Members Present
Herb Hacker Pete Hemingway Jake Jabobsen
Barbara Koffron Scott Mardian Michael McHale Herman Orcutt Kenneth Roth
Paul Scott Darrell Wilson
Members Absent
Ben Barcon Stephen Elssmann Bob Ford Carlo Gegen Christopher Gentis Danny Ortega
Greg Russell Steve Speer Patricia Thornham
Staff
Karen Beckley, City of Phoenix, DSD
Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD
Mark Gustafson, City of Phoenix, DSD
Larry Litchfield, City of Phoenxi, DSD
Joe McElvaney, City of Phoenix, DSD
Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD
Ray Quay, City of Phoenix, WTR
Jim Shannon, City of Phoenix, WTR
Tom Wandrie, City of Phoenix, DSD
John Watson, City of Phoenix, WTR
Ex-Officio's Present
Jim Baughman, City of Phoenix, Planning
Chaun Hill, City of Phoenix, Streets
Aaron LaRoque, City of Phoenix, Water Services
Derek Horn, City of Phoenix, DSD
Mike Hamblin, City of Phoenix, Law
Patrick Ravenstein, City of Phoenix, NSD
Ex-Officio's Absent
None
Others in Attendance
Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association
Rick Doell, Citizen
Dave Dratnol, Isolate K International
Dave Nichols, ICC
CALL TO ORDER
Herman Orcutt, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
Approval of September 16, 2004 Minutes:
Motion was made by Paul Scott,
seconded by Ken Roth, to approve the meeting minutes of September 16,, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Rick Doell, Citizen of the City of Phoenix, stated that prior to December 31, 2003, he was a DSD Deputy Director/Building Official for the City of Phoenix and he is also a licensed Structural Engineer and licensed Civil Engineer in the state of Arizona.
He stated that he’s had conversations with various engineers and contractors who are in business for themselves regarding the DSD Permitting Process. He suggested that at future meetings small contractors be invited to attend the Development Advisory Board meetings to address this issue. He stated that there is feeling in the community that the City extorts compliance and doesn’t gain compliance. He mentioned that the Board should invite engineers and contracts and bring them forward and ask them, “What problems are you having?’ From their input, attempt to improve the process.
Ken Roth stated that the DAB did discuss the permit process earlier in the summer of this year and that he would like to request that this agenda item be placed on the agenda for a future agenda item.
Mr. Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association, stated that he attended a DAB meeting a couple of months ago and he brought up the subject of permit turnaround times. At that time, it was a very troublesome item for them. He suggested that one of the subcommittee’s bring a report back to the DAB with information regarding turnaround times in DSD. He stated that he would still like to hear about this information in the future. He encouraged the Board to give a report each month to give the public this information. Mr. Orcutt stated that Item No. 5 of this agenda would answer Mr. Brock’s question.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Process and Procedures Subcommittee:
Darrell Wilson stated that the subcommittee did not meet this month.
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee:
Herman Orcutt stated that the subcommittee did not meet this month.
Fence Subcommittee:
Herman Orcutt stated that the subcommittee did not meet this month.
Water Services:
Barbara Koffron stated that the subcommittee met the week of November 11th. They are bringing two items to the DAB at this meeting looking for the endorsement of the Board on two separate policies.
Residential Fire Sprinklers:
Ken Roth stated that the subcommittee did not meet.
By-Laws and Mission Statement:
Pete Hemingway stated that the subcommittee met a couple of times to discuss the DAB By-Laws and Missions Statement. Included in the DAB packets is a DRAFT of the subcommittee’s recommendations for changes to the DAB By-Laws and the Mission Statement.
