Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2016-03-10RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Darling, Calvin, and Schiaffo Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Senior Building Permit Technician Charlie Phillips, Planner Phil Kleisler, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: None The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were approximately 40 people in attendance. Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from February 25, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve of the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES Chair Spooner stated that the Board needed to end the meeting at 6:00 pm and requested that public comment be concise. He explained the order of proceedings. CBO Birchfield would present a topic and his material, the Board would then discuss, and then the floor would be opened to public comment on that topic. This would be repeated until all of the topics are covered. CBO Birchfield stated there are three main items for discussion today. The first item is an amendment from the International Residential Code (IRC) that he neglected to bring up at the last meeting. The Board needs to provide a recommendation on that. The other two topics are sprinkler provisions in the International Building Code (IBC) and the IRC, and the vacation rental provisions in the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and other codes. CBO Birchfield stated he gave a presentation to the Town Board on Tuesday, with an update on the process for adopting the 2015 International Building Codes the Board of Appeals has been working on for the last 18 months. He told them that other than sprinkler requirements and vacation rentals, there is consensus on all other code amendments being proposed. He requested that today's discussion be limited to the two main topics before the Board and the missed amendment from the IRC so the Board can provide a recommendation to the Town Board. CBO Birchfield stated the proposed local amendments and significant changes are on the web at www.estes.org/icodes. These are working documents that are not official until the elected officials adopt them. They are updated regularly as feedback is received. CBO Birchfield reviewed the format of the proposed code amendments. IRC: R302.13 Fire Protection of Floors: CBO Birchfield stated that while they talked about prohibiting appliances in crawlspaces so as to not require installing drywall on the bottom of floor joists, they neglected to talk about unfinished basements. CBO Birchfield proposed as an alternative to requiring -inch drywall on the bottom of floor joists in unfinished basements with appliances, they amend the code to remove that requirement and add the following. "Spaces containing HVAC appliances and water heaters shall be dedicated exclusively for that use and shall be constructed out of materials rated for one -hour construction on the appliance side of the space and shall comply with the provisions of the International Fuel Gas Code, Section 303.3, Item 3." CBO Birchfield stated that what this means is if there is mechanical equipment or water heaters in unfinished basements or crawlspaces, a room shall be constructed around them finished with 5/8-inch drywall on the inside, with a self -closing gasketed door on the room, and the combustion air is pulled in from the outside. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall This is one of the requirements for a finished basement. CBO Birchfield provided this proposed local amendment as an option in the code. Chair Spooner clarified with those in attendance that adding the drywall to unfinished spaces with equipment is a new item in the code this year, and would be a considerable burden. They are attempting to limit the finish to a confined area. Public comment on this item: None. There was general consensus to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. CBO Birchfield stated there are only two items they have not achieved consensus: sprinkler requirements in the IBC and the IRC and vacation rentals in the IPMC. 2015 international Building Code CBO Birchfield explained there are two primary codes, the IBC and the IRC. All non -primary codes are adopted by reference into the IBC. The IRC pulls certain information from all the other codes and puts it in the IRC. Some items will be repeated from the IBC into the IRC, but not everything. IBC: 101.2 Scope: CBO Birchfield explained that the scope provision specifies what this code covers. It states in great detail everything that it regulates. CBO Birchfield proposed an amendment to clarify the intent of the code, and this is one interpretation. "All buildings and structures in Accommodation zone districts shall be regulated by this code." CBO Birchfield explained that to understand what this means you have to understand what the IRC regulates. The IRC regulates detached one- and two- family dwellings and townhouses and all of their accessory structures. Everything else is regulated by the IBC. The IBC typically has more restrictive requirements because the structures are generally open to the public. There are differences between the IRC and the IBC relating to various items, e.g. stair geometry, deck railing height, etc. As he understands it, the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) will allow vacation rentals in the Accommodations zone districts, not just residential zone districts. The intent of the amendment is that because of the density and allowable uses in Accommodation zone districts all buildings shall be built to the requirements of the IBC and not the IRC. This would apply to both the A and A-1 zone districts. Member Calvin requested clarification on which zones require building to IBC standards. CD —Commercial Downtown district, a single-family dwelling would be permitted as a use by right, but cannot be located on the ground floor. Generally speaking, it would have to be a mixed -use building. The same applies to the 0—Office zone district. CBO Birchfield added in all cases, mixed -use buildings must be built according to the IBC. Member Calvin requested viewing a graphic of what the A and the A-1 zone districts look like in the Town of Estes Park. Planner Kleisler explained that the A —Accommodation zone district was established to promote high - intensity accommodations like hotels/motels primarily along our highways. The A-1—Accommodations zone district is a less intense zone district that is used as a transition district between an A zone district and residential zone districts, with smaller cabins, resorts and the like. Planner Kleisler used the map (located at www.estes.org/maps) to point out where the Accommodation zone districts are located and explained the types of structures that are currently in them. Public Comment Frank Theis/town resident: He has built primary accommodation units in A zoning. Most were built as a primary residence or second homes. More than half were rented as vacation homes. He is concerned that there is an inconsistency with requiring IBC requirements by zoning. It should either be applied universally or not at all. He is concerned that it will be enforced through licensing. If you get a business license to rent, would you then be forced to sprinkle? He is concerned that it will affect development. He doesn't know what to do because he does not know what standards to build to. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Jeff Moreau/town resident: It would not make sense that we would make a specific zone district meet a specific building code. If the structure were considered a residential structure then it should be built under the IRC in any zone. If it were a mixed -use structure, it would be built under the IBC. He recommends not adopting this amendment. If we allow residential use in accommodations zone districts they should be built under the IRC. Elizabeth Fogarty/representing Visit Estes Park: She requested a delay on all residential sprinkler codes until January 2017, due to the current housing crisis. This would further complicate an already difficult building environment. The county is establishing a vacation home rental task force to get input from stakeholder representatives on a variety of topics, including allowing parties greater than eight. It was her hope that this task force will be able to provide recommendations on vacation rentals in regards to amending the IBC and IRC. Sprinklers in vacation homes is a national topic. Air B&B, VRBO, Home Away have extensive fire safety guidelines on their websites. If sprinklers are truly about safety, all vacation home owners should have to sprinkle, even retroactively. She wondered if fires in vacation homes are increasing warranting the need for additional safety requirements. Her research indicates that there not a fire safety issue with vacation homes that would call for increased need for fire code regulations. How does short-term rental (less than 30 days) use differ from long-term rental (30 days or more) that would change how fire safety is governed on that same property? CBO Birchfield stated that this meeting needed to follow this code change systematically, and that single-family homes are not being addressed yet. He requested that comments be kept to the topic at hand. He asked that Ms. Fogarty return when that topic is brought up. Lindsay Lampson/town resident representing Estes Valley Lodging Association: He was opposed to requiring new residential structures in the Accommodations zone districts to be built under the IBC. It seemed excessive to burden a structure typically governed by the IRC with IBC requirements because of the difference in zone district. This would make the code more expensive and restrictive which would have an adverse impact on housing in Estes Park. He did not understand a need for this change. His fear was that this would be the first step for designating any structure in A Accommodation or A-1 zone districts for commercial use. IBC: 101.2 Scope: CBO Birchfield stated the proposed local amendment would be added as an exception to the IBC. "One- and two-family dwellings in residential zone districts rented or leased for not more than 30 days shall also comply with the International Property Maintenance Code." CBO Birchfield stated this exception does not place these structures under the building code, but requires all structures regulated by the IRC shall also comply with the IPMC. This was done at the direction of the Town Board. CBO Birchfield pulled up the provision in the IPMC that would apply to single-family dwellings used as vacation rentals. This is the only provision for single-family dwellings in the IPMC. IPMC: 101.2 Scope: CBO Birchfield stated that the scope of the IPMC is being proposed to be altered to exclude all premises surrounding structures and all structures regulated by the IRC except for dwelling units used as short-term rentals. At an earlier Board of Appeals meeting, the Board recommended adoption of the IPMC if it excluded all single-family homes and surrounding premises. CBO Birchfield explained the Town Board directed him to create some type of safety inspection process for short-term rentals. IPMC: 104.2 Inspections: CBO Birchfield stated this section has the provisions of what would be required in addition to the requirements of the IRC. All dwellings used for short-term rentals shall be subject to an initial dwelling life safety survey and subsequent surveys as determined by the CBO. The survey shall include, but not be limited to a list of safety concerns contained in the proposed code. This list includes proper address identification, unpermitted work, structural concerns, emergency escape in rooms used for sleeping purposes, approved window wells for escape purposes, smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detectors, gas -fired appliances, etc. This list was created at the direction of the Town Board. This provision is the only provision from the IPMC that applies to structures regulated by the IRC and it only applies to those used as short-term rentals. Member Darling: He wondered how many existing VRBO homes would fail this inspection. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated that he had no idea. If the original work on the home had been permitted, inspected and approved and they had no unauthorized work done they should pass this inspection. Public Comment Eric Blackhurst/town resident representing the Estes Park Board of Realtors: He stated this would be a new requirement for vacation rental properties. There are about 400 vacation rental properties in the Estes Park area. That is less than 5% of all dwellings in Town, but it is still a substantial number. Where is the information on this requirement? What burden does it place on the property owners, their managers? How will it be enforced? The community has no idea what you are talking about. This is new information coming from the Town Board and the proposed 2015 International Building Codes. Vacation rentals are an industry that drives our economy. This would be a burden on our community and the marketplace. Frank Theis: He asked if he built a structure that was inspected and recently received a Certificate of Occupancy, and within a year or two the owners decided to rent the structure, would they be subject to the dwelling life safety survey? He thought that would be a burden on staff given that it had already been inspected. Would there be a time frame where the survey could be waived? Would the survey be paid for by the property owner? CBO Birchfield appreciated Mr. Theis' questions, stating there were still details to be worked out. He stated a $200 fee for the dwelling life safety survey was being proposed. If any violations relating to the safety survey inspection were found the property owner would be required to pull a permit to correct those violations. This is the first time someone has brought up the issue of a time frame in regards to a relatively new home. He would consider coming up with a plan a relatively new home that has just received a Certificate of Occupancy, where no work has been done since the CO was issued. Bettye Harrison/town resident: She asked about items 13, 14, and 15 in the proposed dwelling life safety survey and what was meant there. She also wondered how long it would take to do the survey. CBO Birchfield stated that as far as he knows there are only 200 short-term rentals within the Town limits. He believes that if there has been no unauthorized work in the house, the inspection will take about 45 minutes per house, depending on the size of the house. And there will be an additional 45 minutes of staff time on the front and back ends for the paperwork. That estimate varies depending on the size of the house, but most homes should take only 45 minutes unless there are other issues. In regards to items 13, 14, and 15, CBO Birchfield stated these items were added since the last time the document was presented in public. Item 13 refers to Wildfire Defensible Space requirements and if it is something that should be inspected with the dwelling life safety survey. It can only be inspected if it was required at the time the house was built and the house is in the Wildfire Hazard Area. With very few exceptions, the code requirements are not retroactive. You only have to maintain your home to the code it was built under. CBO Birchfield reiterated these inspections are about safety. He wants to make sure that the smoke detectors and CO detectors are in the right places and are working; to make sure that the address is properly posted so that first responders can find that building quickly. It is not meant to bring the buildings up to current code. It is meant for obvious life safety issues. Item 13 will not apply to everyone. There is a wildfire map in the EVDC which is adopted into the building code. It can be found on the website at www.estes.org/maps. Defensible space is defined by an inspector with Larimer County. Item 14 refers to fire pits, which need to be the proper distance from the house and vegetation and have a safe zone around them to prevent them from starting wildfires. Nick Scarpella/vacation home rental owner: He asked what is the justification for choosing vacation rentals for this inspection and not all residential rental properties? CBO Birchfield stated that the International Fire Code (IFC) has jurisdiction to provide safety inspections on all commercial buildings and includes long-term rentals. The IFC does not address detached single-family homes. If a structure is regulated by the IRC, the IFC addresses two issues, access and water. It does not address anything else. This life safety survey is meant to address issues missing from the IFC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Nick Scarpella: He asked if there was a higher risk that was driving the need for the life safety survey on short-term rentals. CBO Birchfield stated absolutely there is increased risk on those structures. Lindsey Lamson: He would like to see specific language that the items in the life safety survey apply to the code in place when that dwelling was built. The current language leaves too much room for interpretation in the future. The majority of existing vacation rental homes would not meet the inspection requirements. Most homes have windows in sleeping areas that do not meet current egress requirements. Would vacation rental homes be forced to replace those windows? If not, it should be clear that it does not apply if the code did not require it when the house was built, not when it became a vacation rental. What is the time frame that controls the application of these requirements? A typical vacation home that does not meet the dwelling life safety survey criteria would not be able to continue as a vacation home if they had to implement all those requirements. Some of these requirements are not insubstantial. Converting a home to a vacation rental is a change in use. If using the IBC, a change in use could trigger needing to meet current code. What is the economic impact of making vacation home properties applicable to all of the requirements of the life safety survey? He believes it will be a big economic burden on current or potential vacation home owners. CBO Birchfield stated that egress windows have created issues for quite awhile. Properly sized egress windows, and improperly sized windows in sleeping spaces are fairly obvious. It is obvious to inspectors when a basement has an unapproved sleeping space. Those are the kinds of things they are talking about for the dwelling life safety survey. CBO Birchfield stated that after the code adoption, he wants to have a discussion with the Board of Appeals to come up with some standardized criteria for replacing egress windows in bedrooms, as it is an issue in more than just vacation rentals. Bettye Harrison: She agreed with Mr. Lamson and appreciates what was said about items 13, 14 and 15. She is also concerned that there is no language in the code that says it is not retroactive. The code interpretation may not be the same with a new CBO. CBO Birchfield states that all the codes talk about the fact that the codes are not retroactive unless they specifically state they are. That only applies to smoke alarms, CO detectors and addresses. For those three items you have to meet current code regardless of when the house was built. He further explained that if you replaced your water heater in 1999 and it met code then, you would pass the inspection. But if you did not get a permit and it does not meet code, you would be forced to bring it up to code. He will work on the wordsmithing of the proposed local amendment to make it clearer. CBO Birchfield stated again that none of the proposed amendments are official until the Town Board adopts them. Revisions to the proposed local amendments will be updated on the website whenever changes are made, prior to the final draft being presented to the Town Board. Ed Peterson/town resident representing Vacation Rental Owners Association: He represents about 150 homes. He stated he was never told about these meetings. He wants to know how many of the dwelling life safety survey requirements were requested by the Town Board and how many were suggested by the building inspector. CBO Birchfield stated that he drafted the list of items on the dwelling life safety survey after being directed to do so by the Town Board. This list is only about 10% of the items they inspect on a new home. He worked with Inspector Traufield to choose the most critical issues that make a difference for life safety. Ray Duggan: He asked if we were having the same kind of inspection on buildings in the Commercial Downtown zone district. CBO Birchfield stated the Fire Marshall does those inspections in all commercial buildings. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 6 Jared Kingswood/town resident: He has used his primary residence as a vacation rental a couple of weeks out of the year. He wonders if he would be subject to the same requirements as a full-time vacation rental. CBO Birchfield stated that he had received no direction to treat anybody differently. This is triggered by anybody who needs a business license as a vacation rental. He appreciated the question and a different perspective on the issue. Paul Fishman/town resident: He stated that it was his understanding that the dwelling life safety survey had been before the Town Board as part of a study session, but had not been voted on. CBO Birchfield stated that was correct. March 22 is the public hearing for the adoption of these codes by the Town Board. The proposed inspection will be a part of that hearing. Mary Murphy/county resident: She wondered about vacation rentals that were built when the Town did not have a building code. CBO Birchfield stated that you are regulated under the code the structure was built under. If changes are made to a structure, the changes are per the code adopted at the time of the change. If permits were issued, the Town has record of the work completed. The inspectors would make sure the life safety issues are satisfactory. If the structure predates code they will just check smoke detectors, CO detectors, egress from bedrooms, a clearly posted address and any work where permits were pulled. He cannot give a general list for all properties because each property is unique. CBO Birchfield clarified that these inspections would take place only on properties within the town limits. Larimer County is creating a task force for vacation homes with occupancies greater than eight. It is his understand that is their only task. This is a separate issue. It does not matter what the occupancy is, just that it is being used as a vacation rental within town limits. Ed Peterson: He asked about multiple inspections. Would there be a charge for them? CBO Birchfield explained the intent of this provision is not to keep charging people money. It is not meant to generate revenue. The building inspector will do the dwelling life safety survey and, if necessary, give the owner a correction notice of what needs to be changed to pass the inspection. The owner can make those changes and call for a re -inspection. If all the changes have been met to the building inspector's satisfaction there are generally no additional fees. If a change is not made fully, the CBO may decide to charge a fee for any additional re -inspections that are required to bring the property to compliance. Lindsay Lamson: He is on the Larimer County task force for vacation rentals. He believes that it will not be limited to just vacation rental homes with occupancies of 8 or more. It will broadly review several circumstances from fees, parking, health and safety issues, county zoning issues and more. He recommends that they table these particular specifications within the building code as they have done with vacation homes in the EVDC until they can hear from the county task force their recommendations, to have a unified approach. It is an undue burden on the property owners within the town limits if there are requirements do not align with the county. It is all very confusing. He understands the desire to address health and safety issues. The vacation rental groups and lodging industry have embraced the issue of safety, notification, management, and access to a responsible party. He does not think that short-term use is a lot more risky than long-term use. Long-term use has more problems with use, abuse, and damage to the property than short-term rental. To cover lack of familiarity with the property, one of the recommendations that has been embraced has been to provide an information book that includes all of the details of the property including fire exit, contact information, parking, noise, quiet hours, etc. Long-term rentals don't require that. He has converted most of his long-term rentals to vacation rentals, outside of employee housing. Egress for older properties is expensive, and many do not have compliant egress windows. If the property is an older property, the egress windows do not meet current standards, as a vacation property would it have to be brought up to current standards under the dwelling life safety survey? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated that the dwelling would have to meet the standards at the time the house was built. If rooms used for sleeping purposes had not been intended to be bedrooms at the time the house was built or remodeled, and their windows do not meet the egress requirements, the windows will have to be replaced and brought up to code if they are wanting to continue to use them as sleeping rooms. If they were originally permitted as bedrooms then they are good. Lindsey Lamson: He wondered how accurate and detailed town records are for permits. CBO Birchfield stated that the building division's records are very accurate and go back into the early 1940's. They have extensive files for all permits, (including drawings for many) for any address within town limits. Frank Theis: He stated that generally speaking the staff is easy to work with. He wanted to point out an unintended consequence of the dwelling life safety survey is additional burden on building division staff. CBO Birchfield stated that the next proposed amendment is the adoption of the IPMC. Prior to the adoption of the International Building Codes the Town had adopted the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, which Larimer County still uses. When the Town switched to the International Building Codes CBO Birchfield did not recommend the adoption of the International Property Maintenance Codes for the last two code cycles because he was concerned about the unintended consequences. He has since then reviewed the IPMC with this Board of Appeals. He recommended removing all references to single-family homes in residential zone districts except for the dwelling life safety survey for vacation rentals, and all references to premises surrounding the dwelling. This code would deal only with structures. Some of the items removed are regulated by the development code or municipal code. After a code is adopted, the CBO is obligated to interpret and enforce the codes. He has no discretion in the matter, so it is important that we amend them properly. Chair Spooner added that the Board of Appeals can only rule as to whether the CBO interpreted the code correctly. The Board of Appeals cannot change the code requirements. CBO Birchfield stated that the amendments need to be written correctly and the process must be transparent. IBC: 903.2 Automatic Sprinklers: CBO Birchfield stated that this was a current amendment in our code now and has been in effect since 2011. This local amendment is about to be used for the first time with a building permit that is currently under review. It states that every new building and every substantially improved building is required to be fully sprinkled in the Commercial Downtown zone district. The downtown area is extremely vulnerable to fires; combustible buildings, zero lot lines, and limited access to one of our busiest streets in tourist season. Sprinklers have a lot of trade-offs in the code. Change of use is affected by whether the building is sprinkled or not. If the building is sprinkled, far fewer building code requirements from change of use are triggered, allowing for more businesses over the lifetime of the building at potentially less cost. Public Comment None. IBC: Chapter 36 Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: CBO Birchfield stated there are no wildfire hazard mitigation requirements in the International Building Codes. There is a stand-alone code that can be used for wildfire hazard mitigations but neither CBO Birchfield nor Fire Marshall Mark Robinson would recommend adopting it. The Board of Appeals recommended adopting what Larimer County does so that when they shift we shift with them, with three exceptions. Those exceptions are: (1) in the wildfire hazard area and in the Commercial Downtown zone district, all new roofs and replacement roofs have to be class A coverings, or a component of a minimum one -hour roof assembly. This deters the spread of fires on the rooftops. Almost all new homes have class A shingles; (2) a defensible space would be required when a substantial improvement is proposed; and (3) if the building is in a wildfire RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall hazard area and there is not adequate fire department access or adequate water access as required in the IFC, or if the building is over 5,000 square feet, the building has to be sprinkled. Chair Spooner stated this is a general requirement and does necessarily have any particular application to short-term rentals. 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE The IBC regulates everything the IRC does not. The IRC regulates one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses and their accessory structures (sheds, garages, fences, etc.). Many items are repeated in both codes because they are both primary codes. IRC: R101.2 Scope: CBO Birchfield states this scope is the same one as the IBC. it states that short-term rentals will be regulated by the IPMC with the dwelling life safety survey and all building and structures in Accommodation zone districts shall be regulated by the IBC. IRC: R313.2 One- and Two- Family Dwellings Automatic Fire Systems: CBO Birchfield stated that the amendment will add the following to the code: 2.An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for one- and two- family dwellings which are not located in designated wildfire hazard areas, and comply with all of the following:E a) They are located in residential zone districts. l b) They are not used as vacation rentals. 0 3.An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for one- and two- family dwellings which are located in wildfire hazard areas, and comply with all of the following: I a. They are located in residential zone districts.0 b. They are not used as vacation rentals.0 c. They have adequate fire department access and adequate water supply as required by the International Fire Code. d. All buildings on the lot, including detached accessory buildings, do not exceed 5,000 square feet in total floor area. 4.An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for one- and two- family dwellings used as vacation rentals, and comply with all of the following: a. They are located in residential zone districts. b. They are constructed under permits applied for prior to January 1, 2017. 5. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for one- and two- family dwellings used as vacation rentals, constructed under permits applied for after December 31, 2016 and comply with all of the following: a. They are located in residential zone districts. b. The dwellings are listed for sale. c. The dwellings shall not have been used for vacation rentals prior to being Dlisted for sale. d. The dwellings shall not be used as vacation rentals for more than 6 consecutive months and not more than a total of 6 months. One- and two-family dwellings which do not comply with all of the conditions of this exception shall be required to install an automatic residential fire sprinkler system. This requirement applies whether or not the fire sprinkler system was installed during initial construction. Wildfire hazard areas shall be those designated by the attached map, which is hereby adopted by reference from the Estes Valley Development Code. Interactive map: www.estes.org/maps For the purpose of this Code, residential zone districts do not include accommodations zone districts. The effective date of these provisions shall be January 1, 2017. CBO Birchfield stated exception #5 was added as a result of discussion by the Board of Appeals at their last meeting. This amendment will apply to all residential structures that do not comply with the conditions of this exception requiring the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. This is the only RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall new amendment we've discussed so far that would be retroactive. If this amendment is adopted, if you build your home after January 1, 2017 and convert it to a vacation rental at a later date, you must sprinkle the building at that time. Prior to construction, if you are planning to use the home as a vacation rental, you would sprinkle the building during construction. The Town Board can choose to adopt some, all, or none of these exceptions. CBO Birchfield believes that people have misinterpreted what is being proposed by these amendments. These amendments are lowering the bar. The International Building Codes say that all new one- and two-family dwellings shall have sprinklers, which it has said since 2009. The code says every building must be sprinkled. We adopted a local amendment to exempt one- and two-family homes in the last code cycle. If there is not a local amendment in regards to sprinkler provisions in the IRC, every new home will have to be sprinkled. Frank Theis: He stated that we do not currently require sprinklers in one- and two-family homes. It would be raising the bar to require sprinklers now. Chair Spooner clarified that some confusion may be rising from the fact that the local amendment to exempt one- and two-family homes from sprinklers is part of the currently adopted 2009 International Building Codes. If we adopt the 2015 codes, new local amendments have to be made to match the 2015 International Building Codes. CBO Birchfield read commentary from page 28 of the IRC proposed amendment. In his commentary CBO Birchfield stated that he will not recommend exempting all one- and two-family homes from automatic sprinkler requirements. The proposed amendment will exempt one- and two-family homes from sprinkler systems which do not represent the greatest hazards. If the amendment is adopted as presented it will exempt sprinkler systems all one- and two-family dwellings not in wildfire hazard areas, and not used as vacation rentals. The intent of the amendment is to increase protection of life, property, and emergency responders by not exempting sprinklers when hazards exists that are greater than typical in one- and two-family dwellings. He recommends not exempting sprinkler requirements for one- and two-family dwellings under specific conditions, e.g. if the dwellings are located in wildfire hazard areas and/or used as vacation rentals. Townhouses are currently required to be protected by sprinkler systems and will remain so unless an amendment is approved to change that requirement. If amendments to this code are not approved then all new one- and two-family dwellings will be required to have an automatic sprinkler system. As a community we have to decide if we want all new homes protected by sprinkler systems. CBO Birchfield showed the interactive wildfire hazard map they would use to determine if the new dwelling is in a wildfire hazard area. Some lots may be partially in and partially out of the wildfire hazard area. In that case they would determine where on the lot the building was located. When it is that close they use the Larimer County expert to assist them in determining if there is a wildfire hazard to the building or if it poses a threat to creating a wildfire if there is a house fire. CBO Birchfield continued to read commentary from page 30 of the IRC proposed amendment. If the community wants to protect some one- and two-family dwellings with sprinklers there are things which must be considered. This includes noting that it typically takes 50 years for a change in building code to make a difference in the stock of buildings and that decisions we make now the community will have to live with for the next 100 years. Codes are written for typical buildings. Buildings in Estes Park are smaller than typical buildings and we have non -typical conditions and uses (wildfire concerns and vacation rentals). We have non -typical accommodation units that don't look like hotels in other communities. Larimer County is not requiring sprinklers in most one- and two-family dwellings. They do require them for a new subdivision if the subdivision does not have adequate fire department access or water as per the IFC. If Larimer County isn't requiring sprinklers in most homes, does it matter if we require them when it comes to wildfire hazard? They will be surrounded by forest and we will be surrounded by them. The IRC is written in such a way that it assumes the house is sprinkled because the code requires it, lowering the bar on a bunch of other requirements. When we exempt the sprinklers out, we had to amend other requirements back in to maintain safety standards. There are trade-offs in the code when you install sprinklers. Some insurances companies reduce premiums if you have sprinkler systems. We have a responsibility to the public, including our first responders. During the apartment fire last week, our police officers were getting people out of the building at 4:30 a.m. We have a responsibility to the people who put their lives at risk to save our lives to make these RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 10 buildings as safe as we can make them. Building codes are national standards, but they are not laws. If we have a federal or state law we cannot violate them. Sprinkler systems are not law so we can tweak them to meet our needs. Codes are minimum standards. There is no provision stating that you cannot add sprinkler systems to your home, but if we put the sprinkler provision in the code then we state that is our minimum standard and those homes must now be sprinkled. Both the IBC and the IRC require sprinklers in all buildings containing residential use (hotels, motels, apartments, one- and two- family homes, townhouses, congregate residences, dormitories, etc.). If that is not what we want to do, then we need to decide what we do want to do and add amendments) to the code to clearly explain what we want to do. As hazards increase, life safety requirements also increase. Higher occupancy loads are greater hazards and the code changes to accommodate this. Nightly accommodations are considered the greatest hazard of all residential uses because of unfamiliarity with the building environment. People that are not familiar with their surroundings behave differently than people who are. CBO Birchfield showed some statistics from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 85% of all deaths from fires occur in the home. Home fire sprinklers can control and may extinguish a fire in less time than it takes a fire department to respond. The risk of dying in a fire in your home with an automatic sprinkler system is cut by about 80%. In a home with sprinklers, average property loss is cut by about 70%. In our community, based on preliminary research, it is probably about $2/sq ft to install residential sprinklers. Julie Riechle: She stated that it was her understanding that at the February 25th Board meeting, CBO Birchfield was recommending sprinkler systems in only new construction of vacation rental homes. CBO Birchfield stated that was correct. She asked if CBO Birchfield was now recommending sprinkler systems in all vacation rentals of occupancies of 8 and over. CBO Birchfield stated that was false. He clarified. There had been provisions for vacation rentals of occupancies over eight in the amendments, but because a task force has been created he took all of that language out of the code. It was his understanding the task force would be making recommendations on those larger occupancies. He is only recommending sprinkler systems for vacation rentals built after January 1, 2017 regardless of the occupancy load. Ed Peterson: He asked when the language referring to occupancy of over eight was removed from the code. CBO Birchfield stated it happened today. He had heard about the task force being created by Larimer County and decided to remove that language to avoid being in conflict with them. Ed Peterson stated he was also a member of Larimer County's task force for vacation rentals. The Vacation Home Owners Association would recommend that this be tabled until after the task force can make recommendations. Eric Blackhurst: He stated that there has been some talk today about making sprinklers retroactive in residential properties. He thinks that this is an issue that puts considerable burden on the community. Due to the time limit for this meeting, he would recommend that the Board table this issue and maintain the local amendment of requiring no sprinklers for one- and two-family dwellings until we have more definitive information from the community. We have a unique situation in regards to vacation rentals which has been happening since the late 1800's in Estes Park. We need to consider the uniqueness in our community and not overly burden not just future home owners but current ones who choose to use their homes for vacation rentals. CBO Birchfield stated all reference for vacation home rentals of occupancies greater than eight have been removed. The retroactive sprinkler requirements only apply to homes built after January 1, 2017, and have not been removed. Eric Blackhurst requested that we clarify the definition of "permit", as it creates confusion between building permits and licensing permits. CBO Birchfield agreed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 11 March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Bettye Harrison: She asked how many house fires in Estes Park over the past 10 years were in vacation rentals? CBO Birchfield stated he had no idea. She stated that she belongs to the Estes Park Vacation Rental Owners Association. She was concerned that they were not notified of the proposed changes as a great deal of them greatly affect vacation rentals. She requested that the amendment to retrofit vacation rentals with automatic sprinkler systems regardless of occupancy be tabled until the vacation rental task force recommendations are completed and the Town Board and County Commissioners have a vote on the matter. Chair Spooner stated that he would like to hear from the people that came down so they can add it to their commentary to the Town Board. CBO Birchfield encouraged those associated with an organization that would be affected by the code amendments to provide comments that would be included in the code commentary. Elizabeth Fogarty: Continued with her previous comments. What is unique about renting for less than 30 days vs. the same property renting for longer requiring different regulations for safety, especially having to retroactively install sprinklers? Why are we trying to overregulate one aspect of the industry and not the other? Guests expect to have vacation homes available. International guests tend to stay at homes, and spend more money locally. If vacation home rental numbers are reduced, it will affect the town as a whole. There is a legal issue of any municipality demanding the installation of sprinkler systems from homeowners when fires have not been a threat to those rental units in this community. She does not think fires are a large concern for vacation home rentals. They are looking forward to continued discussions on this topic and optimistic that compromises will be made that address safety concerns while not overregulating or overburdening an important segment of the lodging industry to the point of extinction. She recommends delaying any decisions. She has questions regarding the issue of retroactive sprinkler requirements regarding vacation rentals of occupancies of greater than eight. CBO Birchfield clarified any reference to occupancies greater than eight has been removed from the proposed amendments. CBO Birchfield stated in the proposed sprinkler requirements amendments that the effective date of these provisions be January 1, 2017. If the Town Board adopts only the effective date provision, all new one- and two-family homes will be required to have sprinklers after January 1, 2017. Longmont will be requiring sprinklers in all their buildings after 2019. Vail requires a full sprinkler system and a full alarm system in every new dwelling built, going beyond what the IBC/IRC calls for. There are jurisdictions that do a lot more and there are those that do a lot less. We need to figure out what is best for our community. One thing we can do is adopt the amendment as is and put an effective date in which gives us enough time to address this issue. We have to do some amendment or every new dwelling will have to be sprinkled when the codes are adopted. Elizabeth Fogarty: She stated that she would agree to support what the existing code amendment says in regards to sprinklers, exempting one- and two-family dwellings. Frank Theis: He recommends to not approve the amendment that would put structures typically regulated by the IRC in the accommodations zone districts into the IBC. Code should be driven by uses, these are allowed uses and they should be under the IRC. Thomas Beck: He stated that one option is not to adopt the 2015 codes at all. He has not had time to attend the meetings. He is concerned with the additional snow load requirements, wind load requirements and energy code requirements. He had two clients decide against building in Estes Park due to the expense. Sprinklers are a part of that. He thinks sprinklers