The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Board of Appeals 2020-07-23Prepared: July 2, 2020 AGENDA ESTES PARK BOARD OF APPEALS Thursday, July 23, 2020 4:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting via Google Meet Members of the Estes Park Planning Commission will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19. Quasi-judicial virtual public hearing procedures were adopted through Emergency Rule 06-20 as signed by Town Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020. Quasi-Judicial Proceedings Written Testimony • Must be submitted by mail to Community Development, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 or by completing the Public Comment form at https://dms.estes.org/forms/EPBOAPublicComment. Written testimony must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, June 15, 2020. • Members of the public may provide public comment by calling (970) 577-3721. All calls must be received by 12:00 p.m., Monday, June 15, 2020 and will be transcribed. • All comments received will be provided to the Commission and included in the final packet. Oral Testimony • To ensure your ability to provide oral testimony during the meeting you must register at planning@estes.org or call (970) 577-3721 by 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 15, 2020. Oral testimony will be provided using Google Meet. Once you are registered staff will send a meeting invite to participate. Further instructions on how to participate during the meeting will be outlined in the meeting invite. • An individual who did not register to speak on an agenda item may contact planning@estes.org or call (970) 577-3721 at any time during the meeting to be added to the testimony list. Individuals who do not register prior to the meeting risk being unable to testify due to administrative and technical difficulty during the meeting. • Written presentation materials or exhibits must be delivered to planning@estes.org by 8:00 a.m. on Monday, June 15, 2020 in order to be presented during the meeting. No other written presentations or exhibits will be accepted during oral testimony by any member of the public. Packet Material The packet material may be accessed at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings under Estes Park Planning Commission or you may request a paper packet by emailing www.planning@estes.org or calling (970) 577-3721. The meeting will use Google Meet which provides for closed captioning of the meeting. The meeting will be live-streamed and available for viewing at www.estes.org/videos. The meeting will be posted online at www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours of the meeting. ___________________________________________________________________________ General Public Comments Members of the public may provide public comment on any item not on the agenda by following the guidelines outlined above under Written Testimony. ___________________________________________________________________________ 1. OPEN MEETING Board of Appeals member introductions 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes from meeting on August 29, 2019 4. APPEAL: Estes Park Water Division To determine if the decision by staff was appropriate and valid regarding interpretation of 2015 IECC C402.1.1 and 2015 IECC C502.2, regarding thermal envelope requirements for new construction 5. ADJOURN The Estes Park Board of Appeals reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Submittal Date: Street Address of Lot: Mailing Address ____________________________________________________________________ Email Address (required) ____________________________________________________________ Order, Decision, or Determination Being Appealed (attached separate pages if needed) Appellant Signature __________________________________________ Date _________________________ Appellant Printed Name _____________________________________________________________________ Signatures Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 I Fax: (970) 586-0249 I www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Please attach application fee Parcel ID # : Town of Estes Park I P.O. Box 1200 I 170 MacGregor Avenue I Estes Park, CO 80517 Name _________________________________________________________________________________ Primary Contact Information Record Owner(s): TOWN OF ESTES PARK DIVISION OF BUILDING SAFETY BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION General Information Subdivision: Legal Description: PO Box 1555, Estes Park, CO 80517 joe@intersticearch.com 6/10/2020 Joseph Calvin Town of Estes Park 1360 Brook Drive Lot 1, Kearney Minor Subdivision Kearney Minor Subdivision Joe Calvin The Ofﬁces, Shop and Testing Laboratory of the Estes Park Water Department are being relocated from their current location on Elm Street to 1360 Brook Drive, which is an existing building previously occupied by Kearney Excavating. The ofﬁces and lab will occupy the upper level of the building while the existing lower level industrial shop space will be continuing use as a