HomeMy WebLinkAbout72-13 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 72-13
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND APPROVE A LARGE
SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LSD-4295) FOR CASEY'S GENERAL STORES,
INC.
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard the appeal of Casey's General Stores, Inc and
determined that its proposed Large Scale Development should be approved to allow the right in
only access from Wedington as shown on its plat and to allow the tree preservation/mitigation
plan as modified by the requirements of the Urban Forester to build retaining walls to satisfy the
Tree Ordinance requirements.
NOW, 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 grants the
appeal of Casey's General Stores, Inc. and approves the attached Large Scale Development and
its plat as modified by the Urban Forester to require retaining walls to further preserve more trees
on the parcel and with all of the other conditions required by the Planning Commission.
PASSED and APPROVED this 2nd day of April, 2013.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
By: C-
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
�atBs f
■ A-Ssociatesjnc.
rCivil Engineering & Surveying
91 W. Colt Square Dr. Suite 3 / Fayetteville, AR 72703
PH: 479-442-9350 * FAX: 479-521-9350
March 14, 2013
City Council
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: Casey's on Wedington City Council Appeal from Planning Commission
Dear Aldermen,
RECEIVED
MAR 14 20I3
CriY OF FAYEn����
CtiY �ft1CS O
Casey's General Store is proposing a site on the corner of Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive.
The project will consist of a convenience store, parking lot and 16 pumps. The site is zoned C-2
and there is a home and a closed auto repair shop currently located on the site.
Our request to the Planning Commission on March 1 oth was denied due to tree preservation
requirements. We have amended the tree preservation plan and saved more of the trees as
requested by the Urban Forester.
In addition, a right turn only was requested off of Wedington Drive. The planning department
did not feel it was restrictive enough. In our most recent submittal to the City Council we've
created a smoother turn off of Wedington Drive and made the entrance more restrictive for
eastbound travelers.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call.
Sincerely
Bates & Associates, Inc.
Geoffrey H. Bates, P.E.
President of Engineering
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND APPROVE A LARGE
SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LSD-4295) FOR CASEY'S GENERAL STORES,
INC.
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard the appeal of Casey's General Stores, Inc
and determined that its proposed Large Scale Development should be approved to allow
the right in only from Wedington as shown on its plat and to allow the tree
preservation/mitigation as proposed to satisfy the Tree Ordinance requirements.
NOW, 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 grants the
appeal of Casey's General Stores, Inc. and approves the attached Large Scale Development
and its plat with all of the other conditions required by the Planning Commission.
PASSED and APPROVED this 2"d day of April, 2013.
APPROVED:
I0
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
"Al:
d lyyy]i �9 wild
L3�F
F�ffl11fl11fll1ffllf� 1I11f11 � $� � _
f¢
a 1 � ' �' a ¢� �,�:, • �, • t��.
....•-_r_.-�--••disc--
��
•-••-•--._.._
----I
■ ■
•
II.I IIIIIIIIII II III III
II0111110
CASEY'S GENERAL STORE
a a BeL@S LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
o 14ssociate9.Inc. SITE P
FAYETTEVIL ELAARKANSAS
N
n
S
N
W
0)
D
n
O
3
3
N
N
O
7
• Ilf�nl,_r.• I
w w
II��I���IIII�I��I��II��II�+aII����:I�a0111�11�1�1�����1111111�
''Illllllllllllllll llllllllll�{1�1111111111111111111 �1111111�1�
f{k+999 �k I ' �'• E �; �+ •' ?fs'�j'I�il"3'` i`�'; jf;.,i ,� : rII� ri ` ' I�'�� �li�if
i� ��I�II�Jil I
� p CASEYS GENERAL STORE
a a Bates Cab LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN N -
Associates, inc. '
e SITE PLAN'
FAYETTfNLLE, ARKANSASCD
. tio-. wry
D
N
N
O
co
0
i
n
��tilp
ANO E�
'� Li
,►
ijjs'`� �• I
11 ��
i
fill
If
j
,0M
� 1
CA
ftIuft
J
F�F
n0:;1K
,.[m !7
32FS
t2 O E s
C
{V
D. 0 {
E' 7
fa -U
v
oil
r-
'��
,i►s}, , ram°MW
n-
or—
� a- CD
(D —
0 � �N
CD 0- C)
<CD—�
F o � w
�T
V
Tayve eiAle
FIIE CITY 01' I,AYEI'I1 VILL1 . ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
PC Meeting of March 11, 2013
Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: M-areh 5, 24 -3 Updated March 19, 2013
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
:phone: (479) 575-8267
LSD 12-4295: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON RD./CASEY GENERAL
STORE, 402): Submitted by BATES AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 2530 WEST
WEDINGTON ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and
contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is for 4,223 square foot convenience store with
associated parking. Planner: Jesse Fulcher
Findings:
March 11, 2013 Planning Commission: The Planning Commission made a motion to approve a
modified right -in only design with final design approval required from the Arkansas Highway
and Transportation Department and City Engineer. The motion failed with a vote of 3-5-0. The
Planning Commission then made a motion to approve the large scale development as requested
by the applicant, finding in favor of the right -in design and tree preservation plan. The motion
failed with a vote of 3-5-0.
