HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 185; McRoskey Temporary Bank; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (7)MEMORANDUM
DATE : December 13, 1980
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Richard Allen, Engineering Department
SUBJECT: CUP-185 - McRoskey - Discussion of why it is recommended that no access be permitted on Palomar Airport Road
The Engineering Department is recommending that no access be permitted from the project to Palomar Airport Road for the following reasons:
1. Palomar Airport Road is a prime arterial which should be used to move large volumes of traffic. Driveways and the associated lane changes, slowing of vehicles and additional conflicts tend to reduce the average speed and capacity of the arterial.
2. Under the City Council resolution adopting the original subdivision (CT 73-49, Resolution 3272, adopted November 20, 1973), a maximum of one access to Palomar Airport Road was permitted along the frontage of this lot and the neighboring lot to the east. Subsequently, access was granted for the lot to the east and this has recently been constructed. Thus any access to the subject property would have to be by joint use of this one
permitted driveway.
3. There is an existing bus stop on Palomar Airport Road approximately 200 feet east of Yarrow Drive. Traffic attempting to turn right into an entrance will conflict with bus movements.
4. Left turns into a driveway access would present a haz- ard unless physically restricted. As Palomar Airport Road will not be widened on the north side in the fore- seeable future, a center median to restrict left turns could not now be constructed.
5. The existing driveway entering the neighboring property to the east heads down a steep slope beginning only a
short distance from the street. Any joint use driveway would require merging traffic from the two lots at a point very close to Palomar Airport Road. This potentially could cause some back-up onto the public street and
.-
conflicts between merging traffic from the two lots and traffic entering from the street. The driveway, as constructed, is not designed for the high traffic volumes expected if a joint use is permitted and therefore would present a hazard. The considerable grade differences precludes a significant change in design, therefore a joint use driveway is not recommended.
RA:ar
12/16/80
-2-