My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PD-17-00001 Marian Meadows Full Record with Index (2)
>
Meetings
>
2018
>
03. March
>
2018-03-06 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
PD-17-00001 Marian Meadows Full Record with Index (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2018 2:21:02 PM
Creation date
4/10/2018 12:02:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
3/6/2018
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Alpha Order
a
Item
Closed Record Meeting to Consider the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation for Marian Meadows Planned Unit Development (PD-17-00001) Conditional Use Permit (CU-17-00001) and Plat (LP-17-0001)
Order
1
Placement
Board Discussion and Decision
Row ID
42915
Type
Conduct closed record meeting
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1800
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
<br />Marian Meadows Rezone and Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-153 <br />total residential structures about 30 percent and justify providing a second modern fire apparatus. It may <br />be advantageous to the district also to establish a second station on the north side of I-90. This is a <br />decision that would have to be made by the district board. Advantages of an additional station may <br />include proximity to the population served and may increase the recruitment of local volunteers. <br />Response time from residents to a closer station also may be reduced. On the other hand, a single <br />centrally located station provides the greatest potential for manning apparatus during times when the pool <br />of available personnel is limited. A single station also provides the potential for locating all equipment in <br />a single place and ensures flexibility in choice of appropriate equipment for a given response. A single <br />station also reduces facility maintenance and utility costs. Co-location of equipment also may facilitate <br />maintenance of equipment because all needed tools can be located at one place. If volunteer personnel are <br />scattered or respond at different times, having shared personal equipment on trucks rather than in the <br />station may decrease response time, although individually assigned properly fitted equipment is <br />considered important for safe and effective fire fighting. <br />The project proponent could contribute to this impact by providing a site for a new building, if desired by <br />the fire district, and contribute a proportional share of the cost of a new truck that would vary by <br />alternative. The advantages of developer contributions over voter-approved levies for equipment is the <br />uncertainty involved in residents passing the levies, as well as a perceived fairness that new development <br />should provide for the costs they impose on the community. On the other hand, additional equipment <br />benefits the entire service area. <br />Built-in Suppression Capabilities <br />Built-in suppression through automatic sprinkler systems provides a substantial decrease in risk for <br />structural fires and reduces greatly the risk of fire spread. It is an especially useful strategy in areas <br />served by volunteer fire departments where the response time and number of personnel available may be <br />highly variable. To be effective, fire sprinklers must be appropriately designed, installed, and inspected. <br />Fire sprinklers are a substantial additional cost for single-family homes and require considerably larger <br />water pipelines and meters. In the cold climate that the project residents would experience, sprinklers <br />would be either dry systems, which are much more expensive to install or operate, or buildings with wet <br />systems that must be constantly heated in cold weather, or systems that must be drained and mothballed. <br />Such systems are most effective in reducing risk in the summer months. Mothballing in the winter season <br />would reduce effectiveness in avoiding structural fires but would not substantially increase risk because <br />the hazard from fires spreading in cold wet months is lower. Built-in fire suppression systems are of <br />limited effectiveness in reducing risk from wildfire. <br />Wildland Fire Defensible Space <br />A variety of programs have been developed to reduce the risk of wildfire igniting homes. These generally <br />include providing effective access and an area around homes where fuel loads are reduced. This strategy <br />often involves two areas. One is an area close to the home that has a “non-combustible area” of 3 to 10 <br />feet wide around the base of the home with very low potential for ignition from flying embers such as
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.