Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Business Council Committee - Meeting Date: 5/17/2018MINUTES BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMITTEE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5850 W. GLENDALE AVE. FOURTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 MAY 17, 2018 2:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at approximately 2:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Clark, Chair Vice Mayor Tolmachoff, Member Councilmember Malnar, Member Yvonne Knaack, Member John Crow, Member Dale Adams, Member David Coble, Member Bart Shea, Member Ricardo Toris, Member Also Present: Sam McAllen, Development Services Director Stephen Dudley, Building Safety Official Dru Maynus, Planner Shelli Henson, Council Assistant 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no comments made by citizens. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES DRAFT MINUTES FROM BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2018 Motioned by Member David Coble, seconded by Member Vice Mayor Tolmachoff motioned to approve the April 18, 2018 minutes with the correction of David Coble's spelling. AYE: Chair Councilmember Clark Member Vice Mayor Tolmachoff Member Councilmember Malnar Member Bart Shea Member Dale Adams Member David Coble Member John Crow Member Ricardo Toris Member Yvonne Knaack Passed 5. SELECTION OF COMMITTEE VICE-CHAIRMAN Chairperson Clark called to select nominations for the future committee Vice -Chair. John Crow called for a motion to nominate Bart Shea as the Business Council Committee Vice -Chair. Motioned by Member John Crow, seconded by Member Vice Mayor Tolmachoff to approve Bart Shea as the Vice -Chair. AYE: Chair Councilmember Clark Member Vice Mayor Tolmachoff Member Councilmember Malnar Member Bart Shea Member Dale Adams Member David Coble Member John Crow Member Ricardo Toris Member Yvonne Knaack Passed 6. REVIEW OF CITY CODES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE Chairperson Clark went on to say other chapters she feels that are relevant for the committee to review are Chapter 21 "Licenses, Taxation and Miscellaneous Business Regulations", Chapter "21.3 "Downtown Sidewalk Use and Display Permit Guidelines", Chapter 26.5 "Outdoor Light Controls", Chapter 28 "Planning and Development", Chapter 30 " Streets and Sidewalks", Chapter 31 "Subdivisions", Chapter 32.5 "Utility Undergrounding Regulations", Chapter 33 "Water, Sewers and Sewage Disposal", Article 2 "Definition and Rules of Construction", Article 4 "Zoning Districts and Boundaries", Article 5 "Zoning District Regulations, Article 6 " Overlay District Regulations, Article 7 "General Development Standards", Appendix A Zoning "Special Development Standards" & "Zoning Ordinance Amendments". Chairperson Clark asked the committee are there any other items that should be added to the list of items to be review Bart Shea stated he would like to see the Fire Department's Rules, Regulations and Interpretations added to the list. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff stated that because the City's sign ordinance is outdated she would like to see signage added to the list. Yvonne Knaack suggested that the City use the City of Peoria's sign ordinance as an example. Chairperson Clark agreed that the City should use the City of Peoria's sign ordinance and asked Sam McAllen to have it distributed to all the committee members. Chairperson Clark stated that Stephen Dudley heading a lot of the City's efforts with regards to code updates, and as a result at the next meeting he should be presenting the materials that the City already plans to propose as code revisions to City Council. Stephen Dudley stated that he will be prepared to present at the next meeting. Chairperson Clark stated that the Stephen Dudley's presentation will be the agenda for the next meeting. Sam McAllen stated that he will be sending the chapters out electronically and will provide hardcopies to include into their binders for the next meeting. Chairperson Clark shifted the topic back to Chapter 9 "Buildings and Building Regulations" and stated that the committee will go page by page through the chapter; and if the committee members had any comments or questions please state so. Chairperson Clark asked if there was a definition on what constitutes a suitable toilet facility. Stephen Dudley stated there isn't a definition. Chairperson Clark asked would you agree that there should be a minimal standard. Stephen Dudley said that Section 29.01 of the International Building Code dictates the minimum numbers portable toilets that must be provided at construction sites and it references that suitable is determined by the code American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Z43-79, which says it must be sanitary and there must be a hand wash station and that is as far as it goes. After briefly reading over Section 104.10 Chairperson Clark asked if there is an appeal process after the building official has made a decision on a project. Stephen Dudley replied that any decision made by the building official can be appealed. He stated that is Chapter 1 there is discussion of a board of appeal process. He then went on to clarify that the City uses a hearing officer. With regards to Section 105.2 Chairperson Clark asked Stephen Dudley what fences