Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2016-12-08RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, 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 Darling The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were approximately 30 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 November 3, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve 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 (BOA). Today's discussion will be regarding building codes as they relate to vacation homes (VHs) with occupancies greater than eight. The BOA consists of members that are experts in their field. Normally, the BOA would be addressing issues related to an interpretation of the code applied by the Chief Building Official. The BOA is the avenue for appeals of those decisions. The BOA only deals with issues within the town limits. Larimer County has their own BOA. The Town Trustees is the decision -making body for any BOA recommendations. CBO stated that Don Darling has moved outside the Estes Valley Development Code area. The bylaws do not have any residency requirement in order to serve on this Board. He will still be on the Board, but was not available for today's meeting. CBO Birchfield stated the consent to be governed must come from the people, and he was pleased to have community members in attendance. He stated the codes are confusing to those not versed in the language. Once the codes are adopted, designers and contractors must build to those codes. The adopted codes are the minimum requirements. The codes recognize the responsibility to first responders that are putting their lives at risk to protect us and our property. Interpretation of the codes should not be affected by economics or future impact to any party. Once codes are adopted, economic impact cannot be considered. CBO Birchfield explained his authority to enforce the provisions of the building codes, and must enforce all aspects of all the adopted codes. Local amendments are adopted where applicable. CBO Birchfield presented his interpretation of the building codes as they relate to vacation rentals. This document can be viewed at www.estes.org/BoardOfAppeals. Greg Rosener stated the difference between the IBC and IRC was still not clear to him. CBO Birchfield stated if you are building a single-family dwelling on one lot, it would be regulated by the IRC. A two -unit dwelling (duplex) would also be regulated by the IRC. Townhomes (side by side, with openings on front and back, with independent ingress/egress on each unit) are regulated by the IRC. All accessory structures associated with those dwellings are regulated by the IRC. If the structure does not fall into one of those categories, it is regulated by the IBC. The IBC includes commercial uses, mixed -use buildings, stacked triplexes, etc. Work on existing buildings is regulated by the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). CBO Birchfield stated the IRC says if you change the use and it is no longer a dwelling, you must follow the IEBC. Any change in that use requires a change of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall use permit and a new certificate of occupancy. The plans for the change of use must comply with the code for that specific use and type of construction. Certificates of Occupancy are issued for the use as described in the building permit. There are some significant differences between residential and commercial structures (stairs, ADA, etc.) The IBC's definition of dwelling is "any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built and used, rented, leased, let, or hired out to be occupied or that are occupied for living purposes." Refer to #4 of the Official Interpretation or listen at minute 38:08. According to the building codes, the classification for transient use (not more than 30 days) is a hotel. After much thought and peer discussion, it was determined that a change of use permit, inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy are required before a dwelling may legally be used as a vacation home. This is the case regardless of the number of occupants. CBO Birchfield reminded the Board that the requirement for automatic sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings was removed by local amendment with the adoption of the 2015 codes. CBO Birchfield, Members Joe Calvin and Don Darling, and Fire Marshall Marc Robinson met several weeks ago to complete a sample code analysis on changing a single-family dwelling to a vacation rental, as regulated by the IEBC. Member Calvin explained what would happen if the code is not amended. His presentation can be read at www.estes.org/BoardOfAppeals . The document is titled "What are the Requirements if dwellings used as vacation homes are regulated by the IEBC?" The group considered whether or not a vacation home is a suite of rooms. When comparing a house to a hotel, a hotel is many suites, and in the hotel, all suites have to stand independent with fire walls, bathrooms, etc. A home is many bedrooms, but it was determined that fire rating requirements did not apply. A vacation home is considered a single suite of rooms. Requirements that have to be met, if not amended: sprinklers required; fire alarms and detection required; means of egress; stairway geometry needs to comply with the IBC, however, in a vacation home situation where a single-family dwelling is becoming an R-1, stair geometry would not need to be changed because that would be considered not feasible per the IEBC; multiple means of egress if there are people sleeping in upstairs rooms (in buildings over 2000 square feet), a second exit would be required from the upper level; egress windows or doors are required in every sleeping room; fire walls would not be required between rooms; height and area requirements would not apply to most vacation rentals (it would be applicable to three-story homes, 7000 square feet or larger); probably not any issues with the construction of exterior walls; handicap accessibility requirements include