HomeMy WebLinkAbout51-08 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 51-08
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CH.
167.04 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION TO
ALLOW OFF-SITE TREE PRESERVATION IN LIEU OF ON-
SITE PLANTINGS FOR PRIOR TREE REMOVAL IN THE
MANNER RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LSD)
07-2765.
WHEREAS, with the grading of the subject property to muck and fill an existing on-site
pond several trees were removed without a permit for development and the developer is thus
required to mitigate such removal; and
WHEREAS, most of the removed trees were approved to be removed by a previously
approved large scale development and were dead or significantly damaged; and
WHEREAS, requiring the replanting 10% of the total site, would work an unnecessary
and unwarranted hardship as applied to the proposed development and might result in the
removal of a proposed building, and
WHEREAS, the proposed off-site tree preservation area of close to 1 acre contains
healthy trees of a higher priority than those removed from the subject property and will
contribute to long-term protection of the existing riparian corridor along the West Fork of the
White River; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes both the intent of the ordinance requirement for prior
tree removal and that a fair and equitable mitigation should be imposed to provide disincentive
for unauthorized prior removal of trees;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS*
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves
the variance offered by the developer to preserve about an acre of trees near the White River.
Section 2. That the developer shall be required to dedicate and record an off-site tree
preservation area containing approximately 38,487 square feet to mitigate for the removed
canopy for prior removal without approval, as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4th day of March, 2008.
EXHIBIT "X'
Offsite Tree Preservation Area
•
Jeremy Pate g
Submitted By
City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
or
Contracts
4 -Mar -DB
City Council Meeting Date
Planning
Division
Action Required:
30/N
51-6g
4.14 0?-oi9ca9/
1,91vn_e bray- tar
Operations
Department
ADM 08-2929: (Stonebridge Square Tree Preservation Variance, 567): A variance request of Chapter 167.04 of the Unified
Development Code for prior tree removal on the subject property to allow for an off-site tree preservation area as mitigation.
Cost of this request
n/a
Account Number
n/a
Project Number
Budgeted Item
n/a
Category/Project Budget
n/a
Funds Used to Date
rila
Remaining Balance
Budget Adjustment Attached
n/a
Program Category / Project Name
n/a
Program / Project Category Name
n/a
Fund Name
Depa ment Rec or
City Attorney
/1/ Of5
Date
Tai i4_6L.
Finance -and Internal Service Director
Mayor
Comments:
Z- c)
1-11 -Or
Date
4/01( 1,4:54-R
Date
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Number:
n/a
nia
n/a
City Council Meeting of March 4, 2008
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
A
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: February 6,2008
Subject: Variance of Chapter 167.04 of the UDC, prior tree removal
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff and the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance of the
mitigation requirements in Chapter 167.04 ((D)(1), Tree Preservation and Protection, of the
Unified Development Code, for prior tree removal on the subject property to allow for an off-
site tree preservation area to be dedicated as mitigation for removed canopy, finding that the
proposed off-site area contains canopy that is of a higher priority than that removed from the
subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Huntsville Road and Stonebridge
Road and contains approximately 3.46 acres.
On March 15, 2007, the Subdivision Committee approved a large scale development (LSD
07-2458) on the subject property that was never constructed. Ownership of the property
changed hands, and the new property owner began clearing and mucking an existing pond on
the site that was originally approved to be removed. During this process, several low -priority,
damaged trees within the pond area that were approved for removal with the large scale
development and an 16" Ash tree that was intended to be protected were removed. With the
exception of the Ash tree, this construction would normally have been acceptable, as the
large scale development plans had been approved. However, all grading permits were not •
approved and erosion control/tree preservation fencing had not been installed for this
construction, thus the activity was in violation of City ordinances. City staff' informed the
property owner of this issue, and a grading permit was subsequently submitted and approved.
The property owner has since that time submitted and received approval for a different large
scale development proposal on the site. The project is similar in its commercial uses, but the
site design, building placement, parking and intensity has changed. Due to the removal of
canopy on the property not associated with and not approved for this new project, the prior
canopy removal constitutes a violation of Chapter 167.04(D)(1), which states that if trees
have been removed below the required minimum within the five (5) years preceding
application for development approval, the site must be forested to meet the Percent Minimum
Canopy requirements, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of the total area of the property
for which the Applicant is seeking approval. The Urban Forester determined grading and tree
removal occurred on July 24, 2007, without a permit associated with the new large scale
.010 -
City Council Meeting of March 4,2008
Agenda Item Number
development. As the tree removal occurred within the five years preceding the new
development application for the subject property, on-site forestation is required.
