Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.02.03 Work Session Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP JUNE 2, 2003 8:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers 1. Presentation of Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code 2. Discussion Regarding Chapter 1306 3. Possible Next Steps . Adopt Chapter 1306 with Staff Recommended Options . Adopt Chapter 1306 with More Stringent Options . Conduct Further Research . Do Not Adopt Chapter 1306 4. Adjourn City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator <.<. John Powers, Fire Marshal Ken Lewis, Building Official \/fV TO: SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code DATE: June 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION 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 Code. The City Council directed Staff to schedule a special work session to further discuss Chapter 1306. DISCUSSION The Building Code, which is applicable statewide, is updated periodically 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 municipalities are required to adopt the Code. The City of Farmington adopted the Code on Apri121, 2003. The Minnesota State Building Code also offers several optional chapters that may be adopted by individual municipalities, including Chapter 1306, which requires certain fire suppression systems for specific building types. The City of Farmington discussed 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 losses caused by fire. . Defers or delays the need for a full time Fire Department as the City continually grows. . Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to building occupants and Fire Department personnel. . Reduces fire insurance premiums for the building owner. . Reduces the overall cost of fire protection. Background Prior to 1999, the Farmington City Code included Chapter 1306. The 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 requirement would be too great for current building owners. Changes have been made to Chapter 1306 in conjunction 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 described 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 the City to determine the threshold that would regulate what type 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: Subpart 2 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings and existing buildings that fall into certain building categories as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staff is NOT recommending this option. Subpart 3 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings, additions to eXlstmg buildings, and buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed. The requirements in Subpart 3 would only apply to commercial buildings as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staff is recommending this option. Another option provided in the Chapter is in Section 1306.0030 (E). According to this Section, if Chapter 1306 is adopted, a municipality must also choose one of the following options to determine fire suppression requirements for certain occupancy 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 the 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 height. 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. ACTION REQUESTED Consider adoption of Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code. ~-/~ Ken Lewis Building Official Attachment: 1. Chapter 1306 2. Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) 3. Chapter 1306 Municipal Survey 4. U.S. Fire Loss History 5. Sprinkler Success Stories in Minnesota 6. Fire Sprinkler Facts Chapter 1306 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 ne'.v gYildings. 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 maintJined in operational condition 'Nithin the structure. The requirements of this subpart apply to structures that fall 'Nithin the occupancy classifications estJblished in part 1306.0030, items A to E. Exceptions: 1. The floor Jrca of minor additions that do not increase the occupJnt load does not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E. 2. The existing portion of R 2 apartment occupancies, attached R 3 occupancies, and attached townhomes is not required to be sprinklered under this chapter. 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 structures that fall within the occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E. 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 E. 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 E 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, A-2, A-3, and A-4 occupancies; 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; 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; E. Optional occupancy group-municipality may choose option 1 or option 2. 1. Group R 1 and R 2 occupancies vvith 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 :ittached townhouses built to the International Residential Code with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area. All floors, basements, and garages :ire included in this floor area threshold. 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 height. 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 Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division, within 15 days of its adoption. Minnesota Department of Administration Building Codes and Standards Division ST ATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS Proposed Amendment to Rules Governing Special Fire Protection Systems (optional), Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1306 INTRODUCTION Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1306 is intended to provide local jurisdictions with the ability to adopt more comprehensive fire sprinkler protection provisions for structures within their jurisdictions, to provide for the life safety of the constituents, and the fire safety of the property they are entrusted to protect. Fire sprinklers offer a cost effective alternative to fire protection than the traditional fire suppression method; which is extremely costly, both in terms of capital and operating needs and has had a very poor record of effectiveness for saving lives and property. Communities that adopt chapter 1306 have a greater ability to utilize limited taxpayer dollars more efficiently by using volunteer fire departments and a reduced number of fire stations and equipment. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration proposes to adopt a new version of Chapter 1306 into the Minnesota State Building Code. Chapter 1306 was first adopted April 25, 1983, as Optional Appendix "E" but has been revised from time to time. This chapter was last modified in 1998 when it was adopted as part of the Minnesota State Building Code. The proposed rules amend the requirements of the 2000 International Building Code, which will be adopted by reference as part of the Minnesota State Building Code. The Agency published its Request for Comments in the State Register on July 1 0, 2000, soliciting opinions and information from the public on the rules regarding Chapter 1306. The Building Codes and Standards Division facilitated a 1306 Advisory Committee that included members from the construction industry, multi- housing interests, fire service, building owners, architects and engineers, fire sprinkler industry, code officials, and the public. All members of the committee contributed to the content of the proposed rules and consensus was reached on all items. ALTERNATIVE FORMAT Upon request, this Statement of Need and Reasonableness can be made available in an alternative format, such as large print, Braille, or cassette tape. To make a request, contact Colleen D. Chirhart, Rules Coordinator at the Department of Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division, 408 Metro Square Building, 121 _7th Place East, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101-2181, (651) 296-4329, FAX (651) 297-1973 and email at colleen.d.chirhart@state.mn.us. TTY users may call the Department at 1-800-627-3529. 1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY Minnesota Statutes, section l6B.59 provides that "the State Building Code governs the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings and other structures to which the code is applicable. The commissioner shall administer and amend a state code of building construction which will provide basic and uniform performance standards, establish reasonable safeguards for health safety, welfare, comfort, and security of the residents of this state and provide for the use of modern methods, devices, materials, and techniques which will in part tend to lower construction costs. The construction of buildings should be permitted at the least possible cost consistent with recognized standards of health and safety." Minnesota Statutes, section l6B.6l, subdivision 1 provides that "subject to sections l6B.59 to l6B.75, the commissioner shall by rule establish a code of standards for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings, governing matters of structural materials, design and construction, fire protection, health, sanitation, and safety, including design and construction standards regarding heat loss control, illumination, and climate control. The code must also include duties and responsibilities for code administration, including procedures for administrative action, penalties, and suspension and revocation of certification. The code must conform insofar as practicable to model building codes generally accepted and in use throughout the United States, including a code for building conservation. In the preparation of the code, consideration must be given to the existing statewide specialty codes presently in use in the state. Model codes with necessary modifications and statewide specialty codes may be adopted by reference. The code must be based on the application scientific principles, approved tests, and professional judgment. To the extent possible, the code must be adopted in terms of desired results instead of the means of achieving those results, avoiding wherever possible the incorporation of specifications of particular methods or materials. To that end the code must encourage the use of new methods and new materials. Except as otherwise provided in sections l6B.59 to 16B.75, the commissioner shall administer and enforce the provisions of those sections. Minnesota Statutes, section l6B.64, subdivision 6, states that "[t]he commissioner shall approve any proposed amendments deemed by the commissioner to be reasonable in conformity with the policy and purpose of the code and justified under the particular circumstances involved. Upon adoption, a copy of each amendment must be distributed to the governing bodies of all affected municipalities. REGULATORY ANALYSIS Minnesota Statutes, section 14.131, sets out six factors for a regulatory analysis that must be included in the SONAR. Paragraphs (1) through (6) below quote these factors and then give the agency's response. "(1) a description of the classes of persons who probably will be affected by the proposed rule, including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit from the proposed rule" 2 Those who will be affected by the rules include: municipal building officials and inspectors who must become familiar with and enforce applicable new provisions; various types of building contractors, including commercial and residential, who perform both new cons truction and remodeling; architects and engineers who must become familiar with and incorporate applicable new provisions into their design of new and remodeled buildings and structures; building material suppliers who must become familiar with and incorporate applicable new provisions into the manufacture and assembly of their product; building owners who may bear any new costs associated with applicable new provisions, either for new construction or remodeling; all those of the general public who live, work, shop,and conduct business in buildings or other structures will benefit from new safety standards. Those who will bear the costs of the rules include: building owners who ultimately must pay for any costs associated with new provisions; material suppliers and building contractors may bear at minimum, short term costs associated with some new provisions. There will be some minimal cost increase due to the adoption of some of the proposed Minnesota Rule amendments. These cost increases will be identified under other sections that follow. Those who will benefit from the rules include: municipal building officials and inspectors and members of the fire service who prefer a more current standard so that known inadequacies and inconsistencies in the current state rules can be corrected to provide for more uniform and consistent application and enforcement; architects and engineers who prefer to provide a higher level of safety and fire protection in the buildings they design; all those of the general public who live, work, shop, and conduct business in buildings or other structures will benefit from current new safety standards; fire suppression personnel because the hazards are almost completely eliminated in structures with built-in fire protection as evidenced by historical performance of built- in protection; the insurance industry and subsequent policy holders because premiums will be reduced; and . community taxpayers who bear the cost for fire protection services. "(2) the probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues" There are no anticipated additional costs to this agency or any other agency in