Laserfiche WebLink
4 Work Session. <br /> Chairman Schurman-We will address the codes in the order they appear on the agenda. <br /> 1997 Uniform Fire Code- Volume's 1 & 2 <br /> Thomas Talboom - Staff has mailed out the Fire District recommendations for amendments <br /> under separate cover The Fire District met last Thursday I have a copy of the resolution,which <br /> will be presented for public hearing at their November 13 meeting. If the board has any <br /> comments, we will forward them to the Fire District. Any member of the Board is invited to <br /> attend the public meeting if they wish to do so <br /> Chairman Schurman-Is there anyone here who wishes to speak concerning the Uniform Fire <br /> Code? <br /> Member Schlott-Mr Chairman, I have identified one item that I feel needs some clarification. <br /> It is in the proposed resolution of the Uniform Fire Code,page 3,paragraph 9 02.5, m sub- <br /> paragraph 2. There is phase which reads "and all buildings more than 30' in width" This does <br /> not differentiate as to which type of buildings it is to apply I think that the meaning is for this to <br /> apply to multi-family, or buildings over 150' in length,rather than single family residential <br /> buildings. As stated it applies to all buildings more than 30' feet in width. Stating that there <br /> must be access to the rear of the rear of the structure by public roadway or fire lane. I would <br /> suggest that the word"such"be added after"all" This would then read"all such buildings more <br /> than 30' in width" This would then apply to what I think they are trying to address,which <br /> would be buildings over 150' in length. <br /> Member Keim-The way it is written it would seem to apply to single family homes. <br /> Member Schlott-That is correct. I think this needs to be clarified. <br /> Tom Talboom- Staff does have a meeting scheduled with the Fire Marshall tomorrow At that <br /> time staff will bring any comments from the board forward at that time I do feel that this needs <br /> to be addressed. <br /> Member Keim- What is the impact of section 903.5 on subdivisions which are already <br /> developed? I would like to make sure that we are not adopting something that would put oneness <br /> upon someone in a developed area. This would seem to indicate that someone would need to <br /> install more water lines. <br /> Tom Talboom-I think that is referring to an area which is not yet developed. I don't think that <br /> would be retroactive to an area which is already developed. This is another item staff will address <br /> with the Fire Marshall. <br /> 2 <br />