"Similar" plans.

General discussion area relating to building and construction codes. To post a topic for discussion you must register. Everyone is welcome to register. Registration is necessary to fight off spam. Under no circumstance is any part of this forum to be used for advertising or spam purposes. Welcome to our Minnesota community forum!

"Similar" plans.

Postby RDavidson » Mon May 02, 2011 4:27 pm

A contractor who specializes in construction of private garages submits a plan for review and approval. He asks that the plan be considered a master plan for purposes of repetitive plan review fees. The garage is a 12X20 with 8 foot sidewalls. You issue the permit charging a building permit fee and a plan review fee that is 65% of the building permit fee. The next day he applies for another permit. This garage is 32X 40 with 16 foot sidewalls and a 32 foot by 8 foot roofed porch across the back. He states that the plan review fee should be 25% of the building permit fee because the plan should be considered a “similar plan” regulated by 1300.0160. The exception allows garage dimensions to be changed and porches added and still consider the plan “similar”. He says he will be applying for permits for perhaps a dozen more garage permits in the coming months but has no idea where they will be constructed or what size they will be but expects that his reviews will be limited to 25%. Do you (a) tell him to go back to Ramsey, (b) issue the permit charging a 25% review fee, or (c) issue the permit and charge your normal plan review fee?
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:36 pm

Re: "Similar" plans.

Postby johnedberg » Wed May 04, 2011 1:30 pm


I wouldn't even have guessed that's what that section says (personally I took as in the same development ie; townhouses, condo's etc.), but reading the section over., I think we would have to. "If they asked".

Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: "Similar" plans.

Postby mkaehler » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:48 pm

I would have to say I would reduce the plan review fee............. after I re-read that section.
But here we usually just charge the double fee cuz it's already built :)

Oh, Rick,what's a plan review again?
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: "Similar" plans.

Postby the man » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:50 am

OK, so I can come into any city or county and get a permit for a garage that is 12X 24, I know not very big but what can I say. then I can come in and the next day and want another garage on a different lot in the same city/ county but this time i want a garage that is 30x 30 and it looks like the 12x 24 so I want the review fee at 25% because it LOOK's like something that I did yesterday? Then the next day I can come in and get a permit for a garage that is 100 ft by 30ft (really nice garage) and because it LOOK's like the 12 x24 I want that review fee to be 25%. There is something really really wrong with that section
I can understand the same size building 12x24 every day but to expand to a larger building it is not the same and you would be reviewing for the same loading but being larger you need to look for other things as well .
the man
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:09 am

Re: "Similar" plans.

Postby squalle » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:16 pm

I think that I would argue that this is not the intent of either MN Statute 16B.61, which states "The commissioner shall develop rules addressing the plan review fee assessed to similar buildings without significant modifications including provisions for use of building systems as specified in the industrial/modular program specified in section 16B.75. Additional plan review fees associated with similar plans must be based on costs commensurate with the direct and indirect costs of the service.", or 1300.0160 subpart 6, which presumes that you are building a residential structure AND an accessory structure.

Using this same logic, someone could submit a permit for any size deck and then build any other deck configuration from that master plan. This rule was written outside of the traditional UBC/IBC rules section, presumably as a result of a complaint to the legislature (thus 16B.61). I think it is a creative approach, but I would charge the 65% and let them appeal my decision (or send them back to Ramsey).
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:42 pm

Return to 10K Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests