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

Home

Councilmember Strommen noted there is an assumption the City has no flexibility or discretion with Chapter 1306 but without it the City would have full discretion and flexibility. However, that is not the case because without Chapter 1306, other rules would kick in related to fire suppression construction methods. She noted it is setting up a false choice because that is not the case. Councilmember Strommen stated if there are two sets of requirements, one may be slightly less expensive but if Chapter 1306 is thrown out, it also throws out the requirement to sprinkle 24-hour a day uses and the City may want that standard in place. City Administrator Ulrich asked whether the City can adopt a fire suppression appendix that takes what the City likes from Chapter 1306 and still give discretion, such as leaving it to the discretion of the Fire Chief whether fire sprinkling suppression is required. Fire Chief Kapler stated the City can make it more strict but this is the minimum standard and the City cannot go below that standard. He explained that if he does not uphold the minimum standard, he could personally be held liable. Councilmember McGlone stated he heard there was flexibility and that Chapter 1306 was optional. The City adopted Chapter 1306 and now needs to mandate it with the church because it changed use of occupancy. He stated he supports having flexibility with older buildings, wants to help with redevelopment, and it usually helps to deregulate. Councilmember McGlone stated the economy is a big issue and other construction methods that would be triggered would be cheaper than sprinklers and move in the direction of keeping people more safe. He noted if the City "unadopts" Chapter 1306 it could apply a different set of rules that are economic friendly. Councilmember McGlone stated new construction is still under the Code standards and he is talking about existing buildings. Councilmember Strommen asked whether the City could apply one set of rules for older construction retrofit and another set of rules for new construction if the City drops Chapter 1306. Building Official Kaehler advised the Code has a separate set of rules for new construction whether or not the City has Chapter 1306. City Administrator Ulrich asked whether the City can keep the provisions it likes in Chapter 1306, under a new name, and eliminate what it does not like. Building Official Kaehler stated if the Council keeps its conversation to existing buildings, then the existing Building Code triggers the rules related to fire suppression and you can either sprinkler or create area separated walls through the roof with a 30-inch parapet, which may still be less expensive than sprinkling. Councilmember Tossey stated he remains concerned that issuing IUPs puts someone at risk of being liable. He wondered why the City considers IUPs and felt staff should not recommend IUPs for these types of buildings if safety is such a big issue. Fire Chief Kapler stated he would agree and explained staff was trying to create a "bridge." He noted the City Council meeting minutes reflect that he had said it should be sprinkled but the City Council Work Session / December 6, 2011 Page 7 of 12