Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Park Board of Appeals 2015-11-11RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals November 11, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Chair Spooner, Members Klein, Calvin, Darling, and Schiaffo Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent:Senior Building Permit Technician Phillips The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were five members of the public in the audience. Chair Spooner called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from October 1, 2015 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Schiaffo) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE (lEBC) Chair Spooner stated today's meeting is a review of the International Existing Building Code. Significant Changes to the 2012 and 2015 Codes will be discussed. CBO Birchfield stated in the previous editions of the IBC, Chapter 34 was dedicated to existing buildings. In the 2015 codes, that chapter was deleted. The information is now contained solely in the lEBC. The lEBC is very specific depending on the amount of change in the existing building. It is much more flexible than the IBC for existing buildings, and also more flexible when dealing with different scopes of work. It is a tiered system. CBO Birchfield stated the lEBC classifies work on existing buildings. CBO Birchfield explained in detail Chapter 5, Classification of Work. This one-page chapter is included as Exhibit A with the meeting minutes. Depending on the scope of the work, a classification level would be determined, which would then determine which chapter(s) of the lEBC would apply. He stated sometimes the code requirement may require you to work in a part of the building you had not originally planned on disturbing. When using the lEBC, if the code requires you to work in an area not originally intended, then that new area does not count towards the work area. CBO Birchfield stated the Change of Occupancy section is the most difficult to grasp and understand. Other codes are based on rules, which are based on the hazards and the hazards are determined by the use. Changes of Occupancy involve life safety issues. Some requirements are driven by the use, others by the type of construction (combustible, non-combustible, fire resistive or non-fire resistive construction). When the use is changed, the requirements for the area changes. For example, remodeling a garage to a living space changes the requirements. In conclusion, the scope of the work defines which lEBC level the contractor is required to comply with in this tiered system. If the lEBC is not adopted, the IBC will be used. Using the IBC for work in existing buildings can be much more difficult than adopting and using the lEBC. CBO Birchfield stated some requirements are driven by the others, while others are driven by the type of construction (combustible, non-combustible, fire- resistive or non-fire-resistive). In the building code there are occupancy classifications. Underneath those classifications are groups. CBO Birchfield gave a brief explanation of the classifications and groups. The definition of Change of Occupancy is: a change in the use of the building or of a portion of a building. A change of occupancy shall include any change of occupancy classification, any change from one group to another group within an occupancy classification or any change in use within a group for a specific occupancy classification. If you change the character of how the space is being use, it is considered a change of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 November 11, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall occupancy. CBO Birchfield stated the identification of the scope of work is the most important, to assist with determining the level of work applicable to the code. It was mentioned that you could have a Change of Occupancy and another alteration level on the same project. CBO Birchfield stated the lEBC also addresses additions to existing buildings. If buildings are on the Federal or State Historic Registry, the lEBC recognizes that and has specific provisions for those cases. The lEBC also addresses buildings moved from one Jurisdiction to another. To visually explain how the lEBC is designed, CBO Birchfield addressed Section 904 Fire Protection. These provisions apply to Alterations-Level 3 scopes of work. This provision would apply to work covering more than 50% of the building. 904.1 states an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in a work area where required by Section 804.2 or this section. Section 804.2 states automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 804.2.1 through 804.2.5. Installation requirements shall be in accordance with the International Building Code. Section 804 discusses fire exits in existing buildings, and takes in to account the occupant load, number of tenants from multiple units, use in the units, etc. As the use changes, the occupant load changes, and the requirements change. The use drives almost everything in the building codes. The lEBC makes provisions for insufficient municipal water supply in a building. CBO Birchfield stated Alteration Level 3 refers one to Chapter 9. This has the provisions for elevators, boiler and equipment rooms, upholstered furniture, fire alarm and detection systems, means of egress, accessibility, structural changes, and energy conservation. CBO Birchfield stated the lEBC only applies to buildings constructed under the International Building Code. This applies mostly to commercial buildings. It is very user friendly, although it takes a lot of work to get through the maze of determining which triggers are tripped. The adoption of this code is the reason we require permits for Change of Use. The Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is only valid for the uses that were approved on the CO. For example, under the IRC, a CO is issued for a new home, which does not grant the owners the right to take the