Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2016-02-25RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 February 25, 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, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Senior Building Permit Technician Charlie Phillips, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson, Fire Marshall Marc Robinson Absent: Member Darling The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were four people in attendance. Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from November 11, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting. Minutes from January 14, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve of the November 11, 2015 minutes as presented meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Schiaffo/Klein) to approve of the January 14, 2016 minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES Chair Spooner stated this has been a tremendous amount of effort on staff’s part to get these local amendments on paper. The BOA has been meeting for over a year working on these codes, and we are coming to the end of the process. Chief Building Official (CBO) Birchfield stated he would first address the significant changes. As time allows, he would then review all the proposed local amendments. Non-significant changes are either local amendments we are already using, a downgrade from current adopted code, or we are adding an amendment to return the code to where it is now. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Chair Spooner stated if members of the public want to comment, he would prefer if they speak up at the time of the discussion. CBO Birchfield requested that the board do the same in taking a position on each item, stating if they disagree or support it. On the website, www.estes.org/icodes, are the proposed local amendments and information on the code adoption process. None of the documents are final until approved and adopted by the Town Board. The public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at the regular Town Board meeting. This will be when the Town Board may make the final decision to approve, not to approve, approve with changes or to table the issue of adopting these codes as presented. Following tonight’s meeting, there will be another public meeting on March 10, 2016, to allow any other public comments. Documents are subject to change depending on feedback from the Board of Appeals and/or the public. It is important that CBO Birchfield keep the Town Board informed of staff, Board of Appeals, and stakeholder positions on these issues. These documents will be updated on the web every Monday, and a revision date will be posted, until they are finalized. Chair Spooner explained how the final document will read once adopted. The published document lists the exact verbiage of the local amendments being made to the code. The significant change document picks out those amendments which are of controversy or of significant differences and will have the exact verbiage of the change to the code and commentary to explain the reasoning behind the significant change. CBO Birchfield states that as time goes on, there will be an additional document added with commentary for every proposed local amendment, not just the significant changes. CBO Birchfield states that there are two primary codes in the International Codes, the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC). The IBC addresses everything the IRC does not. The IRC addresses one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses and their accessory structures. Everything else is under the IBC. In the IBC, seven other codes are adopted by reference – the International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), the International Mechanical Code (IMC), the International Plumbing Code (IPC), the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), the International Fire Code (IFC), the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). The IRC does not adopt these codes by reference, it takes specific provisions from those codes and moves them into the IRC. Significant changes to the IBC and the seven adopted codes also become changes to the IRC, as applicable. He would like to move quickly through the issues that the board agrees on, to allow more RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall time to focus on the items that we do not have absolute resolution on. There are a lot of proposed local amendments, but most are not significant. 2015 International Building Code 101.2 Scope: Add a statement. “All buildings and structures in Accommodation zone districts shall be regulated by this code.” It is a significant change because this is the first time some one- and two-family dwelling units used as short term rentals (vacation rentals) will be regulated by provisions other than those contained in the IRC. It is also the first time the IPMC will be adopted by the Town of Estes Park. It also requires all new buildings in accommodation zone districts to be protected with automatic sprinkler systems. It is a commercial zone, we are going to regulate them as commercial properties due to the increased risk such zones and uses incur. There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment. 101.2 Scope: Add an exception to the scope. “Exception: 1. Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with the International Residential Code. In addition to complying with the provisions of the International Residential Code, individual dwelling units rented or leased for less than 30 days shall also comply with the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code, as amended. Individual dwelling units shall be limited to the number of occupants allowed in the Estes Park Municipal Code and/or the applicable zoning regulations. CBO Birchfield stated this proposed amendment is a significant change because this is the first time individual dwelling units used as short term rentals may be regulated by provisions other than those contained in the International Residential Code (IRC). It is also the first time the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) may be adopted by the Town of Estes Park.” RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 4 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall This has to do with the issue of vacation rentals that is currently a hot topic. We are still regulating one- and two-family homes in residential zone districts by the IRC, but in addition to the IRC there are some provisions in the IPMC that will apply to those buildings. Public Comment: Ed Elingson was curious if there is a grandfather clause for existing buildings. CBO Birchfield stated that existing buildings will be regulated by the IPMC if this code is adopted as presented. However, typically codes are not retroactive and there are very few exceptions, this is one of them. There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment. 