The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Seeking public feedback
[ by Mark Reaman ]The Crested Butte council will continue to gather public feedback and obtain more information on potential changes to the building code. The main unsettled issue continues to be when to require energy assessments for homeowners doing a remodel and when the town should pay for those assessments. The public hearing was continued until the September 15 meeting.
Based on previous discussions, the council agreed to not require commercial buildings larger than 5,000 square feet to install solar panels on the roof. But under state code, they will have to be “solar ready.” The town and the Crested Butte Fire Protection District agreed with the town code regulating solar panel setbacks on roofs. The two entities did not however, agree on the need for sprinklers in some buildings.
CBFPD chief executive officer Sean Caffrey asked the town to require sprinklers in all new buildings including single family homes. Currently they are required in buildings with shared walls like duplexes and other multi-family units but not required in such single-family homes.
“We would encourage sprinklers in every building,” he said. “If I had all the money in the world, I couldn’t build a fire department that got to a fire quicker than a sprinkler system. Sprinklers can put fires out quickly. We encourage this generational change to make sprinklers required.”
Caffrey said about 4,000 people per year die in fires, with only 17 in Colorado in 2025 and so it’s not likely to happen in the valley.
“I was struck by the sprinkler costs,” said councilmember Mallika Magner. “Paying $34,000 for an 1,100 square-foot-home is a lot. And most homes, even deed restricted ones, are twice that size. I’m also concerned with the cost of increased infrastructure needed to accommodate sprinklers. What are we getting into?”
“There are ways to use sprinklers that are less expensive than the old systems,” said Caffrey. “I think the sprinkler technology is getting better. There are ways to connect it to the domestic plumbing and drive costs down by about two-thirds. We’ve not seen a lot of sprinkler system failures in the last five years. If you install sprinklers there is no need for a fire wall in multi-family units so there is some cost savings there. But a firewall won’t put a fire out.”
“I’m in favor of keeping it the way it is now,” said councilmember Kent Cowherd.
“I agree but could be convinced to pull it back under certain circumstances,” said councilmember Beth Goldstone who expressed some concern about the toxic gases released during a fire with modern building materials. “My concern is not only with toxic gases but the higher carbon footprint of modern building materials compared to natural materials which also burn slower in a fire.”
“I would consider going back to not requiring sprinklers for duplexes but require them for larger units,” said councilmember John O’Neal.
The council wants public feedback on the issue.
The longest discussion took place over when to require energy assessments for dwellings. Goldstone advocated for requiring the assessments on any remodel needing a building permit in town, no matter how small.
Town classifies three levels of remodels with one being the smallest and three being the most major. She said town should pay for the assessments.
Councilmember Anna Fenerty asked how much that would cost and how long the town could afford to do that. In the last three years Crested Butte issued 34 level one permits and 10 level two permits. Only five level three permits have come through since 2023 with none so far this year. Energy assessments are estimated to cost about $550 each.
Magner asked why the town would pick up the $550 tab for an energy assessment on a house worth $5 million.
Cowherd said he was comfortable with the staff recommendation to mandate the assessments for levels two and three while providing the option at level one with town covering the costs. Town staff said the data gathered during an assessment could be used by both the town and the homeowner.
Goldstone indicated she couldn’t see the logic of not requiring the assessments at every level if town was paying for it. Magner said it was all taxpayer money. She also said mandating the assessments was not without inconvenience and time to those being forced to get it. “Plus, when I had one done it didn’t provide me with a lot of good information,” she noted.
“I really support the data collection angle since most Greenhouse Gases in town come from buildings,” said councilmember Gabi Prochaska. “Energy assessments can be an important piece of data gathering.”
She said she supported requiring the assessments for levels two and three with town subsidizing the cost and then offering the town to pay for the service on level one remodels and anyone else in town wanting to conduct an energy assessment.
O’Neal said he was comfortable with the staff recommendation. “People that want to do it will do it and it is up to them to take the data and make improvements. I don’t like mandating things. I don’t want to overburden people. We’ll get plenty of data. I’d leave it up to the homeowner,” he said.
Council was split between requiring the assessments for both levels two and three and requiring it for just level three. Again, council wants to solicit more public feedback on the issue before the September 15 council meeting when a decision on what to include in the building code update will be made.
O’Neal also brought up some feedback from a local general contractor that adjusting the town building code every three years was too quick. He said it didn’t give those in the building field enough time to adjust and absorb all the new information.
Council made no decisions on the building code changes but will discuss them again in September.
