Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A Special Fire Protection SystemspRIO \ \ U So 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: November 21, 2011 AGENDA M 10A PREPARED BY: Dan Rogness, Community & Economic Development Director PRESENTED BY: Frank Boyles, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT RELATING TO CHAPTER 1306 OF THE BUILDING CODE AND REQUIREMENTS FORSPECIAL FIRE PROTEC- TION SYSTEMS DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the impact of an optional Building Code provision that was previously adopted by the City Council requiring the in- stallation of fire suppression systems in certain buildings and its impact on Eco- nomic Development, and health and safety. The Prior Lake EDA discussed this item at its meeting on October 31, 2011 and asked city staff to prepare further analysis in support of either retaining Chapter 1306, amending it, or repealing it. History In the 1990s, the City of Prior Lake adopted Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1306, which authorizes for the installation of fire suppression systems by a municipality. Once adopted, these sprinkler system requirements become part of the State Building Code in that municipality. Any new construction and /or remodeling in excess of 2,000 sq. ft., or a change of occupancy in any building in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. would require fire sprinkler systems installed. If adopted, the munici- pality must select one of two subparts without amendment, including: Subpart 2. Existing and New Buildings Sprinkler systems must be in- stalled for new buildings, buildings increased in total floor area (including the existing building), or buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed. Subpart 3, New Buildings Sprinkler systems must be installed for new buildings additions to existing buildings, or buildings in which the occu- pancy classification has changed. The purpose of adopting Chapter 1306 is to allow fires to be suppressed until fire department personnel can arrive with equipment necessary to put out the com- plete fire. Fire Chief Hartman is opposed to any change to the city's current adop- tion of Subpart 2 as evidenced in his memo. Reasons to retain Subpart 2 include, but are not limited to, firefighter safety, property damage protection, firefighting cost reduction (using volunteers), sustained business operations, and fire con- tainment. Current Circumstances Exhibit A shows cities above 10,000 population in Carver, Dakota and Scott Coun- ties, with five that adopted Subpart 2 (including Prior Lake), three that adopted Subpart 3, and nine cities that did not adopt Chapter 1306. The 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan's economic development element has goals related to: (1) expanding and diversifying the business tax base, and (2) removing obstacles to economic development. The adoption of Chapter 1306 could be viewed as creating such an obstacle, but that also needs to be weighed against public health and safety and that of the fire personnel responding to such events. The cost of fire suppression systems is considerable. It is likely that it would be difficult for many small businesses to expand and then to recoup the expense as- sociated with the cost of installing fire sprinklers throughout the existing and new space. However, a number of business expansion /remodeling projects did follow the city's requirement, including Carlson Hardware, St. Michael's Church and of- fice, Speiker building, and the Carlson /Eikem Dentistry building. The appropriateness of this ordinance section came to light in conjunction with the major improvements contemplated by River Valley Veterinary Services. In the case of this project, the existing 7,500 sq. ft. building plus the equivalent expan- sion space would have to be fully designed with a sprinkler system at an esti- mated cost of $70,000 - $80,000 (cost provided by Dr. Sellin), or approximately 12% of the anticipated $650,000 project cost. The owner has stopped the project at this time pending results from the City Council. The economic impact could potentially be the same for other future busi- ness expansion projects as well. Conclusion There are competing goals for the city related to Chapter 1306 that are being brought to light by the proposed expansion of River Valley Veterinary Services. Is the city's past adoption of Chapter 1306 too restrictive and costly for businesses, or is this chapter of the Building Code important to retain in order to improve the public's safety in this community? ISSUES: The City Council must evaluate the desire and goals related to economic devel- opment with the needs associated with public health and safety, all in relationship to Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems. Exhibit B provides a list of is- sues associated with various options for city action. Exhibit C provides further in- formation from two cities that had similar discussions about Chapter 1306. FINANCIAL There is some building permit revenue that would be forgone by changing Chapter IMPACT: 1306 to either Subpart 3 or by repealing it entirely. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion to request staff to return with an ordinance to adopt Subpart 3. 2. Motion to request staff to return with an ordinance to repeal Chapter 1306. 3. Take no action (retain Subpart 2 of Chapter 1306). 4. Motion to request staff to return with answers to specified Council questions. RECOMMENDED Provide direction to city staff. MOTION: 2 f P O'' � U rn 16776 Fish Point Road SE \ F IRE DEPARTMENT Prior L a k e, N1N 5537 \fNNE5 DOUGLAS J.HARTMAN Fire Chief Memo To: Frank Boyles, City Manager From: Doug Hartman, Fire Chief Re: Repeal of MSFC 1306 Date: November 16, 2011 I do not support the repeal of Minnesota State Fire Code 1306 sub -part two as it is the best option in the code to protect the public and our firefighters. I have listed a number of issues to review that support my position when considering the repeal of this ordinance. I am also attaching, an eleven page Executive Summary of an NFPA Sprinkler Report dated May 2011, that emphasizes the effectiveness of sprinkler systems. The first three pages provide an adequate review of the information. Locally sprinklers have proven there value. Consider that in the Minnesota State Fire Marshals Annual Report for 2010, 81 sprinkler saves were reported. Based on that report, approximately 67 of those were in the seven county metro area (nearly 10 per county average). The City of Savage Fire Department has experienced four sprinkler saves in the past two years. Three were in townhouses and one was a commercial building. In all of these cases the occupants were back in their buildings the same day or next. The Prior Lake Fire Department was assisted by sprinklers several years back in an apartment cooking fire and a hotel room fire (when we covered the Mdewakanton Sioux Community). Both fires had the potential for significant losses. I understand there are considerable costs involved when installing these systems but sprinklers have proven their value. Rather than repealing this ordinance I would like to see other financing options explored to assist property owners with the cost of installation of these systems. Life Safety Issues • Protects the Clients /General Public and Animals, Very few documented fire related deaths when sprinklers were present and no major loss of life. NFPA states "There are no documented cases of fire killing more than two people in a completely sprinkled building where a sprinkler system was properly operating, except in an explosion or flash fire or where industrial fire brigade members or employees were killed during fire suppression operations." • Protects Firefighters. Prior Lakes paid on call department cannot respond as quickly as a career 24/7 fire department. Sprinklers are activated in the early /insipient stage of a fire and by that limit fire damage and structure loss. Light weight building materials burn faster and are more dangerous for Firefighters to enter when making offensive interior attacks. Phone 952.440.3473 / Fax 952.440.3460 / www.cityofpriorlake.com Property Issues/ Sprinkler Saves/ Limit Losses • Sprinklers typically limit water damage by using less water to put out a fire in its early stages compared to the amount of water firefighters would use on an advanced fire. • Decreases the potential loss of existing buildings that are expanded or change of occupancy. • Loss of down time to the business. Repairs can be completed in days and weeks compared to months and years. • Loss of the business and jobs to the community. Many businesses are forced to relocate after a major loss. • Added cost payback from insurance premium reduction ( 50 % ?). • Can impact the City's ISO Rating. As more buildings become sprinkled in the City, it can impact insurance rates of businesses and possibly residential property as well. • A sprinkled community can reduce city costs by delaying the need for a full time Fire Department and by reducing future equipment and facility needs. U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH SPRINKLERS JOHN R. HALL, JR. May 2011 n NFM National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research Division Abstract Automatic sprinklers are highly effective elements of total system designs for fire protection in buildings. They save lives and property, producing large reductions in the number of deaths per thousand fires, in average direct property damage per fire, and especially in the likelihood of a fire with large loss of life or large property loss. In 2009, 4.6% of occupied homes (including multi-unit) had sprinklers, up from 3.9% in 2007, and 18.5% of occupied homes built in the previous four years had sprinklers. When sprinklers are present in the fire area, they operate in 91% of all reported non - confined structure fires large enough to activate sprinklers, excluding buildings under construction. When they operate, they are effective 96% of the time, resulting in a combined performance of operating effectively in 87% of reported non - confined fires where sprinklers were present in the fire area and fire was large enough to activate sprinklers. In homes (including multi- unit), wet -pipe sprinklers operated effectively 92% of the time. When wet -pipe sprinklers are present in homes that are not under construction and excluding cases of failure or ineffectiveness because of a lack of sprinklers in the fire area, the fire death rate per 1,000 reported structure fires is lower by 83 %, and the rate of property damage per reported home structure fire is lower by 71 %. When sprinklers fail to operate, the reason most often given (65% of failures) is shutoff of the system before fire began. Keywords: fire sprinklers; fire statistics; automatic extinguishing systems; automatic suppression systems Acknowledgements The National Fire Protection Association thanks all the fire departments and state fire authorities who participate in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the annual NFPA fire experience survey. These firefighters are the original sources of the detailed data that make this analysis possible. Their contributions allow us to estimate the size of the fire problem. We are also grateful to the U.S. Fire Administration for its work in developing, coordinating and maintaining NFIRS. For more information about the National Fire Protection Association, visit www.nfpa.org or call 617- 770 -3000. To learn more about the One -Stop Data Shop go to www.nfpa.ora /osds or call 617 -984 -7443. Copies of this report are available from: National Fire Protection Association One -Stop Data Shop 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169 -7471 www.nfpa.org e -mail: osds(a�nfpa.ora phone: 617- 984 -7443 NFPA No. USS 14 Copyright C 2011, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA _,N�.�aantrva_�nmmar� Automatic sprinklers are highly effective and reliable elements of total system designs for fire protection in buildings. According to the 2009 American Housing Survey, in 2009, 4.6% of occupied homes (including multi -unit) had sprinklers, up from 3.9% in 2007, and 18.5% of occupied home built in the previous four years had sprinklers. Of reported 2005 X009 structure fires, an estimated 9% showed sprinklers present.* Sprinklers were reported as present in 57% of reported fires in health care properties. Manufacturing facilities (48 %), hotels and motels (49 %), prisons and jails (50 %), and dormitories and barracks (51 %), all had sprinklers reported in roughly half of reported structure fires. In every other property use, more than half of all reported fires were reported as sprinklers not present. Sprinklers are still rare in most of the places where people are most exposed to fire, including educational properties (34% of fires), stores and offices (23 %), public assembly properties (21 %), and especially homes (6 %), where most fire deaths occur. There is considerable potential for expanded use of sprinklers to reduce the loss of life and property to fire. Sprinklers operated in 91% of all reported structure fires large enough to activate sprinklers, excluding buildings under construction and buildings without sprinklers in the fire area. When sprinklers operated, they were effective 96% of the time, resulting in a combined performance of operating effectively in 87% of all reported fires where sprinklers were present in the fire area and fire was large enough to activate them. The more widely used wet pipe sprinklers operated effectively 89% of the time, while dry pipe sprinklers operated effectively in 74% of cases. With wet -pipe sprinklers the fire death rate per 1,000 reported home structure fires was lower by 83% and the rate of property damage per reported home structure fire was lower by 71%. For more on NFPA's home Fire sprinkler Initiative, go to http• /www firesprinklerinitiative.orl; When sprinklers fail to operate, the reason most often given (65% of failures) was shutoff of the system before fire began, as may occur in the course of routine inspection or maintenance. Other leading reasons were manual intervention that defeated the system (16 %), lack of maintenance (7 %), and inappropriate system for the type of fire (5 %). Only 7% of sprinkler failures were attributed to component damage. When sprinklers operate but are ineffective, the reason usually had to do with an insufficiency of water applied to the fire, either because water did not reach the fire (43% of cases of ineffective performance) or because not enough water was released (28% of cases of ineffective performances). Other leading reasons were manual intervention that defeated the system (9 0 /o), system component damage (8 0 /o), lack of maintenance (6 0 /o), and inappropriate system for the type of fire (5 %). * These estimates are projections based on the detailed information collected in Version 5.0 of the U.S. Fire Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS 5.0) and the NFPA's annual fire department experience survey. These statistics exclude buildings under construction and cases of failure or ineffectiveness because of a lack of sprinklers in the fire area and after some recoding between failure and ineffectiveness based on reasons given. Because nearly all fires reported as confined fires are reported without sprinkler performance details or as fires too small to activate operating equipment, confined fires are not included in any analysis involving reliability or effectiveness of automatic extinguishing equipment. See Appendixes A and B for additional details of statistical methodology, including the distinction between confined and non - confined foes. U.S. Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 i NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA Sprinkler systems are carefully designed to activate early in a real fire but not to activate in a non- fire situation. Each sprinkler reacts only to the fire conditions in its area. Water release in a fire is generally much less than would occur if the fire department had to suppress the fire, because later action means more fire, which means more water is needed. Water release with no fire is rare compared to water release in response to a fire. U.S. Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 ii NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA Executive Summary i Table of Contents iii List of Tables v Fact Sheet vii NFPA Resource Page ix Section 1. Presence of Sprinklers 1 General Statistics on Usage 2 Section 2. Type of Sprinkler 5 Section 3. Reliability and Effectiveness 7 Section 4. Impact of Sprinklers 31 Sprinkler Reduction in Loss of Life in Fire 31 Sprinkler Reduction in Loss of Property in Fire 33 Section 5. Water Damage From Sprinklers in the Absence of Fire 39 Section 6. Other Issues Related to Home Fire Sprinklers 43 Myths About Sprinklers 44 Costs and Benefits of Sprinklers 45 Section 7. Concluding Points 47 Section 8. Summary by Property Use 49 Appendix A: How National Estimates Statistics Are Calculated 57 Appendix B: Sprinkler- Related Data Elements in NFIRS 5.0 61 Appendix C: Selected Incidents 63 U.S. Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 iii NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA US. Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 iv NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA _T No+ %f Tahlnc Table 1 -A. Sprinkler Usage by Category of Housing, 2007 and 2009 3 Table 1 -1. Presence of Sprinklers in Structure Fires 4 Table 2 -1. Type of Sprinkler Reported in Structure Fires Where Equipment Was Present 6 in Fire Area Table 3 -A. Reasons for Unsatisfactory Sprinkler Performance 8 Table 3 -B. Fire With Areas of Origin That Could Be Room Larger Than Sprinkler Design 11 Area For Space Table 3 -C. Sprinkler Success in Confining Fire to Room of Origin vs. Sprinkler Performance 13 Table 3 -D. Reasons for Failure or Ineffectiveness as Number of 2005 -2009 Structure Fires per 14 Year and Percentages of All Cases of Failure or Ineffectiveness Table 3 -E. Leading Areas of Origin for Fires in One- or Two - Family Homes 18 Table 3 -1. Automatic Extinguishing Equipment Reliability and Effectiveness When Fire 19 Was Coded as Not Confined and Large Enough to Activate Equipment and Equipment Was Present in Area of Fire Table 3 -2. Reasons for Failure to Operate When Fire Was Coded as Not Confined and 22 Large Enough to Activate Equipment and Equipment was Present in Area of Fire Table 3 -3. Reasons for Ineffectiveness When Fire Was Coded as Not Confined and 24 Large Enough to Activate Equipment and Equipment Was Present in Area of Fire Table 3 -4. Extent of Flame Damage for Sprinklers vs. Automatic Extinguishing 26 Equipment Absent Table 3 -5. Number of Sprinklers Operating, by Type of Sprinkler 27 Table 3 -6. Number Wet Pipe Sprinklers Operating, by Property Use Group 28 Table 3 -7. Sprinkler Effectiveness Related to Number of Sprinklers Operating 29 Table 4 -1. Estimated Reduction in Civilian Deaths per Thousand Fires Associated With 35 Wet Pipe Sprinklers Table 4 -2. Characteristics of Fatal Victims When Wet Pipe Sprinklers Operate vs. No 36 Automatic Extinguishing Equipment Table 4 -3. Estimated Reduction in Average Direct Property Damage per Fire Associated 37 With Wet Pipe Sprinklers Table 5 -A. Non -Fire Sprinkler Activations by Major Property Use Group 40 Table 5 -B. Non -Fire Sprinkler Activations by Likelihood of Water Release and Major 40 Property Use Group U.S. Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 v NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA U.S, Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 vi NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA One -Stop Data Shop Fire Analysis and Research Division I Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169 i Email: osds @nfpa.org FPA www.nfpa.org U.S. Experience with Sprinklers Sprinklers save lives and protect property from fires. Compared to properties without automatic extinguishing equipment • The death rate per fire in sprinklered homes is lower by 83 %. • Direct property damage per fire in sprinklered homes is lower by 71 %. Damage per Fire With Wet Pipe Sprinklers versus Without Automatic Extinguishing Equipment, 2005 -2009 Eating or $56,000 drinking $14,000 Educational - $24,000 M$7,00 Health care* Home including apartment Store or office n Without automatic extinguishing equipment ■ With wet pipe sprinklers $33,000 $52,000 $40,000 $60,000 *Health care refers to hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, doctor's offices, and mental retardation facilities. Sprinklers are reliable and effective. • In reported structure fires large enough to activate them, sprinklers operated in 91% of fires in sprinklered properties. • Wet pipe sprinklers operated in 92% of these fires vs. 80% for dry pipe sprinklers. • In reported structure fires large enough to activate them, sprinklers operated and were effective in 87% of fires in sprinklered properties. • Wet pipe sprinklers operated and were effective in 89% of non - confined fires vs. 74% for dry pipe sprinklers. NFPA's Fire Sprinkler Initiative: Bringing Safety Home seeks to encourage the use of home fire sprinklers and the adoption of fire sprinkler requirements for new construction. See www.firesprinklerinitiative. . Statistics are based on 2005 -2009 U.S. reported fires excluding buildings under construction and properties with no sprinklers in fire area. Almost no reported confined fires are large enough to activate operating sprinklers, and so confined fires are excluded from analysis of reliability and effectiveness. U.S. Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 vii NFPA Fire Analysis And Research, Quincy, MA In 2005 -2009 fires large enough to activate them, sprinklers operated in 91% of fires in sprinklered properties. The graph below is based on the other 9% in which sprinklers should have operated but did not. Reasons When Sprinklers Fail to Operate, 2005 -2009 System shut off before fire Manual intervention defeated system Lack of maintenance Inappropriate system for fire Damaged component �o In 2005 -2009 fires where sprinklers operated, they were effective in 96% of the cases. The graph below is based on the other 4% in which the sprinkler was ineffective. Reasons When Sprinklers Are Ineffective, 2005 -2009 Water did not reach fire Not enough water released Manual intervention defeated system Damaged component Lack of maintenance Inappropriate system for fire Usually only 1 or 2 sprinklers are required to control the fire. • When wet pipe sprinklers operated, 88% of reported fires involved only 1 or 2 sprinklers. • For dry pipe sprinklers, 72% involved only 1 or 2 sprinklers. Statistics are based on 2005 -2009 U.S. reported fires excluding buildings under construction and properties with no sprinklers in fire area. Almost no reported confined fires are large enough to activate operating sprinklers, and so confined fires are excluded from analysis of reliability and effectiveness. U.S. Experience With Sprinklers, 5111 viii NFPA Fire Analysis And Research, Quincy, MA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% NFPA's Fire Safety Resources rms and fire sprinklers Codes & Public Standards Education U. Experience with Sprinklers, 5111 ix NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, M EXHIBIT A Comparison of Cities Adopting Chapter 1306, Special l=ire Protection Carver, Dakota, Scott Counties (Cities over 10,000 population only) Cities Population (1) Subp. 2 Subp. 3 Neither CARVER COUNTY: Chanhassen 22,952 XXX Chaska (4) 23,770 XXX Waconia 10,697 XXX DAKOTA COUNTY: Apple Valley 49,084 XXX Burnsville 60,306 XXX Eagan 64,206 XXX Farmington (5) 21,086 XXX Hastings 22,172 XXX Inver Grove Heights 33,880 XXX Lakeville 55,954 XXX Mendota Heights 11,071 XXX Rosemount 21,874 XXX South St. Paul 20,160 XXX West St. Paul 19,540 XXX SCOTT COUNTY: Prior Lake :22;796 ;XXX4 x . Savage 26,911 XXX Shakopee 37,076 XXX SUMMARY DATA: 5 3 9 Notes: (1) Population is from the 2010 Census. (2) Subp. 2 requires sprinker systems for existing and new buildings, and additions. (3) Subp. 3 requires automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings and additions. (4) Chaska adopted Subp. 2 on 6/21/10 with ability to assess cost under 429. (5) Farmington repealed 1306 in June of 1999; re- adopted Subp. 3 July of 2003. EXHIBIT B OPTIONS REGARDING CITY'S ADOPTION OF CHAPTER 1306 SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA Change from Subpart 2 to Subpart 3. 1. This change will likely allow the Vet Clinic project to move forward due to the reduction in project costs associated with retrofitting the existing building with a sprinkler system (a new onsite fire hydrant may still be required within 400 feet). 2. All future new additions will have sprinkler systems. 3. All future new additions will result in part of the building not being protected by the sprinkler system, which doesn't achieve safety goals for the full building. 4. Businesses that had previously abided by Subpart 2 may not like the fact that changes were made to the city's code after they expended funds to retrofit existing space. 5. This change is not supported by the Prior Lake Fire Chief. Change from Subpart 2 to Entire Repeal of Chapter 1306. 1. This change will allow the Vet Clinic project to move forward due to the elimination of any cost associated with a fire suppression system (a new onsite fire hydrant may still be required within 300 feet). 2. City will enforce Building Code requirements similar to the majority of Minnesota cities that have not adopted Chapter 1306 (including one neighboring city, Savage). 3. Businesses that had previously abided by Subpart 2 will not like the fact that changes were made to the city's code after they expended funds to add sprinkler systems. 4. There will likely be a perception that the city does not support the importance of fire safety. 5. This change is not supported by the Prior Lake Fire Chief. No Change (Retain Subpart 2). 1. The Vet Clinic project may not be done due to the high cost of adding a sprinkler system to the existing and new building space, which will result in a loss of economic growth (jobs and tax base). Other future business expansion projects may reach the same conclusion related to weighing the cost and benefit of meeting Subpart 2 requirements. 2. Now and in the future, the safety level of all building occupants (and firefighters) is improved due to retaining this building code requirement. 3. Other cities have adopted Subpart 2, including the neighboring city of Shakopee. 4. The potential exists that retaining this requirement will add to the perception that Prior Lake is not business friendly, especially in hard economic times. 5. Retaining Subpart 2 is supported by the Prior Lake Fire Chief. Other Options: 1. Chaska has adopted a provision that allows the cost of fire suppression systems under Subpart 2 to be assessed under Chapter 429 procedures. MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 1306 SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 1306.0010 GENERAL. This chapter authorizes optional provisions for the installation of on- premises fire suppression systems that may be adopted by a municipality in addition to the State Building Code. If the municipality adopts them, the sprinkler system requirements of this chapter become part of the State Building Code and are applicable throughout the municipality. This chapter, if adopted, must be adopted without amendment. 