2006_0123_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�� . _ � �_� Community Development Department emo To: Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director From: Don Munson, Building Official Date: 1-17-2006 Re: I.P.M.C. Concems of Councilperson Ihlan Regarding the potential upgrading of existing homes if the I.P.M.C. is adopted: • I.P.M.C. 101.2 Scope o The ��V.�C applies to �11I existing residential and non-residential structures and constitutes minimum requirements and standards. • I.P.M.C.101.3 Intent o Existing structures that do not comply s�aCl be altered to comply. The above sections and paraphrases appear to be the main area of concern expressed by Ms. Ihlan. I.P.M.C. In the City's adopting ordinance, Section 102.7 "Referenced codes and Standards" was amended to address this issue. The section was amended to read in part: "Where differences occur between provisions of this code (the IPMC) and the referenced standards (the Minnesota State Building Code, the MSBC), the provisions of the current edition of the Miru�esota State Building Code apply." The MSBC, in Section 1300.0220. Subpt. 2. E�sting Structures, states: "The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of the code shall be permitted to continue without change except as specifically required in Chapter 1311." Chapter 1311 regulates nti��' alterations to a structure, not existing conditions. Therefore, homes or structures in compliance with the code they were built under, do not have to be altered. Most provisions of the IPMC reference 'maintaining the building in good repair and structurally sound'. Because there are no specifics, the specifics of the code they were built under apply. There are some specifics in Chapters 3-7. Most of these specifics are consistent with, or below, code requirements going back to the 1950's, and therefore, again, would not require � Page 1