Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2015-08-06RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 August 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling Also Attending: Chief Building Official Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Senior Building Permit Technician Charlie Phillips, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson, Fire Marshall Marc Robinson Absent: Member Schiaffo The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were no members of the public in the audience. Chair Spooner opened the meeting, stating this meeting would be a review of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). This code has not been part of the adopted codes, and is being reviewed for possible adoption for the first time this year. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from July 2, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Darling) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2015 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC) Prior to the International Building Codes, the Town adopted the Uniform Building Codes, which included the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. This code was rarely used. CBO Birchfield gave a brief history of the Building Codes and when other codes were brought in to the Town, including but not limited to the Energy and Fire Codes. He stated both the Uniform Code for the Abatement for Dangerous Buildings and the International Property Maintenance Code were written to address hazardous conditions in buildings. Currently, CBO Birchfield is not authorized to act unless the building is in imminent danger of collapse or other dangers deemed dangerous for public safety and welfare. The IPMC is a companion code to the Fire Code. For the most part, it is the building code that determines whether automatic sprinklers or fire alarm/suppression systems are required. There are times the developers choose to sprinkle so they can increase the size of the building or add an additional floor. As an example, CBO Birchfield explained a building could be built larger than normal if a sprinkler system was installed. The sprinkler system would require proper maintenance, which is where the IPMC would come into effect. Another example would be an existing building that is not undergoing any construction, but should have done work to make the building safe. The IPMC would allow the Division of Building Safety to inspect the building and require the needed maintenance. The IPMC is used to ensure the building is being maintained, including but not limited to fuel gas appliances that may be malfunctioning. The IPMC could require property owners to replace dangerous appliances. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 August 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall In larger jurisdictions, a code like this is used to inspect all residential rental properties (AKA the Anti- Slum Code). Some have a regular inspection program. Other jurisdictions base their inspections on complaints. It would be his recommendation that if the elected officials decide to adopt this code, it would be based upon complaints. CBO Birchfield stated it should be noted that staff is authorized to initiate a complaint. He explained the importance of exhausting all options before condemning a building. Hopefully the property owner would be cooperative. A letter from an engineer stating the building was stable may be required. CBO Birchfield clarified the IPMC deals with safety of walls, foundations, equipment, etc. Mold is not addressed in the IPMC. CBO Birchfield stated if the Board of Appeals is considering recommending adopting the IPMC, details would be provided to the elected officials. Chair Spooner stated he had a conversation with a local designer who has a significant list of issues concerning the IPMC. CBO Birchfield stated if the Town Board is considering adopting the IPMC, a copy of the code would be available in the Division of Building Safety and the Library as reference materials. The goal is for the Board of Appeals to make a recommendation at today’s meeting as to whether or not to proceed with adopting the IPMC. Additional public outreach would occur if the Town Board directs staff to proceed. The Town Board will need to provide direction as to any limitations on the adoption of the IPMC. CBO Birchfield suggested, if the Town Board wishes to pursue adoption, having the IPMC issues be complaint based, excluding one- and two-family dwellings, and excluding all perimeter issues (e.g. outside rubbish, etc.). He stated the public needs to understand the scope of the code. The Town is empowered by the State to protect the public (adoption of building codes). By allowing that empowerment, staff does not have the authority to violate the constitutional rights of property owners. It’s about voluntary consent unless the situation is very bad, and then he would have to get a warrant from the court. A lot of times, people really do not understand how complicated and sensitive the systems are and do not know the consequences of not maintaining them. There was brief discussion concerning the adoption of the Fire Code a few years ago. CBO Birchfield stated there was both support and opposition to the adoption of that code. It was important to find out from the public what their concerns were and do their best to address their concerns. If there were concerns that were not resolved, the Town Board was aware of the concerns and the reasons behind them. He stated the codes are adopted by the elected