Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2015-10-01RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals October 1, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Senior Building Permit Technician Chariie Phillips, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Building Inspector Traufield The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were five members of the public in the audience. Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from September 3, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Darling/Calvin) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (lECC) Chair Spooner stated today's meeting is a review of the International Energy Conservation Code. Significant Changes to the 2012 and 2015 Codes will be discussed. CBO Birchfield stated there are many Significant Changes in the 2015 code. He stated he presented a report to the Town Board on September 22, 2015 providing an update on the progress of the code adoption process thus far. He received several accolades about the hard work the Board is doing. CBO Birchfield stated he was not going to propose many local amendments to the lECC. One he would propose is removing the provision requiring analysis of electrical load calculations whenever there is a change of use. Most of the buildings in the town are fairly small and there is a constant changeover of use in the downtown area. He would also propose removing the requirement for bringing all insulation up to code if some is removed during a remodel. CBO Birchfield is opposed to the "all or nothing" requirement, stating people should be allowed to make some improvements and remodel without having to replace all the insulation in the building. He would, however, require code- qualifying insulation in the area where insulation is being pulled out. He would not require structural changes in order to get more R value for the building. In the 2015 lECC, there is a Commercial (C) section and a Residential (R) section. As with all other codes, the appendices are not part of the code unless specifically adopted. Section R103 discussed required documentation to be submitted with building plans for new construction. (1) Insulation materials and R values [already required]; (2) Fenestration L/-factors and solar heat gain coefficients [already required]; (3) Area-weighted U-factor and solar heat gain coefficients [this will be a new requirement]; (4) Mechanical system design criteria [will have to be specified on the plans]; (5) Mechanical and service water-heating system and equipment types, sizes and efficiencies [will all have to be specified on the plans] (6) Equipment and system controls [will have to be specified on the plans]; (7) Duct sealing, duct and pipe insulation and location [will all have to be specified on the plans]; (8) Air sealing details [will have to be specified on the plans]. CBO Birchfield referred to Table R402.1.2, Insulation & Fenestration Requirements by Component, which shows the specifics for Climate Zone 5 (Colorado). The fenestration L/-factor has dropped from 0.35 to 0.32, which means glazing requirements are going to be tougher. He explained the labels on windows need to be left on until after the framing inspection, since these labels show the L/-factor. The U-factor is the reverse of the R-value. The higher the R-value the better the insulating factor; fenestration is the reciprocal of that. The lower the U-factor the better insulating value. The new requirement for ceiling R-values will be R49, moving up from the current R38 value. Attics are also being raised to R49. Basement wall insulating requirements wiil be increasing from 10/13 to 15/19, where the first number RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 October 1,2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall is if the insulation is continuous, and the second number is if the insulation is interrupted (between the studs). Slab insulation has not changed. Crawl space insulation is increasing from 10/13 to 15/19. Additionally, blower door tests will be required on every new home. There are good and bad points to this requirement; bad news is that it will add to the cost of new construction, good news is that the building will have to be built correctly or it will not pass the test. The test requires no more than three air exchanges per hour. Overall, the 2015 lECC is newer, more detailed, and tougher. CBO Birchfield introduced Ms. Colleen Locker, an expert in blower door testing. She is with Top Build, an energy auditor and rater, and is certified to do all types of energy auditing. She explained what a blower door test is and does. The general idea is to close up the house, pressurize or depressurize the building, and measure where the air is getting in or out of the house through all the cracks and crevices as well as what the air exchange/hour is. She stated an average blower door test costs approximately $450. Other inspections are also required prior to the blower door test. There was discussion between Ms. Locker and the Board. Comments included but were not limited to: property owners are not always aware of the blower door test requirement; some of the remedies of a failed test are zone testing (closing doors on certain rooms to determine where the air is coming from), looking at accessible items (rim joists, crawl spaces, attics, etc.); the proper time to do a blower door test is when everything is complete (including electricity turned on), contractors need to be aware from the start that passing a blower door test will be required before a final inspection will pass (and a certificate of occupancy will be issued); a full test would include HVAC testing, the baseboards and flooring should be in as well as counters, fixtures (plumbing & electrical), weather-stripping, etc.; the drywall is the air barrier being tested, so it must be installed; in progress inspections are highly recommended to ensure the blower door test will pass in the end, although these inspections are not required in the code; the in-progress inspections can be done on the first few structures to make sure the builder is aware of what is required to pass the final blower door test; Ms. Locker is a third-party inspector that can inspect as construction proceeds; no jurisdictions are requiring smoke tests, but when the duct system test fails, that's what they use to find the leak; the inspections Ms. Locker would recommend