Mr. Hemingway stated that this item was not on the agenda for a vote at today’s meeting, but is requesting that the DAB members review the drafts and if they have any changes or recommendations forward them to himself or Patricia Thornham. They will address the changes and have them prepared for the DAB in their November 2004 meeting.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action On the Development Services Department Staff Report Update:
Mr. Derek Horn, DDS Deputy Director, went over a report that showed residential plan reviews, permits that were processed and turnaround times from August 1, 2004 through August 31, 2004. He stated that this is still under development and that DSD is not quite there yet. August 2004 was not so good, but September 2004 shows improvement.
Mr. Horn stated for the month of August 2004, permits usually take one day or so, but the report shows that they are running two, five, seven, days, which is a great deal of concern to DSD. Also, the bottom of the report indicates 3,300 items that were carried over from the month before. He asked that they compare the figures from August 2004 to September 2004 and the numbers have improved some. In September 2004, permits indicate a one-day turnaround, which is quite a change for the better. Plan Review turn around times are still high, which DSD is working on to improve. Report totals have improved with 119 carryovers. Mr. Horn stated that he would continue to bring this item to the DAB monthly with a report on Residential soon.
Mr. Horn stated that DSD will be hiring seven to eight General Inspectors. With the additional staff, DSD is hoping to lower the number of carryovers each month. To assist Residential Inspections, he has employed four Commercial Inspectors to move over to Residential Inspections to reduce the number of carry over load.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action of Draft Policy and Procedures of Wastewater
Collection System Planned Capacity Allocation and Tracking for New Development:
Barbara Koffron stated that Carlo Gegan and Jim Shannon co-chaired a subcommittee to develop a policy procedures for Wastewater Collection Systems Planned Capacity Allocation for New Developments. She stated that the participation of subcommittee members were extraordinarily helpful in review the material and she really appreciated everyone’s participation.
Jim Shannon, Water Services Department, stated that the primary purpose of developing this policy was to provide developers with a constructive master plan wastewater infrastructure as part of their planned community development. They wanted to provide them some assurance that there would be capacity available in the infrastructure that they constructed during the later phases of their development.
He stated that along with the assurances there are some requirements that the developer has to have, that gets into the later stages where there is certain timelines that they have to perform basically within the typical time requirements of preliminary site-plan approvals and the submittal of drawings in order for them to keep that assurance of capacity.
MOTION, was made by Barbara Koffron,seconded by Scott Mardian, that the Deelopment Advisory Board
provide enforcement for the new Wastewater Collection System Planned Capacity Allocation and Tracking for New Development
Policy as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action of Policy on Reduced Easement Standards for Incentive Ownership Projects and Residential Ownership Projects within the City of Phoenix Adopted Infill Program Area:
Ms. Koffron stated that this was a policy was reviewed by the subcommittee and has received extensive review and assistance from the subcommittee.
Mr. Shannon continued to explain that this policy evolved out of the policy from inset development. He stated that one of the barriers that was recognized was that most of the infill developments have narrow private streets and they don’t meet city standards for having city public water and sewer mains in those developments. In cases such as that, they would make them a private system.
He stated that they worked hand in hand with Trend Homes and their Engineers to develop a policy that everyone can live within the infill areas. These areas are located within the City’s infill development incentive districts as shown in the General Plan. This policy also applies to projects outside the infill development incentive districts that are specifically identified by the City Manager as Residential Ownership’s Incentive projects. This policy does not override more restrictive City Department standards or codes outside the control of the Water Services Department.
MOTION, was made by Pete Hemingway,seconded by Barbara Koffron, that the Development Advisory Board
accepts the report with modifications and moves the code forward for adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action to Recommend to Send the Code Provisions below to the DAB Technical Subcommittee, and other Subcommittees as necessary, for review for presentation to the Development Advisory Board at their November 18,2004 meeting. Codes included are:
Administration Provisions.
2003 Edition of the Internation Building Code prepared by Internation Code Council (including Appendixes and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public).
2003 Edition of the Internation Code Council Performance Code prepared by International Code Council (Including Appendixes and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public).
The Arizona State Plumbing Code with Supplements.
