Agenda Packets - 1997/02/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 40 Page 2 January 13, 1997 Fire Code Authorization and Appeals Process: The Uniform Fire Code places final authority with the local fire chief. In certain situations the local chief may accept changes,reductions, or variances if other "safety" provisions are provided. One example of this would be eliminating access roads and on-site hydrants in lieu of a sprinkler system. The fire chief is seldom left with discretionary powers and must assure that either the code or an authorized exception is included. If an applicant or recipient of fire orders feels aggrieved the code requires an appeals process which includes a local and state component. The council is currently appointed(by themselves) as the local appeals board and must act on submitted requests. Either party may appeal the local decision to the State Board whose decision is final. In Ms. Sheldons letter to Mr. Olson dated December 19, 1996 she advises a written request for repealing the local code requirement. Furthermore, she advises Mr. Olson of the expectation that Council would oppose such change based upon the discussions that occurred during the application and review process. Mr. Olson has submitted the request which discusses the hardships incurred on small business and churches suggesting repealment. However,the specific request appears to be the substitution • of a detection system in lieu of the suppression system. The council has no policy or formal procedure for appeals and as such should accept Mr. Olson's request as such notice requesting an action. Issues: The fire code does not recognize fire detection systems as a substitute for suppression systems. In order for the church to not sprinkler the building the City would have to repeal the Appendix E sprinkler provision as provided for under the repeal process. Subsequently,the City must amend the Construction Agreement to reflect the change. It is not possible, under the Fire Code,to selectively apply provisions to a single occupancy or class of occupancies. The sprinklering(or lack of) of City Hall was researched and found to be in violation of the fire code. Sufficient blame can be placed on any number of people as to why this occurred,however, upon evidence of non-compliance, efforts have been generated to obtain compliance versus affixing blame. Administrator Whiting is aware of the issue and has formulated a plan to address the issue. City Hall is the only structure that is non-compliant with respect to the issue. Again, the fire code allows the local chief to work with the occupant on any deficiencies allowing sufficient time in the resolution of such. Mr. Olson makes several references to the State Building Code 16,000 square foot rule. He claims the State used this rule in the calculations of safety for firefighters. Additionally,he states that churches were excluded under the 16,000 square foot rule since they are occupied only a few • hours per week. In discussions with Building Official Jarson and a subsequent discussion with