The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Haver wants more cost information
by Mark Reaman
The Crested Butte Town Council will reconsider its policy to require fire suppression sprinkler systems in triplexes. The council had basically decided to keep the sprinkler requirement for such structures when a motion at the February 4 meeting to extend the sprinkler exemption from duplexes to triplexes ended in a 3-3 tie vote.
But councilman Chris Haver, who voted to keep the sprinkler requirement, said at the February 19 meeting that he wanted to reconsider that action.
“I’m not saying I would change my vote but I want to ask the staff for more information and revisit the issue,” Haver said. “Since the last meeting I have questions about the actual costs. I think there is new information and it is more expensive than I believed at the time of the vote.”
Town attorney Barbara Green told the council that the vote could be reconsidered but the council would essentially have to repeat the process and hold another public hearing on the matter. That would result in at least two meetings’ worth of discussion.
“I just feel that the last time we voted on it, the information I based my vote on was lacking,” said Haver.
The driving force for the sprinkler discussion was the affordable housing project getting under way at Paradise Park and its inclusion of some triplex units. Keeping the sprinklers would add about $262,000 to the project that the council would most likely pick up.
The design for the triplexes included a two-hour firewall that both the developer and town staff argued was extremely safe. But Crested Butte Fire Protection District staff argued at the February 4 meeting that sprinkler systems were much safer and the council shouldn’t put a price on life-safety issues.
Joel Wisian of Bywater Development LLC said the two-hour firewall was the same requirement the town had for duplexes and the council should consider the risk versus reward equation with the additional costs. He maintained that the firewall was extremely safe and sprinklers could cause a lot of damage to neighboring units if they went off.
Wisian said at the February 19 meeting that timing is becoming an issue but the majority of the sprinklear expense for the project wouldn’t be incurred until June, so if the council had to take the time to go through the process to reconsider the requirement, there was time before the decision to spend that money would be made. “We are amenable to whatever you want to do,” he said. “We won’t spend a lot of money on fire suppression for another month.”
The council agreed to again look at the sprinkler requirement; it will be on the agenda for the next meeting on Monday, March 4.
