Larimer County commissioners voted 3-0 on Sept. 8 to deny an administrative special review application that would have allowed a four-bedroom, eight-guest short-term rental at 5111 East Highway 36 in the Estes Valley. Staff recommended denial because the Estes Valley Fire Protection District required residential fire sprinklers and the applicant declined to install them.

Laura Cullerton, a county planner, said the application (file no. 23Zone3506) was submitted May 31, 2023, before the current short-term rental regulations went into effect and that the administrative review can be referred to the Board when an application raises potentially unique or serious impacts. Cullerton said all referral agency comments had been addressed except for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, which requested sprinklers because of access limitations and lack of hydrant or public water to support firefighting operations. Staff concluded the application did not satisfy review criteria 6.4.3.d.2 and 6.4.3.d.3 and recommended denial unless the sprinklers were installed to the satisfaction of the fire district.

Applicant Danielle Bradbury told commissioners she and her team had completed wildfire mitigation work on the property, including cutting more than 50 trees, removing junipers, reblading and adding rock to the driveway, and clearing defensible space. She said service providers had driven to the house for deliveries and that the home has multiple egress doors and smoke detectors. Bradbury said she and contractors had supplied letters describing access capability for propane trucks, roofing deliveries and plows, and she expressed surprise that the fire district maintained a sprinkler requirement.

A representative who identified himself online as part of the property team said crews had done "blood, sweat, and tears" work on the parcel and raised concerns that a retrofit sprinkler requirement could raise insurance issues and that the county building code does not require sprinklers when retrofitting an existing home.

Chief building official Eric (first name used in the record) explained to commissioners that the building code does not automatically require sprinklers for an existing home but that changing occupancy to a commercial lodging use (short-term rental) triggers referral to the fire service for life-safety review. He said the fire district's concern centered on access for an emergency vehicle and that residential sprinklers are intended to slow or suppress a home fire to give occupants time to evacuate while crews respond.

Commissioners said they could not vote to approve an application that failed to meet the listed review criteria and agreed with staff and the fire district that access, lack of hydrant/public water, steep gravel grades, and inadequate turnaround justified the sprinkler request. Commissioner John Kefalas moved to deny the administrative special review; the motion passed 3-0.

Staff noted that if the applicant returns with the sprinklers installed to the fire district's satisfaction, or provides other measures the fire district accepts, staff could support approval. No change to county code was proposed at the hearing.