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

Home

assembly walls would be less than fire suppression. However, currently, the City does not have that discretion. Acting Mayor Wise stated with the church request, the building owner may have assumed he could put a use in the building and there would be grandfathering of the sprinkling requirement. He noted that some buildings have been around for 20-30 years and a big investment would be needed to install sprinkling, which may not be feasible so the City will end up with empty buildings. Councilmember Elvig stated when the Council discussed adopting Chapter 1306, he recalled looking at the State having a new Code and indication the City should look at adopting it. He remembered it being an "all or nothing" scenario to adopt the Code without the ability to opt out. But now he is hearing there may be ala carte considerations. With regard to the Christian Academy, he thinks they can build regardless of size if it is sprinkled. Building Official Kaehler explained that 1300 is the Minnesota version of the National Building Code. He stated that 10-12 chapters of the Code are mandatory but other chapters are optional and one is Chapter 1306 relating to fire suppression. The City liked Chapter 1306 and once it is adopted as Code, the City has to stick to it to the letter. Building Official Kaehler stated he does not have the authority to waive anything with minor exception. If the Council decides to get rid of Chapter 1306, it simply needs to make the decision and notify the State. Councilmember Tossey questioned whether it was safe to issue an IUP for three years and now extend it. He stated he likes the idea of having more flexibility and discretion but it had been his understanding there was no discretion and applicants had to install sprinkling. Councilmember Backous stated he also likes having flexibility and discretion. He noted he had been a critic of Chapter 1306 in all the cases the Council has seen because it goes against common sense. Councilmember Backous stated he wants to be sure the Council is not considering an action that will have some unintended consequences since it has been stated if Chapter 1306 is "unadopted" other fire suppression construction would be required. As a building owner, he would prefer to be forced to do sprinklers because the use of the building may change and it may be expensive to retrofit if the building had been constructed in a certain way to create fire suppression. Fire Chief Kapler stated he wanted to be clear that the Code is a minimum code and if someone wants to put up a building that does not require sprinkling, the owner can install sprinkling anyway. But, if the building meets the threshold to require sprinkling then there is no discretion to lower the threshold and not require sprinkling. Councilmember Tossey stated he understands that is the standard but he does not agree with adopting it and forcing a large investment to install sprinkling for an existing structure. He stated if safety is the concern, he finds it disingenuous to approve an IUP, even if for three months. Councilmember Tossey stated perhaps the Council should not "handcuff' the City to Chapter 1306 if it doesn't have to. City Council Work Session / December 6, 2011 Page 6 of 12