Leon Valley


Building Permit & Floodplain Development Permits for Asphalt and other Concrete Surfaces in Relation to the Existing Building Codes


Department:Community DevelopmentSponsors:


  1. CC PPT_Building Permits Required

Meeting History

Jun 6, 2017 7:00 PM  City Council Regular Meeting

Community Development Director Kristie Flores gave a presentation to clarify questions that have come from whether there is a permit needed for asphalt, building permits vs. floodplain development permits and whether asphalt surfaces and concrete surfaces need permitting. Ms. Flores continued by saying that the soccer complex was on the last City Council agenda and it was found that they had put in parking spaces and they were supposed to have put in a permeable surface rather than impermeable surface. This would have required a floodplain development permit but as far as the building permit itself, structures are what require a building permit. Anything in a floodplain would also require a permit; anywhere FEMA is involved. Ms. Flores went on about the various codes to include the International Building Code and when it was adopted. Ms. Flores said she feels there is a “conflict” between the adopted building code and the local code and that she is working with the city attorney on this. Lastly, Ms. Flores said that the fact is that right now, the only thing the City requires permitting on is sidewalks, driveways; anything that has to do with anything that is on private property does not require a permit but anything that is constructed next to public property, such as city streets, would require permitting.

Ms. Flores then went on to explain why the zoning code section on landscaping is not being used. To which she said that in the code it states that “projects which are expansions of existing development shall provide landscaping based on…” and it talks about different landscaping requirements but then it says “any new development of expansion of existing development, split ownership planning, construction phases, and multiple building permits shouldn’t prevent it from complying with requirements”. Then if you read further in section 4A and B, it notes that “this section does not become applicable, this section becomes applicable to a lot with existing improvements when a building permit is made for construction work that 1. Increases the combined floor areas of all buildings by more than twenty-five percent (25%) per five-thousand square feet (5000 sq. ft.) whichever is less; or B increases the impermeable coverage of a lot by more than two-thousand square feet (2000 sq. ft.).

Ms. Flores concluded by saying that yes the soccer complex needed a floodplain development permit, however, on the building permit side, they have a four (4) acre lot so when they are looking at the development of that they did not increase the permeable cover of that by more than two-thousand (2000), plus, this applies to the landscape aspects of the code. So as much as we want to have an ordinance for pavement, that is a great idea if that’s what the Council so desires but I don’t have anything per code, in my interpretation that I feel could validate requiring a permit for pavement or asphalt. That concluded the presentation.

City Manager Kelly Kuenstler clarified the presentation by saying the reason for this item being on the agenda was to answer the question she received by many when the soccer folks were in at the last meeting, whether or not a permit was required for the parking lot and the answer was NO when in fact a permit was required. A floodplain development permit was required. This was very educational but we wanted to get onto record that was misstated at that meeting.