shop for storage of vehicles and light maintenance of those vehicles. The existing building is very poorly insulated by today's standards and is being extensively improved in that regard. Additional insulation has been designated for the roof, furring at the upper level existing concrete block walls, and at the pre-cast concrete ﬂoor structure separating the upper level ofﬁces from the shop space below. The shop space is to include a new air compressor. The Mechanical Engineer has speciﬁed a unit heater for the shop space to keep the condensate in the compressor and air lines from freezing. The purpose of the heat is to prevent freezing, not to condition the space for human comfort. The shop space is also continuously ventilated at the rate of 1650 CFM (just over the code required 0.75 CFM per square foot), which equates to 2.95 air changes per hour. Ventilation is provided by a new 24" x 36" opening in the northeast corner of the shop and a corresponding exhaust fan in the southwest corner. Additionally, there are three 12'-0" x 12'-0" overhead doors on the east face of the shop that will be opened regularly for daily use. During the permit process earlier this year, SafeBuilt commented that the shop needed to be included within the buildings thermal envelope. Their comment read... "The shop does not appear to meet the requirements for sections C402.1.1 or C402.1.1 of the IECC; therefore, the shop would need to be included in the thermal envelope." We disagree with this comment, and argued it with the Plans Examiner and Building Ofﬁcial. We feel that including the shop in the thermal envelope would 1) have no signiﬁcant energy conservation impact due to the shops ventilation and overhead doors use, 2) would have dramatic negative impact on the energy efﬁciency of the ofﬁces above, and 3) that furring and insulation in the shop would be an unnecessary expense to the Water Department in addition to decreasing the functional use and durability of the space. We were not successful in communicating and persuading SafeBuilt and the Building Ofﬁcial in eliminating their comment, and had to change the conﬁguration of the thermal envelope in order to obtain the building permit. Because we sincerely believe it is in the Town's beneﬁt, and within reasonable consideration, we would like to revisit the topic with the Board of Appeals. Attached to this application is our earlier response to the comment and some drawings illustrating "two options"... the original design which we favor, and the alternate design done to satisfy SafeBuilt's comment. We appreciate the Board's consideration of this matter. Additional testimony and visuals can be supplied to the Board at the public meeting. 2531425901 1 Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 2 Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = two hours) $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour) $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour) $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour) Actual costs2 $50.00 each 2. Reinspection feess assessed under provisions of Section 108.7 $50.00 each $50.00 each $50.00 each 10. Apeals to the Board of Appeals Section 113 BOARD OF APPEALS [A]113.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the applicable governing authority and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business. [A]113.2 Limitations on authority. An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall not have authority to waive requirements of this code. [A] 113.3 Qualifications. The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and are not employees of the jurisdiction. $100.00/hour1 (minimum charge = one hour) Table 1-B Fee Schedule (in Part) OTHER INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS: 9. Temporary certificates of occupancy. 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both. 6. Demolition permits 7. Temporary use permits. 8. Certificates of occupancy. 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans. International Building Code - 2015 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours. April 14, 2020 COMMENT: The shop does not appear to meet the requirements for sections C402.1.1 or C402.1.1 of the IECC; therefore, the shop would need to be included in the thermal envelope. RESPONSE: (9 paragraphs plus attached illustrations) We have studied changes to the building envelope in response to this comment. Attached are some 11x17 drawings that compare the original design with the changes called for. We want to argue that the original design provides more overall energy efﬁciency and more value to the Town of Estes Park. If you agree, then we will leave the original design in place. If you disagree, then we can simply substitute in the alternate envelope description and passing COMcheck certiﬁcation provided in the comparison. My point is that the work is done either way. Please help us make the most reasonable selection between these two options. Summary of Original Design - Page 1 of the 11x17 drawings shows the building envelope as a