officials, and staff administers it. It is a community decision, and he hopes the community will provide comment. CBO Birchfield stated the Constitutional language is very strong about search and seizure concerning single-family homes. That is the basis for recommending removal of residential one- and two-family homes from the IPMC. The commercial codes are different in that they are public buildings. He stated it is very important to ensure property rights will not be violated. If there is reason to believe the building is dangerous, the IPMC would allow him to investigate, with the owner’s permission. He stated he is more comfortable recommending adoption of this code than he is doing business without it, and it does provide some guidance. CBO Birchfield added a multi-family building is different than a one- or two-family buildings. What one person does in one unit of a multi-family building put all others in the building at risk. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 August 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield reminded the Board that the elected officials set the philosophy for Town staff concerning enforcement, public safety, etc. If it is in the code, the CBO is empowered and directed to enforce the provisions. If you do not want it to be done, it needs to be removed via a local amendment. If a decision by the Building Official is appealed, all of the building code requirements up to that point on are hold until the appeal is heard by the Board of Appeals. CBO Birchfield reiterated the importance of obtaining permission from the property owner or having a judicial warrant before inspecting a property for compliance. Comments concerning the IPMC included but were not limited to: recommended removing the portion of the code concerning weeds, junk vehicles, rodents, etc. that are already covered in our development and municipal codes; the square footage sizes in Table 404.5 seems to be rather large for today’s trends; this is a maintenance code, not a building code; one of the purposes of this code is to try to keep too many people from sleeping in one space, for life safety reasons; if we decide to move forward, it would be recommended to remove portions agreed upon by the Board; the State electrical inspector enforces State regulations as well being authorized to assist the Town with electrical requirements in the municipal code; the majority of the time, property owners do not intentionally let things degrade to where they become unsafe, they just do not realize the complexity of some of the systems; the IPMC would be worth adopting in some reduced form; if a notice of violation was issued and the property owner appealed, the case would be heard by the Board of Appeals; this code would not be used very often, and there is nothing CBO Birchfield would add at this time; the intent of the code is to protect the public, whether it is safe or not safe; there is at least one building downtown in danger of collapsing, and adopting this code would open the need for certain structural modifications; Estes Park has a large number of unstable buildings with zero lot lines, so structural engineers need to make sure everything is good all the way to the ground; if the structural engineer has concerns, they will want to bring in a soils engineer, and it could have the snowball effect. CBO Birchfield stated in the Existing Building Code (IEBC), it is the responsibility of the designer to prove that the construction work you are doing has no negative effect on the existing structure where the loads are applied. In the remodel of a commercial building, it is the designer’s responsibility to make sure that if the structure is altered in any way, it does not diminish the load bearing capacity of the existing building. The commercial code is different than the residential code; however, load bearing capacity is still reviewed in the alteration of residential structures. CBO Birchfield stated life safety issues are much greater than structural issues in commercial buildings in Estes Park. The IPMC is designed for determining if it is dangerous or not, and if the public is or is not at risk. Between Inspector Traufield and CBO Birchfield are decades of experience and they can usually tell right away if things aren’t right. If there is a complaint against a property owner, they would ask for permission to follow through with the complaint. It is not the intent of the code to go looking for things that are not right in buildings. He stated even without the IPMC, staff feels an obligation to investigate complaints. Currently, it depends on how serious it is. If is not an issue where the public is in imminent danger, staff is not authorized to require corrections be made. Staff could RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 4 August 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall notify the property owner about what the danger is, but could not require the property owner to take action. If the IPMC is adopted, staff could take action (utility shut off, stop work order, etc.). Fire Marshall Marc Robinson stated he was supportive of adopting the IPMC. Every day he sees what is being discussed today. On average, he inspects potential violations about five times per week. He stated there are a lot of buildings in the community that are extremely dangerous, and it is very important to have the ability to address serious safety concerns. He feels he has a responsibility to the community to make sure they are taken care of. Once he has educated the property owner as to why it isn’t