My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2013 11 21
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2000-2019 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
2013 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2013 11 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:00:20 PM
Creation date
6/25/2018 10:28:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BCBOAPKT 2013 11 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Building Code Board of Appeals <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 19, 2013 <br />Page5of8 <br />Staff replied the system will have to be engineered. <br />Geise asked who would inspect the systems. <br />Staff replied the City would be based on the designs which had been submitted and <br />approved. <br />Johnson asked if it would be a separate permit. <br />Staff replied it wouldn't since it would be part of the water line and doesn't see the <br />need for a separate permit. <br />Van Pelt stated his concern is with the potential to add undue hardship on the <br />contactors and citizen because the sprinklers are so new to the codes being adopted <br />and there will be a learning curve where staff and contractors will need to learn <br />exactly what is submitted and required. He posed the question of does the Board <br />want to keep the ordinance as written by Staff or Amend out one and two family <br />dwelling units with the main focus of adding the requirement to new townhomes. He <br />also stated the width of streets for fire department access in new developments might <br />come into play in the decision. <br />Berry wondered if this would actually solve the problem or would this make a <br />difference with the number of calls and help with fire suppression until the Fire <br />Department arrives onsite. <br />Mestas stated, from a different business stand point, saving one life makes it all <br />worth it and the Fire Departments biggest concern leans more toward town homes <br />and homes closer together. <br />Brauneis heard, and Mestasconfirmed, there has been no recorded death in a <br />sprinkled single family home. <br />Geise stated they should be required in townhomes. <br />Johnson, wondered if it can be construed as discriminating for new construction and <br />asked how one would judge on a case by case bases. <br />Brauneis wondered if the concerns Geise has, valid as they are and if they haven't <br />already been discussed, would be any less valid in a few years. <br />Van Pelt stated adopting the code leans more toward what is going on around us and <br />asked if as a community, do we want to be one of the early adopters or let it develop. <br />Staff agreed it is a matter of time and feels the main question is when is it the best <br />time for the community. <br />Van Pelt asked how do we bring a motion before Council. <br />Staff reminded the Board a motion doesn't have to be made at this meeting. A <br />motion can be made at the next meeting and the motion is ultimately up to the Board. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.