include framing ($150), insulation ($150), duct blaster ($225), and blower door ($450); tightness levels have to be adequate, but if they're too tight it can be dangerous and you can create backdraft on appliances, it was reiterated that this requirement is only on new construction being built using the 2015 codes. There was discussion among the board concerning the prices of energy code requirements. Comments between the Board, staff, and Ms. Locker included but were not limited to: builders will be required to provide more information, which will require designers to provide more information; tract homes are not typically built in Estes Park, which makes following these codes more difficult; the Town would require third-party inspections because staff does not have the time or staff to do them; third-party inspections are common practice in commercial construction; the Town does not have the equipment or qualified staff to conduct blower door inspections, so it will need to be contracted out; cost for all inspections run about $1000; if houses are too tight, some appliances can become dangerous; Larimer County now requires blower door tests on all new homes; it will be difficult to make corrections to pass the test without ripping out drywall; it is important to go with the package deal to make sure everything is done correctly along the way; the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) say if you adopt a building code, you must adopt an energy conservation code that is at least equivalent to the 2003 standards; once the energy conservation code is adopted, there are two sections (commercial and residential); to comply with the code, blower door tests will be required, and in order for them to pass, contractors will need to deal with the learning curve; Ms. Locker would be willing to provide a training session to contractors on how to make sure you pass the first time around; it would be proposed to require these tests only on new construction, and training would need to be provided; the provision could be phased in to allow for the education piece; the current codes are looking at performance paths more than prescriptive; examples could be provided as to how you can beef up the systems to comply with the code; we need to determine as a community what philosophy we will have concerning the energy code; it is good to have an energy efficient home/building, but the painful part is the cost; some banks offer lower interest rates for energy efficient homes; if you switch from prescriptive code to a performance-based code, you would be introducing a new skill, but not necessarily costing builders more money; we could be living with decisions on the energy code for 50 years or more. CBO Birchfield stated he would like to take a recommendation to the Town Trustees, recommending phasing in using target dates in order to get all the contractors trained. This 2015 code RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 October 1,2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall is much stricter. There are still some questions that need to be answered before the local amendment could be written. Public Comment and Board Discussion Chuck Santagati /Glacier Creek Construction stated he recently hired Ms. Locker for a blower door test outside the town limits. He wondered if there could be certain insulation installers whose work could be guaranteed to pass the test without actually taking the test. Ms. Locker said there is no pre­ approved work, and no guarantees for passing the tests. Contractors would need to be aware of the code in order to complete the jobs accurately. CBO Birchfield explained the inspections would need to be contracted out to a third party, because the Town does not have the staff, expertise, or equipment to perform the inspections. L.D. Clifford/Allied Insulation stated he agrees with CBO Birchfield that it is a learning curve. He would support the performance-based method. He stated it was important for contractors to know the codes, and know if the buildings they are working on are inside the town limits or in unincorporated Larimer County. Ms. Locker stated her company is educating their people on the ICC to be a better partner to building departments. CBO Birchfield stated he would like to get input from the elected officials to determine whether to adopt the lECC the way it is, with a phasing plan to get compliance, or to continue to use the 2009 lECC standards. If we go with the 2015 lECC, third party inspections will be required to inspect for energy efficiency on buildings. Designers will have a choice to design via prescriptive or performance, and the follow those specific provisions. Ms. Locker stated Larimer County requires blower door tests on remodels, per the 2009 standard. There was extensive discussion about what will need to be done with insulation installation and inspections, including the various ways you can get your test numbers up and keep costs down. CBO Birchfield stated plans requiring compliance with the lECC would need to be contracted out for review with an outside company. Turnaround time could be as long as two weeks. This would become part of the submittal process. The largest change will be testing the performance of the product that was built. CBO Birchfield stated there are a couple of people in Estes Park that are certified to do these energy tests. Larimer County has a list of qualified inspectors. Member Calvin expressed concern about foam insulation in an attic, where it can create issues with thermal barriers. If the foam insulation is in an attic or crawlspace that is accessed only for utilities, then all that is required on that foam insulation is an ignition barrier, and all foam applicators have a product that they spray on after they do the foam. This product is a different color than the foam and can be identified as an ignition barrier. If the foam insulation is in a habitable area of the building, a 15-minute thermal barrier. Half-inch drywall is a 15-minute thermal barrier, or you can also use a wet- blown or fiberglass product instead of foam. Ms. Locker stated the failure rate on a home that does not use a closed-cell urethane package is higher than homes built with other types of insulation. A two-part foam product tends to be superior to other products. Chair Spooner recommended adopting it in phases to allow time for training of the designers and builders and HVAC people. He suggested delaying the blower door test requirement for six months to allow for training. Member Schiaffo stated he did not recommend delaying the blower door test requirement, but thought we could begin with a lower standard (five) and gradually lower it to four and three. CBO Birchfield stated he would support going with the 2015 code for new construction and additions, and adopt local amendments for changes of use and remodels by adopting a phasing program, setting targets along the way. This would lower the bar on the compliance aspect (not on the code) so we will be able to raise the bar over the course of a few years. CBO Birchfield stated he would recommend not addressing the energy code for changes of use. Additionally, he would proposed to not penalize property owners for replacing sections of insulation without replacing the entire building, as some improvement of energy efficiency is better than nothing, and he could not see a benefit of requiring a complete replacement due to the potential cost. He stated there is a "point of diminishing returns" where the R value of insulation does not improve the efficiency. CBO Birchfield, at the direction of the Board of Appeals, will write some local amendments concerning phasing in the required results from blower door tests. Adopt this code the way it is for new RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 4 October 1, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall construction and additions, and have a phasing program to phase in compliance with the code. For example, instead of three ACH in year one, we will allow a higher number, which will decrease over time. We will work on getting as much training as possible for local contractors. As for change of use, CBO Birchfield will propose a local amendment stating the Town will not address the energy code for changes of use In the downtown district and In old buildings. Buildings are too small to try to deal with it, and the expense to the property owners would be too high. On remodels, he would propose not penalizing people for replacing insulation. Whatever improvements in R value and air-sealing we can get will be acceptable. People will not have to reframe their structures in an existing building to meet the 2015 codes. As far as design is concerned, this code will be effective the day it is adopted. The requirement to pass certain levels of tests will be phased in over time. It was clarified that new construction will need to be designed and built to three ACH. Eventually, builders will have to pass the specific tests prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Third party inspectors will need to be hired by the builders to inspect the energy package. There was additional general discussion concerning the energy code. Comments included but were not limited to; some exceptions could be made for additions; recommended five air changes per hour would pass In the initial phase; additions would have to be closed off or adjusted to pass the test; difficult to isolate an addition; definitely possible to get an older home (50+ years) to pass the test with a five ACH; no variances to the code are allowed, so we have to have a definite game plan; possibly exempt remodels from the blower door test; a blower door test can provide information as to how tight the structure really is, and it can be used as a teaching tool until the builders learn how to build compliant structures; CBO Birchfield does not want to get to a point where we're requiring something, but not accomplishing anything by doing it, so he would recommend exempting additions from the blower door testing until we can get a better understanding of what is involved; Chair Spooner recommended holding an additional meeting about this energy code to get more input from local contractors. Public Comment Chuck Santagati/local builder stated it is a good idea to adopt a more strict energy conservation code. Staff and Member Discussion CBO Birchfield revised the schedule for the remainder of the adoption process. Will reviewed the schedule for the remainder of the process. He stated the current plan is to have a discussion at a Town Board Study Session on October 13th, to review the local code amendments. The weeks of October 19th and 26th, he is planning to have some public outreach meetings to discuss the property maintenance code. The November 10th Town Board Study Session will present the input received from the public meetings on the property maintenance code. November 24th will be the first public hearing for the adoption of the 2015 codes. December 8th will be the second public hearing. CBO Birchfield stated if everything goes as planned, the effective date of the 2015 International Building Codes will be January 1, 2016. That date makes it very easy to understand which codes builders are required to comply with. Anything submitted on or after the effective date will need to comply with the 2015 codes. For a while, staff will be doing inspections for both the 2009 and 2015 codes. It will affect designers, inspectors, builders, plans examiners, etc. A very clear demarcation date is needed. This is used as a time management tool, and the Town Board is not required to adopt the codes on this date. The most important piece is the process of adopting the codes; holding public meetings, reaching out to those that will be affected, and providing the opportunity for anyone to voice their opinion. The Board of Appeals will be reviewing the International Existing Building Code (lEBC) at the November meeting. This code will most likely take a minimal amount of time to discuss, so the remainder of the time will be spent closing up all loose ends from other codes. The Town of Estes Park has been using the lEBC for several years, while other Jurisdictions have never adopted it. In the 2015 codes, all the provisions for existing buildings have been deleted out of the IBC, and jurisdictions will be required to adopt the lEBC or build everything according to the IBC. CBO Birchfield stated he will not be proposing any amendments to the Existing Building Code. He stated if we run into an unintended consequence after we begin working with it, we have the option of going to the elected officials and requesting a local amendment. However, during a situation like this, the national standards or state laws cannot be lowered. This would include electrical work, plumbing work, some fire provisions, accessibility standards, etc. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 5 October 1, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall A packet regarding the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) was provided to the Board. CBO Birchfield created the first draft, revising the code based on feedback from the last meeting. Secretary Thompson will schedule public outreach meetings to discuss the IPMC with others (Board of Realtors, Estes Area Lodging Association, Downtown Business Partners, etc.) Sprinklers in one and two family dwellings. A current local amendment exempts them. If we do not amend the code, every home will have to be sprinkled. CBO Birchfield recommended requiring sprinklers in new homes located in wildfire hazard areas, those with limited water access as per the Fire Code (location of hydrants), those with limited street access as per the Fire Code, or homes larger than 5000 square feet. He stated Larimer County is not requiring any new homes to be sprinkled, so this recommendation will differ from the county. One reason for his recommendation is because Estes Park is essentially an island surrounded by national forests (fuel). The Wildfire Hazard Areas are mapped in the Estes Valley Development Code. The Board will have time to think about this recommendation and come back with questions next month. Wildfire hazard mitigation is going to be affected by whether or not sprinklers will be required. Additional discussion required. Condensate Pumps in Uninhabitable Spaces (attics and crawl spaces). CBO Birchfield clarified this does not apply if the equipment is in a habitable space, and only applies to new construction. His recommendation is to not allow this equipment in uninhabitable spaces, as a new provision would then require drywall on the bottom of the joists. Another provision would require an interlock on the condensate pumps so the equipment shuts down if the pump fails. There would be several other things to consider if high efficiency mechanical equipment were to be installed in uninhabitable spaces, which would increase the costs to the home owner. There was a lot of discussion concerning all of the pieces of the code that need to be considered. Items considered were the height of some crawl spaces, limitations on floor drains, drywall requirements, etc. There was general consensus that mechanical equipment cannot be installed in uninhabitable areas in new construction. This would not prevent builders from building a mechanical room in a crawl space. A mechanical room is defined as a minimum seven foot ceiling with walls, concrete slab, and a floor drain. Public Comment Steve Nickel/local designer stated you could build a mechanical room with a lower ceiling height. There was additional discussion as to other challenges and possible solutions. Member Schiaffo suggested making an exception using certain parameters. CBO Birchfield stated he would work on a local amendment and bring it back to the Board for further discussion. Staff and Member Discussion Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings. The concern is what we are going to do with older buildings that have smaller windows with no way to trace down what the code required at the time they were installed. Will we decide to require them to meet the new code requirements, or allow them to exchange like for like sizes? Smoke alarms save more lives in house fires than anything else; properly sized egress windows are the next best lifesaver. Comments included but were not limited to: not forcing people to bring window size up to code, as they will either not change them, or change them without property permits; exchanging existing opening sizes will have an effect on the cost of the job; when people change uses of space without permits (i.e. finishing basement space into bedrooms), they have no right associated with that unpermitted work, and should be required to bring the window size up to code; in exchanging windows in older cabins, when code or permit information is not available, CBO Birchfield would recommend not requiring they be sized per the code, but they cannot be made smaller; cost to increase size would prohibit some of the jobs; recommendation would not make it worse, and would improve the quality of the window. There was brief discussion about when property owners make voluntary structural changes, and whether or not the window size should be brought up to code. There was general consensus to require such on a case by case basis. Electric Water Heaters. CBO Birchfield stated there are currently no permits required for electric water heaters. Example: an absentee home owner had a new electric water heater that failed. There was no pan underneath, and the damages totaled $50,000. If permits were required, the required inspections would ensure proper pans and drains were being installed. CBO Birchfield recommended RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 6 October 1, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall amending the code to say if there is the ability to install a drain, it should be done; the pan would be installed regardless, and the pan could drain to an approved location. If there was a small leak, the pan would catch it and the property owner would hopefully notice the water in the pan. Building Permit Fees. A presentation regarding fees was made to the Town Board. They are reviewing the information. Zero Clearance for Type I Hoods. CBO Birchfield stated Loveland and Ft. Collins are not allowing compensating hoods. He recommended drafting a local amendment stating all Type I hoods must be zero clearance. Additionally, no compensating hoods will be allowed with the adoption of the 2015 codes. This will require all hoods to be factory-built and UL listed. CBO Birchfield stated he will draft proposed amendments for next meetings. Other items still needing discussion and decisions are: roof overlays; deck designs for lateral bracing; ventless appliances; wind (align with Larimer County or use the 3-second gust maps). There was brief discussion on wind speed, and Chair Spooner stated he would do the calculations to adjust for altitude. There will be additional discussion on this item. CBO Birchfield's concern is how to communicate the wind speed to designers and engineers. REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:12 p.m. JohmSpooner, Chair Karen Thompso rding Secretary