Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2016-01-14RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals January 14, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Senior Building Permit Technician Charlie Phillips, Planner Mallory Baker, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: None The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There was one person in attendance. 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 November 11, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Darling/Calvin) to table approval of the minutes to the February, 2016 meeting and the motion passed unanimously. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION — BUILDING PERMIT FEE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION Planner Mallory Baker reviewed the staff report. She stated she would be presenting the background methodology to proposed changes to the fee process for the Division of Building Safety. In May, 2015, the Community Development Department reviewed the current fee process and addressed the inequality in valuation. Any new construction is based on a square footage model, while smaller projects are based solely on actual valuation. There were a few public meetings to gain input from stakeholders, and some valuable information was received, though public participation was low. Basically, people were receptive to an equal process for all projects. Additionally, stakeholders did not think the Division of Building Safety should be totally self-supporting, which would result in a higher increases in fees. There was public concern about the increase of fees and the subsequent adverse impact to affordable housing and other similar projects. Planner Baker stated fees for those projects are typically waived and would not be affected by this proposed fee change. Planner Baker stated the current cost recovery through fees is 56%, which is good for a governmental agency. The issue is inequality between calculating fees for new construction and smaller projects. Staff is proposing changing the method of valuation, to use actual construction costs, no matter the type of project. Staff is also proposing the plan review fee be collected when the application is submitted. Currently, all fees are collected after the review has been completed. If the applicant decides not to follow through with the project, the Town struggles to collect the review fees incurred. Staff is proposing to reduce the plan review fee to 50% of the building permit feet, down from the current 65%, because wind and snow loads have already been reviewed by the engineer stamping the plans. The department wants to incentivize complete and code compliant submittals, and proposes to provide discounts in plan review fees for these submittals. Fees would be added to those submittals that are incomplete and/or not code compliant. This would encourage complete applications the first time. A proposal of up to 50% reduction could occur. Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield would prefer to add language regarding this proposal in the local code amendments, so this would go to the Town Board for final approval prior to implementation. Planner Baker showed examples of how fees are currently calculated and how they are being proposed. Staff would come up with average costs, and if these fell significantly below what was calculated, an audit would be conducted. Different types of homes cost varying amounts per square foot. CBO Birchfield stated the Division of Building Safety has real world data to use for comparisons. We always start with the valuation the applicant provides, except with new square footage. When something comes in below the averages, it will be an automatic audit. The audit will be completed after the job is finished, and in most cases, the applicant will know beforehand whether or not the project will be audited. Details regarding the audit still need to be worked out, but it would be a fair RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals January 14, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall process. CBO Birchfield stated he came up with averages based on information received during conversations with local contractors. He will take the contractors word for the valuation, but it may be changed during construction if it looks like it may be undervalued. We will refine the model by getting actual value on projects during random audits. Audits will help staff refine the value of projects. Planner Baker stated it is important to make the public aware of the proposed changes. The applicant would not be charged additional fees for the audit, but the valuation may change and additional building permit fees may apply. CBO Birchfield stated project fees have not changed since 1998. Values of those projects have increased, so the bottom line fee has increased due to increased valuation. The biggest problem is applicants paying full valuation cost on small jobs and only 65% of valuation on new construction. The percentage of the fee assessed gets smaller as the job gets larger. Planner Baker stated fees will not be increased without prior public notification. A customer guide, information on the Town website, etc. will be provided once the elected officials approve the proposal. There was discussion among staff and the Board regarding the history of how the fees have been imposed. The last fee schedule in the International Building Code was in 1997, which the Town adopted in 1998 and has not changed. It comes down to new construction being subsidized because of the formulas used to calculate fees. CBO Birchfield stated this topic is a very political decision, as the elected officials have to decide how much they are willing to subsidize the Division of Building Safety. When the 2003 Codes were adopted, a 35% increase in the square foot unit cost was implemented for new construction. When the 2009 codes were adopted, the Town Trustees chose to not increase those same fees another 35%. Planner Baker added the Town Trustees are now willing to adopt this model with an annual review to see how it's working, and changes may be made. CBO Birchfield explained that low value projects typically do not require plan reviews, and the current fee table would be continued to be used for those projects. Change would occur when determining valuation on new construction. To offset the increase, the plan review fees would be reduced from 65% to 50%, and applications submitted correctly the first time would receive an additional discount. The more expensive the house per square foot, the higher the fees will be. CBO Birchfield stated if the plans are correct on the original submittal, spec homes would