Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Commissioner O’Connor inquired whether the current roof, if used on the entire roof, <br />meets the Code. <br />Mr. Corbett replied that the manufacturer requires a 3.5:12 pitch and that if this is <br />installed on the lower portion of the project which is a 1.5:12 pitch, it would not meet the <br />Building Code or the manufacturer’s requirements. <br />Commissioner O’Connor inquired why it would then have been approved. <br />Mr. Corbett replied that majority of the time, the actual roofing material is not always <br />defined at the time of project approval and becomes a choice of the applicant during the <br />permit stage. He explained that staff looks at the minimum requirement to meet the <br />Building Code. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that in order to meet the Code, the builder would have to put <br />something underneath the roof. He added that this is not necessarily uncommon. <br />Commissioner O’Connor requested clarification that with the proper application of <br />underlayment, the Code would be met. <br />Mr. Corbett replied that it would meet Code because the lower material would provide <br />the weather protection. He also described a manufactured product called bituthene, <br />which is applied over the plywood, which, instead of being a felt paper, can be <br />heat-adhered to the plywood. He noted that some also have a rubberized backing so <br />they are completely waterproofed. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if the Code would also be met if, on parts of the roof that <br />do not have the correct pitch, the standing seam metal is put on the roof and a metal <br />shingle added on top of standing seam metal. <br />Mr. Corbett replied that using the appropriate material for the pitch of the roof would <br />satisfy the Code requirement and that anything done additionally is not a Code issue. <br />Commissioner Pearce noted that the applicant still has the approvals for the shingle roof <br />but that staff indicates this violates the Code. <br />Mr. Dolan clarified that the applicant would have to use one of the installation methods <br />described earlier. He noted that staff did not know at the time of approval that this <br />would become an issue; staff discovered this when it was brought to their attention <br />during the building permit process. <br />Commissioner Pentin requested verification that if the Commission denies the project, <br />the applicant would leave with an approved plan with the metal shingles that is in <br />violation of the Code. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, December 8, 2010 Page 11 of 23 <br /> <br />