09-09-09 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 system and warning signs, which are basic State Fire Code requirements for the storage and handling of explosives within a building. The City Attorney reported that the business has been operating for some time. However, the Fire Code changed and current Fire Code regulations are applicable to this business. The Attorney noted that the Fire Code is not like the Zoning Code which allows for the grandfathering of existing uses. The Attorney indicated that the Fire Marshal has been working with the tenant since January of this year to gain compliance with the Fire Code. As of the last month, there appears to have been no movement toward compliance, and a sprinker system has not been installed in the building. There are other issues with the building that do qualify it for "Hazardous Occupancy". The Attorney explained the procedures for resolving the situation, and that staff is recommending the Council order the Fire Code violations be corrected or the violating use be removed from the property on or before noon on September 30, 2009. If this order is not complied with, the next step would be to file a motion in Ramsey County District Court for summary enforcement of the order pursuant to the Hazardous Building Statutes. Keis asked if the City Council had a choice given this was a violation of The State Fire Code. The City Attorney stated that it was his opinion That the Council did not have a choice. The Attorney stated that it was both his and the Fire Marshal's opinion that the situation is a clear violation of the Fire Code and the Hazardous Building Statutes. The Attorney reported that upon approval of the abatement order by the City Council, the property owner, tenant, and all persons with interest in the property will be notified of the order. There was discussion relative to the City's enforcement of the State Fire Code and Hazardous Building Statutes, and the City Attorney noted that the City must requirement compliance with those Codes as weitten, and cannot put Codes in place that are more or less restrictive. Blesener asked if the issue got to court if the judge could order the tenant evicted or the sprinkler system installed. The Attorney noted that those two options are available. A third option would be to raze the building, but noted that the City is not pursuing that as an option. The City Administrator reported that he has discussed the issue with the building owner who informed him that the matter will be resolved within a few days. The tenant is in the process of removing the hazardous items from the building. 3