Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Appeals 2017-05-04RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 May 4, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Don Darling, Vice-Chair Joe Calvin, Members Brad Klein, John Spooner, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Chair Darling, Members Spooner, Klein, & Schiaffo Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Member Calvin The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. There were approximately 15 people in attendance. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from April 13, 2017 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Schiaffo/Spooner) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. Member Spooner requested that public comment be accepted at the beginning of today’s meeting. PURPOSE OF MEETING The Board of Appeals meets as needed regarding matters of the Town of Estes Park’s Division of Building Safety. They are not a decision-making board, but act as a Recommending Body to the Town Board. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) RELATING TO DWELLINGS, VACATION HOMES, AND SMALL HOTELS. Because the EVDC has been undergoing amendments, the IRD also needs to have amendments. CBO Birchfield will be going to the Town Board on May 9th to present the proposed amendments to the Town Board. Today he will be discussing the methodology and implications of the proposed amendments. It is important to understand what the IRC regulates: detached single-family home, duplex (stacked or side-by-side), townhouse, or accessory building associated with those buildings. All other buildings are regulated by the International Building Code (IBC). Hotels are regulated by the IBC. Codes of the IRC are less restrictive than those in the IBC, due to occupant familiarity inside the building. Regarding vacation homes, definitions were developed to add to the list of exceptions for building under the IRC. Definitions were written for: Vacation Homes, Large Vacation Homes, and Small Hotel. The goal was to treat buildings with comparable uses the same way. He added that new Large Vacation Homes are not permitted in residential zone districts, unless the permit is already in the review and approval stage. The Town Board wanted to maintain the amendment that exempted one- and two-family dwellings from the automatic sprinkler requirement. CBO Birchfield showed the spreadsheets created to show the implications of the proposed code amendments. He explained “Occupant Load Factor”. Minimum occupant load standard of 1 person/200 square feet. He explained the criteria for requiring handicap accessibility, which has not changed. Community Director Hunt clarified that new homes in residential zone districts can be built with as many bedrooms as desired; however, if they choose to use the home as a vacation home, the maximum occupancy is eight. CBO Birchfield reviewed the building permit application form for buildings built under the IRC. He stated there are some large vacation homes that are being grandfathered in, and the use can continue as long as the property owner(s) stay current with vacation home licensing requirements. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 May 4, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 55:30 Listen before this to what Will said. Public Comment Lindsay Lamson – submitted a written comment. Had concerns about the minimum occupant loads, stating that many accommodations units would not comply as the proposal is written. The cost to accommodations owners could be extensive. Paul Brown/town resident stated he is working on a project that is very cost sensitive. He stated there are several differences in the old and revised building permit application. The minimum submittal checklist keeps changing, which has caused his project to be cancelled. His issue is with a pending project and the submittal requirements. He commented the site plan requirements have the largest number of changes. Frank Theis/county resident was concerned about the 200 square feet/person requirement for occupancy standards. He disagreed with using that standard for this use regulation. CBO Birchfield stated the minimum design occupant load is not new. The purpose of the code analysis is to determine if …………………………. Just before 1:05.00. He explained the submittal checklist is a draft document which will not be adopted until the Town Board approves the code amendments. Member Spooner stated the checklists seem to be a moving target and are changing all the time. The web page is not up to date and creates confusion. Chair Darling stated there is clearly a transition taking place now, and the building community needs to know where we’re at, and when we can expect to have some consistency with the forms. Charlie Phillips stated the site plan requirements Mr. Brown is referring to is still in draft form. 1:12:35 – Paul – put a moratorium on everything until it can all be submitted as a package. Charlie – current review requirements are a compilation of items. There was general consensus from the Board that drafts should not be used until they have been approved. Chair Darling stated this could not be resolved at today’s meeting, and staff needed to work on getting the drafts finalized as soon as possible. In the meantime, plans could be reviewed on a case by case basis. John – requirements can’t be changing every two weeks. Brad – everyone is dealing with the new 2015 codes, and maybe additional time could be provided in order to get the requirements worked out. Will – we will use the existing checklist and bring back the other one when it’s finished. He will look at plans on a case by case basis. Mary Murphy – thought maybe a timeline could be provided as to what the plan is. Example, drafts completed by a certain date, review and comment period would be a certain date(s), public hearing for Town Board a certain date, etc. Will – recap on vacation home and large vacation homes. 