safe, 95 to 98% of the people are on board with making the necessary corrections. He is appreciative of the buy-in of the community with the Fire Code. People call him to ask for annual inspections, and thank him for pointing out potential problems. He stated the IPMC would give the community the authority to identify the unsafe situations and make them safe. The Estes Valley Development Code and the Estes Park Municipal Code take care of a lot of the exterior issues that could be deleted from the IPMC. He thinks the community would be supportive of a code that would ensure building safety. Some retroactive requirements in the Fire Code will be required to be addressed by 2016, and property owners are gearing up for that. Overall, property owners want to make sure their buildings are safe. CBO Birchfield stated he is not proposing annual inspections by the building official. However, if the Fire Marshall notices something during an annual inspection, it would be helpful for the building official to be able to use an adopted IPMC as a guide. Inspector Claude Traufield stated he came to Estes Park from a large municipality that had property maintenance codes. He stated he would not be driving around town looking for violations. That is not the intent of the IPMC, nor is it the culture of the Division of Building Safety. He stated if the IPMC was adopted, the benefits he thinks he will see are (1) If there was a condition where the reality is not as severe as perceived, and education made them aware, it would still be documented. As time goes by there would be documentation that could remediate some of the concerns; (2) as time goes by, he believes that the “opening of the can of worms” would lessen, creating a better environment for contractors in knowing what they are getting into with a job. A concern he would like the Board to convey to the Town Board is that there is already a municipal code that prohibits someone from picking on their neighbor by calling in multiple violations when there is no basis for the violations. There are some situations in Estes where that might apply. Through documentation, staff could show the complaints are not valid, and/or show that it is the same person complaining and if the IPMC was adopted, there would be provisions that would not allow harassment. He stated he would be willing to work with the property owner to come into compliance. Inspector Traufield was supportive of the adoption of the IPMC. CBO Birchfield explained how the process would work. Once a notice of violation and order to abate the violation was issued, a building permit would be required to remedy the situation. The building permit and subsequent inspections would be the tracking process to make sure the violation is abated. People have asked him why he hasn’t done certain things concerning property maintenance, and he has had to tell them he does not have the authority. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 5 August 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated if the Board of Appeals decides to support the adoption of the IPMC, it is up to the Board to amend what they think should be amended. If adopted by the elected officials, the Building Official would be the person directed to administer the code. He stated staff works at the will of the elected officials. There was discussion among the Board about drafting proposed amendments. Comments included but were not limited to: The Town Board still needs to give clear direction as to whether or not to pursue the adoption of this code; the Board of Appeals members could recommend local amendments to this code; there has been enough conversation to know it is an important matter and thinks the Board needs to discuss it more before making a recommendation to the Town Board; when the IBC was adopted, the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings was put on the back burner and the Town now has no authorization to act on anything; something of this nature is needed and the Board would like to review it in more depth and present their recommendations to the Board of Trustees; CBO Birchfield will present a statement of support to the elected officials from the Board of Appeals; if the elected officials were supportive of adopting the IPMC, public outreach by staff and the Board of Appeals would take place. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Klein) to direct CBO Birchfield to address the Town Board concerning the consideration of adopting the International Property Maintenance Code. General recommendations being considered for local amendments would be eliminating exterior property areas and excluding one- and two-family dwellings. Additional consideration and public outreach will be provided prior to the Board of Appeals making a formal recommendation for adoption. End of discussion of IPMC. REPORTS CBO Birchfield stated the September meeting will be reviewing the International Fire Code. If time allows, we could work on other tabled items. He would recommend saving the IPMC for last, and would not hesitate to wait until 2016 to adopt it. The remaining codes (Fire, Energy, Existing Building) should be relatively easy to review. It may be necessary to hold additional meetings to allow the public the opportunity to learn more about the IPMC and provide comments. The process is more important than the deadline, and it is very important to make sure the integrity of the process is maintained. The public needs to be allowed the opportunity to be a part of the discussion. CBO Birchfield read an email received from