the implementation and enforcement of these rules. In addition, there is no anticipated effect on state revenues. However, certain smaller buildings constructed for the state may now be included in groups requiring sprinklers; though many buildings, because of their remote location, would be exempted from these rules. The cost of implementing these rules are minor compared to the costs associated with structure destroyed by fire. Automatic fire suppression systems have proven, over a number of decades to be over 98% effective in controlling the hazards of fire. "(3) a determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule" 3 There are no less costly or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of this proposed rule. "(4) a description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule" Based on significant life safety improvements, local building officials can choose to accept alternate options within the code to reduce other code requirements with the installation of fire sprinklers. Fire sprinklers afford the highest level of active fire protection available and, therefore, no alterna tives exist. "(5) the probable costs of complying with the proposed rule" According to figures obtained from the Building Codes and Standards Division, the cost of installing fire sprinklers in commercial buildings is approximately $2.24 per square foot. These figures are compiled annually and represent national cost averages for various building occupancies and construction types. To help offset these added costs of building construction, most insurance companies offer discounts on fire insurance to building owners and users whose facilities are protected by automatic fire sprinklers. The number of building code requirements will be reduced, especially with regard to sprinkler protection requirements. "(6) an assessment of any differences between the proposed rule and existing federal regulations and a specific analysis of the need for and reasonableness of each difference" There are no federal regulations that require automatic fire sprinklers in certain buildings or occupancies, however, the Hotel ani Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101- 391) mandates that federal employees traveling must stay in public accommodations that comply with NFP A 13 or 13R with respect to hardwired single station smoke detectors in each room and automatic sprinkler systems with a head in each room. Properties lower than three stories are exempt from the sprinkler requirement. Generally, the overall implications of this rule would mostly likely serve to increase the supply of designers and installers, thereby reduc ing costs. Continued and expanded technology will utilize more efficient more efficient components and existing water supplied, which in turn, should also help to reduce overall costs. Entire developments in communities that have installed fire sprinklers can and have chosen to reduce lot width size, increased hydrant sp'acing, and decreased road width, thereby reduced the need for traditional fire suppression equipment that relied on distance separation, water for suppression, and room in the street for fire fighting equipment. PERFORMANCE-BASED RULES 4 Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.61 authorizes the Department to, by rule, establish a code of standards for construction. This statute also mandates, that to the extent possible, the code must be adopted in terms of desired results instead of the means of achieving those results, avoiding wherever possible the incorporation of specifications of particular methods or materials. The international Building Code establishes minimum regulations for building systems using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. It is founded on broad-based principles that make possible the use of new materials and new building designs. The Department chose to adopt the international Building Code because it incorporates performance-related provisions and will comply with the statutory requirement to adopt, to the extent possible, performance- based standards. ADDITIONAL NOTICE Our Notice Plan also includes giving notice[s] required by statute. We will mail the Notice of Intent to Adopt to everyone who has registered to be on the Department's rulemaking mailing list under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.14, subdivision 1a. We will mail a copy of the rules to any person specifically requesting a copy of them. The Department's rules mailing list includes anyone who is interested and has requested to receive a copy of the Department's draft rules and numerous trade associations, including: a. Housing associations b. Health care facility associations c. Building Owners ani Managers Association d. Contractors' associations e. Farmers Home Association f Mechanical associations g. Electrical associations h. Association of Minnesota Counties 1. Minnesota Association of Townships J. League of Minnesota Cities k. Builders associations 1. Fire associations m AlA Minnesota n Plumbing associations o. Minnesota Pipe Trades Association p. Engineers' associations q. Minnesota Utility Contractors Association r. State. Fire Marshal Division s. Minnesota Board of Electricity We will mail the Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules to other interested parties. We will mail a copy of the rules to any person who specifically requests them. Those parties include: a. All municipal code officials and others involved in code administration. This list is taken from the Division's database and includes all municipal building officials responsible for administration of the state building code and officials from other 5 cities, towns, and counties who need to be aware of these proposed rules as they apply to public buildings within their jurisdiction. b. Members of the Construction Codes Advisory Council c. Metropolitan Council We will publish the proposed rules, Statement of Need and Reasonableness, and Notice of Intent to Adopt Proposed Rules on the Department of Administration's Building Codes and Standards Division Web site. We will also give notice to the Legislature per Minnesota Statutes, section 14.116. We will also publish the notice and the proposed rules in the State Register, as required by state law. LIST OF WITNESSES If these rules go to a public hearing, the Department anticipates having the following witnesses testify in support of the need for and reasonableness of the rules: 1. Department of Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division staff. 