Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF • THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, October 14, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ,ITEMS CONSIDERED FP99-6: Bridgeport Ph III, pp360 PP99-10: Bridgeport Ph, IV, V, VI, pp360 LSD99-24: Sonic, pp401 FP99-5: Candlewood, pp294 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom • STAFF PRESENT • Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Sharon McCourt Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Forward to PC Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT Janet Johns Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 2 FP99-6: FINAL PLAT BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION, PH III, PP360 This item was submitted by Richard Doyle of Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. for property located south of Mount Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 6.61 acres with 14 lots proposed. Richard Doyle was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Assessment for sewer improvements to the Hamestnng basin in the amount of $2,600 for 14 lots at $200 per lot. This assessment has been paid in full. 2. Required park land dedication for this phase was conveyed to the Parks and Recreation Division with a previous phase of this subdivision. The deed was received in 1995. 3. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 4 foot green space along both sides of all proposed streets. A letter of credit has been submitted to the City in the amount of $15, 000 to guarantee this requirement as permitted by UDO §158.01. Add a 10 foot utility easement between lots 111 and 112 in order to serve the street light. 5. Update the flood plain certification on the final plat document with the current FIRM map information dated July 21, 1999. 6. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 7. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Committee Discussion Conklin: This preliminary plat was approved in 1996. They have paid the sewer assessment fee. Parks has received the deed for the park land. The City has received a letter of • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 3 credit in the amount of $15,000 to guarantee the sidewalk construction. A utility easement needs to be added between lots 111 and 112. The updated flood plain information needs to be included in the plat. These are the only issues we have on this final plat. We recommend approval with the standard conditions Rutherford: Everything is fine. Petrie: We have done the final inspection and they have the final punch list items and I have no further comment. Hoffman. You can administratively handle the changes to the plat that you've requested? Conklin: Yes, we can. This can be approved at this level today and those changes can be made to the mylar copies and we'll sign off. Doyle: this time. I'm one of the owners of Creekwood Development and I have no comments at Public Comment None. Further Discussion Hesse: I drove by there yesterday. Richard what's going on down by the creek? Doyle: I cleaned out all the under brush. Hesse: In the creek bottom? It looked like they were in the creek and I didn't see any erosion control. Doyle: We dust cleaned all the brush out that's grown down there to get rid of the snakes and mow it and maintain it, nice and clean. Hesse: Tim, are you aware of that? I'd like to get that looked at. Conklin: I'll go out there and take a look at that. It's in the county and I'll contact their flood plain administrator. Hoffman: Do we have guidelines published for creek bed maintenance? We had a federal presentation a while back and we're suppose to keep the creeks in a natural state. Do be aware of • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 4 that. Doyle: the bridge. Since we put that bridge in there, I go and look at that grade and clean out under Hoffman: But, you're not actually grading the creek bed itself. Doyle: I'm just taking the loose gravel and underbrush that washes down from the construction areas upstream. I have to clean it out. Hoffman: Staff can continue to monitor that. Even if this plat is approved at this level, is there a method by which we can continue to inspect grading as it goes along? Conklin: Once again, I think this area is in Washington County and not inside the city limits. Is that correct Richard? Doyle: That's correct. • Conklin: Okay. I'll get with the county. My understanding is that if they are grading in the stream, they do need a permit. That's a 404 permit through the Corps of Engineers. • Hoffman. I want everybody to be aware of that and know that there will be further inspection. Estes: bed rock? Do I understand correctly that the owner has twice excavated the stream bed to the Doyle: When they put in the original bridge, it was taken down to the rock bed which needs to be kept clean. Debris continues to wash down, so twice in the past 2 years, I went in around the creek bed and took all the loose gravel that has washed in there which raises the flood plain for water passing under the bridge. If I didn't do that, it could damage the integrity of the wing walls of the bridge. I've cleaned that out twice. Estes: So, twice you have excavated the stream bed. What have you done on the stream banks? Doyle: I just cleaned up the brush. My house is right next door to it. I own both sides of the creek. Estes: Kim, when were you out there? • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 5 Hesse: Yesterday. Estes: What did you observe? Hesse: I saw them clearing around the stream. Doyle: My house is down there and I've seen water moccasins and there are kids down there. I can't put up signs saying don't walk out there. They walk around down there and throw rocks. I spent half a million dollars on that bridge and it's next to my property. I'm planning to buy the other piece of property at a later date. I'm annexing into the city. I'll be developing there. When people buy those lots, they don't want snakes biting their kids either. I'm making it presentable and maintaining it. Estes: What you have described is going to get you cross ways with the Corps of Engineers. This is not our jurisdiction. It doesn't impact on any of our rules or regulations. The property is in the county. I encourage you to obtain the necessary permits. Doyle: I'll call them and get them out there. • Estes: I don't believe that issue impacts on the approval or the denial of this final plat. MOTION Estes: I'll move that we approve final plat 99-6. Odom: Second. • Hoffman: Okay. Thank you very much. You're approved at this level and we'll continue to monitor the Corps of Engineers issue. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 6 PP99-10: PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGEPORT, PH IV, V & VI, PP360 This item was submitted by Michael Marie of Engineering Design Associates, P.A. on behalf of Richard Doyle, Creekwood Hills Development, Inc. for property located south of Mount Comfort and west of Trillium Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 36.24 acres with 99 lots proposed. Mike Marie, Steve Hesse, and Richard Doyle were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended forwarding the plat to the full Planning Commission subject to the following conditions: 1. An assessment of $200 per lot for off-site sewer improvements to the Hamestring Creek basin will be due at the time of final plat. A Master Street Plan collector street is shown to run through this property from east to west. The developer has shown the required 70 foot right of way to be dedicated as a part of this project. At this time, staff recommends the developer construct a standard 28 foot local street at this location (New Bridge Road.) 3. The developer's engineer is asked to consult with the City's Landscape Administrator near the end of construction to determine the location and species of replacement trees. 4. Configuration of "eyebrow" corner will be further reviewed at the time of construction plan review. 5. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $15,825 This fee satisfies a portion of the dedication requirement and dedication of 0.69 acres of park land to the City. The dedicated park land must be cleared of debris. The driveway off Trillium Drive must be removed from the park property and a park boundary stake placed by a surveyor prior to • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 7 Parks Division sign off on any final plat for this project. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along both sides of New Bridge Road (collector), minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along both sides of the local streets with a 50 foot right of way and a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot green space along both sides of residential streets with a 42 foot right of way. 9. Preliminary plat approval to be valid for 1 calendar year. All phases shown are included in this 1 year approval. 10. Provision of 2 inch lines for irrigation throughout the subdivision. 11. Verification from Paul Hawkins of lift station capacity. 12. All swales, pipes, and drainage structures not within the public right of way will be privately owned and maintained. 13. Engineering requests further information on detention. If there are changes in the detention, this must come back to the Subdivision Committee for review. 14. Schedule meeting with Ron Petrie regarding erosion problems along the creek bed. 15. Agreements with adjoining property owners are required for drainage discharge to the west and northwest unless detention is provided. 16. 911 Addressing states that Colony is ok for a street name but the suffix needs to be the same for the entire street. Use Drive or Way. Settlement Lane should be changed to Settlement Drive. Roanoke Place is ok if it's going to be a culdesac. Otherwise, this may need to be changed. Committee Discussion Conklin: This adjoins Phase II and is on the west side of the existing subdivision This provides a connection through phase II and phase I from Mt. Comfort Road on New Bridge Road. It also provides a connection to Fieldstone Subdivision to the south by way of Des'arc Way. You are able to travel from Mt. Comfort to Wedington Drive through Bridgeport Subdivision. A total of 220 lots are planned for the entire subdivision with a POA lot for a recreational facility. This is a preliminary plat. It must go to the entire Planning Commission for approval. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 8 Conklin: They are showing stub outs to the north and west for future development. Hoffman: But, those don't connect with anything now. Warrick: The south connects to Fieldstone. The east connects to Bridgeport Phase II. Conklin: Phase II connects to Willow Springs. There's a connection further to the east providing 2 points of access from Wedington Drive into Bridgeport Subdivision. One other issue that I would like to make you aware of is the Master Street Plan shows a collector street following the section line. Fieldstone and Bridgeport Phase II were approved and developed prior to the Master Street Plan requiring a street in that location. Basically, we don't have the ability to get that street because Fieldstone and Bridgeport's parks are already developed. The developer has built a bridge as part of Phase I which provides access to Mt. Comfort Road. This is functioning as a collector street. People come north from Willow Springs through this development. We also have a collector street that runs east to west across this property. We did not request the right of way for the collector street in phase II but we are asking for the width of the right of way in phases IV, V, VI, and they are showing that. They were able to incorporate the Master Street Plan into these plans. We will have to look at amending the Master Street Plan next year because we couldn't get the north/south street. As staff, I felt that since the bridge is already built which this developer paid 100% of, there is a connection to Mt. Comfort. Hoffman: The sidewalks are fine? Rutherford: Yes. Hoffman: Ron? Petrie: I've added several conditions including provisions for irrigation and assessment for sanitary sewer. Have you contacted Paul Hawkins? Marie: Yes, we did contact Paul Hawkins. He said this was no problem. I asked him to send me a written statement to that fact. He thought that was out of the ordinary but said he would do that. We've never received anything from him. Hoffman: Who is Paul Hawkins? Petrie: He is the engineer in charge of OMI. They operate the pump stations and verify adequate capacity. Petrie: I will contact him myself and make sure. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 9 Hoffman: This is for the sewer capacity or the irrigation system? Petrie: The lift station. There is a series of lifts there to get to the treatment plant. Hoffman: What is the comment about irrigation? Petrie: One of the problems we are having is that developers are putting in standard meters and homeowners want irrigation systems when they build the house. The services that go across the street are not adequate for that. The City has to go in, bore under the street, and tear up yards to set another meter. For large lots and large subdivisions we are requesting that they put a larger line across the street. Marie. Is that an inch and a half line, Ron? Petrie: You need a 2 inch line. Doyle: PVC? Petrie: Yes. Another condition added is that all the swales and pipes for drainage not located in the public street right of way will be privately owned and maintained. At this time, I do not have enough information on the discharge into the creek on the east. I don't know whether they need detention or not. We need more information. Hoffman: Is there adequate time to change the plat if they need that? Petrie: If they have to change the plat to provide for detention, they will need to come back here. There is an erosion problem with the park land to the east of this property. We met with several of the property owners out there. The park is eroding away. I don't believe this was caused by phase I or II. It was caused by Fieldstone and Willow Springs and other developments along Highway 16. That's a huge watershed through here. Those subdivisions developed prior to the storm water management ordinance. I need additional information in order to figure out how to make this work. Rogers: The sign along Trillium Drive is going to have to be removed from park property and we'll also need a park boundary stake placed by a surveyor. Warrick: That's condition #7. Petrie: The applicant has stated they will provide agreements with adjoining property owners for the drainage to the east and the discharge point to the northwest and west and then not provide detention. The agreements would have to state that they agree to the additional runoff • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 10 and they accept that the City will not be responsible for any maintenance to that. Odom. Isn't that contrary to our drainage ordinance? Petrie: The requirement is that they cannot increase the flow. What we have done in the past is that if the adjacent property owner accepts that additional drainage and they can get to a point where it won't affect peak flow, which means they'll have to get it to Hamestring Creek, we have allowed that. Hoffman: Is that similar to the Boardwalk Subdivision and the people below it? Petrie: That developer agreed to pay and channel through some property. He acquired property and the city approved the drainage. Hoffman: Draining through other people's property, shouldn't they have to pay? Petrie: It's whatever agreement they can reach with property owner. If we don't get that agreement, it will come back here with detention. Doyle: When we bought phase I and put our subdivision in and built our bridge, we turned in and you will find it in your files, an overall plat, which includes this property, with schematics of what we were trying to accomplish to get this rezoned and knowing that this would phased. Phase I was assessed for a new pump station. We totally upgraded the sewer system knowing we would develop this property in here. We paid that on the front end knowing all these phases would come through. We have paid thousands of dollars to upgrade and I don't think we should be assessed anything further. Petrie: The bottom line is that we don't have the capacity in the lift stations downstream. We can't accept this unless we improve the lift stations. Hoffman: Typically, each individual project pays their own impact fee or whatever. Petrie: This is only in the Hamestring Creek basin We know we're going to have to improve a line in that basin soon. That's always been assessed since I've been here. Hoffman: Whether you should be assessed this since you've already made a contribution, I don't know if we can even begin to address that. Doyle: We purchased this property and rezoned with the understanding that we could develop it. We bought the new pump so we could develop and I just want to make sure we can develop. Can we get a meeting to discuss these assessments? • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 11 Petrie: That's fine. Public Comment Don Hendricks, an adjacent property owner was present. Hendricks: This is the first time I've seen this and I'm concerned about the drainage. Odom: One of the conditions of approval is that he reach an agreement with adjacent property owners. Doyle: I'll get with him and we'll try to work out what we can. Lowell Boynton, an adjacent property owner was present. Boynton: The property I'm concerned about today, is directly downstream of the city park which adjoins my property. The drainage crosses a corner of my property. There is a severe erosion problem going on in the park and my property is suffering some of that. The principle damage to me is the erosion material from the park is being deposited on me and