are being referred to and stated in some instances we require perimeter fences that are 8 feet in height so how does the City handle perimeter fences that are 8 feet in height. Stephen Dudley stated that Section 105.2 specifically list items that are exempt from obtaining a permit. He clarified that when one reads the code it is assumed that everything requires a permit, but Section 105.2 provides a concise list of items that are exempt from obtaining a permit. He then clarifies that the exemption as written in the 2012 IBC under Section 105.22 reads that fences not over 7 feet in height will be exempt from obtaining a permit which was a change in the 2012 Code because previous years stated fences not over 6 feet in height. He then went on to state our current code states that fences not over 6 feet in height do not require a permit. He then clarified the reason the City amended the fence height threshold from 6 feet to 7 feet then back to 6 feet is because the City has many premade fence block walls; and the engineering for many of these walls are only good up to 6 feet in height. The exception of the subdivision perimeter fences is that approximately 15 years ago the City was having many aesthetic problems with the subdivision perimeter walls; as a result, City Council requested that the Building Safety Division review the problem. He then went on to state that even if the fence is 6 feet or less it still requires a permit. Yvonne Knaack stated that a lot of people add additional rows of block to these fences. Stephen Dudley agreed that he has witnessed it as well. Chairperson Clark asked Sam McAllen if the City's Code Compliance Division is proactively looking at these violations. Sam McAllen stated the Code Compliance division has expanded their proactivity, but this was not an item that has been added to their proactive list. Vice Mayor Tolmachoff asked Stephen Dudley under what circumstance will there be an exception for a taller fence than 6 feet because the elevation from subdivision to subdivision is different. Stephen Dudley explained that sometimes depending on the zoning of a lot the Planning Division will require a taller fence between different zoning districts. He then clarified that the City does not say a taller fence is allowed, but instead the City requires plans to review which requires engineering calculations and inspection for obtaining a permit for fences taller than 6 feet. But a normal 6 feet tall block fence that isn't located at the perimeter of a subdivision does not require a permit or inspection. David Coble asked Stephen Dudley is there a definition for where the 6 feet is measured from. Stephen Dudley explained it is supposed to be measured from the grade adjacent closest to the wall because that is portion exposed to the wind. David Coble said people may be requesting additional blocks to be added to their fences because sometimes pads located in adjacent subdivisions he may have a higher or lower elevation then the other pad in the adjacent subdivision. Stephen Dudley agreed it happens a lot but in subdivision perimeter fences the City has more control on the outcome because the subdivision perimeter fence always requires a permit. He then stated that the duely wall system is not supposed to retain earth and if there is any difference in elevation from one side to the other of the fence the base should be built with 8 -inch thick concrete block. Chairperson Clark asked the committee members were there any additional questions or comments with regards to the fence discussion. The committee didn't have any additional comments. Chairperson Clark stated that she had questions/comments about Section 105.5.1. Specifically, she stated that she had questions about inspections and discussed an example of a constituent who called her with complaints of how an inspection was handled and the outcome of the inspection. She stated the constituent spend the weekend without power because SRP did not turn on their power who did not have approval from the City. Chairperson Clark asked what the City is doing to ensure that inspections are done in a timely manner and that the approvals go out in a timely manner. Stephen Dudley provided clarification that the City did provide SRP with an approval, but SRP failed to turn on the constituent's power. Stephen Dudley said the City sends notification to the utility companies in writing via email, so he is sure the City sent over approval to SRP Chairperson Clark asked but what is the City doing to ensure that what is being done is timely and cost effective. Stephen Dudley stated that the property actual failed inspection, however, the assigned inspector went above and beyond what is requested by going back the same day to re -inspect the property to ensure that they did not go without power during the weekend. He then said if the home is occupied the inspector calls back into the utility companies office to ensure the utility company receives notification. Chairperson Clark asked, "What is the City doing to ensure that commercial inspections are efficient and done in a timely manner?" Stephen Dudley stated that customers have until 4:30 a.m. to call inspections in for same day inspections. Bart Shea stated that the inspection division has been running exceptionally well. But, stated plan review needs improvement. John