2. Building Codes and Standards Division's Assistant Attorney General 3. Fire Service staff, if necessary RULE-B Y-RULE ANALYSIS 1306.0010 General. This language is being carried over from the previous code language. This section establishes this rule chapter as an optional section of the state building code. This section is numbered 1306.0100, subpart 1 in the current code. 1306.0020 Municipal option. This section is a modification of the language currently located in 1306.0100. subpart 2. This new proposal divides the section into two categories, with the requirement that one of the two options must be adopted if the rule chapter is adopted. Subpart 1 of this proposal contains the same language as the current language in 1306.0100, subpart 2. Subpart 2 of this proposal is similar to the current language except that it allows a municipality to adopt this special fire suppression rule for new buildings only. Numerous municipal fire and building officials requested the development of this section because they believe that special fire suppression provisions should only be applied to new buildings and not existing buildings. Several municipalities have voted to not adopt this rule chapter because application to existing buildings can become political when it affects retrofitting existing buildings. Many municipalities would adopt 1306 if it only applied to new buildings. 1306.0030 Requirements. This section is similar to the current language in 1306.0100, subpart 3. The language has been revised to coordinate the occupancy classifications with those in the International Building Code. Additional changes relate to changes in the gross square footage size requiring the building the be sprinklered under this rule. 2,000 gross square foot buildings 6 can be attacked by firefighters from the outside. Larger buildings require interior fire lines and require fire fighters to enter the building. 2,000 square foot buildings can be exited by occupancy in a timely manner in the event of a fire emergency. Likewise, firefighers have an ability to extinguish the fire utilizing pre-existing openings, such as doors and windows to direct their fire fighting hand lines from the exterior, significantly reducing the hazards posed to them. Larger buildings require more time for occupants to escape the building and require firefighters to lay and extend hand lines into potentially lethal environments. An additional category of attached R-3 and attached townhouse occupancies was added based on input from the fire service, building official community and city representatives. Attached R-3 or townhouses are being built in unlimited area and unprecedented quantities. These buildings function as one building because fire migrates from roof to roof and from exterior components into interior living spaces and interior roof spaces with other voids, unless buildings are separated. These buildings look like apartment buildings and fire does not recognize interior property lines. Several national and local builders already incorporate fire sprinklers into their townhomes and several communities, because of interpretive differences and local zoning requirements, require sprinklers in R-3 attached occupancies over 8,500 square feet. An additional exception was added to exc lude existing apartment occupancies, existing attached R-3 occupancies, and existing attached townhomes from retroactive application of these sprinkler rules. This language clarifies an existing practice and is consistent with requirements for condominiums of the same SIze. 1306.0040 Standard. The language in this section is similar to the current language in 1306, however, the last sentence in this proposal was added to address the need for an adequate alternate water supply that is acceptable for hose stream requirements. This was added to allow the local officials to accept alternate water supplies. 1306.0050 Substitute construction. The language in this section was modified from current language to update the reference in the International Building Code, the model building code being adopted into the State Building Code. 1306.0060 Exemption. This language is entirely new to this rule chapter. The language was added to provide exception to these provisions when: 1) application of water to building contents would create a hazard, or 2) a building does not have adequate water supply. Under certain circumstances, adding water to the contents of a building may actually cause more damage. This section allows alternate methods when water reacts with tre contents of a building causing more hazards. For certain buildings located 60 feet from other buildings but far from an adequate water supply, the cost of an adequate water supply would be greater than the cost of the entire sprinkler system for the building. 1306.0070 Reporting. This language is entirely new to this rule chapter. This language establishes a database of information for the Division to track the number of municipalities that actually adopt this rule chapter and which version of the chapter they chose to adopt. The Division is responsible for plan review and inspections of public buildings and state licensed facilities throughout the state. For plan review and inspection purposes, it is necessary for the Division to know which provisions in the State Building Code apply in each municipality to 7 properly carry out its duties relative to those tasks. Some property does not have an adequate water supply. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the proposed rules are both needed and reasonabb. September 10, 2002 /s/ David Fisher Commissioner 8 Optional 1306 Survey (Revised 4-14-2003) The following cities are planning to adopt 1306 with Subpart 2. Existin2 and New Buildin2s and Option 1 for Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area or dwelling units or guestroom s on three or more floors and attached townhouses built to the IRC with 8,500 or more square feet of floor area. All floors, basements and garages are included in this floor area threshold Blaine Spring Lake Park Mound Stillwater Coon Rapids Shakopee Bloomington New Brighton Golden Valley The following cities are planning to adopt 1306 with Subpart 3. New Buildin2s and Option 2 for attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the IRC with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in height. Plymouth Rochester Hopkins The following cities are planning to adopt 1306 with Subpart 3. New Buildin2s and Option 1 St. Louis Park St. Paul Maple Grove adopted this on April 7, 2003 The following cities will not be adopting 1306: Ramsey FIRE LOSS HISTORY Sprinklered vs. Non-Sprinklered Buildings 1987 - 1996 Occupancy Tvpe: Ave. Loss - w/o Ave. Loss - A/S % Reduction Public Assembly - Total $20,600 $ 6,100 70 Eating & Drinking $16,100 $ 5,400 66 Educational (through lih grade) $14,300 $ 4,600 68 J Health Care Facilities - Total $ 4,300 $ 1,600 63 Hospitals $ 4,900 $ 1,600 67 Nursing Homes $ 3,700 $ 1,600 57 Residential Properties: Apartments $ 8,100 $ 4,300 41 High-Rise Apartments $ 3,100 $ 1,800 42 Hotels & Motels $12,400 $ 5,800 54 High-Rise Hotels $11,500 $ 4,400 62 Dormitories $ 7,400 $ 4,800 35 Stores and Offices - Total $23,300 $13,300 43 Department Stores $37,500 $15,200 60 Office Buildings $22,200 . $11 ,300 49 High-Rise Office Buildings $28,400 $12,800 55 Manufacturing Facilities $44,400 $17,700 60 Data from NFP A Report: Us. Experience With Sprinklers - October, 1998 . Sprinkler Success Stories Page 1 of8 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STATE FIRE MARSHAL Sprinkler Success Stories Items for inclusion on this page may be submitted to Robert.Dahm(cj)state.mn.us. I. Blaine II. Brooklvn Park II. Bumsville I I. Chanhassen II. Duluth II. La Crescent I I. Little Canada II. Maolewood II. Minnetonka I I.Mt.Iron II. Moundsview II. Northtield I I. Rochester II. St. Louis Park II. St. Paul I I. Spring Lake Park II. Stillwater II. Waconia I Blaine, MN December, 2002 Sprinklers in the trash room of the Cloverleaf Apartments extinguished two different fires during the second week of December. The fires, which originated in a dumpster inside the trash room were extinguished by a single fire sprinkler head on both occasions. The dumpster room and the adjacent hallway sustained a small amount of smoke and water damage, but had the room not been sprinklered either one of the fires could have resulted in loss of life and, or loss of the entire building, No residents were displaced as a result of the fires. The causes of which remain under investigation. S,!bmitted by Harlan Lundstrom, SSM Fire November 19,2000 A laundry room fire a the Blaine Super 8 was extinguished by the fire sprinkler system. The alarm connected to the sprinkler water flow sounded, but only on the second floor, resulting in that floors occupants evacuating the building. The first floor alarm did not sound due to a malfunctioned, and firefighters found occupants still in their rooms on that ' . level. Since the fire had been extinguished by the sprinkler system, first floor occupants were sheltered in their rooms until the smoke could be cleared. Reported in the December 15. 2000 edition of ABC Newspapers Brooklyn Park, MN May 25, 2001 The fire department responded to a water flow alarm at Northview Junior High School. The call was http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshaVfireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03 Sprinkler Success Stories Page 2 of8 upgraded to a working fire based on information from school staff. First arriving units found a heavy smoke condition in the industrial arts area. The fire was contained by the activation of one sprinkler head and extinguished by firefighters. Linseed rags were established as the cause of the fire. Damage was estimated at $4,500 with no injuries. Submitted by JOtl Nisja. Deputy Slale Fire Marshal - Supervisor May 21, 2001 The fire department responded to a water flow alarm at the Champlin Park High School. The alarm was upgraded when the first arriving officer found a fire in a small room in the industrial arts area that contained the acetylene gas storage and distribution equipment. Students and staff had evacuated the building. The fire was contained by one sprinkler head and extinguished by firefighters. Damage is estimated at $8,000 with no injuries. Submitted by JOtl Nisja. Deputy Slale Fire Marshal- Supervisor May 17,2001 Brooklyn Park Fire responded to a water flow alarm at a Subway Restaurant.. The fIrst arriving offIcer found a heavy smoke condition and upgraded the call to a working fIre. On investigation a small fIre was found in the offIce area at the rear of the building. One sprinkler head had activated and contained the fIre which was quickly extinguished by fIrefIghters. The cause of the fIre was determined to be smoking materials that had been discarded into a trash container. Damaged was estimated at $20,000 with no injuries. Submilled by JOtl Nisja. Deputy Stale Fire Marshal- Supervisor Burnsville, l\1N December 30, 2000 A sprinkler head protecting the apartment kitchen of an elderly woman quickly stopped a stove top fIre. This fast suppression was especially timely because it occurred in one of five apartments in the assisted care living facility that housed memory loss patients. This apartment wing section was separated from the rest of the building a a corridor door, but unknown to building or fIre resources; all apartment doors had been removed to better observe the residents. The fire occurred when a portable radio ignited that was placed on a stove burner that was unintentionally turned on. Thick black smoke made its was to the corridor and adjacent apartment units, then the sprinkler activation stopped the fire. A facility staff member suffered smoke inhalation in the attempt of removing residents, but when fIrefIghters entered the area it was reasonable clear. The water flow was shut down limiting the water damage to the apartment carpet and a small section of the corridor floor. The stove and sink area received minor fIre damage. Doors have been re-installed and alarm and evacuation procedures evaluated and changed. The effective coverage of the sidewall sprinkler was especially noted. Submitted by Tom Hannum, Burnsvilla Fire Inspector Chanhassen, l\1N December, 2000 Chanhassen fIrefighters responded to a water flow alarm in an offIce/warehouse/light manufacturing facility. The fIrst engine company on scene reported the fIre out. Upon investigation it was discovered that two ESFR sprinkler heads were activated, limiting the are of fire to an area approximately 10' x 10'. The fIre was determined to be caused by a small tank ofliquid was igniting and spreading to cardboard boxes. (This is the same facility reported in the November http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/S prinkS tories.html 5/28/03 . Sprinkler Success Stories Page 3 of8 25 incident below.) November 25, 2000 Chanhassen fIrefIghters responded to a waterflow alarm in 110,000 square foot offIce/warehouse/light manufacturing facility protected by an ESFR sprinkler system. The system extinguished the fIre in a small amount of cardboard, limited the fIre area to an area approximately 6' x 6'. The business makes candles. Both illcidellts were reported by tlte Cltanltassell Fire Departmelltto tlte MN Cltapter of Natiollal Fire Sprillkler Associatioll Duluth, MN June 4, 1999 A couch fIre on the fIfth floor of a 14 story residential high-rise was controlled by a single sprinkler head. Responding f~e companies removed the remains of the couch, ventilated smoke from the apartment and cleaned up water. Submitted by: JOltll Strollgilltarm. Fire Marshal. Dulutlt Fire Department. Fire Prevelltion Bureau La Crescent, MN August 20,2001 Fire damaged a portion of a company that makes wooden building