My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1411 MADRONA AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
MADRONA AVE
>
1411
>
1411 MADRONA AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/11/2017 7:07:37 PM
Creation date
2/17/2017 10:56:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
MADRONA AVE
Street Number
1411
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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).
View images
View plain text
P`i <br />r""y <br />A Preli►nina�y Approval was issued by the PlanninS DePartment on December 23, 1986. <br />Condition #2 requued a 2U-foot-wide easement with 14 feet of paving. <br />On or about Apri14, 1987, Mr. Brandvold came to see me to request that the requirement for <br />the 14 feet of paving be revised to "lwo 30-inch concreted strips". I informed hun at the time <br />that an alternahve to the standard requirem�nt would be acceptable if the structures takinS <br />access from the easement were provided a"residential spcinkler system." He agreed to such a <br />condition; and on April7th of the same year, he mad�e a formal request for same m wnting. <br />As a result of !ris wntten request, I notified the Planning DePartment by memorandum on <br />ppril7th of the agreement. <br />On or shortly after June 1, 1987, I received a copy of a memorandum to file by Robert <br />I,audles of the Planning Department. <br />The memo laid out the condihons for the "two coucrete strips"• <br />I do not recall any furtt►er action on this proposal ui►til lace in 1992 Whe° Mr• J°el Bergsagel <br />came to mY office to inquire about condihons that miSht have been set down for the shoR plat. <br />After considerable searctung, I was at;� to recover our copy of the original review. <br />A'1 of the above is a review of the circumstances swrounding the proposal in qnestion. The <br />posi�on of tk►e Everett FireDep artment remains d►e same. If the easement access is to be <br />[�ompromised (reducing the eff`ective driving surface), a residential sprinkler syscem must be <br />rovided in the structures takinS access from ihe easement. <br />The size of the structures int o�e° rotection regulafio az'�e reduced, ther�e istneady yalways a <br />protacted. When any aspec P. mvolved. Any increase in the rime <br />corresponding increase in the risk to l�fe and propercy . <br />required to respond to and fight fire will nearly always mean greater losses. 'The installation <br />of a residential s�rinkler syscem is intended to allow on-premises control of tt►e fire while <br />suppression services are being mobilized. <br />Our recommendadon for structures of this size and value is that they t+e protecied by such a <br />system even when access or other fire protection components are not compromissd• Tti� <br />across ibeacounUry� now require ti►emcin a11 resld nces.d reducing losses. Many jurisdictions <br />If we may'be of addidonal service, please ca11259-87?,6. <br />Sincerel , <br />��i2�� <br />S Preston <br />Assistant Fire Mazshal <br />SP:ms <br />cc: Jim Iles, City Legal <br />yTim Tyler, Building Official <br />Bob Landles, Planning <br />.Toel Bergsagel <br />Ted Levine <br />Paul Levine <br />Jim Hopkins <br />Chief 011is <br />F/M Surgy <br />Dave Srandvold <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.