Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 154D; Pacific Bell; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (12)TO: Van Lynch -Associate Planner FROM: David Rick -Assistant Engineer DATE: October 17,2000 CUP 154D PAC BELL CAMINO VlDA ROBLE COMPLETNESS AND ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for completeness and engineering issues of concern. All items needed for engineering review are provided for determining the application as complete. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project are as follows: 1. Adequate turn-around for trash trucks must be provided. Turn around can be achieved by preserving the paved area north of the proposed trash receptacle. This space is currently being used as a parking space. Place a note stating “parking space to be replaced with backup space for trash truck and marked with a no parking sign”. 2. 3. The angle of intersection between the driveway and street cannot be more than ten degrees from a right angle within the public right-of- way. This standard applies to that portion of the driveway within the proposed 5-foot dedication for public right-of-way as well. Provide curves to the driveway as it connects with that portion of the driveway within the right-of-way. Also, add a “Do Not Enter” sign next to the driveway for egress. In addition, the required minimum driveway width is 12 feet for the egress and ingress portions. Please revise the site plan and grading plan accordingly. Please explain how the site is constrained such that the concrete brow ditch cannot be replaced with a grass swale. Based on my field observation, the entire concrete brow ditch could be replaced with a grass swale from the curb outlet to the existing ditch. Although drain inlet filters can be an effective method of filtering pollutants, vegetation requires less monitoring, maintenance and expense. Failure to maintain and replace the inlet filter will render the filter useless. Furthermore, I don’t understand where the outlet would be placed for the proposed inlet in the brow ditch. One alternative design to consider is as follows: Replace the concrete brow ditch with a grass and gravel swale beginning approximately 30 feet from the street curb (about where the inlet box is currently proposed yet is no longer needed) to 100 feet or more southward. In addition, adjust the grades to drain the parking lot to a proposed curb opening at the northwest corner of the most northerly parking space instead of the location currently proposed. Unlike the current proposal, this location will not be subject to any water bypassing the curb opening. This opening would be followed by a grass and gravel swale to connect with the modified drainage ditch. 4. You indicated that the on-site fire hydrant and water main is private. You may be correct, but only because documents to record easements for the benefit of the City were never processed under the previous Conditional Use Permit Amendment. The intent, however, was to provide the City access to these water facilities via an easement. Therefore, this project will be conditioned to require that the property owner dedicate a water easement to the City prior to the issuance of building permit or show proof that dedication has already been granted. In addition, a construction change to DWG 348-9 will be required, 5. Provide an energy dissipater at the terminus of the brow ditch that collects slope runoff at the rear of the lot. If the cobblestone rock is to remain as the dissipater, then state so on the plans. Attached is a redlined plan to aid the engineer and architect with their revisions. Please forward to the applicant and inform the plan with their next submittal. If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact me at 602-2781. DAVID RICK a- Assistant Engineer Engineering Development Services Division