Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 25, 1997 <br />sprinkled, and asked if there was some way for the City to assist with <br />costs. <br />Langfoss reported that while the addition is approximately 4% of the costs <br />of the entire project, sprinkling is 10% of the cost. Langfoss reported that <br />Section 1306 is very specific in that there are no variances allowed. <br />Langfoss reported that many cities are running into the same problem, <br />where the requirement of a fire suppression system is triggered by a small <br />addition. For this reason a lot of cities have not adopted Section 1306. <br />Scalze indicated that the decision was either to retain Section 1306 or <br />repeal it. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City has made progress from a life safety <br />standpoint because of its adoption of Section 1306. To repeal that Section <br />because of this one situation would be a bad policy decision. Fahey <br />suggested that the remedy may be to ask the Legislature to modify the <br />State Statute to allow for exemptions for small additions. <br />Langfoss reported that he has worked closely with the Building Inspector <br />to find a way a loophole in the ordinance and was unable to do so. <br />Langfoss pointed out that sprinkler systems protect buildings and not <br />lives. <br />Morelan pointed out that a solution would be to just do the remodeling and <br />not the addition. Langfoss replied that the addition is needed. <br />Fahey suggested there may be some State funding or grants or foundations <br />which would assist in the cost of sprinkling the building. <br />Dennis Alsop, Physical Facilities Representative for the Church, pointed <br />out that Section 1306 is so restrictive it gives them no ability to <br />accommodate small additions. Aisop reported that they would have no <br />problem installing a fire suppression system if it were new construction <br />they were working with. Aisop reported that they did a similar small <br />addition in the City of Bloomington, and they were exempted from <br />Section 1306 by installing a higher fire -rated wall between the new <br />addition and the existing structure. <br />Aisop reported that the cost of sprinkling the entire building is <br />approximately $75,000 and will require installation of a dry system that is <br />guaranteed for down to 30 below zero. Aisop reported that the Church <br />would like additional space, but cannot justify the addition due to the <br />added cost of the sprinkler system. Aisop reported that he is asking the <br />City to help them so they can meet their desires. Aisop asked if it was <br />Page 10 <br />