Larimer County CBO Eric Fried concerning wind and snow loads. Larimer County is leaning towards keeping the current wind and snow loads, and not adopting the three wind load maps based on risk category. He would like to harmonize the snow and wind loads across the Estes Valley. CBO Birchfield would support a snow load based on a formula where elevation is considered. Hopefully the Town and County could reach a compromise. Comments included but were not limited to: it makes sense to align the snow loads between Town and County, as it makes it easier for designers and architects; at the last Structural Engineers Association of Colorado (SEAC) meeting it was stated previous snow loads for mountain communities were a little high and snow loads for plans communities were a little low; 40 pounds per square foot (psf) would be acceptable to Chair Spooner; during the blizzard of 2003 there were no structural failures, and buildings were built to 40 psf; one Board member supported staying with the existing code, and using RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 6 August 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the table in the IBC with the ultimate wind speed; it is important to stay with what is written in the code to make the transition to the 2015 codes easier, especially for non-local designers. CBO Birchfield reported the first draft of the Larimer County Building Code Local Amendments were distributed to the Board. CBO Birchfield reported Community Development Director Alison Chilcott has directed a consultant to do a fee study. Additional information will be brought to the Board once it is received. CBO Birchfield reported staff is having some issues with the Temporary Certificates of Occupancy (TCO) that have been issued. The work required to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is not being completed. Effective immediately, an administrative policy has been put into place to allow TCOs be issued with one month expiration dates. This will allow staff to better track the outstanding TCOs, and encourage the contractors to get the required work completed, inspected, finaled, and the CO issued. When people do not voluntarily comply with the regulations (obtaining a CO) it takes a lot of staff time to follow up with these projects; thus, taking staff away from completing plan reviews, inspections, etc. that are in the queue. An added benefit will be the lesser effect on adjacent property owners having to deal with never-ending construction processes. CBO Birchfield reported he will be recommending to the Town Board collecting a non-refundable deposit for plan reviews at the time of submittal. This will be presented with the new proposed fee schedule. The Division of Building Safety has one entire file drawer full of permits that have been reviewed by multiple departments and never picked up (or paid for) by the applicants. CBO Birchfield reported staff is struggling with decisions concerning egress windows (emergency escape and rescue openings). The current code requires them to be no more than 44 inches off of the floor to the open area of the opening, certain widths, certain heights, must open directly to the outside, etc. Purpose of the size is to allow enough space for residents to get out and firefighters to get in and out wearing their full bunker gear. The issue at hand is when the Division of Building Safety receives applications for window replacements and staff determines none of the windows in the building are egress. CBO Birchfield explained where grandfathering comes into play, which would not require the property owner to increase the opening size to accept egress windows. If grandfathering is in place, the property owner is only required to maintain the building to the code that was in place at the time the building was built. Whenever you change code cycles, existing buildings do not have to bring their buildings up to code, with the exception of smoke alarms. If you’re doing electrical work during a remodel, you are required to hard-wire the smoke alarms. Addressing is also retroactive. The issue is there are buildings in town that were permitted many years ago, but the windows were never large enough from the start. The current owner hasn’t planned on making structural changes, and only wants to replace windows size for size. This is a very complicated issue for something that looks simple on the surface. Egress windows are proven to save lives. CBO Birchfield stated he was not looking for a decision, but requesting feedback as to how to address this issue. Fire Marshall Robinson stated smoke alarms are by far the most important thing to have to get you up and out of the house. There was discussion among the Board concerning this issue. CBO Birchfield stated according to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 7 August 6, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall building codes, any time the building official gives approval for something that does not meet code, that approval is invalid. When the inspector signed off on the inspection record card, his signature was invalid. It was the responsibility of the designer, builder, and building inspector to make sure those windows were the right size, and all three of them missed it. It makes it very difficult for CBO Birchfield to make a decision. He asked the Board to think about this and provide some direction at a future meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m. ___________________________________ John Spooner, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary