HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-10; Buerger; Tentative Map (CT) (41)Memorandum
TO: Associate Planner, Anne Hysong
FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickha
DATE: September 16,1998
CT 99-10 / CDP 99-17 / HDP 99-08 / LCPA 99-03 / PUD 99-05 / ZC 99-05:
Buerger Subdivision
2nd CHECK & ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff has completed a 2nd review of the above-referenced project. The
plans submitted to this office reflected a change in the location of access onto Black Rail Road
as we requested. The ultimate configuration of the public cul de sac is a little unclear and
should be shown. The alignment of the ultimate public street is shown only as an example of an
acceptable solution to provide adjacent access. I have listed our concerns in more detail below
and on the red lined check print:
1. Please show distance to nearest / adjacent driveways (on both sides of the street). Also
show the proposed intersection spacing schematic or show the nearest uphill and down hill
intersection approved or planned by the City. This issue will be asked at the Planning
Commission Mtg. and should be shown on the cover sheet for clarity.
2. As mentioned above, please show a feasible solution to access the adjacent property from
the proposed Cul De Sac. It appears that the 150' intersection spacing has not been
incorporated into this design. The opposing "T" intersections from this Cul De Sac should be
90 degrees to avoid driver conflict.
3. The proposed design of the public street and the private gated bulb is considered
substandard and is not supported by staff. We recommend a standard 56' wide public street
that splits the property line and runs up about % of the subdivision boundary. This alignment
will provide reasonable access to adjacent properties and will allow intersection spacing for
a gated community or knuckle.
4. The gate detail is not clear as to how the gate will open, how it will slide or swing, and if
there will be a median in the middle to secure the lock.
5. The proposed lot lines are not clear and the court yard or common driveway resolution
should be addressed. It appears that panhandles are proposed and that vehicle turnaround
would require private property access.
H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\COMPREV
6. Fail Safe drainage systems should be shown. The private yard drains could plug with debris
and a side yard overflow should be anticipated. We be aware of not flooding adjacent units
and not eroding sensitive slopes.
7. The hydrology study submitted failed to account for existing or uphill drainage onto Black
Rail Road. The storm Drain may need to be extended up hill to serve the adjacent
properties.
8. The hydrology study should also address the proposed yard drain system in lots 7, through
12 and continuing through lot "B". The proposed outlet system should connect directly to the
proposed storm drain.
9. The adjacent properties (Hadley and Carnation) have been approved as standard
subdivisions. If changes are contemplated we would suggest a look at standard type lots be
considered without PUD restrictions.
10. The proximity to the SDG&E tower is a concern to us all. The Property line alignment may
require a small wall to maintain a safe distance and slope clearance from the structure. All
anticipated walls should be shown on the site plan.
Attached are redlined check prints of the project for the applicant's use. The applicant must
return these check prints with the revised plans to assist staff in our continued review.
If you or the applicant have any questions regarding the above, please either see or call me at
extension 4353.
H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\COMPREV