101.4.4 Property Maintenance: States that we will adopt the 2015 IPMC as amended. CBO Birchfield will go more in depth when the board discusses that code. 107.1 Submittal Documents (General): This amendment exists in the code now. There are only two things that are being changed. One is that we are going to require all structures to be engineered, including decks, garages, additions, alterations, repairs, etc. because of our wind speeds. There are no prescriptive requirements in the code regarding wind speed for our structures. Everything will have to be stamped by an architect or an engineer if it requires a permit. CBO Birchfield is open to local professional designers/engineers coming up with local pre-engineered prescriptive requirements or designs that could be used after approval by the CBO. This is to prevent staff from having to design by default when plans come in that are not stamped. Chair Spooner asked if this amendment applies the IRC. CBO Birchfield states that the same amendment is in the IRC. There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment. 109.2 Fees: This amendment has already been approved by the Town Board and is being presented for informational purposes only. The fee structure has been changed. All projects will be based on valuations of the job. Square foot formulas will no longer play a role with fee calculations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 5 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Since all structural plans will be stamped, staff does not have to do as detailed of a plan review. All staff has to look for is proper design criteria and completeness of the plans. Instead of charging 65% of the building permit fee for plan review, we will reduce it to 50%. In addition, if they submit a good set of plans that is approved the first time submitted, they will get a 50% discount on the plan review fee. A checklist will be provided to advise the applicant of what is required on those plans. If you submit an incomplete set of plans, the fee will be $100/hour for every review after the second review. CBO Birchfield stated fees for demolition permits were increased, and are now broken into 3 categories. At $50, you can do a small demo in a building for a remodel. At $100, you can demo an entire structure that requires review from additional departments. If there are utility connections, the demolition permit costs $200. Certificates of Occupancy are increasing from $50 to $100 each. A Dwelling Life Safety Survey will cost $200. This is part of the IPMC for vacation rental units. “20% of standard permit fees and plan review fees shall be collected as general administrative and overhead costs. These fees are separate from and in addition to fees paid to outside consultants when such services are required by the applicant. These administrative fees are not assessed when consultant services are not required by the applicant but are facilitated by staff.” What this means is that if you come in wanting to use an outside consultant instead of the building department, you will pay the consultant’s fee and the building department 20% to cover overhead costs. If the building department contracts out the review due to work load, they will not charge that 20%. There are times the department chooses to contract out plan review to meet customer service goals. Other times, the applicant desires an expedited review, and is willing to pay the cost for a third party to conduct the review. Chair Spooner asked if the $200 for the life safety survey was a one shot deal. CBO Birchfield states that the fee for the survey would be charged with the initial application. The Dwelling Life Safety Survey portion is not completed yet, nor has it RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 6 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall been adopted. It was added by the suggestion of the elected officials. If adopted, staff will send a letter to every property licensed vacation home owner explaining the new requirements. CBO Birchfield will explain in more depth when he gets to the IPMC. CBO Birchfield stated the Town Board has serious concerns about public safety in vacation rentals and the building department is trying to address those concerns. Grading fees remain the same. The major change in the fee schedule is how we calculate fees for new construction. It will be based entirely on valuation, whereas before it was mainly calculated on square footage. The building official has the authority to set the final valuation and request additional information from the application if he thinks the valuation is too low or too high. The amendment also gives the building official the authority to audit the project after completion to ensure the valuation was accurate. All of the fee schedule amendments have been approved by the Town Board and will go into effect May 1, regardless as to whether we adopt the new codes or not. 903.2 Automatic Sprinkler Systems: This is a current amendment and is presented as a significant issue, not a significant change. It has been in place since July 1, 2011 and it has never been used. The provision of this code states if a building is leveled in the downtown district and a new building is constructed, or if they do a substantial improvement of that building (exceeding 50% of the valuation of the structure in the improvement), sprinklers will be required. The goal end goal is to eventually get the downtown sprinkled. It is relevant now because there is a permit currently under review that may be affected. 1505.1 Roof Assemblies and Rooftop Structures/Fire Classification (General): Add an exception stating that in all Wildfire Hazard areas and in the CD-Commercial Downtown zone district, all new and replacement roof coverings shall be Class A or a component of a minimum, one-hour roof assembly. CBO Birchfield states that in the current downtown area it may be impossible to install a Class A roof due to the convoluted nature of the roofs with zero lot lines because it would be impossible to mesh them in. The code allows for partial roof replacements on a case-by-case basis if the building official determines that this requirement is not feasible. There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 7 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Chair Spooner stated that he wanted the audience to understand that most of what is being discussed tonight had been previously discussed at other monthly meetings. 1607.1 Minimum Uniformed Distributed Life Loads and Minimum Concentrated Live Load (Table): Adjust the table with new numbers for residential deck loads based on local conditions. CBO Birchfield stated he is proposing to set the live load for a residential deck at 20 lb. greater than the current live snow load and the load for a residential deck with a hot tub at 150 pounds per square foot (psf). The change for the deck with a hot tub was because 100 psf. seemed too small for the larger tubs. Chair Spooner had a question on whether the hot tub on a deck should be treated as a live load or a dead load. He has always treated hot tubs as a dead load because it just sits there. But what does he do about people? A deck live load is 60 psf. which is one person every 3 square feet. That is not feasible with a hot tub present. He has been confused as to what he should be using. Spooner would be happy with 150 psf. combined load. Member Calvin stated that he is okay with that assessment. CBO Birchfield proposed that the board wait to decide until they discuss the next amendment. 1068.2 Snow Loads (Table): Replace table. The Structural Engineers Association of Colorado (SEAC) did a snow load study May, 2015. The proposed table is out of Larimer County’s proposed amendment, matching what Larimer County is proposing to do. The table covers minimum design ground snow loads. If your elevation does not exceed 7,000 ft, your ground snow load is 60 psf, at 8,000 the ground snow load is 70 psf, and so forth. You can linearly interpolate loads between values so at 7,500 ft the ground snow load is 65 psf. This is 20 lb more than what we are doing now. This is a significant increase. CBO Birchfield is doing research with truss manufacturing companies to determine what the financial impact of the change will be, but does not have the data yet. Any time there is a significant increase to requirements there is a negative impact to the costs of construction. Chair Spooner stated that he feels the snow load study was a good report approved by a reputable organization (SEAC). He would have trouble ignoring the study and using RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 8 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall lower calculations. This is ground snow load, when you go through all the computations, the snow load for the roof is quite a bit less. CBO Birchfield wanted feedback on whether the final design roof snow load should be less than a uniformly distributed load of 30 psf which is Larimer County’s number. There was discussion about how to calculate this and how much to require, as 30 psf seemed too low for our snow loads and 50 psf was potentially too high. This is important because some designers use the ground snow load to calculate what the roof load should be, and this would prevent them from crossing below a certain number. Chair Spooner agreed to do some calculations for the uniform snow loads and get back to the board and CBO Birchfield. Chair Spooner felt it should be more like 40 psf. CBO Birchfield pointed out that at 10,000 ft the ground snow load is 140 psf, double what it is for 8,000 ft. There are no structures in the Town of Estes Park at 10,000 ft. The table matches Larimer County’s proposed amendment, starts at 7,000 feet, and continues up in case something at a higher elevation is annexed in at a later date. Going back to the previous amendment on deck live loads, CBO Birchfield suggested that instead of calculating what the snow load for the deck should be, they could go with the ground snow load which should cover the snow, some firewood on the deck, and people. The ground snow load will be higher than what the typical live deck load would be, which should account for anything that deck would have to support. Public Comment: Kent Smith asked if the SEAC study factored in the amount of moisture we have in our snow. He had seen reports that were way out there because they do not have the same kind of snow we do. Chair Spooner stated that it was a very thorough report. Kent Smith would like that noted somewhere so that moving forward the snow load study can be referenced. CBO Birchfield commented that SEAC’s wind study is available online and will be available in the reference material for the code adoption process. Their snow study has been ordered and will be available at the library as a physical reference document. It cannot be made available on the web because it is proprietary. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 9 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall The board supports using the ground snow load for the deck live load and 150 psf combined load for decks with hot tubs. 1609.3 Wind Loads The code is changing the way it talks about wind. It is like talking about mph vs. kph. The numbers are different but the speed is not. We are no longer talking about basic wind speed, but ultimate design wind speed. Chair Spooner suggested that a better way of stating it is that the old numbers, the 140 mph was a 50-year return period wind load with a multiplier to boost the pressures. Now the wind loading is more of an ultimate, it is more like a 700 year return period, but with no multiplier. If you calculate the numbers, the end result is very nearly the same. We haven’t changed the loads on the buildings much, we’ve changed the notation. It is not really a significant change, only the method of calculation has changed. High-risk buildings (critical facilities like hospitals, fire departments, etc) would be required to build to 195 mph ultimate design wind speed. The proposed amendment adopts the new maps and the new study the maps are based on to develop these ultimate design wind speeds. The maps are separated into the risk category for the structure. Category 1 covers barns and agricultural buildings, 2 covers homes built under the IRC, 3 covers buildings with high occupant loads of more than 300 people, and 4 covers essential facilities. For risk category 1, the map says Estes Park’s ultimate wind speed is 165 mph. Risk category 2 is 175 mph. Risk category 3 and 4 is 190 mph. Chair Spooner suggested just using the numbers in the code as opposed to the maps. CBO Birchfield asked if for the IRC, if he should add the alternate method of using the wood frame construction manual for 160 mph. Chair Spooner suggested adding a sentence to the IBC as well, that it is possible to reduce the wind speeds to sea level speeds with no additional reductions. He stated that there are some good documents that are helpful when designing for wind, which are written for sea level. You overdesign if you use 175 mph because the documents were designed for pressures at sea level, which should be 160 mph. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 10 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Public Comment: Ed Elingson was confused. Basically we are making corrections to density for the altitude and he’s seeing wind speed corrections. Chair Spooner clarified. Ultimately, there is a pressure acting on the building. That pressure is equal to some density times the velocity squared of the wind. That is the basic fluid mechanics equation with some correction factors. We are at an altitude where the density is much less than at sea level. To get to sea level we can do one of two things. We can change the density in the equation. If we do that it reduces the pressure down to 8/10ths of what it would be at sea level. Or we can keep the density at sea level and change the velocity of the wind to get the same number. This will apply to both the IBC and the IRC. There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment. 2902.2 Plumbing Systems/Minimum Plumbing Facilities (Separate Facilities): Add an exception. This has to do with the number of plumbing fixtures that are required. The way the plumbing code works is that the rules are always changing. The use drives the requirements of the code. We have a lot of small tenant spaces in the Downtown district and other places like Stanley Village. He frequently sees projects withdrawn due to the requirement for a second handicap bathroom, which costs an average of $30,000 per bathroom. The amendment proposes that separate facilities (men/women) shall not be required for buildings or tenant spaces containing a primary service that is carry- out foods and/or carry-out drink with seating for less than 15 people and the total occupant load does not exceed 49. This removes the requirement for a second handicap bathroom in such places. Plumbing facilities are not life safety issues and it is not a good fit for our small spaces. There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment. Chapter 36 Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: Add to chapter. There are no wildfire hazard regulations in the IBC. If we want them we have to add them by amendment. CBO Birchfield proposed that we adopt what Larimer County is doing for wildfire hazard mitigation, with the following exceptions: (1) all new and replacement roof coverings will be Class A; (2)whenever there is an addition or major alteration to an existing building, defensible spaces will be created and maintained, per regional standards; (3)automatic sprinkler systems shall be required for new and substantially improved buildings that do not have adequate access or adequate water supply as required by the IFC or exceeds 5,000 feet in floor area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 11 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated Larimer County has a wildfire inspector, Tony Simonds, that will inspect properties for compliance with the standards. Fire Marshall Robinson stated that Larimer County has their requirements for looking at defensible spaces. There is a national standard that rises from the National Fire Protection Agency, which is the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Firewise is a recognized standard that the fire department will inspect to. CBO Birchfield stated wildfire hazard areas are generally steeper wooded lots and not the entire town. The wildfire hazard map, located at www.estes.org/mapsis interactive to make it easier to determine if your lot is in the wildfire hazard area. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) has provisions that says if you are in a wildfire hazard area, the wildfire inspector will come and assess the area. There was general consensus among the board in support of this amendment. 2015 International Fuel Gas Code The IFGC regulates only those appliances run on gas or propane. It does not apply to wood burning stoves, pellet stoves, electric appliances, etc. Some of these things will also show up in the mechanical code because they regulate different equipment run by different energy sources. It needs to be in both codes. 303.3 General Regulations/Appliance Location: Add to prohibited locations - Appliances shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces. This has to do with eliminating the necessity of shutting down an appliance if the condensate pump fails. The 2015 code states that if the pump fails the appliance should be turned off. But we have unoccupied winter homes with the heat on just enough to keep the water lines from freezing. If the pump fails and the heat is turned off, the pipes will freeze causing a greater deal of damage than what would have been caused by the excess condensate. It is not a good fit for our community. This only applies to new construction. The other factor is that in the 2015 code it is now required to drywall the bottom of the floor joists in crawl spaces if equipment is stored down there. If we eliminate putting the appliances in these crawl spaces then both these issues go away. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 12 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 307.6 Condensate Disposal/Condensate Pumps. Revise a sentence. Condensate pumps shall not be located in uninhabitable spaces, such as attics and crawl spaces. If appliances cannot be installed in those spaces it removes the need to have a condensate pump in those locations. 623.3.1 Residential Fuel-Gas Fired Cooking Appliances: Add subsection. If you install a gas stove, you will now be required to put in an exhaust duct. This applies to both existing buildings and new construction. CBO Birchfield wanted to confirm that the building official can have flexibility in determining if a vent is necessary when creating a vent is unfeasible. Member Klein was okay with that. There was general consensus among the board for this amendment. CBO Birchfield stated some of these issues are going to appear in the mechanical code as well. 2015 International Mechanical Code 307.3 Condensate Pumps. No condensate pumps or appliances in uninhabitable spaces as per the IFGC. 507.2.6 Clearances for Type 1 Hoods: These hoods are used in commercial kitchens using grease. In the downtown district, the buildings are constructed from wood with zero lot lines. The amendment states that if you are going to replace your hood, it shall be a zero clearance hood and shall not attach directly to or contact combustible materials other than 5/8 Type X gypsum board or similar limited combustible materials. CBO Birchfield stated a lot of fires in commercial kitchens are from type 1 hoods. There was general consensus among the board for this amendment. 508.2 Compensating Hoods. Compensating hoods will be prohibited. This type of hood puts air into the hood and air space. Charbroilers are not allowed. Member Schiaffo explained new owners add new equipment (e.g. charbroiler) into an existing commercial kitchen with a compensating hood and unintentionally create a fire hazard. If we don’t allow compensating hoods then we remove that potential fire hazard from occurring. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 13 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall There was general consensus among the board for this amendment. 602.1 Plenums: CBO Birchfield stated a plenums is a space for moving air that is not ducted. It could be in a drop ceiling or a crawl space. Combustible materials are not allowed in plenums. In many of our commercial structures there is a plethora of combustible material in these spaces. This proposed amendment states no plenums will be allowed in structures regulated by the IBC. You will be required to use ductwork for everything. There was general consensus among the board for this amendment 2015 International Plumbing Code CBO Birchfield stated most of these amendments are to line the building codes with the Water Department, sanitation districts, or the county health department so that we are all operating under the same rules. 