Laserfiche WebLink
stacking and parked cars would make it reasonable to think that fire suppression would be a good <br /> idea. <br /> Fire Chief Kapler stated that is correct. It was one tool open to provide safety to the residents in <br /> case of a delay in response. <br /> Councilmember McGlone stated he was confused at the last meeting whether Chapter 1306 was <br /> or was not mandatory. He felt it comes back to Fire Chief Kapler's concern in addition to <br /> defunct associations and problems caused by snow plowing. Councilmember McGlone stated he <br /> supported requiring roads to the City's standards so there would be less of a concern for <br /> providing unencumbered access for emergency vehicles. He asked about the church request. <br /> Building Official Kaehler explained that when Chapter 1306 was adopted in 2003, that became . <br /> the rule but since it is an optional chapter, there is opportunity for the City to "unadopt" it and <br /> some of those rules then go away. He noted there is some danger in that because if the building <br /> does not have a sprinkler then there is a requirement for fire resistant construction and other <br /> measures. <br /> Acting Mayor Wise stated he was also confused because he thought there was no room for <br /> change, even for a church that meets only once a week. He noted the cost for a sprinkling <br /> system would be a huge investment for a use of only two hours out of a week. <br /> Building Official Kaehler advised that once the City adopts anything into the Code, whether <br /> from the body of the Code or a provisional chapter, there are no variances. <br /> Councilmember Tossey stated the City chose to adopt the provisional chapter that deals with new <br /> construction and if it fits within those boundaries, the City needs to require sprinkling. He asked <br /> about a change in occupancy for existing structures and if the Code allows discretion in that <br /> scenario. He noted the City just paid $100,000 to sprinkle a building off Highway 10 and asked <br /> if there can be discretion. <br /> Building Official Kaehler advised there is no option for discretion available to the Code officials. <br /> The rule is cast in stone. He noted that Codes address the worse case scenario whether a bar or a <br /> church so it is irrelevant if the building is only used on Sunday morning. In this situation, water <br /> is available so it has to be sprinkled. <br /> Councilmember McGlone stated another part of the issue with the church case was he could not <br /> rationalize how the City could issue an Interim Use Permit (IUP) when Code does not allow the <br /> City to do it because it is a State code. Another issue is whether there are grandfathered issues <br /> with an existing building. He asked if it is still within the Council's purview to "unadopt" that <br /> portion of the Code to allow discretion, moving forward, to decide whether the Council wants to <br /> give an IUP. <br /> Building Official Kaehler explained the optional chapter could, in fact, be thrown out. But if that <br /> is done, other rules then apply and in this case the change of use triggers requirements to have <br /> fire rated assembly walls. Building Official Kaehler advised that the cost to create fire rated <br /> City Council Work Session / December 6, 2011 <br /> Page 5of12 <br />