increase an average of 9%, and custom homes would increase an average of 27%. CBO Birchfield stated the 50% plan review discount would be based on a checklist that would be available to the applicant during the application process. If everything on the checklist is on the plans, and the application can be approved on the first review, the applicant would receive the 50% discount. Chair Spooner would like to see the checklist. CBO Birchfield has already responded to some of the designer's concerns about requiring too much on the plans. The goal is to set applicants up for success, not for failure. Other comments included but were not limited to: there will always be room for improvement and staff is willing to listen and make appropriate changes, we are reaching out via the building contractor email distribution lists; public outreach was extensive, but response was minimal; a customer guide will be created to make people aware of the changes; disappointment that the local amendments were not available on the Town website; next step is to accept feedback, then take the proposal to the Town board for adoption; contractor will be passing the increase in fees to the property owner; time seems to be more important to contactors than the amount of the fees. It was moved and seconded (Darling/Schiaffo) to recommend adoption of the proposed fee structure to the Town Board and the motion passed unanimously. 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES CBO Birchfield stated we have reviewed all the proposals for the local amendments. He asked for feedback as to how the Board wanted the document formatted. There was general consensus from the Board to provide the local amendments as digital documents. For the final approved version, the Board requested only the actual amendment be in the document, leaving out the entire code language and commentary. The Board prefers the shortest version. CBO Birchfield stated the County Building Department presented their proposed local amendments to the Commissioners earlier in the week. He distributed to Board members copies of the county's proposed local amendments. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals January 14, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 3 CBO Birchfield stated the Town Trustees have directed him to prepare draft local code amendments regarding vacation homes and life safety inspections. Larimer County is working on the same topic, with no decisions to date. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners is considering regulating vacation rentals that house more than eight (8) people with the International Building Code (IBC) rather than the International Residential Code (IRC), where houses are usually regulated. Estes Park currently regulates all single family homes by the IRC. While CBO Birchfield believes it is important to align with the county on this issue, using the IBC would require automatic sprinklers, ADA accessibility, etc. The building code is currently not involved where vacation homes within the town limits are concerned, as regulation of such is considered a land use issue, not a building code issue. Current regulations in the Estes Valley Development Code state any property in a residential zone district can rent their single-family home on a nightly basis. CBO Birchfield stated the County Commissioners and Town Board are both looking at changing the regulations. Up to this point, it has always been his opinion that a house built as a single family home is regulated by the IRC as long as it's used as a residential dwelling. However, the County Commissioners are considering adopting regulations retroactively to require vacation homes for more than eight people to comply with the IBC. CBO Birchfield has discussed this issue with several jurisdictions, with a 50-50 split. There are no occupant factors in the IRC and no changes of uses, so it's either a dwelling or not a dwelling. There are significant implications to this, and it will be difficult to regulate if the Town and County are not aligned. CBO Birchfield suggested three options: (1) make no changes to vacation homes as they relate to the building code, and let the land use code continue to be the regulator; (2) take vacation homes out of the IRC and put them in the IBC; or (3) create a hybrid of the two by coming up with some safety items that can be checked and approved prior to issuing a business license. CBO Birchfield cautioned the Board to understand the implications of going from the IRC to the IBC prior to making recommendations to the Town Trustees on this topic. According to the IRC, the definition of dwelling is: "DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes." The IRC definition for dwelling unit is: "DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation." It is CBO Birchfield's opinion that vacation homes are a land use issue. If provided the opportunity for safety surveys, some of the items on the checklist could be carbon monoxide detectors, smoke alarms, egress windows, unpermitted work, etc. He stated he would need a local amendments to implement changes regarding vacation homes, because his interpretation of the code as it is now written would be changed. Chair Spooner stated he supports the idea of a safety survey prior to rental as a vacation home. There was general consensus from the Board to prepare draft local amendments to perform safety surveys of vacation homes. REPORTS CBO Birchfield stated he is still hoping to have the local amendments ready to present to Town Board for an April 1, 2016 adoption date. The County may be able to get theirs adopted prior to April 1st CBO Birchfield reminded the Board to let Karen Thompson know if you are able to attend one day of the ICC Training Institute in Denver in March. CBO Birchfield stated the International Energy Conservation Code training was well attended. If there was interest in another topic, he would try to get additional training here in Estes Park. Member Calvin would be interested in a commercial class. CBO Birchfield stated he would like to see set fees for certain permits (hot water heaters, furnaces, roofs, etc.). He asked for assistance from the Board to create a sub -committee to determine appropriate fees for these types of permits. His idea would be to charge a flat fee, which would include the permit and two inspections. Additional inspections would be $100 each. Members Schiaffo, Klein, and Darling agreed to serve on this sub -committee. Karen Thompson will send out an invitation to meet. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals January 14, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Joh pooner, Chair Karen Thompson, Retarding Secretary