07-15-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 7 • July 15, 1996 Mounds View City Council Council member Trude yes Council member Blanchard yes Council member Hankner yes Council member Quick yes Motion Carried G. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 586, an Ordinance Relating to Automatic Fire. Suppression, by Amending Title 1001, Section 1001.01, Subdivision 1 of the Mounds View Building Code.. Ms. Pruitt explained that Title 1001, Section 1001.01 as it reads does not require automatic fire suppression systems. An amendment was made in June of 1983 and it appears that the intent was to include a provision for requiring an adequate sprinkler system but that the requirement was not included in the codification. At the June 10th introduction of the Ordinance, the Council requested that the Fire Marshall review and comment on the proposed ordinance. Kathryn Gove, Fire Marshall, has recommended adopting Chapter 1306.11, Subp. 3, item 8 with a two thousand threshold versus 5,000 or more square feet of floor are or three or more stories in height. • Ms. Pruitt also noted that there is some confusion as to whether or not planning/building applications processed prior to the formal adoption and publication of this ordinance will be required to sprinkle existing or new additions of a building and whether the council felt it appropriate to delay processing applications for new construction or expansion of existing buildings for 60 days to allow the Ordinance to be approved. Ms. Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Coordinator, has suggested that the Ordinance be tabled to obtain comments and input as to the impact this may have. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trude to table the adoption of Ordinance No. 586. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried It was the general consensus of the council that the City Attorney review the 1983 amendment and give his opinion as to whether or not new construction or expansion of existing buildings will need to abide by the 1983 amendment. H. Consideration of Request for Development Review, Herbst & Sons Construction Company, Inc. 2299 County Road H. Ms. Pruitt explained that Herbst & Sons is requesting a development review to construct an 80' X 80' addition to the North of their existing building. She noted that Short-Elliott-Hendrickson has reviewed the proposal and found that the site expansion should have no negative impacts on the drainage system. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and found it to be in conformance with zoning and building codes. The applicant has indicated that the expansion will only be used for storage of materials, therefore, the Planning Commission did not require any additional parking spaces: •