model from above and below vantage points. The original design excludes the Shop area from being within the building envelope. Please note in particular the insulation being applied to the bottom of the double-tee ﬂoor structure. This insulation protects the upper level ofﬁces from the lower temperatures in the Shop. The code issue arises, I understand, because the Shop is equipped with two unit heater as shown of Sheet M-1.0 of the Mechanical drawings. The unit heaters are installed to prevent freezing of water that can get trapped in the air compressor and air lines, and freezing of waste piping descending through the shop from the upper level of the building. In the project narrative we described the Shop as "semi-conditioned" in that is not our intent to heat it to a level of comfort similar to the Ofﬁces and other occupied portions of the building. Original Design COMcheck Compliance Certiﬁcate - Page 2 is a copy of the original COMcheck building envelope compliance certiﬁcate. The envelope passes, although again, I understand that you disagree with the extent of the envelope. For remodel of existing buildings, COMcheck does not quantify the extent to which the certiﬁcate passes - we can't say that it is X% better than code. For existing buildings, it is simply pass/fail (in this case pass) without consideration for magnitude, without UA values. Summary of Potential Revised Envelope - Page 3 illustrated the building envelope as it would be adjusted in response to the comment. It encloses the Shop within the thermal envelope. To pass COMcheck, we are showing 1" R4.2 rigid insulation on the Shop walls and R10 insulated overhead doors. Incidentally, the insulation on the doors is provided equally in the Original design, so no difference there. I recognize that the wall Page of 12PO Box 1555 • Estes Park, CO 80517 • (970)420-8264 • www.Intersticearch.com insulation in particular is not a high R-value, but it passes and is arguably 'better than nothing.' Since the ceiling of the Shop is no longer part of the envelope, we've removed the insulation (which is expensive) from that double-tee surface. The temperature in the shop and in the ofﬁces will tend to equalize, so the heating system for the Ofﬁces will work harder and loose heat to the Shop. The Shop, even if we were to insulate it to a higher degree would loose heat to the exterior simply by the nature of its construction (solid concrete walls with only interior insulation). Heat is also lost through and around the three large overhead doors which can't reasonably be improved upon, and even if they could be reasonably improved, they will be opened from time-to-time through routine operation of the facility. The existing slab-on-grade is not insulated. No insulation can be provided on the exterior side of the west exterior wall because it's below grade. Nonetheless, the design passes COMcheck. Potential Revised COMcheck Compliance Certiﬁcate (page 4 attached) - The revised COMcheck passes. Again, without regard to speciﬁc U/R-values or surface areas. If these values were taken into consideration, I think it would be clear that insulating a larger volume with lower R-value and poorly placed insulation would be of less overall value from both an energy efﬁciency and economic perspective. As mentioned above, by combining the Shop into the thermal envelope with the Ofﬁces, the mechanical equipment for the Ofﬁces will have to work harder because of the heat loss to the Shop, and from there to the exterior. One additional factor makes this situation even worse. The Shop is required by the Mechanical Code to have a signiﬁcant degree of ventilation, a high number of air-changes. On Sheet M1.0 of the drawings, please note the 24"x36" intake louver L1 at the northeast corner of the Shop, and the corresponding exhaust fan EF1 at the southwest corner. These provide 1650 CFM of ventilation, which will be a signiﬁcant cause of heat loss and diminishes the value of any insulation around the Shop. In balancing these two options, it appears that the original design is far superior for the Ofﬁces portions of the building, in that it substantially prevents heat loss from the Ofﬁces to the Shop. The potential revision by contrast harms the Ofﬁces while providing little improvement to the Shop. And further the Shop's insulation provided by the revised option is largely negated by the normal operation of the overhead doors and ventilation measures. We could spend a lot of money going "beyond COMcheck" by increasing the insulation on the inside of the Shop walls, but that is clearly a diminishing return given the anticipated air changes. Beyond the topic of energy efﬁciency, the original design's insulation on the shop ceiling will also beneﬁt the ofﬁces as acoustical attenuation. On the other hand, if the insulation shown by the revised option has to be installed on the Shop's walls, it will require signiﬁcant protection from physical damage. The exposed concrete walls are more suitable for the kind of activities and equipment being used in the Shop. I believe that