are closer to $4/square foot to install. He does not support any one- or two-family homes requiring sprinklers and he does not support structures typically regulated by the IRC in the accommodations zone districts being regulated by the IBC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 12 March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public comment closed. CBO Birchfield stated this is the crux of the issue: There is currently an inequity in requirements for automatic systems between the IRC and IBC caused by local land use regulations which allow vacation home rentals in residential zone districts, and because of the current local amendment to the IRC exempting one- and two-family dwellings from sprinkler requirements. For example; a commercial property owner with a hotel that chooses to build a small structure of three bedrooms with no kitchen would be forced to sprinkle it since it is regulated by the IBC, while a vacation home rental can be built in a residential area that sleeps more people is not currently required to be sprinkled because of our local amendments. It has been said time and time again that we should regulate by use and not by zoning. There is an inequity now. We have accommodation zoning with nightly rentals and if they don't have a kitchen they have to be sprinkled. Other regulations state in a residential district we can build a house with no limits as to occupancy, and they are not required to sprinkle. It is an important decision we have to make. In his commentary in the IRC page 32, CBO Birchfield lists options on how we can resolve this inequity: (1) exempt the sprinkler requirements in the IBC to make them consistent with the local amendment in the IRC; (2) regulate all buildings by their uses not their zoning, requiring all buildings to be sprinkled which have transient residential uses (short-term rentals). This option is presented as a hybrid option; (3) adopt the code as written and require sprinklers in all buildings with residential uses. There are two ways to look at this issue. On one hand, if it is being used for nightly rentals it falls under the IBC. On the other, if it looks like a house it should be treated like one and be regulated by the IRC. There is a 50/50 split between code officials, fire officials, and code experts on this issue. But we have an inequity in our town. Whatever we decide we should be ready to move it to the IBC so that if we have similar structures used in similar ways they are treated the same way. Board and Staff Discussion Chair Spooner asked if the 2009 local amendment to not require sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings could be tweaked to align the IRC and the IBC. CBO Birchfield stated that the amendment could be revised to make it work. Member Schiaffo recommended tabling the discussion on vacation rentals unto the Larimer County task force comes up with their decisions. He believes we need more information. Member Darling stated that the building codes are very important documents. They include life safety issues, and all contractors rely on the building codes to build. The last thing he wants is for something to come up and create a problem for our industry. Many of us own vacation rental properties. This is an important issue and he has a sense that this is an unsettled issue. He does not want to make a decision just yet. Chair Spooner recommends falling back on the existing amendment that exempts one- and two-family homes and have the Town Board adopt that so we can continue as we are for now. Then we wait for the Larimer County task force that is looking vacation rentals for recommendations. We have a lot of opinions and confusion. He recommends we adopt to something we are comfortable with and take the issue back up in a few months when we have more information to resolve sprinklers and vacation rentals. Member Calvin stated it seems that saying regulating everything in the accommodations zones by the IBC would be a repair that doesn't really relate to the problem. The issue is change of use and there is a process for change of use in the IBC. That is what should be enforced to accommodate the problem of buildings uses being changed in the accommodations zone districts. CBO Birchfield stated that there are no changes of use in the IRC, only in the IBC. This is the unlevel playing field. A home can be changed to a vacation rental and fly under the radar, a building in a commercial zone district makes a similar change of use and they are held accountable to the IBC. They get held to a different standard than what single-family homes do. He believes that Chair Spooner is suggesting revising the 2009 amendment to exempt all one- and two-family structures from sprinkler requirements in all zone districts regardless of the use to create that level playing field. They address RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals March 10, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 13 different circumstances. CBO Birchfield stated that the inequity is unreasonable because they are covering the same use. Nightly accommodations are nightly accommodations. Chair Spooner stated that no one argued the 2009 amendment exempting one- and two-family dwellings from sprinkler requirements. We can keep that amendment for 2015 and work on these issues later. Member Calvin made a motion to recommend the Town Board adopt the 2015 International Building Codes, with the exemption of requiring sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings to remain the same as the 2009 local amendment, exactly as it was worded. Vacation rental regulations are tabled until more information is obtained and can be discussed after the adoption of the codes. Member Darling clarified that the Board is recommending that the Town Board adopt the 2015 International Building Codes that have been discussed for the last 18 months, but the Board is not recommending they make changes to the sprinkler code or the vacation rental issues that have been discussed this evening. The 2009 sprinkler amendment language will be brought over to the 2015 codes. Everything else waits until the Larimer County task force has recommendations. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Darling) to recommend the Town Board adopt the 2015 International Building Codes as have been discussed, with no changes to the sprinkler code from the 2009 local amendment exempting one- and two-family dwellings and no amendments specific to vacation rental. The motion passed unanimously. REPORTS None. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Karen Thompsp1)(ecording Secretary