2003 Edition of the Energy Code prepared by International Code Council (Including Appendixes and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public).
2003 Edition of the International Existing Building Code prepared by International Code Council (Including Appendixes and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public).
NFPA 70 2005 Edition/National Electrical Code prepared by (NFPA) National Fire Protection Association (Including Appendixes and proposed changes submitted by staff and the public).
Larry Litchfield, DSD Assistant Director, referred the Board to the handout of the 2004 Code Adoption Process. He stated that in June 2004, the City Council made a decision to move forward with the I-Codes. Since then, staff has been working Step-2, Staff Review, of the Five-Step of the Code Adoption Process. October 15, 2004 was the last day for public comments and code amendment recommendations. Currently staff is going through all the amendments.
Mr. Litchfield stated that that the purpose of the presentation today, along with the elevator codes, is to lump all these together and move all of these forward at the same time, along with adopting some of the appendix chapters. The single ordinance will take care of the legislative process to do that. There will be a DAB public hearing on all of the codes, including the elevator codes. The 2004 Code Adoption Time Line is as follows:
October 21, 2004,
Last day to submit public comment on code amendment recomendations
October 21, 2004,
DSD Staff presents Code packages to DAB for assignment to Technical Subcommittee
October 21, 2004 through December 15, 2004
Technical Subcommittee review of staff Recommendations
December 16, 2004
Technical Subcommittee make recommendation to DAB on adoption of the codes.
December 16, 2004
DAB review recommendations of Technical Subcommittee and moves to hold a Public Hearing on the Code Adoption at their January 2005 meeting.
January 20, 2005
DAB holds a Public Hearing on the Code Adoption Packet
January 28, 2005
DSD submits DAB recommendation to Council Public Safety Subcommittee
February 1 or 15, 2005
Council Public Safety Subcommittee reviews DAB recommendations
Mr. Litchfield stated that the purpose of his presentation is to turn this over to the DAB Technical Subcommittee for review. They will have until December 15, 2004 to review all the staff recommendations for the code adoption and the recommended amendments that are proposed at this time. At the DAB’s December 16th meeting, they will review the Technical Subcommittee’s recommendations and move to hold a public hearing at their January 20, 2005 meeting or the DAB can hold a special meeting sometime in early January 2005.
Mr. Horn stated that this is a very aggressive schedule and because of the goals that have been set for this adoption process, which is to have this ready for City Council by March 1, 2005, there are some time constraints. He stated that this is a code adoption process, rather than a code development process. The City is taking model codes that have been successfully used under communities, by various jurisdictions, and adopting them for the City of Phoenix use. This is the philosophy that staff has taken, they are not only reviewing not only their own proposals to be included into the code, but also those that have been submitted by the public as well.
Mr. Horn continued to explain that if there are substantial changes that people want to make to the code, that these are best handled through the national level with the code development agency and not at the local level. Some code amendments are being considered that the Arizona Building Officials or AZBO proposed. He stated that some other cities in Arizona have adopted some of the AZBO amendments.
Mr. Horn asked the Board to consider that the codes move forward and to consider this as a code adoption process, rather than code development.
Mr. Litchfield stated that a unique process that they are doing is to create an administrative code. They are taking all of the administrative items out of all the codes and putting into one binder. He stated that he’s asking the Board to move the packets of code information to the DAB Technical Subcommittee.
Mr. Orcutt requested that additional Board members step up and volunteer to be on the DAB Technical Subcommittee to assist Pete Hemingway with the meetings.
The Technical Subcommittee for the Code Review are:
Pete Hemingway
Greg Russell
Herb Hacker
Scott Mardian
Paul Scott
MOTION was made by Ken Roth, seconded by Herb Hacker, that the Development Advisory Board move the code package, as proposed, move forward to the Technical Subcommittee for their review. Motion carried unanimously.
