Laserfiche WebLink
Building Code Board of Appeals <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 15, 2015 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />Geise moved and Van Pelt seconded the motion to approve the 2015 Meeting <br />Locations. Motion passed by all members present. Resolution was signed by 2015 <br />Chairman Geise and Vice-Chairman Berry. <br />2015 Meeting Dates <br />Geise moved and Berry seconded the motion to approve the 2015 Meeting Dates. <br />Motion passed by all members present. Staff will update the Board when the City <br />Council study session is scheduled. <br />Open Government Training and Handout <br />Staff will send meeting notices to the members who need to attend once the date has <br />been set. <br />DISCUSSION <br />Permit Process <br />Berry brought forth concerns he has heard regarding the ISP requirements and how <br />they are marked on the plans. Staff explained ISPs are required if a structure is <br />within 3’ of a required setback and there is a stamp on the front of each set of plans <br />with an updated stamp which is clear and defined. It was added there is also a spot <br />on the inspection card where it will be marked if it is required. <br />Berry asked if the ISP requirement is a code or where the 3’ was begun. Swanson <br />said this was something they would have to research since this is a planning <br />requirement. Berry stated it would be more helpful if there was something which <br />made this requirement clearer. <br />Swanson feels most of these concerns come more prior to submittal, at the time <br />when the project is being planned out. Handout with this information will help in the <br />cost estimate of a project. Garland added there is a handout like this out there, but <br />the planning staff is working on updating it to help it to be more understandable. <br />Berry asked if a structural engineer is required of the foundation on a residential <br />structure. Swanson replied in most cases a soils report is only required. <br />Geise asked who certifies the setback verification letter. Swanson replied it is a <br />surveyor. <br />Berry asked if there could be more of a definition as to what staff is looking for with <br />the letters required at different stages of the inspection process. He also asked if <br />there is a possibility where the letters can be submitted other than a requirement that <br />it is onsite and picked up during an inspection. Swanson explained part of this is <br />because of policy, part is due to staffing in the office and the inspector will come out <br />to do and inspection and verify the letter follows what is being done on site. For <br />example at the time of the setback verification letter, the inspectors will also do a <br />steel inspection prior to pour. <br />Garland added staff is currently working on updating full handouts based on projects <br />and it would be a good idea to add in the planning requirements. Swanson added <br />this is one of the big project Jessica Arvanites, plan reviewer, is working on.