For the subject property, mitigation up to the minimum percent of required preservation
(20%) phis an additional 10% of the total site is required. Ten percent of the total area is
15,072 square feet, or a little less than half an acre. Should the penalty be applied to the
subject property, the applicant would likely be required to remove a building from the
development or significantly reduce the number of parking spaces provided, in order to
reforest the site according to code requirements. In discussion with the Urban Forester, it
became apparent that utilizing the option of off-site preservation of existing canopy on other
property in close proximity would be advantageous. The Urban Forester walked a site
directly south of this property, along the West Fork of the White River, and recommended an
area of high priority tree canopy consisting of large sycamores and other native riparian
species be preserved and protected within a Tree Preservation Area. The tree preservation
area proposed is 38,487 square feet, west of the existing bridge on Dead Horse Mountain
Road. This is a riparian area along the West Fork, containing groupings of high-priority
canopy, the permanent protection of which will be beneficial for this important drainage way
of the White River. The proposed area of preservation greatly exceeds the amount of canopy
that would be required to be replaced on the site.
As the ordinance allows only on-site re -forestation regarding this matter, the applicant has
requested a variance of these requirements in order to preserve this high priority riparian
buffer south of the project along the West Fork of the White River, as opposed to planting all
trees back on-site. The property shares the same owner, but Chapter 167 does not allow for
off-site preservation as a mitigation of this penalty; therefore, City Council approval is
required. With the development plans as approved, the applicant is planting a total of 41 large
species back on the site and is preserving a 33" White Oak, a 38" oak, and a;16" Ash on the
property. The off-site preservation area would be in addition to these requirements.
DISCUSSION
On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission approved, with a vote of 7-1-1, the request
for a large scale development (LSD 07-2765) to allow for three retail buildings, containing a
total of 26,534 square feet, and 115 parking spaces on the property. Furthermore, the
approved development includes,the rq4lignment of the Stonebridge Road curve to achieve a
safer vehicular street. Currently, Stonebridge Road curves sharply to the east to intersect with
Dead Horse Mountain Road. As this curve does not meet the City's minimum street
standards for the centerline curve radius for a Minor Arterial and is dangerous in its current
configuration, the applicant has coordinated with Planning and Engineering staff and
proposes to modify the curve to obtain a 143.5' centerline radius. The Planning Commission
found in favor of the tree preservation variance request (Condition #4). The approval of LSD
07-2765 is contingent upon City Council approval of the variance request of the penalty
requirements.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CH. 167.04 TREE PRESERVATION
AND PROTECTION TO ALLOW OFF-SITE TREE PRESERVATION IN LIEU OF ON-SITE
PLANTINGS FOR PRIOR TREE REMOVAL IN THE MANNER RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LSD) 07-2765.
WHEREAS, with the grading of the subject property to muck and fill an existing on-site pond
several trees were removed without a pennit for development and the developer is thus required
to mitigate such removal; and
WHEREAS, most of the removed trees were approved to be removed by a previously approved
large scale development and were dead or significantly damaged; and
WHEREAS, requiring the replanting 10% of the total site, would work an unnecessary and
unwarranted hardship as applied to the proposed development and might result in the removal of
a proposed building; and
WHEREAS, the proposed off-site tree preservation area of close to 1 acre contains healthy trees
of a higher priority than those removed from the subject property and will contribute to long-
terrn protection of the existing riparian corridor along the West Fork of the White River, and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes both the intent of the ordinance requirement for prior tree
removal and that a fair and equitable mitigation should be imposed to provide disincentive for
unauthorized prior removal of trees;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves
the variance offered by the developer to preserve about an acre of trees near the White River.
Section 2. That the developer shall be required to dedicate and record an off-site tree
preservation area containing approximately 38,487 square feet to mitigate for the removed
canopy for prior reinoval without approval, as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
JO,
ENGINEERING, INC.
