My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 12/06/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2011
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 12/06/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 1:07:28 PM
Creation date
1/11/2012 10:29:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
12/06/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City was trying to work with someone and create a three -year "bridge" after which it was to be <br /> sprinkled. Fire Chief Kapler stated the building was not sprinkled and there were some tradeoffs <br /> to allow that "bridge" to be put into place. <br /> Building Official Kaehler advised that a rated wall divides the church and other area and there <br /> are fire doors with closures so if there is a fire, the doors shut and provide a one -hour barrier. <br /> Councilmember McGlone stated he thinks the IUP was improperly worded and if the City did <br /> not have the ability to change the Code, the church should not have been allowed three years <br /> ago. Now the Council has approved another IUP. He felt the most flexible thing the Council <br /> could do is get rid of Chapter 1306 to gain flexibility to apply a lesser standard. <br /> Councilmember Tossey read Chapter 1306, the Subpart 1 requirement, and indicated he does not <br /> think the City has to adopt both subparts. <br /> Fire Chief Kapler noted the change in use will trigger the requirement anyway. <br /> Acting Mayor Wise stated the discussion was to determine if there was room in the Code as <br /> adopted and ramifications if Chapter 1306 is "unadopted." He noted staff may be able to provide <br /> a cost comparison between requiring sprinkling and requiring fire suppression construction <br /> measures. <br /> Fire Chief Kapler stated he is an advocate of sprinkler systems and the fire service side has <br /> targeted assemblies because it is the highest risk of life loss. He felt the City would be missing <br /> the opportunity to provide a safer environment to areas changed from a previous use to an <br /> assembly use if Chapter 1306 is dropped. <br /> Acting Mayor Wise stated he does not mean to detract from safety but the City has to consider <br /> that the Fire Code places a huge financial burden and the Council is weighing public safety to <br /> economic burden. <br /> Councilmember McGlone stated he believes that requiring sprinkling crushes businesses and <br /> puts the City in a position of paying $100,000 for a sprinkling system that would not have been <br /> required if the City had "unadopted" Chapter 1306. <br /> City Administrator Ulrich asked whether the Council wants staff to look for areas of flexibility <br /> for existing structures and determine how to introduce flexibility in the Code that is defensible <br /> legally and from a public safety standpoint. <br /> Councilmember Strommen stated it makes sense to get information and she is willing to look at <br /> it. However, she is concerned the Council is considering making a big policy change based on <br /> several recent cases. Councilmember Strommen noted you can flip the situation around that if <br /> there had been a fire in one of these places with a tragic incident, the Council would respond in a <br /> different way. She stated she wants to be sure the Council is thinking about policy and not being <br /> reactionary. The Council needs to be thoughtful and looking at additional information will help. <br /> City Council Work Session / December 6, 2011 <br /> Page 8 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.