house and turn it into a distillery, or something with another use. Or, a retail building that was issued a CO with part of the building as storage cannot take the storage area and convert it to retail space without obtaining a Change of Use permit. CBO Birchfield explained how the lEBC works with additions (Chapter 11). It does not penalize property owners for wanting to improve their buildings. The new additions must be built to the current codes, but it does not require the entire building be brought up to code. However, the addition cannot compromise the existing building, and must be examined to ensure safety. Chapter 11 also discusses smoke alarms and accessibility. CBO Birchfield stated many Jurisdictions have never adopted the lEBC, and they will now be required to do so. The way we are doing business in the Town will not change with the adoption of this code because it has been an adopted code for eight years. CBO Birchfield stated there was not a publication for Significant Changes for the lEBC. Member Calvin stated the lEBC is a good code, and he uses it frequently in his work. Board and Staff Discussion CBO Birchfield stated this will be the last meeting the Board will have prior to him taking information back to the Town Board. He stated if there are other changes that need to be made, the Board can come back together to address them whenever necessary. He clarified the IBC adopts all the other codes by reference. However, the IRC can stand alone as a separate code. Outstanding Code Issues CBO Birchfield stated it was his opinion the Board of Appeals agreed with the currently adopted local amendments. Where applicable, those amendments would be carried over and applied to the 2015 codes. International Property Maintenance Code RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 November 11, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Concerning the Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), this would be adopted by reference in the IBC. The Board needs to make a recommendation to the Town Board as to whether or not to adopt it, and, if adopted, whether or not to add local amendments. He took the previous input from the Board to write the local amendments. The proposed local amendments will state the IPMC will apply only to commercial buildings, and will exclude the perimeter of all buildings. Adopting the IPMC would give the Chief Building Official authority to condemn buildings. Sprinklers In one and two family dwellings. Pending any changes, CBO Birchfield stated one way to consider adopting a sprinkler requirement would be to require sprinklers if a single-family dwelling is built in a wildfire hazard area, or does not have adequate access for emergency vehicles according to the International Fire Code (IFC), does not have adequate water supply per the IFC, or is over 5000 square feet. The first criteria would be the wildfire hazard area. He explained if a home were built in a wildfire hazard area and meets any other one criterion, sprinklers could be required. Fire Marshall Robinson stated residential sprinklers are 13D systems, and there are several that can be installed off the domestic water line, and could be installed by a plumber. Nationally, there are still problems with fires and deaths in single family homes. In a high risk area that comes into play even more. Throughout the country, residential sprinklers are becoming more of a standard. The community has to decide if they are ready for it. There is enough data to show that they work and save lives. With the increase in plastics and other petroleum-based products in homes, today's fires are burning hotter and faster. If a residential system is designed to a NFPA 13 standard, that code will be reviewed by the Fire District for compliance. If it is a P2904 system, it basically becomes part of the plumbing system. Comments included but were not limited to: if you put a dollar amount on something, people will base their decision on economics before safety; for example, a 5000 square foot home could cost one million dollars, and the sprinkler system could add another fifty thousand to the cost, which would be 5% of the cost; as the square footage increases, the cost to sprinkle does not increase at the same rate, so it could be less than 5% of the total cost; the trigger would most likely be adequate access, because there are homes in Estes Park that are built in areas fairly difficult to access; lots in most of the town limits are less likely to be in a wildfire hazard areas than those in the unincorporated Estes Valley; the Board of Appeals does not have to make any changes to the current local amendment, which is to not require sprinklers in all one- and two-family homes; we can adopt the current local amendment and continue the discussion; the important thing is we have to make a decision on a local amendment to avoid sprinkling every new one- and two-family home; at a minimum the Board of Appeals is in agreement to not require sprinklers in all one- and two-family homes, at a minimum the Board of Appeals needs to be selective with raising the bar on all of the codes, as it would make it more difficult to build here, while at the same time not be satisfied with using codes that were adopted eight years ago; wildfire hazard areas have the potential of a greater negative impact on the community than a flood due to the mountainous terrain, limited access, high fuel loads, and high winds. The hazards increase as population becomes denser, so it is common that the code requirements increase; sprinkler systems are installed to keep fires at bay so occupants and emergency responders can escape from the home. Heat is greater from a home than from trees burning around it. The fire risk in the downtown district is huge due to old wood construction, limited access, zero lot lines, high winds, etc. A wildfire can occur anywhere at any time for any cause, and can travel very quickly, as is what happened with the Woodland Heights fire several