the revised option is more costly, diminishes the interior comfort of the Ofﬁces, diminishes the ﬂexibility of the Shop, and most importantly, is less energy efﬁcient than the original design. Again, both options are fully illustrated and in compliance with COMcheck. Please help us consider which is best for the Town. Page of 22 Building Thermal Evelope Not to Scale nor th northWithin existing roof trusses 12" Celulose Blown-In Insulation - R3.5/inch = R42 Closed cell spray applied polyurethane insulation - 3" on webs = R22.2 1½" on tees = R11.1 Weighted average = R20.35 Typical office windows Pella Impervia fiberglass 11/16" Advanced Low-E double pane glass U-factor = 0.28 SHGC = 0.26 Typical office windows Pella Impervia fiberglass 11/16" Advanced Low-E double pane glass U-Factor = 0.28 SHGC = 0.26 Glass Block U-factor 1.50 Infill framing Min R21 HD FG batt insulation Storefront/Curtain Wall Max U-factor 0.38 Vestibule Roof R38 HF FG batt insulation 12" thick Wall above glass 2x6 framed wall with R21 HD FG batt insulation Typical furring at exist CMU 2x4 full depth framing R15 HD FG batt insulation Typical furring at existing concrete walls as shown on plan 2x4 furrings full depth with R21 HD FG batt insulation Storefront Entrance Door Max U-factor 0.38 Small roof area completely fill with HD FG batt insulation Walls at cantilever Insulate exist 2x4 frmg from interior w/ R15 HD FG batt insulation Floor at cantilever fill void space with blow-in cellulose insul 12" = R42 New 2x Interior Framed Wall R21 HD FG batt insulation Insul HM Doors & Frames Max U-factor 0.31 Insul HM Door w/ halflite Max U-factor 0.31 Slab below Vestibule 2" rigid insulation R10 Floors & Stair Stringers R28 HD FG batt insulation Typical furring at exist CMU 2x4 full depth framing R15 HD FG batt insulation Infill framing Min R21 HD FG batt insulation Insulation Material: Demilec HFO Pro polyurethane foam Ignition Barrier: Demilec Blazeblock TBX intumescent coating non-toxic 1of 4 P# 1821 February 24, 2020 Estes Park Water Division Phase I 1360 Brook Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Original Envelope &20FKHFN6RIWZDUH9HUVLRQ&20FKHFN:HE Envelope Compliance Certificate 3URMHFW7LWOH ,(&& 3URMHFW7\SH$OWHUDWLRQ 9HUWLFDO*OD]LQJ:DOO$UHD /RFDWLRQ(VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR &OLPDWH=RQHE &RQVWUXFWLRQ6LWH %URRN'ULYH (VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR 2ZQHU$JHQW &KULV(VKHOPDQ 7RZQRI(VWHV3DUN (OP5RDG (VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR " FHVKHOPDQ#HVWHVRUJ 'HVLJQHU&RQWUDFWRU -RH&DOYLQ ,QWHUVWLFH$UFKLWHFWXUDO6WXGLR//& 32%R[ (VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR MRH#LQWHUVWLFHDUFKFRP 3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ (QHUJ\&RGH (VWHV3DUN:DWHU'HSDUWPHQW Building Area Floor Area 1-Upper Level Offices (Office) : Nonresidential 3370 2-Mid Level Break Room (Office) : Nonresidential 822 3-Lower Level Shop (Workshop) : Nonresidential 2468 4-Lower Level Parts Warehouse (Warehouse) : Nonresidential 490 5-Lower Level Lockers & Office (Office) : Nonresidential 242 (QYHORSH$VVHPEOLHV R-Value Post-Alteration Assembly Cavity Cont.U-Factor Proposed SHGC Max. Allowed U-Factor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a) 2WKHU FRPSRQHQWVUHTXLUHVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQIRUSURSRVHG8IDFWRUV (b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of 4 P# 1821 February 24, 2020 Estes Park Water Division Phase I 1360 Brook Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Original COMcheck Building Thermal Evelope Not to Scale nor th northWithin existing roof trusses 12" Celulose Blown-In Insulation - R3.5/inch = R42 Typical office windows Pella Impervia fiberglass 11/16" Advanced Low-E double pane glass U-factor = 0.28 SHGC = 0.26 Typical office windows Pella Impervia fiberglass 11/16" Advanced Low-E double pane glass U-Factor = 0.28 SHGC = 0.26 Glass Block U-factor 1.50 Infill framing Min R21 HD FG batt insulation Storefront/Curtain Wall Max U-factor 0.38 Vestibule Roof R38 HF FG batt insulation 12" thick Wall above glass 2x6 framed wall with R21 HD FG batt insulation Typical furring at exist CMU 2x4 full depth framing R15 HD FG batt insulation Typical furring at existing concrete walls as shown on plan 2x4 furrings full depth with R21 HD FG batt insulation Storefront Entrance Door Max U-factor 0.38 Small roof area completely fill with HD FG batt insulation Walls at cantilever Insulate exist 2x4 frmg from interior w/ R15 HD FG batt insulation Floor at cantilever fill void space with blow-in cellulose insul 12" = R42 New 2x Interior Framed Wall R21 HD FG batt insulation Insul HM Doors & Frames Max U-factor 0.31 Insul HM Door w/ halflite Max U-factor 0.31 Floors & Stair Stringers R28 HD FG batt insulation Typical furring at exist CMU 2x4 full depth framing R15 HD FG batt insulation Infill framing Min R21 HD FG batt insulation No Floor/Ceiling Insulation 1" rigid insulation (R4.2) between Z-furring strips at 16" covered with ⅝" gyp bd (3) 12'-0"sq overhead doors with R10 rigid insulation 3of 4 