1306.0020 MUNICIPAL OPTION. Subpart 1. Requirement. The sprinkler system requirements of this chapter, if adopted, must be adopted with the selection of either subpart 2 or 3, without amendment. Subp. 2. Existing and new buildings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings, buildings increased in total floor area (including the existing building), or buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed, must be installed and maintained in operational condition within the structure. The requirements of this subpart apply to structures that fall within the occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to D. Exception: The floor area of minor additions that do not increase the occupant load does not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to D. structures that fall within the occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to D. Exception: The floor area of minor additions that do not increase the occupant load does not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to D. 1306.0030 REQUIREMENTS. For purposes of this chapter, area separation, fire barriers, or fire walls do not establish separate buildings. Gross square footage (gsf) means the floor area as defined in the International Building Code. The floor area requirements established in items A to D are based on the gross square footage of the entire building and establish thresholds for these requirements. The following occupancy groups must comply with sprinkler requirements of this chapter, unless specified otherwise: A. Group A 1, A2, A3, and A4 occupancies; Exception: air inflated structures, and open picnic shelters. B. Group B, F, M, and S occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with three or more stories in height; Exception: S 2 open parking garages, aircraft hangars, salt storage sheds, and group "M" detached canopies. Subp. 3. New buildings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings, additions to existing buildings, or buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed must be installed and maintained in operational condition within the structure. The requirements of this subpart apply to C. Group E occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with two or more stories in height; D. Group E day care occupancies with an occupant load of 30 or more; 1306.0040 STANDARD. Automatic sprinkler systems must comply with the applicable standard referenced in the State Building Code. If a public water supply is not available, the building official and fire chief shall approve the use of an alternate on- site source of water if the alternate source provides protection that is comparable to that provided by a public water supply. If an adequate alternate water supply sufficient for hose stream requirements is provided or available, the building official and fire chief may permit the water supply requirements for the hose stream demands to be modified. 1306.0050 SUBSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION. The installation of an automatic sprinkler system, as required by this chapter, would still allow the substitution of one -hour fire - resistive construction as permitted by the International Building Code, Table 601, footnote d. 1306.0060 EXEMPTION. The building official, with the concurrence of the fire official, may waive the requirements of this chapter if the application of water has been demonstrated to constitute a serious life, fire, or environmental hazard, or if the building does not have an adequate water supply and the building is surrounded by public ways or yards more than 60 feet wide on all sides. 1306.0070 REPORTING. A municipality must submit a copy of the ordinance adopting this chapter to the Department of Labor and Industry, Construction Codes and Licensing Division. The ordinance does not go into effect until: A. a signed electronic, faxed, or paper copy of the ordinance has been received by the division; and B. the ordinance has been approved by the division. An ordinance is deemed automatically approved by the division if the municipality has not been informed that the ordinance has not been approved within ten working days of the division's receipt of the ordinance. 1306.0100 [Repealed, 27 SR 1479] Minn. Rules repealed, etc. in chapter 1306 1306.0100 [Repealed, 27 SR 1479] EXHIBIT C EXAMPLES OF CITIES' ADOPTION OR REPEAL OF CHAPTER 1306 SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS Farmington. Minnesota • May 1996 -- Chapter 1306 was originally adopted. • June 1999 — Chapter 1306 was repealed after reviewing advantages and disadvantages (see attached 4/19/99 memo from David Olson). • April 2003 — new Building Code was adopted without Chapter 1306. • July 2003 — Chapter 1306, Subpart 3 was adopted after staffs recommendation citing various advantages (see attached 7/07/03 memo from John Powers & Ken Lewis). Northfield, Minnesota. • March 2006 — Chapter 1306, Subpart 2 is in place, but the city council discussed its possible repeal based on requests from downtown building owners (see attached city staff report by Brain O'Connell dated 3/20/06 and newspaper article dated 3/21/06). • April 2006 -- Chapter 1306 was repealed by the city council (see attached staff report and meeting minutes dated 4/17/06). City of Farmington 325.Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 4637111 Fax (651) 463 -2591 lvtvw.c TOi Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrate ^ FROM David L. Olson Community Development Director SUD CT; Review of Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code 1 Special Fire Protection Systems DATE: April 19,1999 _. tl a The City Council adopted on ordinance in May of 1996 entitled Minnesota Rule 1306 which specifies requirements for the installation of special fire protection systems, (sprinkler systems) in new, or expanded buildings containing 2000 square feet or more of certain types of occupancy. - The following discussion is an effort to summarize the effect or impact of enforcomcnt of this ordinance, The attached ordinance that was adopted in 1996 included adoption of revisions of the general Minnesota State Building Code and also Included adoption of optional provisions Included In Minnesota Rule (MR) 1306. MR 1306 'Version 8 deals with Special Fire Protection Systems for Groups M, S, or F occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet (copy enclosed). A description of the M (Mercantile), S (Storage), and F (Factory) type occupancies is Also included, According to one State Building Code official, the Intent of this optional provision is to provide a means -for communities with extended or prolonged fire response tunes to have buildings protected with on -site fire protection systems, The primacy purpose of MR 1306 is to require that sprinkler systems be installed in new buildings, buildings with expanded floor area, and buildings which have changes in occupancy that are 2000 square feet or greater within the three occupancy categories listed above. Tho other aspect of this special optional provision is that in the case of expanded buildings or a building in which the occupancy category is changed, it retroactively applies to the existing portion of the existing building that is not being changed. MR 1306 is intended to require existing buildings with M, S, and F occupancies to be- retrofitted with automatic sprinkler systems. Tho counterpoint to this issue, however, is that this provision can not as a disincentive to building owners who desire to expand or upgrade their existing buildings because of the costs associated with retrofitting existing buildings with sprinkler systems. In the past year there have been several proposed projects in Farmington that were Impacted by this requirement. To date, none of these proposed expansions have occurred. Staff conversations with building owners and developers suggest that MR 1306 is a significant Cost Consideration and one of a number of important factors to be considered In facility expansions and renovations. Staff has prepared a survey of other cities in the area to determine how many other cities have adopted this optional provision. A comparison of the requirements of Minnesota Rule 1306 and standard State Building Code and Fire Code requirements has also been completed (attached). Finally, Community Development, Administration, and Piro Department staff have met several times to discuss the issues associated with MR 1306. The following analysis cites the advantages and disadvantages of MR 1306. Advantages • Theoretically the intent of MR 1306 would result in existing commercial and Industrial buildings eventually having sprinkler systems installed. e MR 1306 should result in reduced property losses caused by fire in sprinklered buildings when extended fire response times are experienced. Should decrease the potential fire loss of existing buildings that are expanded or enlarged, or changed in occupancy by requiring retrofitted sprinkler systems. • Defers or delays the need for a full -time Fire Department as the City continually expands, • Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to occupants and Fire Department personnel when existing or expanded buildings are sprhrklered. • Reduced Fire Insurance premiums for the Building Owner • Reduces the overall cost of fire protection, + - Simplifies Building Code and Fire Code enforcement. Disadvantages • MR 1306 can act as a disincentive to purchase and/or invest in the redevelopment of existing buildings that result in changes in building occupancies and/or expansion of existing commercial and industrial buildings In the City when other neighboring communities do not have similar requirements. • MR 1306 could result in the developer or building owner choosing to construct a free standing building, alongside the existing building, to circumvent the requirement of having to retrofit the existing faollity. This option is already being considered by building owner to avoid MR 1306 requirements. • Relative to the potential circumvention of MR 1306, Is public policy served through the avoidance of the City Code objectives. • It can result in remodeling or change of occupancies taking place without obtaining the necessary permits because of the special sprinkler requirements that will be triggered as a result, • it eliminates the ability of the building owner to consider other options such as the installation of additional hydrants and fire lanes around the perimeter of the building or the installation of standpipes In certain portions of the building rather than sprinklers throughout the building. In some cases a building owner may choose to install sprinklers rather than some of these other options, however, currently there are no options to the building owner but to install sprinklers, Without MR 1306, building owners will be subject to the aforementioned options /requirements, • Finally, if buildings are not redeveloped resulting in changed occupancies or expanded because of the requirement to install sprinklers, they may possibly be allowed to deteriorate in condition and/or decline in value. Iii that Instance, not only has the original objective of the ordinance not been met, but the economic base of the City may be negatively impacted and the individual buildings possibly become greater fire risks. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTI ON RE Q jLff ED If the Council wishes to have a more in -depth discussion of this Issue, it is recommended that a Council Workshop be scheduled. Two possible dates that are recommended would be. Tuesday, May 11, 1999 or Tuesday, May 25, 1999. Respeetfidly submitted, David L. Olson Coninnuiity Development Director co: Ken Kuehern, Fire Chief h Minuesota Building Code Chapter 1306 Survey — Tiro Protection Systems City Bid You Adopt Chapter 1306? Version 8 or 8a? Lakeville No Rosemount Yes 8a Prior Lake Yes 8 Apple Valley No Chaska Yes 8 Eagan No Inver Grove Hts Yes 8 Mendota Heights Yes 8 Savage No Farlbault No Vadnais Heights' Considering Adoption of Version 8 8a Fannington Yes 8 8 — Group M mercantile, S storage, or F factory occupancies with 2,000 or more square feet of floor area or three or more stories in height. 8a-- Group M mercantile, S storage, or F factory occupancies with 5,000 or more square feet of floor area or three or more stories in height. Created on 03/02/99 2;00 PM\\FARM FSIICOMMDBVIbtdld \Chapter 1306 Survey.doc i Minnesota firs deaths by Bob llahm, Bureau Chief As c f Pebruen;v 17, 20 Minnesota residents had lash drrir lives bi lirr. Gr 4winparison in 1998, /&1 kris rents not reached ruin! A* 28. Seventeen deailis ►sere recoryked durbmg Jamuny ak+ne. While the lire cause for seven of Cite fatalities (two separate fines) is yet to be determined, eight of (Ire rennain- Intg 12 deallis are directly attributable to llres cawed by direct human involvement --- cureless smoking (3), Inproper use of a flaniniable 1 €<1uid (2), unattended cooking (1), careless use of n cooking tipiliance (1), and child fire play (1). co fire deaths resulted from fires caused by efectri- at nialruactions and one by a stove nnnif itictlon. 'Tito cause Zile fire which resulted lit the final two dealhs are presently listed as undetermined, Drug or alcohol use may have been a contributing factor in each of the careless smoking deaths with blood alcohol levels ranging from .122 to .342, the later more than three times the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. Fitting the historical pattern of the last several years, the young and the elderly comprised the majority of Cite victims, Of ilia 20 deaths thus far recorded, four victims were under the age of 10 and 8 were 60 years of age or older. All of lite. deaths occurred In some type of residential property, further confirming that the most fire danger- ous place to be Is the home, in nine of those denths a smoke detector was not present, present but not working, or present but unknown if it was working. Six deaths occurred in a single residence with a working smoke detector, ail indication of ilia Intensity of flint fire. One other death (careless smoking) occurred in a res- Idence with a working sinoke detec- tor however; it is reasonable to believe that alcohol (,342) impaired cite victims response to the olann. The fact (lint each of these deaths occurred in some type of residential property, where code enforcement authority and requirements for fire sprinkler systems are limited tit best, begs lite question of what can be done to reduce those tragic losses, Clearly there are those for whom no amount of fire safety education will ever result In the lifestyle changes flint could have prevented their deaths. That is not to say we should not continue our efforts to educate people about the flro danger Inherent fit combining smoking with exces- sive drinking and drug use, Many people will be reached by [lie mes- sage, and we con W certain (hat lives will thus be saved. Mlmesotas fire service has embraced the use of smoke detectors and has provided thousands of free detectors to people ail across (lie state, many of which have resulted In lives saved, Stroke detectors can't sound an alarm when batteries are removed or depleted, or when file detector is found on a shelf In the remains of a burned out home, We reach thousands of children each year through public fire educa- tion programs conducted 1» our schools. There are an untold number of reports of these educational efforts resulting in lives saved. Educating our children to ilia dangers of fire, and fire play in particular, is insuffi- cient when families do not transfer cite lessons learned in school to the homo, or when parents dismiss child fire play as a phase, or mere curiosi- ty the child will outgrow. Tito message here is one of person- al responsibillty. We can continue our etlucationol efforts and we can Increase lice distribution of smoke detectors to those in need, but until people recognize the danger of fire in the iconic and respond to eliminate that danger; until people begin to look at fires as not solely as a tragedy, but as preventable by human action; until people take per- sonal responsibility for their actions, or lack of action, the deaths will surely continue. Perhaps it is also tine to ask our- selves If we have done enough to promote the installation of residen• lint sprinkler systems. to safer than ever to encourage resi- dential sprinklers by providing that a homeowner may install systems themselves, Their time has tonne, Minnesota's Are service is to be applauded for Its public fire educa- tion and code enforcement efforts, and for embracing the Installation of fire sprinkler systems in public and business occupancies. Equaliy so for the improvements in fire suppres- sion training and equipment readily evident throughout the state. Buell has contributed to lite significant decline In fire deaths we have seen over lite last 25+ years. Perhaps we can lip pe that ilia first seven weeks of 1999 nre an aberra- tion, and flint experiencing It fire death on an average of one every two days does not signal a trend. Or, we cnu Increase our efforts, and expand Fire Prevention Week, mak- ing the remainder of 1999 Fire Prevention Year In Minnesota to encourage our communities to take ppeersona responsibility for eliminnt- lttg this tragic and often unnecessary loss of life. 42 MINNESOTA FIRH 01IIEF TO: FROM: S13BUCT: . DATM TRODU City of Farmington 1 05 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN $5024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (681) 463 -2591 WW cl.farmtngton.nm.us Mayor, Council Members, t` City Administrator 5 . John powers, Fire Marshal Ken Lewis, Building Offlclal Discussion Regarding Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code July?, 2003 The City Council adopted the Minnesota State Building Code on April 21, 2003. Optional Chapter 1306 was NOT Included and therefore is not currently part of the Farmington City Codo. The City Council conducted a special work session on June 2, 2003 to fltirther discuss Chapter 1306. Since tine work session, staff contacted the Chamber of Commerce to soltoit opinions fYom the business community regarding Chapter 1306. As of the writing of this report, file Chamber has not received any comments from its members. -0- �WbM i�►1 The Building Code, which is applicable statewide, is updated poliodioaily with advances in materials, techniques, research, and knowledge. A new Minnesota State Building Code (International Building Code with State amendments) became effective March 31, 2003. Once adopted by the State, Individual n;umolpalities are required to adopt the Code. The City of Farmington adopted the Code on April 21, 2003, The Minnesota State Building Code also offers several optional chapters that may be adopted by individual municipalities, including Chapter 1306, wliioh requires certain flro suppression systems for speolCto building typos. The City of Farmington disoussed the adoption of 1306, but did not include the Chapter with the adoption of the Building Code on April 21, 2003. Some advantages of adopting 1306 are as follows: • Reduces property lassos caused by fire. • Defers or delays the need for a ffill timo Viro Department as the City continually glows. e Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to building occupants and Dire Department personnel. • Reduces fire instnranco premiums for the building cNvner. e Reduces the overall cost of fire protection. Prior to 1999, the Farmington City Code included Chapter 1306. Tile City Council reviewed Chapter 1306 in 1999 and chose to repeal the chapter, According to minutes of the meeting, the main opposition was due to the requirement to sprinkle existing buildings. It was determined that the extra cost of this requirornent would be too great for current building owners. Changes have been made to Chapter 1306 in coiVunction with the recent adoption of the international Building Code. The current version of 1306 provides options for municipalities to determine what level of fire protection is appropriate. As desoribed below, the City now has the option of requiring fire suppression systems for a narrower range of situations than before. Another option described below allows 1110 City to determine the threshold that would regulate what typo and size of group occupancy buildings would require a fire suppression system, According to Chapter 1306,0020, Subpart 1, if Chapter 1306 is adopted, one of the following subparts must also be adopted: $u1 mart 2 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings and oxisting buildings that fall into certain building categories as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030, City Staff is NOT recommending #his option. Subpart 3 requires Ore suppression systems for now buildings, additions to existing buildings, and buildings in which the occupancy classification 1108 changed, Tito requirements in Subpart 3 would only apply to commercial buildings as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staff is recommeuding this option, Another option provided in the Chaptor is in Section 1306,0030 (l3). According to tills Section, if Chapter 1306 is adopted, a municipality must also choose ono of the following options to determine fire supprossion requirements for certain occupanoy groups: 1. Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area or dwelling units or guestrooms on three or more floors; and attached R -3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to tine International Residential Code with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area, All floors, basements, and garages are included in this floor area threshold. City Staff is NOT recommending this option. 2, Attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International Residential Code with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in 110181% City Staff is recommending this option, Staff is recommending the minimum requirements allowed in this chapter to Increase safety while not becoming overly burdensome to property owners, The sprinkler system requirements of this chapter would become part of the adopted Building Code and would be applicable throughout the City. M 10 91 REOUEMP. Consider adoption of Chaptor 1306 o£tho Minnesota State Building Code with the recomtnonded options, Res eattblhy Su ltted, John powers Ken Lewis Firo Marshal Building Official t ont, 1. Chapter 1306 2, ordinanco adopting Chapter 1306 N0 C ity Council Meetin _ Date: Ma 20 2006 REGULAR Item: 7a &b Ordinance 4: 839 ITEM: Public hearing and Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the Building Code of the City Of Northfield with Respect to Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code Relative to Fire Protection Requirements SUBMITTED BY: Brian P. O'ConnelI, Community Development Director IN CONSULTATION WITH: Al Roder, City Administrator John Brookins, Building Official SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing to decide if the Building Code, as administered in the City of Northfield, should be amended by deleting Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) related to automatic fire sprinkler systems. • The City of Northfield adopted version 2000 MSBC in October of 2003. • An optional provision referred to as Chapter 1306 that imposes a higher standard for fire sprinkler requirements on many types of buildings was also adopted at the same tine. • Chapter 1306 requires that when the use of a building changes or an addition to an existing building where the addition plus the size of the existing building exceeds 2000 square feet occurs, the requirement for the installation of a fire sprinkler system is triggered for the entire building. • Chapter 1306 requires the City to adopt the standards without amendment or change; therefore, there is no latitude in the application of the requirements. • The MSBC contains fire sprinkler requirements that would remain in effect even if the optional provision contained in Chapter 1306 were repealed from the Building Code in Northfield. Staff recommends that the City Council decide to not repeal Chapter 1306 and thus the higher requirements for sprinkler systems remain as part of the administration of the Building Codes in the City of Northfield. RELATED INFORMATION: As previously stated, the City of Northfield enforces the version 2000 MSBC. The purpose for the enactment of Building Codes is: "... to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment." The City is required by the State of Minnesota to enforce this building code since the population of the City is greater than 5,000 people. The MSBC is the version of the International Building Code that has been modified by the State of Minnesota. The International Building Code is a standard code administered by all states in the United States and elsewhere in the world which creates a degree of consistency in building construction requirements internationally. Currently, there are 405 cities in the State of Minnesota that are required to enforce the MSBC. There are a total of 855 cities in total in the State; therefore, 47% of all communities are enforcing the MSBC. Additionally, there are 49 cities and townships that have elected to adopt Chapter 1306, which results in 12% of all communities who enforce the MSBC have chosen to adopt the 1306 standards. As previously stated, the City of Northfield, as part of adopting the version 2000 MSBC, also decided to adopt Chapter 1306 which is an adaptation of the MSBC related specifically to sprinkler requirements. The MSBC does contain requirements for fire sprinkler protection, but the application of these requirements is different (less demanding) with respect to the degree of building construction that can occur before fire sprinkler systems must be installed. In reviewing the attached listing of cities that have adopted Chapter 1306 several observations can be drawn: • Chapter 1306 has been adopted by cities larger and smaller than Northfield. • Most cities that have adopted Chapter 1306 are located in the 7 county metro area, whsle a smaller number of cities outside the metro area have also adopted the standards of Chapter 1306. • Many cities that are not known for their historic significance have adopted Chapter 1306. • A smaller number of cities that have significant historic resources have adopted Chapter 1306. As stated previously, the MSBC does contain provisions for the installation of fire sprinkler improvements, the difference between the MSBC and Chapter 1306 is the degree of construction, change or addition to an existing building that can occur before the sprinkler requirements are triggered. The following table illustrates when fire sprinkler systems must be installed for various building occupancy and use types as provided for in the MSBC compared to Chapter 1306: 1i'e S iiik.0 lie` uirehte�tif,lY Si3' >F1� axS i'lnklet Re uixet ieut Clla ler 1305 A -1 Assembly occupancy - 12,000 sq. ft or 300 Occupants A -1 Assembly occupancy - all uses must have sprinkler system A -2 Dining/Drinking - 5,000 sq. ft. or 300 occupants A -1 Assembly occupancy- all uses must have sprinkler system B Office- any office building more than 3 stories in height B Office — 2,000 sq. ft. E Education - 20,000 sq. ft. E Education — 2 sq. ft. F Factor - 12,000 sq. ft. F Facto — 2,000 sq. 11. M Mercantile - 12,000 sq. ft. 111 Mercantile- 2000 sq. ft. S Storage - 12,000 sq. ft. S Storage- 2,000 sq. ft. R -I and R -2 Residential of more than 16 dwellings - sprinkler system required R -1 and R -2 Residential - 5,500 sq. ft. H lE h Hazard - all uses havesprinkler system I H High Hazard - not addressed Since the City Council adopted the most current version of the Building Code including Chapter 1306, the following projects have been developed in the City that have adhered to these requirements that would not have had to had not the requirements been in effect: Arby's Wendy's Jacobson Reuse Jasnoeh Construction Building Division Street Dentist Oil Can Henry B.P. Convenience Store Professional Medical Building Currently, the Staff is evaluathrg the zoning regulations that would result in a greater potential for residential dwellings being constructed or converted from existing spaces in areas zoned commercial. As a result, the potential for greater numbers of residents living in existing buildings or newly constructed buildings in commercially zoned areas will increase. This is being explored as a means to create a greater degree of vitality in commercially zoned areas especially the C -I zone, which is the Downtown. There is a corresponding need to ensure the safety of residents in these areas. Conversely, the requirements of Chapter 1306 may create a degree of impediment to the change of use in existing spaces for new residential dwellings that this conversion activity may not occur; and, therefore, the very objective of trying to encourage a greater amount of dwelling units in areas zoned commercial (especially the Downtown) may not occur. Ultimately the decision to either retain the Chapter 1306 sprinkler requirements or to eliminate the requirements of Chapter 1306 represents a trade off decision. It must be emphasized that the MSBC does require sprinkler systems but not to the same degree with respect to smaller construction activity or changes in use. OPTIONS TO CONSIDER: 1. If the City Council believes that the value to the City that is created by allowing small construction activity and use changes is more important that the higher degree of protection as a result of the sprinkler requirements contained in Chapter 1306, the Council should decide to repeal Chapter 1306 by approving the Ordinance. 