314.1 Condensate Disposal/Fuel-Burning Appliances: CBO Birchfield stated the proposed local amendment would not allow condensate pumps in uninhabitable spaces in new construction as per other codes. Condensate pumps cannot discharge into street, ally or other areas so as to cause a nuisance. The exception that will be added to all of these code sections regarding condensate pumps is that if the appliance is being replaced, it can go back to its former location if the pump discharges to an approved location in habitable space and the pump is connected to an alarm. In other words, replacements can go back to where they were as long as the condensate drips where people can see it and are able to hear the alarm if the pump should fail. 502.1/502.1.1 Water Heaters: CBO Birchfield stated water heaters must have a pan connected to a drain which drains to an approved location. CBO Birchfield explained this is a policy change rather than a code change, requiring permits for the replacement of all water heaters, not just gas water heaters. 504.7.2 Safety Devices/Pan Drain Termination: A pan drain shall be required even if it was not previously installed for a replacement water heater installation. The only exception is if it is determined that such a drain would be unfeasible by the building official due to current conditions. This is an improvement to what is currently in the code. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 14 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 607.2 Hot Water Supply System/Hot or Tempered Water Supply to Fixtures: CBO Birchfield stated this is not an amendment but rather a significant change to the code. A length of hot or tempered water piping shall not extend from the source of hot water more than 50 ft to a fixture or end cap. This is reduced from the 100 ft that it was in the currently adopted code. CBO Birchfield stated there is one issue that is still under discussion, which is frozen sewer lines caused by condensate. CBO Birchfield will discuss this with the board after the code adoption process to determine if they can arrive at a solution and amend the code. Member Calvin wondered if the piping material mattered when it came to the distance from the water heater. Certain materials are more efficient, but the energy code will require that all of that pipe to be insulated. 2015 International Property Maintenance Code CBO Birchfield removed all references to premises (things outside the building) and single-family homes. However the Town Board wanted provisions for vacation home rentals. The IPMC only regulates structures (no weeds, cars, etc.), but could include fences, retaining walls, building, etc. We currently do not use a property maintenance code so the entire code is a significant change. There are other codes we could use, but CBO Birchfield recommends the IPMC so that we are in the same family of codes. CBO Birchfield explained recommendations by the board were that the IPMC covers no premises issues, no structures regulated by the IRC and inspections would be initiated by complaints. CBO Birchfield recommended no premises issues, no structures regulated by the IRC and no structured property inspection program. By the direction of the Town Board, there will be a structured inspection program of single-family homes used for vacation home rentals if these codes are adopted as proposed. The Town Board wanted some type of public safety regulation for vacation rentals. It is a maintenance issue, thus covered by the IPMC. The potential applicability of these codes could be vacation rentals, wildfire defensible space, and downtown. There are a lot of safety issues in some of the buildings that are downtown. There is only a structured program for vacation rentals. We are still talking about a complaint driven system. If we adopt these codes, if a building official has a legal reason to be in the building for an inspection, those property maintenance issues RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 15 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall will be addressed with the property owner. He will be legally and ethically obligated to deal with these issues. 101.1/101.2 Scope and Application: CBO Birchfield stated this will be one of the codes proposed to be adopted by the Town of Estes Park. In this code, references to residential structures shall not include structures regulated by the IRC, except those used as short-term rentals. It is clearly spelled out in the code that the IPMC will not apply to single-family homes except for those used as vacation rentals. All references to premises and exterior property will be removed as long as it does not relate to structures or grading/drainage issues. If you go through the code, much of it has been revised to abide by the Board’s recommendation. 104.2 Inspections: The building official shall make all of the required inspections, or shall accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of inspections shall be in writing and certified by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage expert opinion as is necessary to report unusual technical issues as they arise, subject to the approval of the Town Board. All dwelling units used as short-term rentals (less than 30 days) shall be subject to an initial life safety survey and subsequent surveys as determined by the building official. The code has a list of what that survey must include at minimum but may cover additional concerns. CBO Birchfield explained the IRC does not talk about bedrooms, but rather rooms used for sleeping purposes. If you use the living room as a sleeping area it has to have egress to the outside, a smoke alarm and a CO detector within 15 feet. If they use gas-fired appliances, you cannot go through a bedroom or a bathroom to get to that gas-fired appliance unless you meet very specific conditions. Gas-fired appliances cannot be in unapproved locations (like a pantry with stuff stacked around it). He stated this will not be a destructive inspection. They will inspect what they can see. Some of the inspection items may be retroactive. To date, none of this has been approved by the Town Board. As CBO Birchfield understands, this inspection must occur and be approved prior to the issuance of a vacation home rental license for 2017. If the inspection reveals any non-compliant issues, the property owner will have to pull a permit and address those issues, otherwise their business license will not be approved. This is very significant. CBO Birchfield stated he won’t address exterior drainage at vacation home rentals unless it is a big issue. This is an initial inspection. It will only be performed again when it is deemed necessary based on complaints. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 16 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated all of this will go before the Town Board for approval. There will be a public hearing before the Town Board on March 22, which will be the final opportunity to speak your mind and position. CBO Birchfield stated that Building Inspector Traufield felt that he would be able to handle the vacation rental inspections. It is only 200 more inspections a year and the Town already does 5,000 inspections a year. Building Inspector Traufield feels that such an inspection would take a maximum of 45 minutes for a big house if they haven’t been doing unpermitted work. With travel time it should only take an hour. If there has been unpermitted work on the property, the property owner will need to get the appropriate which will take additional staff time. Member Schiaffo asked if the inspections were restricted only to one- and two-family dwellings used for vacation rentals and not places like hotels or other commercial structures. CBO Birchfield stated that this inspection is only for houses in residential districts used as vacation rentals. This is the $200 fee discussed earlier. There is an hour for the inspector in the field and there is some paper work to do back in the office. It will take 2 hours and their rate is $100/hour. If you own multiple vacation rentals, each property will be charged separately. This inspection fee is in addition to the business license fee. Additional fees may be incurred if the property owner is required to obtain building permits for unpermitted work. CBO Birchfield stated that vacation home owners will have most of 2016 to get their inspections completed. The code, if adopted, will go into effect May 1. They have 8 months to get the inspection approved so they can get their business license for 2017. If they know there is unpermitted work on the property, the owner will need to get in the queue early so they can address any issues revealed before the end of the year. If they wait to the end of the year and it is revealed that they (for example) finished their basement without a permit, then CBO Birchfield will not approve their business license. They will have to go before this Board of Appeals or the Town Board to attempt to get their business license. The code is very specific. How the code is to be enforced is something still to be decided. Once this code is approved, CBO Birchfield and the Town Clerk will get together and form a game plan before appearing before the Town Board to ask for their support. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 17 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield explained once your vacation rental is inspected and approved, unless there are complaints against it there will be no more additional inspection fees. Unless there are reports of unpermitted work. It is determined on a case-by-case basis. CBO Birchfield stated the Estes Valley Fire District does not have anything to do with this code. This is a strictly a property maintenance code that is part of the building division. The only thing the fire department addresses on a single-family home is fire department access and water supply. Public Comment: Mike Richardson, attending on behalf of the Board of Realtors. He is wondering why short-term rentals in single-family homes are being singled out for additional safety regulations when under the fire code they are treated as residential homes. CBO Birchfield stated that these additional regulations are coming out of the direction of the Town Board. There are two major interpretations with the issues. CBO Birchfield is the most conservative on this issue. Some people believe that if you use a single- family home as a bed and breakfast or other short-term rental, it is no longer a home and should be regulated by the IBC. CBO Birchfield checked with other community’s building officials dealing with vacation rentals and discovered a 50/50 split on how this is viewed. CBO Birchfield stated that he believes this is a land use issue, which regulates what they can do with their home. He would choose to regulate them by the IRC. However, the Town Board says they are concerned about public safety and wants it addressed by the building division. Right now CBO Birchfield’s plan is to do an initial inspection, and then base additional inspections on what he sees, finds, or hears. In the future the Town Board may direct him otherwise (such as wanting inspections to occur on some cycle). Mike Richardson states that the Board of Realtors is supportive of safety, but is concerned about the timing and over-regulating. CBO Birchfield stated that these are all about life safety issues, outside of the drainage, and as a home owner he would want to know about any life safety issue present in his home, so it isn’t a bad thing. But he understands it is an additional layer of bureaucracy. This is only in draft form and is coming straight from the elected officials. It could still change. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 18 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall There was general consensus among the board to support this proposed code. CBO Birchfield stated egress windows in vacation rentals are still under discussion. When he does these inspections he is going to find non-complying egress windows. He would like to figure out a policy for addressing this issue and others that is decided upon by the community. 2015 International Fire Code CBO Birchfield stated every amendment in the IFC comes straight from the IBC. Chapter 9 and 10 in the IBC is also in the IFC. This code will be administered by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD). It is primarily a code for systems also required in the IBC. The requirements for fire safety would still be in the code if the IFC was not adopted, we just wouldn’t have the EVFPD helping to inspect and permit them. There are no significant changes to the IFC other than what was discussed in the IBC. There was general consensus among the board to support this proposed code. 2015 International Energy Conservation Code CBO Birchfield stated this code is really tough. If we adopt a building code (not the IRC), Colorado Revised Statutes requires increased R values, decreased U factors, decreased allowable air changes (how much the building leaks), and blower door tests for new single-family dwellings. CBO Birchfield recommended doing as much training for staff as they can find, phasing the compliance to the code including phasing in performance test results, no electrical calculations with changes of use in smaller buildings such as in the downtown district, prescriptive R values for additions and remodels allowing for improvements to portions of buildings before having to bring the entire building up to code. It is about doing what you can to make your insulation better based on the conditions without getting into an all or nothing situation. C101.5.2 and R101.5.2 Compliance Modifications and/or Phasing: CBO Birchfield recommends adding to the listed subsections code which allows for the building official to allow phasing of the energy code or to modify it. Its phrasing allows for the building official to make adjustments as new issues are discovered with this code in our community. 