Agenda - Council - 01/10/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

stacking and parked cars would make it reasonable to think that fire suppression would be a good idea. Fire Chief Kapler stated that is correct. It was one tool open to provide safety to the residents in case of a delay in response. Councilmember McGlone stated he was confused at the last meeting whether Chapter 1306 was or was not mandatory. He felt it comes back to Fire Chief Kapler's concern in addition to defunct associations and problems caused by snow plowing. Councilmember McGlone stated he supported requiring roads to the City's standards so there would be less of a concern for providing unencumbered access for emergency vehicles. He asked about the church request. Building Official Kaehler explained that when Chapter 1306 was adopted in 2003, that became the rule but since it is an optional chapter, there is opportunity for the City to "unadopt" it and some of those rules then go away. He noted there is some danger in that because if the building does not have a sprinkler then there is a requirement for fire resistant construction and other measures. Acting Mayor Wise stated he was also confused because he thought there was no room for change, even for a church that meets only once a week. He noted the cost for a sprinkling system would be a huge investment for a use of only two hours out of a week. Building Official Kaehler advised that once the City adopts anything into the Code, whether from the body of the Code or a provisional chapter, there are no variances. Councilmember Tossey stated the City chose to adopt the provisional chapter that deals with new construction and if it fits within those boundaries, the City needs to require sprinkling. He asked about a change in occupancy for existing structures and if the Code allows discretion in that scenario. He noted the City just paid $100,000 to sprinkle a building off Highway 10 and asked if there can be discretion. Building Official Kaehler advised there is no option for discretion available to the Code officials. The rule is cast in stone. He noted that Codes address the worse case scenario whether a bar or a church so it is irrelevant if the building is only used on Sunday morning. In this situation, water is available so it has to be sprinkled. Councilmember McGlone stated another part of the issue with the church case was he could not rationalize how the City could issue an Interim Use Permit (IUP) when Code does not allow the City to do it because it is a State code. Another issue is whether there are grandfathered issues with an existing building. He asked if it is still within the Council's purview to "unadopt" that portion of the Code to allow discretion, moving forward, to decide whether the Council wants to give an IUP. Building Official Kaehler explained the optional chapter could, in fact, be thrown out. But if that is done, other rules then apply and in this case the change of use triggers requirements to have fire rated assembly walls. Building Official Kaehler advised that the cost to create fire rated City Council Work Session / December 6, 2011 Page 5 of 12