then continuing downstream causing further damage. I was instrumental in getting Mr. Beavers and Mr. Petrie and people from the parks department and also Sarah Riley from the county involved. My property is in the county. I wanted everyone to see what was happening and report to you. Any water that goes in that drainage way will be exacerbating an existing problem. That's my concern. Hoffman: Have we looked at this development with regard to downstream impact. It's my sense that there are so many drainage issues that we may not want to move this on yet until we take a good look at this. Odom. I don't have a problem with it moving forward as long the developer is aware that this could be pulled before the Planning Commission meeting unless these issues are worked out. Hoffman: I don't want to go to Planning Commission with these kinds of concerns. Estes: Based on Ron's comments, there are some significant design issues. I couldn't vote to approve this as a preliminary plat. Further Committee Discussion Odom: Is there any reason these issues can't be worked out between now and Planning • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 12 Commission? Petrie: I believe they can. If they can't, we'll bring them back. Hoffman: If they can't obtain agreements, they'll have to design detention and they would have to come back. This is a big development with a big problem. We need to find out what they can do about the erosion problem. Petrie: All I can tell you is the various departments are looking into it. We've known about the problem but it's come to the forefront since everyone has been out there and seen the problem. We have to do something to the park or we won't have any park land. Ultimately, whatever steps we take will help to fix their problem. Conklin: I want to clarify that when we say "worked out" we're talking about an agreement with the owner to the northwest agreeing to take on the additional water and provide calculations that show it's not going to make matters worse for the park. Petrie: Right, but there's not only 1 property owner. Estes: To the east, I see there is a 20 foot drainage easement. I see there is a discharge onto a proposed 20 foot paved drive to the park. Is that discharge going to be straight out onto the driveway? Tell me what is happening with this 20 foot drainage easement and the discharge and how that impacts the park area. Petrie: We won't allow discharge on the park land drive. The project engineer gave me some information but I can't accept that. I need more. Estes: Does it have to be discharged down to the creek? Are you talking about off site improvements? Petrie: If they can show us they are not adversely affecting the watershed, no improvements would be required. Estes: Petrie: And you don't have that information this morning. That's correct. Boynton: Larry Clack owns property in the drainage way below the city park. I don't mean to speak for him but he was a participant in yesterday's meeting. He is my neighbor and there is severe erosion and gravel going on him as well. I understand in talking to Mr. Petrie how these design calculations are done as far as increasing or making the peak flow worse. I can appreciate • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 13 the approach. You have to work some sort of engineering calculation. I'm an engineer, myself. It's also true that even if this additional drainage does not increase the peak flow, according to the model, it could actually do it. In fact, the model and what it accounts for is lag time. The drainage closest to the problem is dissipated before the other approaches. It appears to me that a prolonged shower and that would be a heavy shower, would create a coincidence of flow. It appears to me that if we had a deluge like we frequently do, and then a lull before another deluge, the lag time would allow those to coincide. To me, it's not impossible to think, at all, that in spite of the calculations it could cause the problem to be much worse. Petrie: That might occur in small watersheds. If you're using an acceptiable calculatino method by the drainage ordinance such as SCS, which is what will be used in this case, you take into account the 24 hour storm event and 24 hour accumulation of precipitation so it's not broken down into 1 event, it's how much rain in a certain period of time and that information is provided by the federal government under historical rain flow. That is what is used in calculating the peak flows. Every watershed has a peak flow and it doesn't matter how the different storms occur. There is still water in the creek when the other peak hits. Instead of it being compared to a 5 year storm it would be compared to 10 year storm. My opinion is that is addressed in this methodology. I'll be glad to sit down and discuss it with you. Boynton: I'm sure the model is appropriate to the circumstances but any additional water has to be in the direction of making something that is already bad worse. Hoffman: I understand. We take a great deal of care with this. I appreciate your bringing those points up. Boynton: Does the city, who is also suffering with erosion on their park land have any recourse as far as the source of the water? I'm talking about Fieldstone and Willow. I understand these went in before the drainage ordinance. To me, that does not absolve their liability for damage downstream. That's my opinion. Hoffman: I would think that if the problem is worsening, the City Council is eventually going to have to take this up. The only one I have recent experience with is the Boardwalk problem. I can't speak for them. That is the only action that I have seen. Recourse is not for this board to consider. Odom: That would be the City Council and perhaps the City Attorney. Boyinton: I mention this for the record. My main purpose for getting city people out there yesterday and appearing here today is to be on record that I think the city needs to look into something that is causing trouble. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 14 Doyle: When I developed my property and wanted to put a park in that area, that was to make a good community and a place for kids to play. I spent many thousands of dollars developing that park at my expense, and not the parks' expense, to make it habitable. I have no intentions of doing anything to harm that and I'm even willing to spend additional funds voluntarily to protect that park. I have brought this up many times as other developments came through and continue to run water into the park area and eroded the area even when they knew we had a problem. I'm now here to develop my property which is a small impact on the erosion, but I'm stuck with the problem. I developed phase I and phase II and took the water outside the park area to keep from eroding the area. I understand these factors. I'm a factor here, too. But, I am willing to help and work with the parks department or whoever to try to alleviate the problem and protect the park area because I still have another 100 lots to sell on the other side and the park is important to me. MOTION Odom. I move that we move this forward to the Planning Commission knowing that there is work to be done and it could get pulled. Hoffman: The next Planning Commission meeting is the 25th and if they don't get these issues resolved prior to that, we would see it back on the 28th. I'll second that motion. You need to be on notice that we're still looking for resolution of key issues. I don't like bringing things to the Planning Commission in this state because it wastes everybody's time. (Estes was not in favor of forwarding the project.) Warrick: The applicant needs to work with Ron and get that information to him in a timely fashion so he can have his report ready. Estes: We need those agreements with adjacent landowners. Doyle: One of the property owners lives out of the state. Hoffman: If one of the 3 is missing, this can't go forward. Doyle: I understand that. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 15 LSD99-24: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT SONIC, PP401 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Kenny Smith for property located at Lot 7, Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0 82 acres. Roger Trotter and Morgan Hooker were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2. The location of the trash dumpsters has been changed based on comments from the Solid Waste Division at the Technical Plat Review meeting. The new location has now been approved. 3. The green space width adjacent to Wedington Drive and Colorado Drive is less than 15 feet in a couple of places. 3. Add additional shrubs to the area of green space that is less than 15 feet. 4. Payment of $200 assessment for sewer improvements to the Hamestring Creek basin is due prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 5. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Sidewalks are in place along Colorado Drive and Wedington Drive. The driveway approaches must meet current City standards. 8. Large Scale Development approval is valid for 1 calendar year. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following are required: • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 16 Grading and drainage permits. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. (Added) Look at treatments for the drive through widow facing Colorado Drive and match the banding for accent features along the top and bottom of the building. 11. (Added) There shall be no up lights or oscillating fiber optics in the "straw" elements. 12. (Added) All signage shall be according to the sign ordinance. Committee Discussion Conklin: This is the second large scale development being processed for Wedington Place. The Bank of Fayetteville has received Planning Commission approval earlier this year. This project is located on the westernmost lot along Wedington Drive adjacent to the newly constructed Colorado Drive. The proposed drive is approximately 140 feet north of the centerline of Wedington Drive. The project is subject to commercial design standards and the unifying design theme has been set by the developer. The proposed elevations for the building and signage have been submitted for review. Cross access is being provided to the north. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Hesse: This is a special case. All along the highway there is an 18 inch waterline. What they've done is group their landscaping. This is a tight site. I can go along with what they've done there. I would recommend additional shrubs in the green space areas which are less than 15 feet. Petrie: We need all trees to be planted 10 feet away from the water line. Conklin: They have submitted revised elevations which show arched features on the windows facing Wedington Drive which has changed from the square. The shopping center proposed for this area does include the arch type feature. The Bank of Fayetteville has incorporated the same arch type feature. There is a common architectural feature. Odom. Is this brick? Warrick: It's brick all the way around. • Hoffman: With regard to the landscaping, I think if you can include more bushes that would • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 17 be good. Just work that out with the Landscape Administrator. I'm satisfied. Estes: With regard to the Commercial Design Standards and the signage, will the Sonic sign go below the roof line? Warrick: The City's sign ordinance requires that the sign not protrude above the roof line. That's something that will need to be revised. Trotter: It protrudes out about 6 feet from the entrance. Odom: The sign is shown above there. Estes: Will the "straw" elements conform to our sign ordinance? What about moving or oscillating lights? Warrick: In the past, the Planning Commission has restricted those by eliminating the uplight coming out the top of these features and the fiber optics that rotate around. Neither of those meet our sign ordinance. I would recommend that you maintain that requirement on this site. Hoffman. The developer is aware of this? Trotter: Yes. Odom: This is along Colorado Drive? I can tell you right now that you're probably going to have some problems since this is fairly unarticulated. The dots help. Do you have design features you can use to add to this? Warrick: If you can work out the CDS at this level, it's possible to approve the project today. Odom: We can approve CDS? Wan -ick: Yes, but you can also take it forward if you are not comfortable. Hooker: What if we did some color bands at the top? Odom: That would help articulate it. Hooker: We talked about doing that. We couldn't decide which building to try and replicate. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 18 Warrick: They used a center scored block to provide accent bands. They are accents that tie in. Conklin: I have seen those used on other fast food restaurants Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken have used bands along the bottom. Hoffman: Can you work that out with them? Warrick: If you want me to, I will work it out with them. Hooker: I don't think that will be a problem. He changed the brick colors. Hoffman: We're talking about doing color bands. I think this is atypical. The other Sonics in town are in interior lots. I would be happy with color bands. I would like to see these windows arched. Hooker. See where the windows come and compare it to the roof height. That could be a problem. Hoffman: If you have a foot, you could do it. Hooker: It's really hard to do any kind of arch. Hoffman: I don't like the idea of mismatched windows. Can you at least look at it? Hooker: Yes. Hoffman: You could use a keystone type brick and that would give you the feeling that something else was going on besides just a flat deal. You could do that. Hooker: A standard brick is 8 inches and if you did an arch that would only leave you 4 inches and you couldn't get any kind of a bond. We've looked at this and it's pretty tricky to work anything in there. Hoffman: We're satisfied with the driveways. We're not coming off Wedington. Sight distances have been looked at. The driveway is far enough away from the corner. Warrick: They're about 140 feet from the centerline of Wedington Drive. They're proposing their drive off of Colorado and they're proposing cross access to the north. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 19 MOTION Odom. I move approval of LSD99-24 subject to all staff comments. Estes: Second. Hoffman: I concur. • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 20 PP99-5: PRELIMINARY PLAT CANDLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PP294 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David Chapman of Candlewood Development, LLC for property located north of Township and East of Highway 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 45.60 acres. The proposal is for 53 lots. Tom Hennelly was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendations Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of right of way along Crossover Rd. (Hwy 265) shall be by warranty deed and must be received prior to signatures on the final plat. 2. Vacation of utility easement within lots 40 through 44 which is no longer needed must be • final prior to signatures on the final plat. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,125 for 59 lots at $375 per lot. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space along the interior, local streets and a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Township and Crossover. 7. Completion of all punch list items. Clarification of the 100 year water surface elevation on the plat. • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 21 Committee Discussion Conklin: The preliminary plat was approved on February 22, 1999. At the time of preliminary plat, the Planning Commission required dedication of nght of way without street construction to the north and south of this development. A parks fee in lieu of land dedication was assessed. Warrick: The vacation is in process now. Rutherford: Everything on the plat is shown to be correct. We have some issues on the punch list which Ron will address. Petrie: There are several punch list items. Hoffman: Those can be taken care of before the final signatures. Petrie: We won't sign off until they're done. • Rutherford: That's my comment, too. • Hesse: I won't sign until landscape issues are taken care of either. Rogers: Everything's fine. Petrie: There are several places that show the 100 year water surface elevation. Could you clarify that? Some of them are right over the line and it's hard to read. Could you get that in a different format so we can read it. Hennelly: Like a different line style? Petne: Like between lot 27 and 28, call it out Hermelley: Okay. Conklin: You're showing the flood plain information from the Corps of Engineers. Hennelly: That's what it is. It's the heavy, dark line. Hoffman: Is that a problem on the buildability of those 2 lots? Will that leave us enough room? Subdivision Committee Minutes October 14, 1999 Page 22 Petrie: It's required to have at least 6,000 square feet outside and all the lots have that. Hennelly: The sidewalk and landscape issues stem from the problem with the retaining wall on lot 10. Rutherford: That's part of it. The streets are required to be graded from right of way to right of way. There were some places in there where that didn't happen. Hennelly: Okay. We'll take care of all that. We are trying to get a waiver from the sidewalk being behind the curb where the wall is. They tried to push the wall out far enough to keep the oak tree. Petrie: That wall diverges away from the curb and the sidewalks stay in place. The whole thing will have to be replaced. Conklin: All that will be worked out prior to signing the mylar. MOTION Odom: I move approval Estes: I'll second. Hoffman: I concur. Meeting adjourned at 9:48 a.m.