2. If the City Council believes that the higher degree of protection that is created by the application of the sprinkler requirements as contained in Chapter 1306 is of greater public benefit than the construction of small building or additions and use changes without the protection of sprinkler systems, then the City Council should decide to not repeal Chapter 1306 by denying the Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance #1839 2. Chapter 1306 of the MSBC 3. List of Cities enforcing current Chapter 1306 requirement 4. Letter from Northfield Fire Chief 5. Public Hearing Notice 6. Ordinance No. 797 Enacting Chapter 1306 7. Staff report dated October 6, 2003 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Open Public Hearing: Introduction/report: Questions from Council to Staff, if any: Questions from Public, if any (2 minutes /person): Close Public Hearing: Motion /second: Discussion: Action on ordinance Mayor Al Roder, City Administrator Mayor and Council Members Mayor facilitates Mayor and Council Members Council Members Mayor and Council Members Council Members Published on Northfield News: News, sports, entertainment and advertising from Northfield, Minnesota ( http: / /www.northfieldnews.com H ome > City council tables 1306 discussion City council tables 1306 discussion By Northfield News Created 0312112006 - 01:00 Submitted by Northfield News on Tue, 03/21/2006 - 01:00 By MICHELLE KUBITZ 1 Staff Writer 1 NORTHFIELD -- Although the Northfield City Council tabled more motions than they actually voted on, issues ranging from rental ordinances, the existence of future businesses and fire sprinkling systems were debated at length at Monday's meeting. Extra chairs were brought into City Hall as the council took up issues such as Chapter 1306 in the city's building code, the Q -Block Master Plan and issues to further construction in the city. Chapter 1306 1 Chapter 1306 brought out the most spectators to Monday's meeting. The ordinance is an optional provision to the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) which indicates that fire sprinklers need to be installed in businesses that undergo expansions that would increase a building to more than 2,000 square feet or if a business changes its usage. Many members of Northfield's downtown community are asking the council to repeal 1306, claiming the chapter causes economic hardship and is stifling the vitality of the downtown by discouraging businesses from renovating or expanding. The council has been considering the 1306 issue for more than a year. According to Mayor Lee Lansing, the laundry list of other items considered by the city prevented the council from looking at the issue and to vote on the issue until now. In addition, it's a conversation that Lansing's happy to have new City Administrator At Roder lead the council through. littu:/hvN rNv.northfieldnews.coin/orint /content /city- council- tables - 1306 - discussion 11/2/2011 n � e ales 9i s issi.n - - -_: _ "Quite frankly, it's just been a very full plate for city staff and city council, there are so many things in the process of working through that the priorities get pushed around a bit," Lansing said. "(Chapter) 1 306 could have been easily discussed earlier, but we decided to save it until we had the new administrator on board." In addition, Roder has had experience with the 1306 issue. "He has been able to be very helpful in plotting the course for dealing with this issue," Lansing said. Although councilors had the option to vote on an ordinance change, Roder recommended the council table the issue. "I recommend that an item of this magnitude with this much apparent interest, that you make a decision at your next meeting," Roder said. However, a public hearing was held to gather input on the issue. "if 1306 was an issue of life or death, it would not be an option," said Norman Butler, owner of two downtown businesses, the Contented Cow and Chapati, an Indian cuisine restaurant. Repealing 1306 from Northfield's building code "would be a sigh of relief and perhaps a shot in the arm for economic development," he said. The cost of installing sprinklers as warranted by 1306 is one of the major reasons that business owners are asking the council to repeal it. The Northfield Arts Guild (NAG) found out firsthand how much its costs if 1306 is triggered during the course of a renovation project. It cost the NAG $45,000 to sprinkle its theater on 411 W. Third St. Renovation was done in 2003 to the theater, which is an old church. "We had big plans for that money and of course we couldn't do it," said Rebecca Bazan, who currently serves at NAG's executive director but was on the board of directors at the time of the reconstruction. In an interview on Tuesday, Bazan also questioned whether or not the sprinklers were necessary. The building was already being used as a theater when the renovations were done, which would negate the provision in 1306 that requires sprinklers when a building changes use. " That's a lot of money for a non- profit organization," she said. "We just wanted to make the basement and the dressing rooms better. We wanted to improve the lobby. There are a lot of plans that we had that we couldn't implement because of the cost." One of the people who swallowed such a cost voiced their support Monday for 1306. When Exhaust Pros moved from its location on Minnesota Highway 3 to its new facility on Riverview Drive, it cost $45,000 to install the building's sprinkler addition. littu : / /NN /px int/content /city - council - tables -1306- discussion 11/2/2011 "It was definitely a hardship on us, but we had to make it work and we think other businesses have to make it work to stay in Northfield," said Dawn Parrott, one of the co- owners of the local business. In supporting 1306, Rosalee Forkner, a Northfield resident, said Monday that the issue isn't simply about economic development. "Fire does not respect any downtown business district and does not respect human life," she said. Without a measure like 1306, "it's not good enough to cross your fingers and hope nothing will happen." Although many urged the council to repeal 1306, a handful of others gave advice on how the process to look at the building code should go. Keith Covey, a member of the Northfield Downtown Development Corp. (NDDC), urged city staff to prepare a comparison of what 1306 allows for in fire protection versus the standard building code. Kiffi Summa told the council they had set up the 1306 discussion in "a very emotional, adversarial framework" and urged them to make a decision "based on facts, research and thorough discussion with stakeholders." Roger Kelm, another member of the NDDC board, encouraged staff and council to look at a recommendation by the American Institute of Architects that endorses "smart code alternatives" which would provide alternatives to sprinkling suppression systems in buildings. Councilor Jim Pokorney told the council that if they were to take action on 1306, more information would be needed. "If the council is going to take 1306 out we need good rationale and safety, not just economics," he said. Pokorney also expressed concern that some business owners are not updating their infrastructure because of 1306. "If they aren't updating because of 1306, fire hazards might be going up, not going down," he said. In addition, if the city does continue to enforce 1306, does the city have enough infrastructure to get the water to the sprinkling systems? One downtown business owner indicated that sprinklers aren't the costly issue with 1306, but the infrastructure needed to get water to the sprinkler systems from the city's water mains is. City staff asked for a few weeks to figure out some cost analysis for 1306 and answer other questions for the council. Councilors voted to postpone the issue indefinitely. Q -Block master plan Mtn: / /rvww.nortlifieldnews.com /print /content /Cit% council- tables -1306- discussion 11/2/2011 N04-6(A City Council Meeting Date :lAurtl 17.2006 REGULAR item #: 10 Ordinance #: 839 ITEM: Consider an Ordinance to Amend the Building Code of the City of Arorthfield with Respect to Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code Relative to Fire Protection Requirements SUBMITTED BY: Brian O'Connell, Community Development Director IN CONSULTATION WITH: Al Roder, City Administrator John Brookins, Building Official SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is being asked to consider the approval of an ordinance that would amend the Building Code of the City of Northfield regarding Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code Relative to Fire Protection Requirements (fire sprinklers). On March 20, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing to obtain comments on an ordinance to repeal Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code. The City Council closed the public hearing and directed that Staff research several issues with respect to the issue regarding Chapter 1306. These include: • An evaluation of the water distribution system of the City to detennine the capability to accommodate sprinkler systems. • How many buildings in the Downtown are currently sprinklered? • Determine the typical cost to extend water service from the main to the sprinkler system. • What other code improvements would be required and accomplished if Chapter 13.06 were not in effect? • What was the process that was used to adopt Chapter 1306 initially? Staff has researched infonuation regarding each of these issues and this is explained further in the Staff report. Based on the initial evaluation and the additional research conducted as part of the questions raised by City Council, Staff is still recommending that the City Council not repeal Chapter 1306. Recognizing that this decision may be difficult and problematic, the City Council can consider one of the two following options: OPTIONS: 1. The City Council can decide to adopt Ordinance No. 839 on first reading. This will repeal Chapter• 1306 from the Municipal Code of the City ofMorthfield 2. The City Council can decide to not adopt Ordinance Aro. 839. This will result In Chapter 1306 remaining within the Alunicipal Code of the Cit} of Northfield. RELATED INFORMATION: Evaluation