Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTGS <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 9, 1997 <br />~djusfed to }~rovide for the system. However, Che chin~ci~ will not }~roceed <br />with the ~tddition if it h~ts to inst111 a s~rinl<ler system in the resC of the <br />building. <br />Morelln noted that it appe<u s there ~u e no options ro lessen Yhe bw den to <br />d~e chw~ch, therefore, Yhe issue is sYili whether or not the City is willing to <br />re~~eal St<ttute f 306. Morelan stated t~hat he ditl not f~vor the repeal, and <br />pointed o~it that SYat~~ite 1306 is an important life slfety opCioual code. <br />Morelan pointed out that sprinl;ler systems are ~in important (ife safety <br />feature not only for building occ~ipants, buY ~Iso for the fire fi~hters who <br />may have to fght~ a fire ~it~ t~he structure. <br />Fahey and Sc~lze indicated that they clid not favor repe~ling Statute '1306. <br />Dennis Aiso~~, LDS, report~ed that the City oP131oomington allowed a <br />sm~l) lddition eo a LllS ch~u~ch without requiring that the entire church be <br />sprinlded. Alsop pointed out that Statute 1306 I<icl<s in when addiCions <br />increase the occupancy load of a building. 'There are cert~~in types of <br />additions which clo not~ increase occupancy loads. Examples tire <br />mechanical rooms and restrooins. Bloomir~gCOn, beca~ise the m~jorit~y o(' <br />ti~e addition included oftices, restrooms, and small cllssroom space, <br />interpreted the occup~ncy lo<td w~s not bein~ increased. R~ther than <br />req~iirin~ t~h~C the entire buildin~ be s~rinl:led, L3loomington required a <br />two-ho~u' fu'e-r~ted wall between the addition and the existing b~iilding. <br />Aisop indicated thlt the issue is not whetli~r or not t~o re~~eal SCaC~ite 1306, <br />but rather to ;ive the church some <tbility to vlry 1'rom the St2tute and not <br />be [orced to sprinl<le fhe entire buildin~ because of the atldition. Alsop <br />felt t~he church and City sho~ild have some abiliry to worl< wiCh each other. <br />Aisop reported that the church is concerned about the safety oPboth its <br />members ~tnci f~ire tighters. Alsop stated that~ the chiircl~~ was willin~ to <br />sprinlde the addition, but felf retro-fittin~ t'he existin~ b~tildin~ would u~ly <br />the building. As ai~ ~Itern~tive, /Usop proposed a fire damper th2t would <br />come down when smoi<e is detected. <br />F~hey pointed out th~it Statute 1306 does not provide For variances. Fahey <br />also pointed out th~t Yl~e City of Bioomington was creative ~nd allowed a <br />phased-in a~~proach Cor sprinl;lin~ the building. Pahey felC t~hat w2s an <br />~cceptable o~~Cion antl l~he only option available short of repealing ti~e <br />Statute. F~hey pointed out th~t the City caunot~ n~~al<e exceptions to the <br />Code. Once an excepfion is made, the City would be faced with similar <br />requests <br />Alsop st~at~ed that he did not believe it~ was entirely true thet d~e CiCy could <br />not mal<e excepCions to the Code given thxt t'he City of Bloomin~ton has. <br />, <br />, <br />