HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAVEN VIEW - PDP - 12-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - FIRE AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS (5)Anne Aspen - Re: Raven View Site Plan Page 2
CC: Anne Aspen; 'Lori Darling'; rgonzales@poudre-fire.org; Russ Wells; Tom Peterson
Anne As en - Re: Raven View Site Plan Page 1
From:
Susan Joy
To:
Nick Haws
Date:
08/03/2005 3:39:44 PM
Subject:
Re: Raven View Site Plan
Hi Nick,
I confirmed with Sheri Wamhoff that a temp culdesac at the end of the street stub would not be required
with your current layout. I did not review the rest of the site per your request and will leave the rest of the
comments until you submit.
Thank you,
Susan
>>> "Nick Haws" <nick@northernengineering.com> 7/20/2005 7:22:24 AM >>>
Anne & Susan,
We continue to work towards resolution on the proposed Raven View
development. As with most in -fill sites, it is a bit of a "House of Cards."
Every time one area is adjusted to satisfy certain criteria, other portions
are affected, or new issues arise. One of the most recent examples came at
the Utility Coordination Meeting. In an attempt to satisfy the request of
connectivity, the dilemma for a 100-ft diameter turnaround arose. It is our
understanding that the need for said turnaround is driven by two main
factors; fire safety and public access.
We have met with PFA to address their concerns. The potential of fire
sprinklering the entire development was deemed unfeasible; therefore, we
will be constructing the off -site emergency access road. This will
eliminate the need for a turnaround at the terminus of this dead-end street
stub from PFA's perspective. The other factor comes from City Planning and
Engineering requirements. The necessity for a turnaround at the end of the
street stub is driven by access points. Therefore, to preclude the
requirement for a 100-ft turnaround, Lori Darling of Lyman Davidson Dooley
has revised the Site Plan yet another time by removing street access on the
dead-end stretch.
Please review the attached PDF file to confirm that our logic is correct.
The drawing is to scale, and Lori has dimensioned critical areas. We know
there are engineering and utility issues yet to be resolved; however, we
would like to know if, fundamentally, the Site Plan satisfies land use and
access requirements.
These in -fill projects are inherently more difficult and time consuming than
Greenfield Sites. There are factors pulling in all directions; from
planning code, to engineering requirements, to fire safety, to utility
service.all while still striving to produce a product that is viable for the
Applicant, affordable to local citizens, and of the quality for which people
choose to live in Fort Collins. As always, your time and feedback are
greatly appreciated.
Nick Haws, El
www.northernenaineering.com