February 5, 2008
• City of Fayetteville
City Council
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: STONEBRIDGE SQUARE VARIANCE REQUEST
Dear Aldermen,
On behalf of our client, Gary Combs, please consider this correspondence an official
request for a variance from the requirements set forth in the City of Fayetteville Code of
Ordinances, Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 167, Section 167.04(D)(1), titled
Tree Preservation and Protection during Development as it pertains to the submitted Large Scale
Development for Stonebridge Square. This section of the UDC addresses tree removal prior to
the application for development.
Mr. Combs purchased the property, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Highway 16 and Stonebridge Road, after a similar large scale development had been approved
under previous ownership. In an attempt to take advantage of available construction crews and
favorable weather, Mr. Combs had his construction crews remove low priority canopy from
around an existing pond during the mucking and filling of the pond. During these activities, one
tree, a 16"Ash, that had been shown as preserved on the original large scale development, was
removed. In addition to this activity, changes Mr. Combs wished to make to the previously
approved large scale development were deemed too extensive to be considered a minor
modification by the Planning Department. The combination of having already removed canopy
from the site, and having to submit a new large scale development, technically put Mr. Combs in
violation of section167.04, but without the malice which that section was intended to deter.
The canopy which was removed, with the exception of the previously mentioned 16"
Ash, was made up entirely of low priority canopy. Primarily birch and willow surrounding the
pond which had been either damaged or killed by beaver habitat. All other significant canopy
remains today, and has been incorporated in the design of this most recent large scale
application. However, due to the specific wording of the ordinance the City Urban Forester was
required to impose a penalty of an additional 10% of the site area in mitigation which had to be
planted on site. The additional mitigation canopy would result in a severe reduction in the
useable property and reduction in the square footage available to lease. As a compromise, Mr.
Combs offered to place nearby land which he owns along the White River in a permanent tree
preservation easement. The canopy in the proposed easement is much higher priority riparian
buffer canopy than that which was removed from the site. Additionally, the amount of canopy
contained in the permanent easement is equal to the original canopy which existed on site. This
proposed easement is located on the south side of the West Fork of the White River, and contains
large, old growth sycamore and river birch species. Special attention was given to the placement
2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479.582.4234 Fax: 479.582.9254
of the easement with regards to the realignment of Dead Horse Mountain Road and the
reconstruction of the bridge. Signs will be placed on perimeter trees to indicate the presence of
the preservation easement.
Again, while technically a violation of the ordinance did occur, there was no intent to
deceive the City, and no malice involved, Mr. Combs simply "jumped the gun". We do not feel
that imposing the 10% penalty is a solution which benefits anyone. On the contrary, we feel that
the compromise reached with Planning Staff, and requested through this variance, will actually
create a better situation for the citizens of the city than if the rules had been followed.
Please contact me, if you have any questions or need further information regarding this
project, at 582-4234 or thennellyah2ei.net
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Hennelly, P.E.
President
2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479,582.4234 Fax: 479.582.9254
Off -Site Tree Preservation Easement
,, 1. '%\•:%
Stonebridge Square — Site Plan
--------- [-A-7
HIGH0
HuNTsVIL
4,
i
1
;5-
Ear
4
i
1
I
i
f i
h)
J
L
a
STONEBRIDGE SQUARE
TREE PRESERVATION
PLAN
s.
uutni
;
2
x
r
•
1
, .
:, ',A•
•
0'
4.
!
it
..
Ei
•
•.
t
-
MOT COVij(P_S I/S
2
r.
c,
lz
i
i
1
I
i
f i
h)
J
L
a
STONEBRIDGE SQUARE
TREE PRESERVATION
PLAN
s.
uutni
;
,c.
Planning Commission
January 28, 2008
Page 5 of 13
LSD 07-2765: (STONEBRIDGE SQUARE, 567): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for
property located at THE SE CORNER OF HWY 16E AND S. STONEBRIDGE ROAD. The
property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.46 acres.
The request is for a commercial development with a 3,360 s.fi convenience store, 3,000 s.f
restaurant,16,218 s.f retail space, 3,692 s.f. bank and associated parking.
Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, recommending approval with conditions as
listed in the staff report.
Tom Hennelly, applicant, stated he agreed with all conditions.