Crow asked does the City have technology for the inspectors that will could help them be quicker, that could make the job easier, and that will provide the customer with the inspector's estimated time of arrival. Stephen Dudley stated that the City is actively pursuing technology that will allow electronic plan review and electronic permitting. Chairperson Clark asked when does Stephen Dudley expect for this to occur. Sam McAllen said that the City is currently within looking over the specifications for the proposal, cost. The city is currently in a negotiation phase. Chairperson Clark stated the adoption of this technology is critical and she would like to see this expedited. She would like to see it come back to City Council in August. Vice Mayor Tomachoff asked is there a clear set of criteria for obtaining temporary power. Stephen Dudley stated that Chapter 1 states that the City can grant temporary power. He then stated you do not have to have a project 100 percent complete to have temporary power, however, in most cases the life safety items need to be complete. Chairperson Clark asked for Stephen to replicate the information in Chapter 1 with regard to temporary power so the committee can review it. Bart Shea clarified the difference between temporary power in a permanent panel position and temporary power. Temporary in the permanent position at a job site you set up pole and put a meter socket in, call the city's inspection team, get a clearance on it which allows temporary power in the permanent position. Temporary power in the permanent panel position is allowed if life safety measures are met under the code. Stephen Dudley furthered provided clarification by stating that on a residence the true need on temporary power in a permanent panel position is far and between because a residence does not need as much power to grant that unless there are wood floors etc. He said the city is very judicious with that because once the panel is energized the house has power you can move in. A house being energized ahead of the system being complete or the house being complete rarely needs to happen unless due to sensitive finishes. He went on to state that the problem with the large custom house that the constituents called in about was the house wasn't nearly as complete as City inspectors thought it would be and there were whole parts of the electrical system that weren't done. Therefore, the electrical system was not safe to energize. Once you energize the panel even parts of the panel that do not need to be used are now energized. This is dangerous because you have a lot of construction work going on in the house, but there is wire throughout the house that is energized. Vice Mayor Tomachoff asked is it clearly identified that there are two distinct types of temporary power and what the City's standards are for each one. Stephen Dudley stated that the temporary power in the permanent panel position it is at his discretion. But if a customer wants a temporary power pedestal they do not need to request it from the City. But on a commercial building the temporary power in the permanent position will occur early because you will have large equipment to test and large air conditioning units to test, and fire alarm systems, which will not be tested with a generator. So the need for temporary power in the permanent panel position is greater than with a residential building. Yvonne Knaack said she wanted to discuss customer service. She said she had project with a fire and Stephen Dudley helped with getting the home owner in, but despite his help there were still many issues with getting to that point. She asked Stephen Dudley does he have the staffing required to get the inspections does in a timely and efficient manner. Stephen Dudley said his staff is hanging in there and he has requested additional inspection staff as part as next year's budget. Yvonne Knaack suggested as development picks up she is concerned his staff will not be able to handle the load. She went on to say that on the sites smaller contractors are working on they don't have someone they can contact for appointments. She then said the appointment window is broad and many of the inspectors do not show up before 8:00 a.m. and time is money. She gave an example of when an inspector told a contractor they would be onsite between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., the contractor was a couple of minutes away from the project site, but the inspector told the contractor he could not wait. This meant that the contractor had to set up an additional appointment which is frustrating to builders because time is money. This is a customer service problem and it isn't the best which is a problem for business owners, contractors, and developers. She went on to say there is communication issues between planning and building and safety. Ricardo Toris asked Stephen Dudley is there a certain. quota that the inspectors have to meet per day such as 15 or 20 inspections a day or is it do as many as you can per day. Stephen Dudley said it isn't a quota but instead a goal or expectation to not have carry overs into the next day. Their commitment is same day. He stated last year that out of 22,000 inspections there were approximately 3 dozen carryovers from inspections not occurring on the same day it was