years ago; if a house fire causes a wildfire it then effects the entire community by depleting all the resources of the community to respond to the wildfire. The Board of Appeals and elected officials are responsible for determining if they are going to continue to allow construction in high hazard areas without raising the bar to protect all residents; Larimer County has a different perspective since they have a less dense population and many more rural areas; many of today's construction materials are more flammable than in the past, homes with more open space burn faster, many floor joists are a mix of wood and flammable glue, fire loading is much faster, failure rate is much quicker, and residential fires burn a lot hotter than older homes; other options to reduce fire risk include installing class A shingles on the roof, using a cement-based siding, etc. It is important to remember that any code amendment would apply only to new construction; fire sprinkler systems are designed to provide more time for occupants to safely exit the burning building, then contain the fire within the immediate area inside the building; any structure fire could start a wildfire with the right conditions; could we get a requirement established by stating a sprinkler would be required depending on IFC access and water supply requirements; some of the more specific fire code thresholds could be included in a local RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 4 November 11, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall amendment in order to better inform the public; the perspective of Marshall Robinson was very helpful to the Board; the final decision would be up to the elected officials; the opinions of staff and the Board of Appeals would be provided to the Town Board to assist in their decision-making; members of the Board were encouraged to attend and speak at the Town Board meeting to provide more clarification to the Trustees; the elected officials will give a lot of credit to the Board and staff to make informed recommendations. There was brief discussion concerning single-family dwellings that are nightly rentals, and the responsibility to protect the guests that visit Estes Park, whether they stay in a hotel or a single-family home. CBO Birchfield stated the way the code reads now is if it looks like a single family dwelling, regardless of the use (owner occupied or nightly rentals) it is built under the residential code. There is a big dilemma as to how to address nightly rentals in relationship to the building codes. There was discussion concerning using zoning to determine which code to require for building (IBC or IRC). For example, a one- or two-family home built in an ^-Accommodations zone district would be required to install sprinklers because the potential would exist that it could be rented out on a nightly basis. Currently, regardless of the use, if it looks like a one- or two-family dwelling, it is built under the Residential Code and exempt from being sprinkled. CBO Birchfield stated he and Marshall Robinson would be speaking to the Estes Area Lodging Association concerning the adoption process of the building codes, and they would let them know the nightly rental concern is being discussed by the Board. The Board of Appeals recommendation to the Town Board will be to exempt one- and two-family homes from being required to install automatic fire sprinkler systems, with the understanding that more discussion and possible alterations to the proposed local amendment could be forthcoming. Wildlife Hazard Areas. CBO Birchfield stated he did not think the Larimer County standards were high enough for Estes Park. Both he and Marshall Robinson agreed the Larimer County Wildfire Mitigation Plan was not enforceable, and would not support adopting that code. He would like to review Boulder County's code for defensible space. Class A roof coverings, fire resistive siding, etc. This change could cause conflict with the vegetation requirements of the EVDC, which would require conversation with the Planning Division. Member Spooner preferred to align with Larimer County's code when possible. Designer Paul Brown stated Boulder County has a 100-foot clear cut around buildings, with a required gravel perimeter and under decks. There was general consensus from the Board to adopt the Larimer County Wildfire Mitigation Plan by reference, but revisit the issue in the immediate future to make sure it is adequate for Estes Park. Hopefully we can get more community input. Condensate Pumps. The Board of Appeals recommendation is to not allow condensate pumps in inhabitable spaces unless a floor drain can be installed in that space. This will apply only to new construction. On existing construction, the condensate will have to be pumped to a floor drain in a habitable space because p-traps are no longer allowed in crawl spaces. When equipment is replaced with high efficiency equipment, a floor drain will have to be installed. The condensate can also be pumped outside to an approved location. Fire Protection for Floors. The Board of Appeals recommendation for mechanical equipment located in basements or crawl spaces is to enclose it inside a legally-sized drywalled room. This applies only to new construction. Emergency Access Openings. CBO Birchfield stated if our records show undersized egress openings were installed without permits, any replacement egress windows will need to come into compliance with the appropriately-sized opening. If we do not have records to show when the building was constructed and what the requirements were at the time, as long as the applicant is not making structural changes, size for size replacements would be allowed. Voluntary structural changes would require compliance with the adopted code. Electric Water Heaters. There was general consensus from the Board to require permits for electric water heaters. Improper installation can lead to significant water damage if pipes freeze. Zero Clearance