Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2015 05 21

Home Browse Search

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes February 19, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Johnson suggested the coordination between the department and Public Works is something which will need to be looked further into. Mainly to make sure both departments have a better understanding of what is reviewed at the building permit and right of way application and issuance process. Berry added better descriptions of what Public Works is looking for when submitting a ROW permit would be helpful. The Board suggested more detailed information may be needed for a homeowner to apply for a permit as opposed to a contractor or architect who has done numerous permits. The Board has heard more concerns regarding homeowners doing the work themselves and not always knowing when inspections are needed or what some of the notes on the plans mean. The Board asked if staff has seen positive signs in the over-the-counter plan reviews. Staff replied there has been positive changes because they can sit one on one with the homeowner during the review processes and help explain more about what is needed. Knapp suggested maybe there is a way to combine both the checklist and submittal requirements. Staff replied the more detailed submittal requirements are geared more towards the homeowner doing the work, not an architect or contractor completing plans. Berry and Geise stated concerns with the hindrance with too many red-marked notes on plans can be overwhelming. Arvanites replied there are different ways staff can precede, they continue to make the notes needed or require plans to be resubmitted when there are any red marks needed. Swanson added there is the plan review timeline which staff has to try to stay within and sometimes the back and forth in trying to have plans corrected can end up make the timeframe to received and approved permit longer than if staff just makes some of the notes. There are plans where changes are required. Berry stated a definition of how the height of a building is determined by planning would be helpful. Johnson added if a documentation for planning requirements need to be updated, that should be directed to the planning staff, and this meeting is more about the handout out. Staff added the reason why the planning documents were in the packet is because the planning process is part of the permit review. Geise asked about the impact fee and if staff had a chance to research where the money was allocated. Garland replied it will be covered at the next meeting. Geise asked if there was clearer wording on how the impact fees are calculated. Garland replied there is note on the how to calculate fees where it explains the impact fees charged on adding a bedroom and it is the difference between what is existing and what is proposed. There was discussion regarding the Survey Guidelines handout put together by the Planning Department. Staff stated these changes would have to go through planning. The board asked if someone from planning could be invited to the next meeting to cover their questions. There was a discussion regarding the setback verification letter and why it was required to be picked up by in inspector at the foundation inspection prior to pour and