2015 International Existing Building Code RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 19 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated there are no significant changes to this code, but there are two significant issues; fire barriers and handicap accessibility. Fire barriers are the way we build walls and floors. In the Estes Valley, there has been a tradition of platform framing. This is not how you build fire barrier walls and floors. Many of our existing buildings are non-compliant with the definition of fire barriers. The other issue is handicap accessibility. If you are adding or remodeling an area of primary function, whatever the valuation is, you must spend an additional 20% to address handicap accessibility until that building is fully accessible. For example, the primary function areas in a restaurant is where the people are seated, and not the kitchen. If you are addressing handicap accessibility in your project, you do not have to spend an additional 20% because you are already addressing handicap accessibility (adding an ADA compliant bathroom). If the building is fully accessible this is not an issue. CBO Birchfield stated the town is way behind the curve in providing accessibility in most of our buildings. 2015 International Residential Code CBO Birchfield stated all of these codes discussed have been adopted by the IBC. They are part of the IBC. Parts of those codes are taken and plugged into the IRC. We will quickly move past the already addressed amendments to talk about the ones that are just present in the IRC. R101.2 Scope: CBO Birchfield stated a proposed amendment is to add a statement saying that in addition to complying with the IRC, individual dwelling units rented or leased for less than 30 days shall also comply with the IPMC. Individual dwelling units shall be limited to the number of occupants allowed in the Estes Park Municipal Code and/or applicable zoning regulations. This has already been discussed. R108.2 Fee Schedule: CBO Birchfield clarified that what was said in the IBC relating to fees applies to the IRC. R301.2 Building Planning/Design Criteria (Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria): The information about the snow load and wind speed from the IBC also applies to the IRC. The ultimate design wind speed for buildings covered by the IRC will be 175 mph. CBO Birchfield stated the local amendment will also include language providing an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 20 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall alternate method to use lower sea level wind speed with no modifications or reductions R301.2.1.1 Wind Limitations and Wind Design Required: CBO Birchfield stated you cannot use any of the prescriptive requirements in the IRC to build buildings because the wind speed for our area is too high. The provision in the IRC stops at 110 mph. Submittals shall specify the minimum sea-level design wind speed or ultimate design wind speed, the exposure, the elevation and the elevation-based pressure correction factor if used. CBO Birchfield stated the 3-second wind gust maps will be removed from the codes and the local amendment will state the ultimate design wind speed is 175 mph. Table R301.5 Minimum Uniformly Distributed Live Loads: CBO Birchfield stated the live load for decks shall be the ground snow load and for decks with hot tubs, the provision shall be a combined load of 150 psf as discussed in the IBC. The entire house will have a live load of 40 psf, as opposed to changing it to a lower amount for bedrooms, which could lead to errors in construction. This is a current code. R302.3 Two-Family Dwellings: CBO Birchfield stated this amendment states if an automatic sprinkler system is not provided (it may be required under certain conditions), dwelling units in a two-family home shall be separated by two-hour fire resistance assemblies. This is changed from a one-hour fire resistance assembly because the home is not sprinkled. There was general consensus among the board to support the proposed amendment. R302.13 Fire Protection of Floors: Delete subsection. Because gas-fueled appliances are no longer allowed in uninhabitable spaces, we no longer have to place the ½ inch of drywall on the floor joists allowing for the removal of this section. R313.2 One- and Two-Family Dwellings Automatic Fire Systems. Add a list of exceptions. CBO Birchfield stated this is the big change to the IRC. Since 2009, the code has said that every new home must be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. When we RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 21 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall adopted the 2009 code we amended it to exempt one- and two-family homes. CBO Birchfield stated he is not proposing to do that amendment with the 2015 codes. In the IBC, the first amendment says that all structures in an accommodation zone shall be regulated by the IBC. This is a reversal of the current amendment, which states that if it looks like a residential house, regardless of use, it is regulated by the IRC. Now, CBO Birchfield is recommending if a single-family dwelling is located in a commercial zone district it will be built according to the IBC. In addition, CBO Birchfield is proposing that some, not all, single-family homes must be protected by automatic sprinkler systems. Automatic sprinkler systems shall not be required for one- and two-family dwellings which are located in a residential zone district and not located in a designated wildfire hazard area. If a one- or two-family home is located in a wildfire hazard area, you would not have to sprinkle the building if you have adequate fire department access and adequate water supply as required by the fire code, and all the buildings on the lot do not exceed 5,000 square feet in floor area. The wildfire hazard areas are those designated in the map discussed earlier on the website (www.estes.org/icodes). Accommodations zone districts are not considered residential zone districts. CBO Birchfield is proposing a local amendment stating automatic sprinkler systems will be required for all homes constructed with the intent of being used or are used for short-term rentals (vacation rentals). The effective date for this provision will be January 1, 2017. This gives the public the chance to comply or the elected officials to make changes to this provision. The board discussed this issue. Comments include, but are not limited to: Member Schiaffo stated that he was concerned what this would mean for people who were renting their homes while waiting for their home to sell to cover costs of a second mortgage or waiting to retire in it. He believes that if something is going to be built with the intent to use it as a hotel, it should be built as a hotel. However, he believes that individual homeowner rights should be protected. Chair Spooner stated that he was concerned about the language of the amendment and what the intent is. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 22 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield explained the intent of this amendment. If someone builds a home after January 1, 2017 with the intent of using it as a short-term rental, they would be required to sprinkle the building. If built after January 1, 2017 as a home, but later the property owner decides to use it as a short-term rental, they would be required to sprinkle the building at that point. This proposed amendment is intended to apply to new construction only. It will also apply to homes used for vacation rental that are not properly licensed right now. There was general consensus from the Board of Appeals that this is very controversial and need a lot more discussion. They want to hear from the Board of Realtors as well. CBO Birchfield stated all of this had been discussed before, except for the provisions regarding the vacation rentals, which is something that the Town Board has requested be explored. CBO Birchfield stated that he heard from Larimer County that they are thinking if a vacation rental is planned to accommodate parties of nine or more guests, it will fall under the IBC, which will require sprinkling, among other things. Their amendment would include existing structures in addition to new construction. Why are single-family homes used as vacation rentals being treated differently than hotels with detached cabins? It’s the same use. Only the zoning is different. CBO Birchfield would like to create a leveling playing field. He reminded the board that the code is saying all new homes must be sprinkled. This amendment is lowering the bar saying that only some homes have to be; however, we are raising the bar from where we are now. Some of the communities around us are going to start requiring all new homes be sprinkled (Longmont in 2019). Eventually we will line up with other communities. If we are going to start requiring them in phases, we should require them for the homes that have the greatest hazards, which are wildfire hazard areas and short-term rentals (which is the most hazardous use by the IBC). The easy answer is to sprinkle all new homes, CBO Birchfield was just hoping to phase this in. Member Klein stated that the Board needs to come up with a recommendation as to how it is supporting or not supporting this issue. Chair Spooner would like for there to be more discussion. The board wishes to discuss this issue more before it can come to a decision. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 23 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall R401.4.1 Geotechnical Evaluation: The amendment proposes that our presumed soil load-bearing capacity is 2,500 lbs. You can do a soils report or as an engineer/architect show that it is better but the code will start here as an assumption if you do not want to do a soils report. R902.1 Roofing Covering Materials: If it is a wildfire hazard areas, the roof will be Class A or a one-hour rating as in the IBC. M14114.4 Condensate Pumps: As discussed with the IBC. This code displays the exception that was discussed in the IBC discussion, that if an appliance is being replaced the appliance and pump can be returned to the uninhabitable spaces as long as the pump is drained appropriately and an alarm is connected to the pump. M1901.3 Cook Appliances: Venting of gas-fueled stoves, as discussed with the IBC. G2404.11 Condensate Pumps: Pumps in uninhabitable spaces, as discussed with the IBC. G2406.2 Prohibited Locations: As discussed with the IBC. Existing appliances can be replaced in uninhabited spaces. Anything that says it is an unvented fuel-gas appliance has been deleted out of the code outside of a very specific and important list. For the most part, you cannot install an unvented fuel-gas appliance other than what is approved in the 2015 IFGC 501.8, as amended. G2447.6 Cooking Appliances: Venting of gas-fueled stoves, as discussed with the IBC. P2801.6.1 Pan Size and Drain: Water heater pans and drains, as discussed with the IBC. Chapter 36 Wildfire Hazard Mitigations: Roof coverings, defensible spaces, automatic sprinkler systems. Same thing that was discussed earlier with the IBC. CBO Birchfield will go through and clean up the draft code language based on what was discussed. The major issue is to go back and discuss what the Board wants to do regarding the sprinkler provision. CBO Birchfield stated the next meeting will be March 10th from 4-6 p.m. The Board of Appeals has agreed to facilitate the meeting. CBO Birchfield will contact the Board of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 24 February 25, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Realtors, Estes Lodging Association, the Downtown Business Partners and anybody else he can think of. He will encourage them to go to the website and review the proposed amendments and come to the meeting. This is the last public meeting before it goes to the Town Board on March 22nd. After we get these codes adopted, CBO Birchfield would like the Board of Appeals to review the processes, polices, procedures and forms for the building division. We could start with the checklist for residential plan review. We can take the summer off, and a meet maximum of once a month. The board would provide valuable input to how the building division operates. All of the code amendments and the significant changes should now be online (www.estes.org/icodes). When the process is finalized, there will be three documents created for each code (two of which are currently available online). There will be the published version which contains just the changes made to the code, the significant changes document which is what CBO Birchfield went through tonight, and the entire local amendments document which will look like the significant changes document with the code change and comments expressing the intent of the change. CBO Birchfield created these separate documents at the request of the Board so that architects and engineers that are familiar with the code can get just the local amendment without having to dig through the commentary, but the average layperson can read the amendments with the commentary and understand the intent of the change. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. ___________________________________ John Spooner, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary