Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2016-11-03RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 November 3, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Darling, Calvin, and Schiaffo Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips, Building Permit Technician Jacki Wiedow, Larimer County Building Official Eric Fried, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Member Klein The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were approximately 20 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 March 10, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve of the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. PURPOSE OF MEETING Chair Spooner explained the purpose of the Board of Appeals. Today's discussion will be regarding building codes as they relate to vacation rentals (VRs) with occupancies for greater than eight. Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield stated the Board of Appeals decided to wait until the County - led task force for VRs concluded before beginning discussions about automatic fire sprinkler systems. The International Residential Code requires sprinklers in all one and two family dwellings, which the Town amended to not require at this time. Additional amendments can be recommended by the Board of Appeals to the Town Board. REVIEW OF VACATION RENTAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS CBO Birchfield stated the task force recommendations were posted on the Town website. He explained the allowance for VRs in single-family dwellings is part of the Estes Valley Development Code, not the International Building Codes. CBO Birchfield read the task force recommendations. He stated the occupant load is what drives the building code requirements, and how the EVDC wants to regulate VRs has nothing to do with the building code. Linda Hardin/Code Compliance Officer stated there have been several discrepancies as to what the applicant indicates are bedrooms and what the County records show. Determining an accurate count of legal bedrooms is a continuous issue of the licensing/permitting process. CBO Birchfield stated the task force recommended no inspections be required. He stated the correct term for "grandfathering" is "legally nonconforming". It was his opinion and that of Town Attorney White that homes used as VRs accommodating nine and above have not been legally conforming uses. It was his position as the CBO that any VR with occupancies greater than eight should be regulated by the International Building Code (IBC) instead of the International Residential Code (IRC). Eric Fried/Larimer County CBO stated dwellings for single-family use can be built under the IRC. In Larimer County, family is defined as a blood -relative, whereas the EVDC defines household living as eight or fewer unrelated individuals living together in a single dwelling unit. The Estes Valley is less restrictive than Larimer County. CBO Fried stated once it is no longer a single-family use, it has to be regulated under the IBC. Larimer County does not want to put a limit on family size. CBO Birchfield stated the Board of Appeals is the recommending body to the Estes Park Town Board. The task force made recommendations for both the Town and County. The majority of existing VRs are in one- and two-family dwellings, built under the IRC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals November 3, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated the IBC is more inclusive and restrictive and detailed than the IRC. The IRC also regulates all accessory structures, while everything else is regulated by the IBC. 2015 IRC with local amendments has been adopted by the elected officials. Today's discussion is only applicable within the town limits. The county has their own building codes. CBO Birchfield stated the building codes state if you change the use or the character of the use, you move from the IRC to the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). Additionally, no change shall be made for the use or occupancy unless you use the IBC. He stated any dwelling built under the IRC but allowing occupancy of greater than eight with transient use would be considered a change of use and should be regulated under the IBC. The R1 classification is for hotels, motels, and other buildings with short-term guests. R1 occupancies are required to have sprinklers. CBO Birchfield's position is if the Town Board chooses to approve VRs for occupancies greater than eight, that is acceptable; however, the way the codes are written, those buildings would be considered a change of use and would require regulation under the IBC. If the Town Trustees want to do that, additional discussion will need to occur to determine what specific amendments would need to be made. He stated the IRC is less restrictive because it is assumed the people in the structure live there full-time and are familiar with the surroundings. Occupants in structures built under the IBC are not assumed to be in the structure on a long-term basis. There was discussion about the amendment made to not require sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings. If property owners decided to install a sprinkler, a standard was added that would allow a plumber to install the system using the IRC. CBO Birchfield stated any residential structure with more than two units is required to be sprinkled. He talked about the inequity in the codes, where the proposed EVDC codes for VRs would be regulated by zoning, where building codes regulate by uses and the hazards associated with those uses, with no relation to what zone district the building is in. Therefore, there is conflict between the Development Code and the International Residential Code. CBO Birchfield stated there were several proposed building code local amendments that were tabled until the task force made its recommendations. These tabled items included a provision for life -safety inspections in buildings rented for not more than 30 days; a requirement for buildings rented for not more than 30 days to comply with the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC); a requirement for some single-family dwellings to have fire sprinkler systems, depending on location, water supply, size, short-term rental, etc.; requirement for wildfire hazard mitigation. There was brief discussion regarding ADA requirements in the IBC which may or may not be applicable for short-term rentals. CBO Birchfield stated the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) was adopted and amended, taking out all requirements for single-family homes, and all regulations related to the premises. Anything regulated by the IBC also has the IPMC involved. There was a proposed amendment for the IPMC that was tabled, which stated references to residential structures shall not include structures regulated by the IRC, except for those used as short-term rentals. CBO Birchfield suggested the Board of Appeals look at VRs for eight and below separate from those greater than eight, or to draft some code amendments to address both. The issues mentioned by the Board members included inspections, sprinklers, occupant levels, handicap accessibility, enforcement, and hazards associated with large homes. CBO Birchfield stated the Board of Appeals could wait to see what the elected officials decide, then make amendments to the building codes following that decision. There was discussion about amendments for sprinklers, specifically the desire to require sprinklers in some large single-family homes located in wildfire hazard areas or those without adequate water supply. Concerning life safety inspections, CBO Birchfield stated if the decision was made to inspect VRs, you should do them all. The assumption is never that people are intentionally trying to skirt the rules, but rather they just do not realize how serious or complicated they are. Discussion occurred regarding the requirement of egress windows; if a room was approved for sleeping, it needs an egress of at least four square feet. If a basement was illegally finished with no proper egress, the property RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals November 3, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall owner should have pulled a building permit. The IEBC would be used. CBO Birchfield stated a written policy was needed regarding egress windows and change of use. PUBLIC COMMENT Ed Peterson/town resident was a member of the task force. He stated families with more than nine would take their vacations elsewhere if they were unable to stay in a house large enough to accommodate the entire group. He read a statement that can be found on the Town website at www.estes.org/vacationrentals. He stated requiring existing licensed VRs to be sprinkled would be expensive and look tacky and would cause many large VRs to go out of business. Lindsey Lamson/VR owner and property manager stated many people think VRs are residential uses, while others say VRs are considered a high risk to the neighborhoods. He was concerned that regulating VRs under the IBC was going to be used to shut down large VRs. CBO Birchfield stated VRs need to be addressed as building code issues, and the end result may shut down some VRs. He disagreed with manipulating the code to shut down large VRs. If the use changes, it can trigger other code requirements. In many cases, changes are not economically feasible. The determination needs to be made as to when a VR with occupancies of greater than eight becomes a small hotel, and whether there is really substantially more risk for greater than eight. CBO Birchfield added additional requirements become effective once you reach 20 occupants. Part of the problem is not having accurate data to determine VRs in a residential setting, as there are many VRs located in Commercial or Accommodations zone districts. He encouraged the Board to consider the financial impact the adopted regulations and amendments will have and make sure there are no unintended consequences. Mr. Lamson stated noise and parking are the main problem issues with VRs, and there has not been a tracking mechanism for accidents, fires, etc. He stated if sprinklers were required in VRs, they should be required in all residential dwellings. Dick Spielman/task force member stated the task force voted only on setbacks and lot size. Elizabeth Fogarty/Estes Area Lodging Association Director agreed with Mr. Peterson and Mr. Lamson. She stated not one community that has reduced the number of VRs when additional regulations are adopted; they just go underground. VRs are not going to go away, no matter how much they are regulated. Bettye Peterson/town resident provided statistics on VRs listed on VRBO.com for the Estes Park area. Overall, VRBO shows 23 VRs that have six or more bedrooms. Chair Spooner stated the Board had received statistical information on VRs, based on VR licenses/permits issued. Millicent Cozzie/town resident was a task force member because she supports multi -generational family vacations. Occupancies of nine and above would provide for those opportunities. She supported sprinklers in new construction. She did not support retrofitting requirements, no matter the size of the VR. Her biggest concern is there are small hotels that are not sprinkled, and if the Town Board and County Commissioners were going to allow VRs for nine and above and require sprinklers, then the unsprinkled small hotels should also be required to install sprinklers. Fred Mares/town resident stated he was on the task force, and as he recollects it, grandfathering was mentioned in the sense that it was to apply to lot size and setbacks only (see Terry Gilbert's memo). Change of use was also mentioned in the task force meetings. If these things are important, he recommended they review the task force minutes to see what really happened in the meeting, rather than rely on the recollections of the members. Note: Task Force minutes can be viewed at www.estes.orq/vacationrentals, under the Timeline drop down box. He stated if the industry is over- regulated, it will go underground. Public comment closed. STAFF AND MEMBER DISCUSSION Larimer County CBO Fried stated the county has not come to any conclusions with the task force recommendations. They would wait for the Commissioner's decision before proposing any amendments. He stated if it was no longer a single-family use, it would no longer be under the IRC. The Town and County Building Departments work hard to keep codes in alignment. If changes were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 4 November 3, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall proposed, he would allow the Town to review them prior to adoption. He stated the IEBC becomes involved with change of use and accessibility issues. There was discussion among staff and the Board members, including but not limited to: • accessibility requirements • the fact it will not be a one -size -fits -all approach • at what point would the IBC be triggered • the option to propose local amendments to the building codes • safety of the occupant drives the building codes • VRs are a massive part of the Estes Park economy • large numbers of accidents take place on stairs • financial implications to building owners, and the fact that financial issues cannot be used in decisions or interpretations of the codes once they are adopted • it is a no -win situation for the Board, because either way they recommend will be detrimental to someone • it is all about familiarity of the location where the guests are staying • nation-wide, the VR industry is growing at an incredible rate • designers and contractors will need to think about how they approach construction, being aware of client's desires, both current and in the future • there are safety and insurance benefits in sprinkled buildings • why should hotels and motels be held to a higher standard with sprinkler requirements than single-family homes that are being used the same way • maybe property managers should be required to follow a certain format to provide valley -wide consistency • there could be serious risk hazards in a large house, where people unfamiliar with the layout would have difficulty escaping in an emergency • bottom line is safety, but property owners should be allowed the financial benefit of having a VR if they so desire • a clear understanding is needed before we can make any recommendations Chair Spooner requested specifics about what the Board of Appeals needed to make recommendations on. It was determined the main issues regarding the building codes and vacation rentals are: 1. Requirement of fire sprinkler systems in VRs a. All VRs? b. Only VRs with occupancies greater than eight? c. Only VRs located in wildfire hazard areas? d. Only VRs with other designated hazards? 2. Inspections of VRs a. Life -safety inspections? b. Is there any difference between short-term and long-term rentals when it comes to inspections? 3. Occupancy Load 4. Accessibility CBO Birchfield stated the only thing on the list for inspections of VRs were issues that applied to single family homes. Accessibility was not included. He stated the building code has "R" classifications: R1 contains the rules for transient buildings (not more than 30 days); R2 applies to buildings used for more than 30 days (apartments, etc.); R3 applies to one- and two-family dwellings (in the building code due to the possibility of mixed -use structures). In the IBC and the IRC, all of those classifications must be sprinkled. The Town amended the codes for one- and two-family dwellings out of the residential code, so no sprinklers are required in those dwellings. CBO Birchfield stated it's all about life safety issues. The real questions is this: When does a single-family home become a small hotel? Depending on the answer, the Board could make recommendations to the Town Board. The way the current code is written is if occupancy goes over eight, it will have to be regulated by the IBC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals November 3, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Regarding inspections, CBO Birchfield stated the size of VRs should not be discriminated against. If you inspect one, you inspect all. As originally proposed, one initial inspection would be required in order to obtain the license, then only as deemed necessary. Property owners and managers do not realize the intricacies of the building codes and are not familiar with the technical aspects. There is a big difference between residential and commercial. Director Hunt stated there is a schedule underway for approval of the Estes Valley Development Code regulations for VRs. The Planning Commission is the recommending body to the Town Board and County Commission. A Planning Commission meeting will be held November 15, and public comment will be taken. The meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board room. A Special Planning Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, November 29th at 1:30 p.m. to allow additional comment, and it is anticipated the Commissioners will provide a formal recommendation to the Town Board and County Commission at that meeting. Then, on December 15th at 6 p.m., a joint public hearing of the Town Board and County Commission will held in the Town Board room to review the draft amendments to the EVDC. The goal is to reach a decision on December 15, 2016. Director Hunt stated he would appreciate input as close to final as possible by the target date of December 15th. This issue has been going on for an extended period of time and the community needs to have closure. Amendments can be made at a later date. The essence of planning is predictability, which means giving the community something they can come to grips with, whether that be good, bad, or indifferent. Chair Spooner stated the Board of Appeals makes recommendations only for the Town, while the Planning Commission represents both the Town and unincorporated Estes Valley. CBO Birchfield stated the Board could make a recommendation to amend the code by clearly defining the definition of single-family dwelling. This might include VRs with occupancies for eight and under, which would make it very clear which building code would be used. The Board could table discussion on VRs with occupancies of greater than eight until a decision was made by the Town Board and County Commission. The Board and staff need to make a decision as to when a single-family home being used as a vacation rental becomes a small hotel. Member Calvin stated VR inspections and fire sprinkler systems are not closely related. To have one of these issues resolved at the next meeting would be a good goal to reach. Member Schiaffo suggested having a special Board of Appeals meeting following the November 29th Planning Commission meeting. The Board agreed to hold a special meeting on Thursday, December 1, 2016 from 4-6 p.m. in the Town Board room. Director Hunt agreed on the December 1st meeting date, with a recommendation expected from the Board. There was brief discussion about the differences between a single-family home and a small hotel. Comments included but were not limited to: you don't see many single-family homes with more than five bedrooms; two people per bedroom plus two in a five bedroom home would be twelve (12) occupants; the Board would need to be prepared to make recommendations for amendments to the building codes, with the issue still being the inequity between single-family dwellings used as vacation rentals and small hotels, because sprinklers are not required in the dwellings but are required in small hotels; the EVDC is regulating buildings by zone districts; staff will gather information to provide to the Board regarding the definitions; it would be helpful to draft code amendments in the format of the proposed local amendments for better understanding. The next Board of Appeals meeting will be Thursday, December 1, 2016 from 4-6 p.m. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Johl(Spooner, Chair �vI Karen Thom son R ordin� Secretary p y