Laserfiche WebLink
Building Code Board of Appeals <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 25, 2017 <br />Page4of5 <br />Knapp asked if the head clearance was 5'6" and the homeowner could not change the rise <br />and run, could it be left at 5'6?" <br />Clayton said under the language of the code at that time, yes it could be left at 5'6." <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Peter Stuart, Stuart Architecture <br />Stuart mentioned that he believes the practicality and feasibility solutions are outside of the <br />purpose of meeting in front of the board. He said that cutting the beam and putting it higher <br />would not be practical for the home. The property is a ranch house, and if the beam was <br />placed higher in order to create more head clearance, they would be cutting into the hallway <br />and bedrooms. <br />Questions from Board to Applicant: <br />None heard. <br />Public Present in Favor of Application: <br />None heard. <br />Public Present in Opposition of Application: <br />None heard. <br />Closed Public Hearing / Board Discussion: <br />Tribelhorn expressed her concern of chapter 34 and mentioned that if the board approves <br />this, safety may never be addressed for future cases or situations similar to the applicant. <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Motion made by Ramsey to approve staff's interpretation of 1610 Circle Drive, an <br />appeal of an interpretation of the 102.7 and R311.7.2 code in the 2012 International <br />Residential Code. Motion was seconded by Novik. Roll call vote. <br />Name <br />Vote <br />Peter Geise <br />Yes <br />Matthew K. Berry <br />Yes <br />Steve Knapp <br />Yes <br />Ed Novik <br />Yes <br />Thomas Ramsey <br />Yes <br />Heidi Tribelhorn <br />Yes <br />Motion passed/failed: <br />Pass <br />Motion passed: 6-0 <br />Discussion Items: <br />None heard. <br />Staff Comments: <br />None heard. <br />Discussion Items for Next Meeting: <br />None heard. <br />Adjourn <br />