Commissioner Anthes asked about alternate layouts for parking area and dumpster layout.
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, explained the reasons for the current layout and the site
conditions that significantly limit the alternative layouts.
Hennelly passed out drawings of different submittals, and described meetings with Brian Pugh in
Solid Waste.
Commissioner Anthes went through conditions, and received no comments for conditions 1-3.
Commissioner Graves stated he was in favor of all recommended conditions.
Motion:
Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff
report. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote
of 7-1-1, with Commissioner Anthes voting no, and Commissioner Lack recusing.
Wee
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of January 28, 2008
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
125 W. Mountain Si,
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dara Sanders, Current Planner
Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: lanuary-1-8r2048 Updated January 29, 2008
LSD 07-2765: (STONEBRIDGE SQUARE, 567): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for
property located at THE SE CORNER OF HWY 16E AND S. STONEBRIDGE ROAD. The
property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.46
acres. The request is for a commercial development with a 3,360 s.f. convenience store, 3,000
s.f. restaurant, 16,218 s.f. retail space, 3,692 s.ti bank and associated parking.
Planner: Dara Sanders
Findings:
Property description: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Huntsville Road
and Stonebridge Road and contains approximately 3.46 acres. On March 15, 2007, the
Subdivision Committee approved LSD 07-2458 for two retail buildings, containing a total of
41,694 square feet of retail space, and 118 parking spaces on the subject• property. This project
did not go forward.
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
Direction from Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
Commercial
C-1
South
Undeveloped
R -A
East
Commercial
R -A
West
Residential
C-1
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Huntsville Rd/Highway 16 (Thincipa Arterial), Stonebridge
Road (Minor Arterial), and Dead Horse Mountain Road (Local).
Request: The applicant requests large scale approval for a commercial development containing a
3,360 s.f. convenience store, 3,000 s.f. restaurant, 16,218 s.f. retail space, 3,692 s.f. bank, and
113 parking spaces.
On October 4, 2007, the applicant submitted a new proposal for the property, which included
four buildings, containing a total of 26,534 square feet, and 115 parking spaces. However, the
item was tabled, as the Urban Forester determined grading and tree removal occurred without a
K:IReports120081PC Reportsl02-January MUD 07-2765 (Stonebridge Squareidoc
permit associated with the new large scale development. As these trees were removed within 5
years of a development application, Chapter 167 requires a penalty. For this site, mitigation up to
the minimum percent required depending on zoning (20%) plus an additional 10% of the total
site is required. The applicant has requested a variance of these requirements in order to preserve
a high priority riparian buffer south of the project along the West Fork of the White River, as
opposed to planting all trees back on-site. The property shares the same owner, but Chapter 167
does not allow for off-site preservation as a mitigation of this penalty. The applicant and
representative will be requesting a variance from City Council to allow this to occur. The Tree
Preservation Plan approval is contingent upon the decision of City Council. If this variance is not
allowed, the support of the Urban Forester is voided and a new large scale development plan
must be submitted.
Right-of-way Dedication: Right-of-way shall be dedicated 45' from centerline for Stonebridge Road
(Minor Arterial) at the intersection with Huntsville Road/Highway 16, tapering down to 25' from
centerline south from the proposed driveway to Dead Horse Mountain Road. Right-of-way
dedication for Huntsville Road shall be at a minimum of 48.5' from centerline; right-of-way
dedication for Dead Horse Mountain Road shall be at a minimum of 25' from centerline.
Water/Sewer: All public improvements will need to be installed or bonded for 150% of the
construction costs prior to obtaining the building permits.
Tree Preservation:
Existing Canopy:
Preserved Canopy:
Required Canopy:
Tree Preservation Easement:
25.6%
2.8%
20.0%
25.6%
A variance of Ch. 167 Tree Preservation is necessary, in order for the project to be constructed as
approved. The applicant proposes on-site preservation of 2.8% tree canopy, and an off-site tree
preservation area that brings the total canopy in the area back to the original amount, with a higher
significance levet This variance will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision.
Access/Connectivity: Access is currently proposed from Huntsville Road and Stonebridge Square
with a total of 2 curb cuts.