trusses, but was controlled before it could do major damage. Flames and smoke could be seen in a shed on the business' west side when fIrefIghters arrived, but a sprinkler system and the fIre department's new foam truck quickly extinguished the fIre. According to the La Crescent Fire Marshal, "It wasn't very much damage considering what it could have been. It's basically a lumber yard and it's not uncommon to lose a lot in a situation like that. Any business that doesn't know whether to put in a sprinkler system should look at this." From Fire Protection Contractor, November 200 I, reprillted from tlte La Crosse Tribune. Little Canada, MN July 8, 1999 AT 0500 hours, the Little Canada Fire Department responded to Water-N-Woods Sporting Goods. Upon arrival the department observed that the automatic fire sprinkler system had extinguished a fIre in the store. Further investigation revealed that the store had been burglarized and several fIrearms had been stolen. It a appeared that the fIre had been set to to cover up the burglary and theft. The resulting fIre was extinguished by six. sprinkler heads, which also prevented the fire from spreading beyond the immediate area of origin. The store was closed for a couple days to conduct further investigation, inventory and complete clean up. Submitted by Jim Morelall (Asst. Fire Cltief) and Dualle Wi//iams (Fire M~rshal). Little Callada Fire Department Maplewood, MN http://www.dps.state.mn.us/finarshal/fireprot/S prinkS tories.html 5/28/03 Sprinkler Success Stories Page 4 of8 Date Unknown An fire was set inside a clothing rack in the women's department of the Maplewood Mall Sears Store. There was heavy smoke in the entire area. The overhead fire protection sprinkler stopped the fire from spreading to other clothing racks. The fire department crew used less than 50 gallons of water to extinguish spot fires on some of the clothing. Damage was contained to the rack of clothing and some bum to the carpet below where ignited clothing had dropped. Submitted by: Butch Garvais Fire Marshal. City of Maplewood Minnetonka, MN July 6, 1999 An automatic fire sprinkler system had recently been installed in a multi-tenant office/warehouse building on Opportunity Court in Minnetonka. Prior to leaving for the weekend, the sprinkler contractor filled the system with water and added 200 1bs. of air pressure (this is common industry practice to check for leaks over an extended period of time). The main sprinkler control valve was then shut off as the system was not yet connected to a central station monitoring alarm. On Tuesday, July 6 Minnetonka Fire Inspector Phil Minnell arrived at the building to witness the [mal acceptance test for this newly installed system. Once there, he and the sprinkler contractor found two sprinkler heads leaking. Upon closed examination, and in speaking with the tenant, it was discovered that a fire had occurred over the weekend in a piece of machinery that had ignited an adjacent workbench and plastic garbage can. The fire had been extinguished by the two sprinklers discharging the water that was in the pipes for the acceptance test. Damage was minimal and even the water damage was insignificant. Inspector Minnell advised that the damage was so minimal that it was difficult to discover that there had been a fire. Submitted by: Phil Minnell. Minnetonlca Fire Inspector Mt. Iron, MN December 5, 2000 Mountain Iron and Virginia firefighters were called to L & M Supply in Mountain Iron to handle what turned out to be a small fire. The fire was reported about 7:50 AM in some ceiling panels above a lighting display. The fire set off the store's sprinkler system, keeping the damage to a small area. Printed in the January, 2001 issue of the Northland Firewire Mounds View, MN Date Unknown A Mounds View food supplier to schools and restaurants suffered a fire when welding sparks from new construction ignited hi-rock storage pallets containing foam cups and paper napkins. Sprinkler heads activated and, with the held of an employee who also serves as a volunteer firefighter, the fire was contained and damage was limited to wet products on the pallets. Information from Fire Snrinlder New. National Fire Sprinkler Association - Minnesota Chapter. Spring. http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03 -Sprinkler Success Stories Page 5 of8 Northfield, MN January 23, 2002 The Northfield Fire Department responded to a fire in the China Buffet, an establishment located in the River Park Mall. The fire, incendiary in cause, was contained to the dining room by the building's fire sprinkler system. The system extinguished the main body of the initial fire, which he fire department was able to fully extinguish using minimal water from hose lines. A January 26 article in the Northfield News quotes Northfield Fire Chief Gerry Franek as stating "Because of the quick response of the sprinkler system the damage was kept to a minimum. Bob Barton, Property Manager for the Mall, states in response to the article, "I can only heartily agree. Due to the fire sprinkler system there was no structural damage to the building and only minor water damage the neighboring tenants. jf/fomlatiof/jorm Bob Bartof/. Property Maf/ager - River Park Mall as reported 10 the State Fire Marshal Divisiof/ Rochester, MN December 15, 2001 An early morning fire in a 150 bed nursing facility was extinguished by a single sprinkler head. The fire was restricted to on small corner of a kitchen. Rochester Fire responded to the incident. It appears someone set a plastic cup rack on top of a large commercial toaster. Incoming staff turned on the toaster and left for other duties. The heated toaster melted the cup rack generating enough smoke and heat to blacken the corner and ceiling overhead, which activated the sprinkler. There were no witnesses to the event. The building is operating normally. jf/formatiof/from Deputy State Fire Marshal Jerry White. St. Louis Park, MN June 11, 1999 At 0127 hrs, the St. Louis Park Fire Department responded to a fire a Byerly's (grocery store) at 3777 Park Center Boulevard. Upon arrival fire companies found light smoke near the store entry. The fire, located in a serving area for ice cream, had been completely extinguished by a single sprinkler. The cause was determined to be a decorative electric light which ignited nearby combustibles. Damage was contained to the immediate area of origin. June 17, 1999 At 0216 hrs., the St. Louis Park Fire Department responded to a fire at Japs-Olsen Printing located at 7500 Excelsior Boulevard. First arriving fire companies found fire in the warehouse storage racks which had been knocked down by the sprinkler system and employees using hand lines. The department completed extinguishment, performed overhaul operations, and ventilated