGY
DAB Members: Michael Fries, Greg Russell, Steve Speer
Outside Support: Russ Brock, Mayor’s Commission
DSD Staff: David McCarthy, Joe McElvaney, Rick Doell
SUB GROUP 6
STRUCTURAL
(Quality assurance, soil/foundations, materials.)
DAB Members: Ben Barcon, Danny Ortega
Outside Support: SEAOA
DSD Staff: Mark Sipes, Joe McElvaney, Rick Doell
Mr. Hemingway stated that City Council would be approached once again in regards to the approval of the IBC versus the NFPA 5000. He mentioned that the DAB is under the direction of Council to move forward on the NFPA 5000 Building Code and the approval process. Mr. Hemingway wanted to inform the DAB that maybe sometime in the future this would be discussed at a City Council meeting.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION): Mr. Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association, stated that builders and developers are being told that all multi-use trails must be made fully ADA compliant. He mentioned that the worst part of this is that this has been implemented retroactively. The person who brought this to Mr. Brock’s attention had to tear out a portion of multi-use trail and reroute and reconstruct it to meet ADA requirements. He asked if all multi-use trails needs to be ADA compliant and what is required.
Mr. Brock stated that there are too many unanswered questions and he doesn’t know if this is implemented in the field and he’d like some answers.
Mr. Hemingway stated that this would be an agenda item for a subcommittee and put on the DAB as a future agenda item. Mr. Barcon stated that this item could be added to the Process and Procedures Subcommittee for review.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Gary Coley, seconded by Herman Orcutt, to adjourn the October 17, 2002 DAB Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 5:10 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 Mr. Thurman Ms. Owens
|
Last Modified on 12/02/2002 14:03:48