Landscape Variance Request: Currently, Stonebridge Road curves sharply to the east to
intersect with Dead Horse Mountain Road. As this curve does not meet the City's minimum
street standards for the centerline curve radius for a Minor Arterial and is dangerous in its current
configuration, the applicant has coordinated with Planning and Engineering staff and proposes to
modify the curve to obtain a 143.5' centerline radius. Because of the curve modification, the
existing tree canopy, and the required parking ratios, the applicant has proposed a reduced green
space from the required 15 feet to 4.67 feet for five parking spaces. The variance applies only to
the portion of the proposed parking lot adjacent to Stonebridge Road that encroaches into the
green space, as these spaces were relocated as a result of the proposed Stonebridge Road curve
modification. The dumpster was relocated interior to the site, as recommended by the Solid
Waste Division. Staff believes that achieving a radius of 143.5 feet and saving the existing large
trees on site supersede the need for 15 feet of green space. As indicated on the Landscape Plan,
the applicant proposes to screen the encroaching parking with red tip Photinia, six feet in height,
which will substantially obscure the parking from view. Staff supports the applicant's request to
reduce the green space so that the applicant may retain the parking spaces that were taken as a
K Mepons120081PC Reports102-January 28ILSD 07-2765 (Stonebridge Square).doc
result of staffs recommendation to modify the Stonebridge Road curve. Ultimately, the end
result will be a safer pedestrian and vehicular street.
Current Submittal
- Requires landscape variance
- Results in safer curve radius
- Dumpsters combined interior to site
Street Improvements:
Initial Submittal
- No landscape variance required
- No improvement to curve radius
- Dumpster near street
Stonebridge Road - the applicant shall improve Stonebridge Road to include a 36' section with a turn
lane, curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the east side and 19' from centerline, including the 2' asphalt
shoulder on the west side, from Huntsville Road/Highway 16 south for approximately 270 feet to the
proposed driveway, creating a center turn lane. South of the access point, street improvements shall
be reduced to the standard 14' from centerline and modify the curve with pavement, curb, gutter, and
sidewalk on the east/north side to obtain a centerline radius of 143.5 feet.
Dead Horse Mountain Road — Street improvements are not recommended for Dead Horse Mountain
Road east of the 143.5' curve modification due to the improvements being recommended to the curve
radii for overall traffic safety.
Huntsville Road/Highway 16 — the applicant shall construct a 5' sidewalk at the Master Street Plan
right-of-way. Additional street improvements are not recommended for Huntsville Road/Highway 16
at this time based on the improvements recommended to the Stonebridge curve.
Subdivision Committee.- The Subdivision Committee forwarded the item to the Planning
Commission for a final decision, finding in favor of Commercial Design Standards and
recommended street improvements. They did not reach consensus, however, on the landscape
variance, and also asked the applicant to review the dumpster location as proposed.
K:IReports120081PC Reports102-January 28ILSD 07-2765 (Stonebridge Square) doc
Recommendation: Based on the review of the proposed large scale development, staff
recommends approval of LSD 07-2765 with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1 Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed elevations, finding that the elevations submitted meet
the criteria set forth for commercial design standards. For clarity, please provide a larger
scale for the north and south elevations of the bank and retail center. This might require
breaking the elevations in half or on separation pages.
The Subdivision Committee found in favor of this recommendation.
2. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staffrecommends the following
street improvements:
a) Stonebridge Road — the applicant shall improve Stonebridge Road to include a 36'
section with a turn lane, curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the east side and 19' from
centerline, including the 2' asphalt shoulder on the west side, from Huntsville
Road/Highway 16 south for approximately 270 feet to the proposed driveway, creating a
center turn lane. South of the access point, street improvements shall be reduced to the
standard 14' from centerline and mod(the curve with pavement, curb, gutter, and
sidewalk to obtain a centerline radius of 143.5 feet.
b) Dead Horse Mountain Road — street improvements are not recommended for Dead Horse
Mountain Road east of the 143.5' curb radius modification, with exception of an
adequate transition from the existing road into the relocated curve, subject to
Engineering Division approval.
c) Huntsville Road/Highway 16 — the applicant shall construct a 5' sidewalk along
Huntsville Road/Highway 16 at the Master Street Plan right-of-way. Additional street
improvements are not recommended for Huntsville Road/Highway 16 at this time based
on the significant reconstruction improvements recommended to the Stonebridge curve.
d) Street lights shall be installed along all public streets with a maximum spacing of 300
feet.