Rick Doell, Citizen of the City of Phoenix, stated that he was quite surprised at how quickly this is moving. He’s not proposed to that, just concerned. He stated that he knows how codes change and when they came out in 2000 there was a huge change. Being with the City of Phoenix for 23 years the philosophy was to adopt codes that were usable and enforceable. He stated that those who are familiar with the I-Codes know that there are issues with them. There are some crevices that the City could fall into if they don’t look at the codes closely. He stated that the City should make sure that public housing is safe, private housing is safe. That commercial enterprise, especially in the downtown area, has a right to develop and it’s not held up because of some code section that someone on the East Coast puts in.
He wanted to say that this is a cautionary note. He’s here to support the process and would like to be at the subcommittee meetings. He continued to say that he wants to be sure that over the next process that this Board and the Technical Subcommittee keeps track of the issues that the City has with this code and making it better for the City of Phoenix.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action on the Financial Update for the Development Services Department:
Derek Horn stated that this was a carry-over item from the September 21, 2004 DAB meeting. He briefly went over the Development Services Department Annual Report 2003-2004.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action on the Development Services Department (DSD) Single Plan Review Process:
Tom Wandrie, Building Official, briefly went over the handouts in the Boards packets regarding GasBreakers. These devices do for gas services lines what circuit breakers to for electric lines – they stop the flow of gas when it exceeds design limits. When a gas line breaks due to natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes, building renovations, household mishaps or simply by moving a gas appliance, gas escapes into the air creating the potential for fire. The escaping gas causes an increase in gas flow that the GasBreaker senses. When it does, the safety valve instantly shuts off the gas. No gas, no fire, no lives or property loss.
Mr. Hacker asked how units will be affected each year, what is the retroactive to existing installations, what is the cost of these devices? Mr. Wandrie stated that this device would give homeowners piece of mind and a lot of comfort knowing that the device is installed. He continued to state that this is very simple to install and straight forward. Mr. Wandrie stated that he brought this forward as an information item and he would do additional research regarding jurisdiction.
Mr. Hacker suggested that this item wait until the code is completed. Mr. Orcutt stated that he would like to submit this to the Technical Subcommittee. Mr. Wandrie concurred and stated that he would research additional information and statistics before taking it to the Subcommittee in 2005.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action on the New Curb Stamping Requirements:
Andy Granger, DSD Civil Engineering Supervisor, went over a memo regarding “Private Street Stamp Requirements.” The DAB Process and Procedures Subcommittee reviewed this policy which states:
All new curbs along private access ways shall be imprinted with the words “Private Street – No City Maintenance” in 2” high letters at every curb return and at every entrance into a new subdivision.
Gated communities may submit a technical appeal to the Subdivision Committee proposing curb-stamping alternatives for approval.
MOTION was made by Darrell Wilson, seconded by Ken Roth, to accept the private street stamp requirement as written that is proposed by the DAB Process and Procedures Subcommittee. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action on the Development Services Department (DSD) Single Plan Review Process:
Mr. Horn reviewed the Comprehensive Conditional Building Permits (CCBP) process that was approved by the DAB about 2˝ years ago. Mr. Horn stated that the Commercial Teams the past couple of years have used this process. He has documented 40 large projects that were processed through this and the success rate being able to approve a project after the first review using this has been about 40 percent.
Mr. Horn stated this process has been very helpful to the Team Leaders and staff to be able to iron out and identify coordination and other issues up front before formal submittals. The Design Teams were able to fix those. What helped greatly was the communication up front between the Design Teams and the Review Teams.
Mr. Horn recommended that this procedure return to the DAB Process and Procedures Subcommittee for additional examination and additional ideas.
Mr. Orcutt stated that he would be in favor of sending this item back to the DAB Process and Procedures Subcommittee for additional review.
Request for Future Agenda Items: None
Adjournment
Meeting ended at 4:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Derek Horn, P.E. CBO
DSD Deputy Director
Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III