P# 1821 February 24, 2020 Estes Park Water Division Phase I 1360 Brook Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Potential Revised Envelope &20FKHFN6RIWZDUH9HUVLRQ&20FKHFN:HE Envelope Compliance Certificate 3URMHFW7LWOH ,(&& 3URMHFW7\SH$OWHUDWLRQ 9HUWLFDO*OD]LQJ:DOO$UHD /RFDWLRQ(VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR &OLPDWH=RQHE &RQVWUXFWLRQ6LWH %URRN'ULYH (VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR 2ZQHU$JHQW &KULV(VKHOPDQ 7RZQRI(VWHV3DUN (OP5RDG (VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR " FHVKHOPDQ#HVWHVRUJ 'HVLJQHU&RQWUDFWRU -RH&DOYLQ ,QWHUVWLFH$UFKLWHFWXUDO6WXGLR//& 32%R[ (VWHV3DUN&RORUDGR MRH#LQWHUVWLFHDUFKFRP 3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ (QHUJ\&RGH (VWHV3DUN:DWHU'HSDUWPHQWZLWK6KRS Building Area Floor Area 1-Upper Level Offices (Office) : Nonresidential 3370 2-Mid Level Break Room (Office) : Nonresidential 822 3-Lower Level Shop (Workshop) : Nonresidential 2468 4-Lower Level Parts Warehouse (Warehouse) : Nonresidential 490 5-Lower Level Lockers & Office (Office) : Nonresidential 242 (QYHORSH$VVHPEOLHV R-Value Post-Alteration Assembly Cavity Cont.U-Factor Proposed SHGC Max. Allowed U-Factor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alue Post-Alteration Assembly Cavity Cont.U-Factor Proposed SHGC Max. Allowed U-Factor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a) 2WKHU FRPSRQHQWVUHTXLUHVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQIRUSURSRVHG8IDFWRUV (b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of 4 P# 1821 February 24, 2020 Estes Park Water Division Phase I 1360 Brook Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 Potential Revised COMcheck 1DPH7LWOH July 8, 2020 Estes Park Board of Appeals ℅ Karin Swanlund kswanlund@estes.org Re: Water Department Relocation - 1360 Brook Drive - 20-B-00024 Shop Insulation Appeal Dear Members of the Board, Thank you for considering this appeal application. Please know that I have submitted this application with respect for Chief Building Ofﬁcial Rusu and SafeBuilt's plans examination process. I do not disagree with their interpretation of the IECC, but do disagree with it's consequences for this public project. It is purely in the interest of our client, the Town of Estes Park Water Division that I seek this appeal. This request as described on the application is not a life-safety matter. I believe that the insulation being required for the shop is of essentially zero value to the environment, and of negative value to the Town. I fear that I will not be able to present to you today due to the health measures and limits of the virtual meeting technology. I know that the building envelope drawing submitted with the application may appear abstract without better context, so attached are two photos meant to add that context. One is a photo of the east elevation of the building with the envelope model superimposed so that you can see the relationship. Note that the shop has (3) 12'-0" square overhead door openings to the east, and is completely below grade to the west. An enlargement shows the ventilation air intake opening discussed in the application. The other photo is of the interior of the shop. Notice the double-tee precast concrete ﬂoor structure above. This photo also shows the ventilation exhaust duct location. Two last comments... 1 - The application included two "options" for insulating the building. I am of course requesting your approval of the "Original Envelope". With regard to the "Potential Revised Envelope", the COMcheck software required some insulation on the shop walls, but not a speciﬁc R-value. We've shown R4.2 1" rigid insulation which I realize is not very affective, but enough for a passing result from COMcheck. If we are denied this appeal, we will work with the contractor to provide no less than and possibly a higher R-value. The point of showing the low R-value was to illustrate the lack of nuance in the COMcheck process for this existing building. 2 - The "Potential Revised Envelope" also shows that there is no insulation at the ﬂoor structure separating the shop from the ofﬁces above as that surface is within the envelope. This was shown for much the same purpose, to illustrate that for this particular existing building that COMcheck would allow what I see as a signiﬁcant deﬁciency in building performance. If we are denied this appeal, know that the ﬂoor insulation will be installed regardless. The Town will not delete this insulation for cost saving. Again, thank you for your consideration and decision on this application. Joseph E. Calvin, AIA, Architect Interstice Architectural Studio, LLC Page of 1 1PO Box 1555 • Estes Park, CO 80517 • (970)420-8264 • www.Intersticearch.com Building Envelope Model superimposed on photo Lower Level Shop Area in question Shop Ventilation intake opening 3'-0"2'-0" Double-Tee floor structure dividing shop below from offices above Shop ventilation exhaust duct in opposite corner from intake East Elevation of Building with Envelope Model superimposed Interior of Shop looking South