Laserfiche WebLink
■=r! <br />#615 Ringer Subdivision <br />#616 Parkview Treatment Center <br />Page 3 <br />Security <br />Chief Kilbo has addressed this matter. The proposed facility is <br />located far from existing residences. In some respects, problems <br />with outside persons (such a burglary of the premises) should be <br />less than the residential risk because the facility will be oc­ <br />cupied and staffed 24 hours per day whereas rural residences are <br />frequently unoccuppied. <br />Fire Protection <br />Parkview would be classified as a type I-l institutional occupancy. <br />All construction must be type 1 hour fire resistive (for a 12,000 <br />sf facility located where proposed). Fire alarm and fire sprinkler <br />systems are required. The sprinkler is a costly item here because <br />there is no municipal water available. A reservoir or tank will <br />be required unless a water connection is made to the Long Lake <br />system. Fire and emergency access should be provided by good <br />design of the road and parking areas, which should be a condition <br />of any approval. <br />This level of protection is generally higher than provided in^ <br />single family residences because the risk, particularly the life- <br />safety risk, is more severe. It is also likely that more fire <br />runs will be generated including false-alarm calls. <br />Subdivision Design <br />My personal feeling and recommendation is that the May 7, 1981 <br />preliminary plat should not be approved as drawn. Access to the <br />Parkview site is not well developed. There is no cul de sac <br />on the proposed outlet. There is no indication of plans for <br />access to or use of the front strip of land along highway 12. <br />These issues should be finalized at the Planning Commission level <br />before taking a revised or clarified plat to the Council. <br />Traffic issues seem paramount. I have concluded a site analysis <br />of possible access points shown on attached drawing #1. Consis­ <br />tent with our CMP and with MnDOT criteria, direct access onto <br />highway 12 should be strictly limited. Two excellent locations <br />are available directly acress from existing Tamarack and Brim- <br />hall Avenues. The existing dr/. eway location to this site has <br />reasonable visibility but should not be upgraded at its present <br />location because of conflicts with the opposing streets. <br />Almost any location along Willow Drive is a good access point, <br />except within 200-300 ft of highway 12. <br />ZM