The Subdivision Committee found in favor of this recommendation.
3 Planning Commission determination of a variance request from Chapter 177.04 (D)(2) to
allow for four feet of green space (an 11' variance) for the five parking spaces located
north of the entry drive to Stonebridge Road. Engineering and Planning staff's request to
modifr the curve radius for Stonebridge Road for public health and safety required the
relocation of the proposed parking on the subject property, for which the configuration
was previously constrained by significant trees to be preserved on the site. Staff
recommends approval of the waiver request, finding that achieving a radius of 143.5 feet,
saving the existing large trees on site, and the applicant's ability to provide adequate
parking set forth by Chapter 173 supercede the need for 15 feet of green space at the
proposed driveway onto Stonebridge Road (see attached findings). To achieve the goal of
K:Reports120081PC Reporis102-January 28ILSD 07-2765 (Sronebridge Square).doc
the landscape requirements along public streets, the applicant significantly screen all
parking within 15 feet of the right-of-way line north of the proposed driveway onto
Stonebridge Road with red tip Photinia, as indicated on the Landscape Plan. Final
plantings shall be subject to the approval of the Urban Forester.
The Subdivision Committee did not find in favor of this recommendation and requested that the
applicant attempt to reduce the variance request.
4. Approval of the large scale development is subject to the approval of the City Council for a
variance of the tree preservation mitigation requirements to allow for off-site tree
preservation for prior -removed canopy. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal to
preserve nearby, off-site tree canopy that is considered high priority, in the area identified in
the attached plans. Should the variance be denied, the large scale approval shall be null and
void.
5. Right-of-way shall be dedicated 45' from centerline for Stonebridge Road (Minor Arterial) at
the intersection with Huntsville Road/Highway 16, tapering down to 25' from centerline
south from the proposed driveway to Dead Horse Mountain Road. Right-of-way dedication
for Huntsville Road shall be at a minimum of 48.5' from centerline; right-of-way dedication
for Dead Horse Mountain Road shall be at a minimum of 25' from centerline.
6. All grading shall be setback a minimum of 5' from the property lines unless written
permission is •provided by the adjacent property owner or a joint grading plan is submitted.
7. Large scale development approval does not assure sign permit approval. All proposed signs
shall be permitted separately from the large scale development proposal by a Sign Permit
application and Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Additionally, all flags shall be reviewed
for compliance with Chapter 174 Signs prior to installation.
8. All public improvements shall be installed or bonded for 150% of the construction costs prior
to obtaining the building permits.
9. The Landscape plan shall be revised to include the tree preservation chart and significant
inventory.
10. If approved by the City Council, the off-site Tree Preservation Area shall be dedicated by
separate document before the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall revise the
note of the Tree Preservation Plan accordingly.
11. The Landscape Plan shall be stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect within the State of
Arkansas.
Standard conditions of approval:
12. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance.
13. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the
applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western
Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
K:IReports12008IPC Reports102-January 2811.50 07-2765 (Stonebridge Square).doc
14. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for
grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) 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 City's current requirements.
15. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut -sheets
are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
16 Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street. The trash
enclosures shall be constructed with materials that are complimentary to and
compatible with the proposed building. A detail of the proposed screening shall be
submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building
permit. Any additional dumpsters located on site shall be screened from the right-of-way.
17. All mechanical/utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened using
materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. A note shall be
clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this requirement.
18. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size,
type, number, etc. Any proposed signs shall be permitted by a separate sign permit
application prior to installation.
19. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall
be located underground.
20. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. Building permits for all
structures must be obtained prior to the expiration date or the project is null and void.
21. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscaping is to be submitted to the
Landscape Administrator for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued
(bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants.
This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of
Certificate of Occupancy.
22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures
prior to any land disturbance.
c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area and
all utility easements.
d. Project Disk with all final revisions
e. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans including tree
preservation measures submitted to the Landscape Administrator.
f Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City
(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed hnprovements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 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.
K:IReport020081PC Reporisl02-January 28ILSD 07-2765 (Sionebridge Squore).doe