1 people per 200 sq. ft. and……………. 1:22:00 Life Safety Surveys Amendment states VH and LVH should comply with this new section of the IRC. The entire proposed Life Safety Survey section can be viewed in the meeting packet. Sections include: Address identification; Unapproved uses; Unpermitted work; Unapproved work, Structural Concerns; Emergency escape and rescue openings; Window wells; Smoke alarms, Carbon monoxide alarms; Fuel gas appliances; Dwelling/garage separation; Environmental duct terminations; Handrails; Guards; Cook stove; Wildfire hazard; Fire pits; Lighting at exterior stairs; Certificate of Occupancy. No RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 May 4, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall destructive inspections will occur unless there has been work done without permits and a hazard is evident because of that work. CBO Birchfield stated Inspector Traufield has created handouts regarding the life safety survey requirements. Proposed amendments have changed part of the philosophy of maintaining the building using the code it was built under. Some items will need to be brought up to the current code if the home is to be used as a vacation home. The state electrical inspector has requested CGFI receptacles be installed in all homes used as vacation homes. Septic systems will be inspected for size relating to the number of bedrooms in a vacation home. Public Comment Lindsay Lamson/representative of EALA. He had several concerns, including the requirement to change out all windows that do not meet egress standards. He stated costs of these changes have been taken into consideration, and the economic impact may be so significant that it will shut down many vacation homes. He would like to know what it’s really going to cost property owners, including possible ancillary problems (asbestos, lead paint, header issues, etc.). He would like the Board of Appeals and the Town Trustees to have the conversation about using the code requirements at the time the building was constructed as acceptable, compared to the change being proposed where all egress has to meet current code. He was concerned about how much time it will take to complete all the required inspections and how much money it will take to fund an already busy and understaffed building department. He wants to work out the details so it is fair to the cost. There are many in the lodging association that believe this is a back door way to shut down vacation homes. He thinks many accommodations facilities will also be required to come up to code, which could be a prohibitive expense. He requested that until some discussion happens about balancing cost with economic feasilibty that no decisions are made. What is the marginal return on each of these requirements? What is the overall economic impact? If all these requirements are put into place, he would expect to see many vacation homes and accommodations facilities to close, which would have a trickle-down effect and cause people to take their events elsewhere, thus lowering sales tax income. He proposed the Board and the Trustees table the Life Safety Survey until ……………………… and unintended consequences can be determined. Don – economic impact has not been discussed. Is there an opportunity for someone to opt out, and what would the consequences be? Lindsay – the Board of appeals is to make recommendations to the decision makers. If the existing egress in a home doesn’t meet the current code, he does not agree that the window needs to be brought up to code. He wants economic impact to be taken into consideration before making a decision. He is also looking for practicality and functionality with the timeline proposed, and how does it all get implemented. Bringing every window in every sleeping area in an older building will be cost prohibitive because of the additional issues that are likely to come up. He would make an estimate that the majority of vacation homes in residential areas do not comply with the egress window requirement. Recommending the Board recommend the proposed amendments not be put into place until the elected officials have more knowledge about the economic impact and cost to property owners. Tony – bedrooms were bedrooms when they were built to code, and he agreed with Lindsay. He thinks there could be some way to let guests know the bedrooms do not comply with the current codes. Does not know where the proposed amendment came from – maybe he was absent at that meeting. Lindsay – public needs to have some consideration as to how much that’s going to cost – and why is it solely focused on vacation rentals? Why are we not forcing egress windows on every property in town? There is the perception among the lodging industry that there is an agenda to shut down vacation homes. He wants the Board and Town board to at least get some facts before making a decision. How much will it cost the town to add employees to conduct the inspections? Unfair to expect current staff to accomplish everything proposed in the amendments. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 4 May 4, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall John – this board has typically been involved in the technical aspects. Lindsay thinks the Board of Appeals would lean on the Trustees recommendation, as professionals in their fields, to provide accurate information about what is involved to make the proposed required changes. It is within the Board’s expertise to make recommendations to the elected officials regarding these issues. There was candid discussion regarding recommendations previously made by the Board to staff regarding egress windows. Lindsay – timing, staffing, practicality, and cost considerations need more time to research. EALA is asking it be tabled for the egress windows and timing. If a CO is required and the requirements can’t be met in a timely manner, they will be operating illegally. Randy commented, regarding staffing, that it is inevitable that we will need to add at least one temporary staff member, and possibly a permanent staff member. The conversation about adding staff has already begun. The Town is obligated to provide staff to conduct inspections in a timely manner. Lindsay – research time, reinspection time, etc. is a concern. Existing code at the time of construction or the current code????? Can be discussed again. Wants the Board to make a different recommendation than what is currently written. Kevin Patrick – 615 Aspen Ave – home designer. Lived in Estes since 1986. Recently he was made aware of the new checklists and has watched it develop. Shared one of the versions with builders in the valley – cumbersome, silly, and many said if they had to do it just to get a building permit they would move. Overkill for a house. Starting to wonder if we need to back up, reset some dates, and really look at the process to make it more user friendly. Building department has always been a gateway to getting construction down, and it is becoming a tall wall that people have to climb. When he has a client, he submits a site plan, floor plans, and elevations. EP is unique with terrain, utilities, fire issues, etc. Thinks we need to add an entry level layer to the process upfront at a modest fee, have them review the plans, and get back to them before moving forward. All homes now have a budget, and they are getting tighter. Little things on the check list are going to cause problems. People will start to avoid Estes Park because it will be too hard to get through the building department. Berthoud’s building department crashed and had to be “rebuilt”. They have now opened up its doors and welcomed development and they have simplified the building permit process. Thinks Estes Park is headed in the same direction. Don – wants to hear about proposed amendments as related to the Town Board hearing on May 9th. John – revisit the window size to make sure it was compliant at the time it was constructed. Timing is up to staff. Tell the trustees we will need additional staff. Tony – agreed with John – he disagrees with the proposed window amendment. Would like to see some information provided to the guests about the non conformity. What was a bedroom before should still be allowed to be a bedroom. Brad – agreed with John and Tony – would like more time to study before making a recommendation. He thinks staff would need additional time to implement the proposed amendments. Don – the Town has to provide the ability to conduct inspections Important to weigh out the costs of certain things and the trade-offs. Will – 4 sf is less than what has been required for many years (earlier than 1970s). 4 sf is acceptable in the IEBC under certain circumstances. That standard is already in place for a change of use. Tony – we have a lot of homes a lot older than that and people shouldn’t be penalized because they have an old house. If it met the code when it was built it should still be an acceptable use. Thinks the existing homes should be grandfathered in – providing they were legal bedrooms. Don – improbable that a 2 sf window is 44” or less from the ground. Will – 1945 was the first year the Town adopted building codes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 5 May 4, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Will – the Board already made a recommendation to the town board, with the request by the board of Appeals that the final draft be brought back for public review and comment. Randy – the Town Board deadline has passed. If they want to see it continued they can certainly make that request. He would envision a request to continue the item so it can be discussed further. John – knowing that Lindsay will be making a presentation to the Town board, and the Trustees were to decide the egress window issue was worth postponing, the BOA could discuss it further. Don – the other concern was the timing – is there really enough time for property owners to come into compliance with all the issues? How difficult will it be for staff to accomplish the task? Will estimates it will increase the building division’s work load by 35%. Biggest goal on the timing was to give a decision to the vacation home owners that have been put on hold for a long time. Staff is not opposed to extending the deadline. Randy – community needs transparency. If TB needs more time to determine an appropriate date, then we take more time, but as soon as is practical we set a date and that staff has a commitment to provide resources to implement the changes. We do not want to get to the end of the deadline period and have to change the deadline again. Don – thinks we can meet somewhere in the middle. Wants to look at windows and timing separately so public can be informed and provide comment on the hot topics. Tony - OK with other items in the life safety survey. Will - will pass it on to the Town Board. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. ___________________________________ Don Darling, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary