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