the structure using roof vents. The fire had activated two in rack sprinkler heads which stopped the upward spread of the fire. Fire damage was confined to the paper products stored in the rack. Paper products stored directly on the floor sustained http://www.dps.state.mn.us/frnarshaVfireprot/S prinkS tories.html 5/28/03 Sprinkler Success Stories Page 6 ofg water damage. The exact cause of the fire was not determined however, careless smoking is suspected. Sllbmilled by: St. LOllis Park Fire Department St. Paul, MN Dates Unknown . Fire originating in a comer in bales of cotton padding used to make mattresses. The fIre sprinkler_ system controlled the fIre until the fIre department arrived. . A sprinkler head located in the basement of a two story wood frame four plex extinguished a fIre of unknown ongm. . Fire was extinguished by one sprinkler head in a three story, 25 unit independent living structure. The fIre was confmed to a recliner and throw blankets. The fIre started in the recliner after a burning candle melted its holder and fell into the chair. . Linseed oil rags ignited a one story building housing several businesses. Three sprinkler heads extinguished the fire. . One sprinkler head extinguished a fIre in a furnace area. . Damaged was limited to smoke throughout the building when a sprinkler system extinguished a fIre in the furnace duct area of a vacant building. . Three sprinkler heads activated when a car engine started on fIre in a St. Paul parking ramp. The fire department arrived to fInd the vehicle heavily involved with fIre in the engine compartment and spreading to the passenger compartment. The sprinkler heads contained the fire so the building and nearby cars were not damaged. ltifiJrmalionjrom Fire Sorinkler News Natiollal Fire Sprinkler Association. Minnesota Chapter. Spring and Summer, 1999 September, 2000 . A fire in the trash chute of a senior citizen high-rise apartment building was completely extinguished by one sprinkler head. No evacuation was needed and no other fire damage occurred. . A fire at 3M inside a large dryer that dries sandpaper was completely extinguished by the sprinkler system. The fire appears to have started from an overheated bearing that ignited a sandpaper roll. Submitted by Steve Zaccard, St. Paul Fire Marshal October, 1999 . A fire occurred in a case of book matches located in the basement storage room of restaurant. The fIre spread to one additional cardboard box before being extinguished by the sprinkler system. Estimated damage was $500.00. . In another incident, the gear, bearing and chain area of a roller assembly at a tar paper company caught fIre and was extinguished by fire sprinklers. Damage was estimated at $5,000.00. Reported to the NanD/lal Fire Sprinkler Association by Steve Zaccard. St. Paul Fire Deportment Spring Lake Park, MN Date Unknown . A cardboard box left on a stove top by the overnight cleaning crew ignited when ovens and deep fryers were http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03 · Sprinkler Success Stories Page 7 of8 heated for the business day. A sprinkler head just above the stove extinguished the fire. Damage was limited to water on the floor. The exhaust system had cleared the smoke. . A resident was heating oil in an eight-plex building, and left the stove unattended. From another room they smelled something burning and found the pan on fire. The fire was put out with a fire extinguisher but flared again. Because of thick smoke the family had to leave the building and after failing to fmd neighbors home had to run to a local Super America to call 911. The fire department arrived to find that one fire sprinkler head over the stove had extinguished the fire. The fire department set up fans to clear the smoke and shut off the sprinkler system. Damage was limited to $5000 in the $400,000 structure. No other families had to leave there home. Submilled by: Harlall LUlldstrom. Fire Protectioll Bureau Chief . Police investigating a reported car alarm at Northern Imports determined that the alarm was really coming from Monte's Sports Bar. Smoke was showing from the roof when the Spring Lake Fire Department arrived at 3:15 am. The first due engine laid 2 hose lines and entered through the back door of the building. Finding no fire in the kitchen area, they entered the bar. There they found one activated sprinkler head with water flowing and a smoldering fire behind the bar which had been controlled and nearly extinguished by the single activated head. Damage was estimated at $50,000.00, but the save was $450.000. Investigators determined that the fire was caused by improper disposal of smoking material which smoldered in a garbage can until it ignited in the middle of the night. Submitted by Kathi Osmollsoll, Fire alld Life Safety Educator, Sprillg Lake Park - Blaille - MOlmdsview Fire Departmellt Stillwater, MN After discovering a fire out of control in their kitchen, residents of a Stillwater townhouse evacuated and called 911 at 2:20 am, March 28, 2002. Stillwater Fire responded and requested mutual aid from Bayport Fire. Upon arrival of the first engine at 2:28 am, water from just one residential sprinkler head extinguished the fire. If not for the fire sprinkler system, the fire would have grown and spread rapidly before firefighter's arrival. Firefighters and residents in all of the attached townhouses would have been endangered more, and damage from fire, smoke and water would have been substantially worse. Feasibly, all of the attached townhouses could have been damaged or destroyed by fire and smoke. Because of the sprinkler system, total damage from fire, smoke and water is estimated at $4,000, and residents were not displaced from any dwelling unit in the building, including the one that burned. The quick response of the sprinkler proved again the value of such systems. Submilled by Kim Kallestad. Chief-Stillwater Fire Departmellt Waconia, MN December 18, 2000 The Waconia Fire Department was dispatched to an apartment fire in a 30 unit complex of wood frame construction. While in route the department was advised that the sprinkler system had been activated and the fire appeared to be out. The fire occurred in a second floor two bedroom unit, while the occupant was heating cooking oil to deep fry food. The occupant stepped away from the kitchen for approximately five minutes, returning when he heard a noise to fmd the oil on fire and cupboard doors burning. The smoke detector and sprinkler system activated simultaneously; the later existinguishing the fire. Fire and heat damaged the stove, cupboards and refrigerator. Smoke damage was kept to a minimum and did not extend beyond the apartmen~ of origin. http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03 .. The Fire Officials Guide to Fire