an accessible entrance requirement, and accessible route from a parking space to the accessible entrance and to all primary functions in the building (sleeping rooms, living rooms, kitchen, bathroom, etc.); certain amount of signage that identifies accessibility; parking and loading zones; doing a change of occupancy does not require a restroom to be accessible. However, restroom improvements could be triggered with other changes to the structure (remodels, additions, etc.). If something is technically infeasible, there are some exceptions that allow the waiver of the requirements. Member Calvin stated the ADA is Federal law, and the Board of Appeals does not have the authority to amend Federal law. Caution must be taken in any proposed amendments regarding accessibility. CBO Birchfield stated the change of use requirement was a Division of Building Safety Policy. When he found the provision in the EVDC about vacation homes, there was no adopted residential code, only the building code. There was no Existing Building Code. He stated the bar was lowered when sprinkler systems were exempted from single- family dwellings, and it would be lowered more by allowing more occupants in those dwellings. CBO Birchfield will request direction from the elected officials, as he will no longer unilaterally not require a change of use for vacation homes. The Board of Appeals can make any recommendations to the elected officials they feel is necessary. Following the Board's recommendations, draft code language will be written and presented to the elected officials. Chair Spooner stated six written public comments were received. Of those, five were supportive of sprinklers in vacation homes, and the other was from the owner of a large vacation rental and was opposed to sprinkler and ADA requirements due to the difficulty of the installation. Public Comment Chairs Spooner stated public comment should be limited only to building code issues relating to vacation rentals. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall George Leonard/county property owner was opposed to the change of use requirement for vacation homes. Jeff Moreau/town property owner recommended an amendment to reduce the financial burden to those that wanted to rent their homes as vacation homes. Greg Rosener/town property owner stated additional regulations would cause the elimination of many vacation homes, which would have an impact on the local ecomony. CBO Birchfield stated there is no definition for vacation home in the building codes. Elizabeth Fogarty/town resident stated the vacation home industry will move underground if rules are too strict, and we should find a compromise. Bob Fixter/town property owner stated his large vacation home was retrofitted with sprinklers and is ADA compliant. Being code compliant is part of the responsibility of being a vacation home owner. John Grady/county resident and vacation home owner stated the financial burden of some possible requirements could be financially devastating to him. He was supportive of large vacation homes. CBO Birchfield stated his recommendation would be to classify existing vacation homes with occupancies of eight and under and licensed as of December 31, 2016, as legally nonconforming. A change of use permit and inspection would be required. If there were no violations, a certificate of occupancy would be issued. Sprinklers and ADA compliance would not be required. Director Hunt stated federal and state laws read that more than eight people is classified as a group home, which is the reasoning behind the occupancy of eight. Seth Smith/property manager stated a solution to the problem would be to define a vacation home. Member Calvin stated the economic issue is intermingled with the code. Economic feasibility is taken into consideration in regard to accessibility (because accessibility is not life -safety). Tony Schetzsle/town resident wanted equal protection for equal uses. Vacation rentals have taxable income, and should be considered a business. Ed Peterson/town resident was supportive of new regulations for new construction. Estes Park should use common sense when creating new regulations for vacation rentals. Public Comment closed. Staff and Member Discussion CBO Birchfield stated now is the time to consider economic impact. Once the code and/or local amendments are adopted, he cannot consider economics. CBO Birchfield stated the potential recommendations he presented would be for vacation homes that are currently licensed. The elected officials could reduce the type of sprinkler system required. Director Hunt stated the Town Trustees and County Commissioners will meet December 15, 2016. It is important we have a unified (town/county) path moving forward. While the building code and development code are separate documents, alignment is strongly encouraged. The Larimer County Board of Appeals will also be meeting and providing recommendations to the County Commissioners regarding this issue. The building codes are a large part of the decision -making process, and the Board of Appeals may need additional time to deliberate and provide recommendations. Eric Fried/Larimer County Building Official stated the Town and County are in agreement that once you go from a single-family dwelling to a vacation home, you have a change of occupancy and should move to the IBC. The County building department works hard to keep the county building codes in alignment with the Town building codes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 4 December 8, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield and Director Hunt agreed an acceptable approach would be a policy direction from the elected officials. Director Hunt provided additional information about the December 15th meeting, stating he was hopeful a decision on EVDC amendments would be made. It was acceptable for the building code amendments to take a bit longer. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Joh ► Spooner, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary