PC 120810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Amos replied that staff was not aware of this until the point in time when the roofing material change request was received, and staff does not review what can and cannot be under warranty. Commissioner Narum inquired if the City would still allow the applicant to use the roof materials knowing it could not meet the manufacturer’s warranty. Mr. Dolan said yes. He then asked Dennis Corbett, Senior Plan Checker, to address the Commission. Mr. Corbett stated that the Building Code does not address the warranty issue; the Code states that roof coverings shall be designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the Code and the approved manufacturer’s instructions, such that the roof cover will serve to protect the building or structure. He noted that the lack of a warranty by the manufacturer would not have affected staff’s review at the time. Mr. Corbett stated that what typically happens is that a suitable roof will be installed for a roof with a lower pitch to provide weather protection, and for aesthetic purposes, the same roofing material approved for the higher pitch roof would be installed; however, this would void the manufacturer’s warranty. Commissioner O’Connor stated that there are ways to ensure the roof is sealed with some material that may not be warranted, such as bituthene or a similar type product that, with this application, may be required to prevent water from back-flowing into the home; however, in a case where a material is not warranted, something can be done on the underlayment to keep it from failing. Mr. Corbett agreed that there are protections. Commissioner Blank requested clarification that the City does not address whether or not things are under warranty but rather that they meet the Code. Mr. Corbett confirmed Commissioner Blank’s statement and explained that when staff looks at a roofing material on the building permit application, staff ensures it meets the minimum fire protection classification, and for certain roofs, a few additional requirements. Chair Olson inquired if all of the alternatives meet the Code. Mr. Corbett said yes. He noted; however, that the manufacturer requires a minimum of 3.5:12 pitch, which is higher than the Building Code requirement minimum of 3:12. He added that the Code also differentiates between a metal roof and a metal shingle roof by the amount of area for each piece of material. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, December 8, 2010 Page 10 of 23