Sprinkler Facts Fire Marshal's Association of Minnesota What Is A Fire Sprinkler System? A fire sprinkler system is a set of water pipes connected to your normal water supply on one end and heat activated nozzles on the other. The nozzles are strategically placed in each room of the house to spray water at a fire, keeping it in check until the fire department arrives. The system also has some on-off valves, an activation sensing devise and an alarm buzzer. Everything except the alarm will work with or without electrical power, even if the phones and smoke detectors don't work. How Much Will It Cost? The installation of fire sprinklers in new residential construction is estimated to make up around 1 % of the total building cost, similar to the cost of the carpet. Because each home is unique onto itself, it's impossible to give a blanket estimate. It's safe to say that the cost of fire sprinklers will be between $1 and $2 per square foot for new construction. Benefit Analysis Pro "'Fire sprinkler technology has been around for over a hundred years proving effective over 95% of the time. "'Fire sprinklers protect your family and property 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year. "'Saves property from being damaged by fire. "'Saves lives of family and fire fighters. "'Saves money on your homeowners insurance premiums. "'Cost less than the carpeting. "'Saves personal items that can never be replaced like photographs, family heirlooms and pets. *The installation of fire sprinklers will be an advantage when selling the house. *Fire sprinklers provide a safer environment for your family. Con *Fire Sprinkler placement could interfere with light fixture or other interior decor locations. *Installing fire sprinklers will cost money (usually $1.00 - $2.00 per square foot in new construction). *Fire sprinkler installation will create an additional inspection and test to be performed at .the time of installation. *There's a slight chance of a fire sprinkler leaking or accidentally going off (the same chance as with your regular home plumbing system). *Even with a fire sprinkler system installed you need to continue proper maintenance of smoke detectors together with practical home escape plan. *A fire sprinkler system will require some maintenance, about the same as your normal plumbing, and regular testing. Automatic sprinkler systems have enjoyed an enviable record of protecting life and property for over 100 years. Yet, there are still common misunderstandings about their operation and effectiveness: Myth: "Water damage from a sprinkler system will be more extensive than fire damage. " Fact: Water damage from a home fire sprinkler system will be much less severe than the damage caused by water from fire-fighting hose lines or smoke and fire damage if the fire goes unattended. Quick response sprinklers release 8-14 gallons of water per minute compared to 100-250 gallons per minute released by a fire hose. Besides, wet stuff always holds more value than ashes. Myth: "When a fire occurs, every fire sprinkler head goes off." Fact: Fire sprinkler heads go off one at a time. They are individually activated by the heat of a fire. Residential fires are usually controlled with a single fire sprinkler head. Ninety percent of all fires are controlled with one or two heads. Water damage is usually confined to the room where the fire started. Sometimes rooms on floors below can also get some water damage. Myth: "A smoke detector provides enough protection." Fact: Smoke detectors save lives by providing a warning system but do nothing to extinguish a growing fire or protect those physically unable to escape on their own, such as the elderly and small children. Too often, battery operated smoke detectors fail to function because the batteries are dead or have been removed. A smoke detector does nothing to protect your property from fire unless you take the proper action when you hear the alarm. Even then you couldn't put the right amount of water in the right place as quickly as a fire sprinkler system. Myth: "Sprinklers are designed to protect property, but are not effective for life safety." Fact: You are twenty times more likely to die in a fire than from carbon monoxide alone. Statistics show fire sprinklers provide a high level of safety. There has never been a multiple loss of life in a fully sprinkled building. Property losses are 85% less in residences with fire sprinklers compared to those without. The combination of automatic sprinklers and early warning systems in all buildings could reduce overall injuries, loss of life and property damage by at least 85%. Why Should I Have A Fire Sprinkler System? The art of fire fighting is putting the right amount of water, in the right place at the right time. When this happens, the fire goes out with the least amount of damage. That's exactly what a fire sprinkler system is designed to do. By placing heat activated water nozzles (sprinkler heads) strategically in each room of the house, fire fighting water will likely be in the right place at the right time. Fire sprinklers are widely recognized as the single most effective method for fighting the spread of fires in their early stages, before they can cause severe injury to people and damage property. If this system is so great, you ask, why doesn't everyone already have one installed? Frankly, we just don't know. Experience has taught the business world that fire sprinklers are important. Just take a took next time you go to the bank or another valuable building. All those little devices evenly placed every 14 feet or so on the ceiling are fire sprinkler heads. .. Most people who die from fire, die in their homes, while they sleep. Young children and mature adults are the most likely victims. That's why nearly half of all U. S. hotels and motels already have sprinkler systems installed. In fact the federal government won't even let their employees sleep in a non-sprinkled hotel or motel. It's not good for business if employees die while traveling. How Can I Decide What's Right For Me? Consider all the facts: *What do you have to protect? Is it worth the added expense? You wouldn't sprinkle a barn full of hay. How about a barn full of vintage Corvettes? Does anyone sleep in or near the barn? *How close is your house to the street and neighbors? Would a fire be discovered quickly? Do fire fighters have easy access around your house? *How close is the local fire department? How capable are they? Don't count on the fire department to save lives. By the time the fire is reported and they arrive it's usually too late for anyone still inside. *Do you have public water supply including a nearby fire hydrant? Without water your fire department will be lucky to save anything in or near the building where the fire starts.