supposed to. Yvonne Knaack asked Stephen Dudley can he decrease the timeframe because it is too broad for business owners. Stephen Dudley said the problem is because when you call into the system all it does is schedule the inspection for the day. The system does not allow for a timeslot. Also, scheduling is not concrete because things can happen on a jobsite which can cause the inspector's to be behind in their schedule. Yvonne Knaack said she understands that but from a business owners point -a -view time is money and they are losing money. Bart Shea asked Stephen Dudley can contractors call in to a specific inspector. Stephen Dudley answered no the only option as of today is to call the Building Safety Administrative Assistant who will then provide the inspector a note. John Crow said that this ties back into the earlier technology discussion because the City just isn't providing the technology to get the job done. He provided an example of Amazon which has technology that will tell you the ETA of a person. Chairperson Clark said that this should go under the committee's wish list items for customer service for looking at this process in order to come up with a recommendation while we wait for the next technology to arrive. This will be a key item for the committee to cover. Dale Adams said it is important that we tell the City when there is success because all we hear are the bad stories. The City needs to figure out how to promote its successes. Chairperson Clark suggested a news letter to disperse out to the building industry. She then stated to add that to the committee's wish list. Yvonne Knaack said another issue that happens a lot is when you have two inspectors with conflicting answers. There is an issue with inconsistency between inspectors. Chairperson Clark asked to add consistency of inspection and inspectors to the committee's wish list. David Coble asked does the City have development forums of the homebuilders associations. Chairperson Clark asked Stephen Dudley to answer, and he stated we did have a public forum for the new codes which consisted of a public meeting and there was a section on the website where individuals could leave feedback. Chairperson Clark asked to add annual or biannual forums and surveys to update customers of changes and to seek feedback to the wish list. Chairperson Clark asked the committee group did they have any additional comments, questions, concerns or things they identified in Chapter 1 that they wanted to discuss. Bart Shea said 109.4 "Building Permit Evaluations". He said last year the City established his evaluations for his Morning Star project, and he brought budgets in suggesting a different evaluation, but his budget documents weren't even looked over. He said staff told him that the evaluation they provided was final. Stephen Dudley said the City's evaluations default to a published schedule that is adopted as part of the City Council's approved fee schedule, and it has two components to it. The first is the default per the city and it is Table 3B that establishes a per square foot cost for a building based on type of construction and occupancy group(s) which is multiplied by per square foot value multiplied by square foot of the building and that established the evaluation. Then based upon that evaluation there is Table 3A which says for this amount of valuation here is the building permit fee which is a sliding scale but fixed table. Bart Shea said he understands but the City's evaluations and his evaluations are two completely different things, and if he brings in a certified cost analysis of evaluation of his building at this point in time it's the value established by the budget he has and the Stephen Dudley should have the ability to override the table and say this is the standard evaluation fee because other cities do it. Stephen Dudley said it can be done and the City does do it. If someone is going to deviate from the table they need to provide a detail construction cost estimate and it should be a construction contract and it is less than the program value the City had we can consider that as the evaluation. Bart Shea said this not how it has been happening and maybe the code needs to be amended to state at the discretion of the Building Safety Division. This comes back to customer service. Chairperson Clark asked to add building valuations to the wish list. 8. FINAL COMMENTS Chairperson Clark identified the items we will begin within the next meeting Section 113. 1, Section 903.2, Section R 401.4, Section 602.2 (E), Section 90.4, Section 406.4 (G), and Article 690. Yvonne Knaack asked to have the sections sent to the members. Chairperson Clark agreed that the sections will be sent out. She asked if there were any final comments. There were none. 9. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Council Business Committee will be held on June 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., located at 5850 W. Glendale Ave, Glendale, Arizona, 85301. 10. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chairperson Clark called for a motion to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. The Business Council Committee meeting minutes of May 17, 2018, were submitted and approved this 21 st day of June, 2018. Sam McAllen Development Services Director Denise Kazmierczak Recording Secretary