Hoods. The Board of Appeals recommendation is to allow only zero clearance hoods. No compensating hoods will be allowed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 5 November 11, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Reroofs. CBO Birchfield stated the current code has a high hail hazard area, of which Estes Park is right on the edge. In high hail hazard areas, the code states composite shingled roofs cannot be overlayed. This requirement was removed in the 2015 code. CBO Birchfield stated roofing contractors prefer to remove all layers of shingles prior to reroofing a structure, but it does increase the total cost. He added that the weight of new composite shingles is a big concern, as profiled types can weigh as much as three hundred pounds per 100 square feet. The Board recommended allowing one layer of overlay on all reroofing projects. Snow Loads. CBO Birchfield stated the recommendation from the Structural Engineers Association of Colorado (SEAC) is to increase snow loads from 45 to 60 pounds per square foot (psf), with an adjustment for altitude. He has not discussed this with the county, but thinks they may come in with a snow load of 65 psf for an elevation of 7500 feet above sea level. The Board of Appeals recommended aligning with Larimer County regarding Snow Loads. Wind Loads. Chair Spooner stated he did not think we need all the maps that were previously discussed. He suggested coming up with one wind load for the entire town, rather than using different loads for different locations within the town limits. When correction factors are used for elevation, the difference between calculated wind loads in various parts of town is minimal. He recommended using 160 mile per hour 3-second gust for all areas within town limits, and use a table that specifies risk factors for building categories rather than the maps that are in the 2015 codes. The IRC would use one wind speed, and the IBC would use the table. Designers would be told they could correct to sea level wind speed. Lateral Deck Bracing. CBO Birchfield stated he has concerns about lateral bracing on some of the tall decks that are completely cantilevered out from the building. It is currently an option in the code, and we are currently not doing anything. We have not seen any deck failures. The code lists lateral deck bracing as an option. There are a few options on how to address this: continue to ignore it, align with Larimer County, leave it up to the designer, base it on wind loads, require only on new construction. If it is left up to the designer, there would be issues if a homeowner without an engineering background wanted to design his own deck. The Board of Appeals recommended to align with Larimer County on this code change. Board and Staff Discussion Member Calvin stated a lot of discussion has occurred on many proposed amendments. He would recommend a draft copy of the local amendments be available for the Board to review prior to going before the Town Trustees. Member Darling recommended giving CBO Birchfield authority to take the packet before the elected officials for the public meetings. Before the first public meeting, a packet would be provided to the Board of Appeals for review, and if corrections needed to be made, the Board would have the opportunity to make any changes prior to the second Town Board meeting. CBO Birchfield stated the Town Board would also have the authority to make changes to the proposed local amendments. Board of Appeals members could plan on attending the second public hearing, which also includes the Town Board voting on the adoption of the codes and proposed local amendments. Another Board of Appeals meeting will be held on December 3, 2015 from 4-6 p.m. to tie up any loose ends with the proposed local amendments or discuss any other codes prior to the second Town Board meeting. There was general consensus to have CBO Birchfield present the preliminary packet of the proposed local amendments to the Town Trustees on behalf of the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals would provide a formal confirmation and recommendation for the adoption of the 2015 International Building Codes, including the Property Maintenance Code, plus local amendments prior to the second Town Board hearing, effective January 1, 2016. A few items have been tabled to allow for further discussion. CBO Birchfield stated there was a public meeting scheduled for November 12, 2015 at 4:30 at the Estes Park Museum to discuss a new fee proposal. He stated the same fee schedule is being proposed, with a change being made to base those fees on real world values. Using real world values is currently used for over-the-counter permits and remodels, but different calculations are used for new square footage. Real world values are not used on new construction, because by ordinance, CBO Birchfield was directed to use the square footage formulas. CBO Birchfield would recommend to the elected RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 6 November 11, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall officials to use real world values on everything, which would make it an equitable system. Fees are not being increased, but a level playing field would be created by using real world values. This change would create a level playing field, so fees are calculated on actual valuation. Currently, high value projects are calculated at a lower rate than smaller projects. Development review fees will also be discussed. Floodplain permit fees will not be addressed until staff has more time to review them. CBO Birchfield stated the Town would pay for Board members to attend one day of the Colorado Chapter of the International Code Council training institute in Denver the first week of March, 2016. Please let Karen Thompson know which day and class you would like to attend, and she will take care of the reservation. REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m. Jo^Spooner, Chair Karen Thompsotvftecording Secretary