of water distribution system: For commercial and industrial buildings, the needed fire flow rate varies considerably based on type of construction, building occupancy, proximity and characteristics of nearby properties. Generally, the City's water system has adequate pressure and flow to support sprinkler systems. Exceptions include land that is served with dead -end and 4 -6" watermains and land at higher elevations. How manv buildings downtown are currently sprinklered: Currently, there are 14 strictures that have installed sprinkler systems. These include: Archer House Perman Building First National Bank Community National Bank Grand Building Lockwood Opera House Buildin Paul Smith Building VFW Club Armor More Four Lansin-g Hardware Basement River Park Mall Arts Store Village dru Cost to Install Water Sertidce from Main to Sprinkler: Based on inforniation obtained from a local plumbing contractor wlro has installed many sprinkler systems including water service extensions, the estimated cost to extend the water service from the main to the sprinkler would be approximately $18,000 for an asphalt street and approximately $20,000 for a concrete street. What Code Improvements would be Accomplished if Building Expansion or Use Changes Occurred if Chapter 1306 were not in Effect: Improvements that would occur include: handicapped accessibility improvements, while other improvements to exiting conditions and fire separation may be improved depending on the size of the change, the specific use that is changing and the location of the change to the property line or the closeness of an adjacent building. Any building expansion or use change would require that many handicapped accessibility requirements be installed based on the requirement of having to expend 20% of all expenditures oil accessibility improvements. If buildings were expanded, it is likely that exiting requirements would need to change and thus improve the ability of occupants of expanded structures to exit the building. This requirement is dependant on the use type and the size of the expansion and the current condition of current exits. Exterior and/or interior wall fire separation requirements may need to be installed depending on the use of the building expanded or changed and the current separation of the existing structure to another adjacent structure. Process to Enact Chapter 1306 Initially: The City of Northfield first enacted Chapter 1306 in 1999. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 722, which incorporated an optional provision Chapter 1306, Option 8, which appears to have related to use classifications M, S, and F with occupancies over 2,000 or more gross square feet. The City Council in October of 2003 adopted Ordinance No. 797, which amended the earlier ordinance relative to 123.06 and incorporated the current version of Chapter 1306 which applies to all new construction and expansion or changes of use where the expansion or change of use involves an area of 2,000 gross square feet or more including the size of the existing structure. It doe not appear that a public hearing was held either in 1999, or 2003, which is not a procedural requirement to enact these types of ordinances. The requirement to contact the Minnesota State Building Codes and Standards Division was not fiilfilled until the fall of 2004. The Building Official was not aware of this requirement and when it was determined by the Building Official that the Division of Codes and Standards needed to be notified of the City action on Chapter 1306, this notification occurred immediately. The actual requirement is for the City to have made this contact within IS days of the enactment of the Chapter 1306 code requirements. The information that the Staff assembled as part of the initial deliberation on Chapter 1306 is attached to this Staff report as Attachment 45. This can be used by the City Council as background information on this issue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 11839 2. Ordinance #797 3. Ordinance #722 4. Letter from Fire Chief Franek 5. Staff report from March 20, 2006, as previously submitted SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction/Rcport: City Administrator Motion, second: City Council Members Questions from Council to Staff, if any: Mayor and Council Members Questions from Public, if any (2 minutes /person): Mayor facilitates Discussion: Mayor and Council Members Action on motion: City Council Members ORDINANCE NO. 839 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING PART OF THE BUILDING CODE FOR THE CITY, NAMELY, OPTIONAL CHAPTER 1306, SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTHFIELD DOES ORDAIN THAT SEC. 34 -296 (c) OF NORTHFIELD CODE, CHAPTER 34, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE V, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, DIVISION 2, BUILDING CODE, IS HEREBY REPEALED (deleted material is lined out; new material is underlined; provisions not being repealed or amended are omitted except as necessary for context): CHAPTER 34. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE V. BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS DIVISION 2. BUILDING CODE Sec. 34 -296. State building code adopted. (e) TI to Rttl of the buil Bode bF a eit,.. Chapter 1 �n6 112- P ..: r., te,,, w ith e pti en su b 2 o 1. s e i' (d) jc� The following optional appendix chapters of the 2000 International Building Code are adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for the city: Appendix K (Grading) of the 2001 supplements to the International Building Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Northfield this 17th day of APRIL 2006. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor First Reading: Second Reading: Published: VOTE: LANSING BOND — DAVIS _ MALECHA NELSON POKORNEY — VOHS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 17, 200 PAGE 3 Regular Agenda 5) Northfield Hospital President, Ken Bank gave an update on the Lonsdale Clinic, which opened last November and provided some projections for the new clinic in Farmington. a. A motion was made by C. Vohs and seconded by C. Davis to PASS RESOLUTION #2006 -028 —AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF LAND FOR MEDICAL CLINIC IN FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA. All in favor. Motion carried. b. A motion was made by C. Malecha and seconded by C. Davis to PASS RESOLUTION #2006 -029 — AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR MEDICAL CLINIC IN FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA. All in favor. Motion carried. 9) A motion was made by C. Pokorny and seconded by C. Malecha to PASS MOTION (M2006 -0039) — DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH SALE OF LAND AT 207 WATER STREET TO JEKKL LIMITED. Dean Kjerland, 217 S. Water St., questioned what issues would need to be resolved in order to construct a ramp with the options listed. Public Works Director Heidi Hamilton gave the staff report and answered questions from Council. Joanne Larson, 207 S. Water St. stated that outdoor dining helps the vitality of downtown. Vote on MOTION (M2006- 0039). Yes votes by C. Vohs, C. Bond, C. Davis, C. Nelson, C. Malecha and Mayor Lansing. No vote by C. Pokorney. Motion carried. City Administrator Al Roder introduced a motion to HAVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 839 — REPEALING PART OF THE BUILDING CODE FOR THE CITY, NAMELY, OPTIONAL CHAPTER 1306, SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS. Community Development Director Brian O'Connell gave the staff report. David Hvistendahl, 8t8 Forest Ave., spoke in favor of the repeal citing the expense to install sprinkler systems in historic buildings and that it destroys the architectural integrity of buildings. Norman Butler, 1001 Division St., agreed with Hvistendahl adding that the majority of the community is opposed to optional Chapter 1306. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING — April 17,2006— PAGE 4 L Vote on FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 839. Yes votes by C. Bond, C. Pokorney, C. Davis, C. Nelson, C. Malecha and Mayor Lansing. No vote by C. Vohs. Motion carried. 11) A motion was made by C. Vohs and seconded by C. Malecha to PASS RESOLUTION #2006 -034 -- APPROVING A FORGIVABLE MASTER DEVELOPMENT LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,650 FOR PERKINS SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTING, INC. WHO WILL RELOCATE THEIR BUSINESS TO 1800 RIVERVIEW DRIVE. Housing and Economic Development Specialist answered questions posed by Council. Victor Summa, 812 St. Olaf Ave., expressed concern as to how much economic development this project would have with regards to taxes, TIF and the JOBZ benefits. Vote on RESOLUTION #2006 -034. All in favor. Motion carried. Reports From The Mayor and Councilmenibers: C. Volis commented on the following: - Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting - Grace Whittier Awards on May 1, 2006 - Environmental Quality Commission meeting on April 18, 2006 C. Davis reported on a Youth Plus meeting he attended and a Builder's Forum hosted by the City scheduled for April 20, 2006. C. Bond reported on the following: - NDDC meeting of April 4, 2006 - NDDC Q- Block meeting on April 5, 2006 - Economic Development Authority meeting of April 10, 2006 - Rural Fire meeting - Planning Commission meeting - Art Trail meeting on April 12, 2006 - Economic Development Authority meeting of April 13, 2006 - Chamber Business Fair on May 4, 2006 C. Nelson mentioned attending the Railroad Quiet Zone Open House. C. Pokorney gave a Park and Recreation Advisory Board update.