Property and background: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Wedington
Drive (Hwy 16) and Futrall Drive, and is within the I-540 Design Overlay District. The property
is currently developed with an existing repair shop and single-family home. The Planning
Commission reviewed a large scale development proposal for the development of a Kum & Go
convenience store in 2011. The project was tabled by the applicant and never voted on.
Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted on Table 1.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Direction
from Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
Office
R-O, Residential Office
South
Undeveloped
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
East
Multi -family
RMF-24, Residential multi -family
West
Commercial
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
Request: The applicant requests large scale development approval to construct a 4,223 sq. ft.
convenience store and gas pump canopy.
G: IETODevelopment Services Revieiv120130evelopmenl Review 2-4295 LSD Casey's Wedingtonl3- Planning Commission l3-11-131Commenls
& Redlines
Water and Sewer System: The property has access to existing public water and sewer services.
Adjacent streets and right-of-way: This site is adjacent to the signalized intersection of
Wedington Drive (HWY 16), a principal arterial street, and Futrall Drive, a local street.
Street Improvements: Both of the adjacent streets have been improved, and therefore staff is
recommending that the existing sidewalk along Wedington Drive be relocated to the right-of-
way line and continued along Futrall Drive to the north property line. To accommodate increased
traffic flow exiting the gas station onto Futrall Drive, and utilizing the signalized intersection at
Wedington Drive, staff recommends that Futrall be restriped to accommodate a dedicated right
turn lane. Street lights shall be installed at the intersection and every 300' along the property
frontage, if none exist.
Tree Preservation:
Existing Canopy: 19.6% *Preserved Canopy: 4.3% Required Canopy: 15%
The Urban Forester is recommending denial of the Tree Preservation Plan. See attached
memo from Urban Forester.
Access Management/Connectivity: The subject site is located at the corner of a Wedington Drive
(Hwy 16, a principal arterial street) and Futrall Drive (a local street), which is a signalized
intersection. The access management ordinance states that access shall be taken from the street
with the lower functional classification, Futrall Drive. Where a curb cut must access the arterial
street, it shall be located a minimum of 250 feet from a driveway or intersection.
These standards were adopted so that new access to development would not create or contribute
to unsafe or congested conditions, especially along arterial roadways. As new access points are
created, the potential for vehicle conflicts between through traffic and traffic using the access
increases. In addition to decreased safety, poorly designed access points increase congestion and
traffic delays.
The applicant's original submittal provided a basic driveway design that did not limit left turn
movements. Staff informed the applicant that the access as designed could not be supported, due
to concerns with turning conflicts on a busy, high-speed arterial roadway, and that east bound
traffic attempting to enter the proposed driveway would block one of the thru lanes and cause
vehicles to stack into and through the signalized intersection(s) to the west.
The applicant is now proposing a right -in only driveway. Though this design is different than the
previous proposal and that proposed by Kum & Go in 2011, the same concerns exist. East -bound
vehicles on Wedington will stop in the through lane and attempt to access the site at this point.
The current request is for a right -in design that requires a variance from the 250' curb -cut
separation, as it is approximately 180' from Futrall Drive and approximately 120' from two
driveways to the east that serve an existing multi -family complex.
G: IETODevelopment Services Revieiv12013Wevelopment Revieivl12-4295 LSD Casey's WedingtonU- Planning CommissionU-11-131Comments
& Redlines
Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of LSD 12-4295 due to the proposed tree
preservation plan not meeting the intent of the ordinance (see Urban Forester report attached).
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project, the following conditions
should be required:
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of a variance from Chapter 166.08(F). access
management and curb -cut separation. City staff, highway department officials (in 2011),
and the traffic engineer hired by Kum & Go for a similar proposal have all voiced
concerns that eastbound traffic stopping and attempting to access the site from
Wedington will result in vehicles stacking through one or both signalized intersections.
The current right -in design, though intended to restrict access, continues to allow this
dangerous and unnecessary turning movement. A median or similar physical measure on
Wedington would physically prohibit left turns and address the concerns with queuing
through the intersection. However, highway officials have stated that they will not allow
physical measures to be constructed in the state right-of-way.
It is unfortunate that a reasonably designed access, with signage that informs drivers to
not turn left into or out of this site, still results in prohibited and dangerous turning
movements. One might even ask if prohibiting this curb -cut based on the actions of a few
drivers is appropriate. In staff's opinion, it is appropriate to recommend denial of the
access as proposed. A small percentage of all drivers may purposefully ignore the posted
restrictions, but an equal amount of drivers may also unknowingly attempt to use this
access. In either case, all drivers on Wedington will be subject to an increased number of
unsafe tuning movements, congestion, and delay. These conditions will be generated by a
private development at the expense of the general public. And as indicated by the Auto -
turn analysis provided by the applicant (page 4 of plans), a direct access to Wedington is
not required for their customers or fueling trucks.
For the reasons stated herein, including comments from the Arkansas State Highway
Department (2011) and the previous traffic study, staff recommends denial of the
proposed variance to allow a right -in on Wedington, finding that this access will increase
traffic danger, congestion and delay for the general public. Staff may be able to support a
right -out only design, given that the highway department is proposing to extend this west-
bound lane across the new bridge. Currently, this is a designated on -ramp lane.
2/14/13: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A RIGHT-
1N/RIGHT-OUT CONCEPT. THE REQUEST IS NOW FOR A RIGHT -IN ONLY.
2. Planning Commission determination of a variance request froin Chapter 172.040,
Parking Lot Design Standards. The applicant has submitted a variance request from the
maximum drive aisle width requirement of 24 feet and proposes to utilize a range of drive
aisle widths between 27 feet and 49 feet, to accommodate the turning movements of
fueling trucks and access to the underground gasoline storage tanks. An Autoturn
diagram has been added to the site plan on Sheet 4 of the submitted plat to indicate that
the request is justified. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to exceed the
G: ETODevelopment Services Review120131Development RevieivU2-4295 LSD Casey's WedingtonU- Planning CommissionU-11-131Comments
& Redlines
maximum drive aisle width of 24 feet as indicated by the Autoturn analysis.
2/14/13: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
Planning_ Commission determination of a variance request froni Chapter 172.04(Y 4).
Parking Lot Circulation. The applicant has submitted a variance request from the
maximum entrance width requirement of 24' for a driveway entering a local street, to
accommodate the turning movements of fueling trucks. An Auto -turn diagram has been
added to the site plan on Sheet 4 of the submitted plat to indicate that the request is
justified. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to exceed the maximum
driveway width of 24 feet as shown on the Autoturn analysis.
2/14/13: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
4. Planning Commission determination of Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Design and
Development Standards. The applicant has updated the west fagade of the building
adjacent to Futrall Drive since the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staffs only concern
with this elevation is the lack of a prominent entryway. Staff recommends that an
additional awning be added above the entrance, or other design feature to highlight this
entrance.
2/14/13: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED DENIAL. THE WEST
ELEVATION HAS BEEN UPDATED SINCE THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING.
5. Planning Commission determination of the Tree Preservation Plan. The Urban Forester
is recommending denial of the project, finding that the plan does not meet the
requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and that no justification has been
provided for the removal of trees 410-13.
2/14/13: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
6. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the
following improvements:
a. Relocate the sidewalk along Wedington Drive to the right-of-way and remove all
old sidewalk and asphalt.
b. Construct a 5' sidewalk along Futrall Drive at the right-of-way line.
c. Street lights shall be installed at the intersection and every 300' along the
property frontage, if none exist.
d. Stripe Futrall for a dedicated right -turn lane for southbound vehicles turning
right onto Wedington Drive.
2/14/13: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
7. Denial of the requested access to Wedington Drive may require significant revisions to
the site plan and project layout, and may remove the need for certain dimensional
variances. These changes may require a major modification approval from the Planning
Commission at a future hearing date, prior to construction plan approval.
G:IETOL)evelopment Services Revieiv120131Development Revieiv112-4295 LSD Casey's WedinglonU- Planning CommissionU-11-131Connnenls
& Redlines
8. If approved by the Planning Commission, the driveway accessing Wedington Drive shall
be placed in an access easement and filed with the easement plat or by separate
document. This easement should permit the adjacent property to the east to utilize the
curb -cut on Wedington and have cross access to Futrall.
9. A vegetative screen, as indicated on the submitted landscape plan, shall be installed along
the eastern property line to screen the commercial building and parking/driveway areas
from the adjacent residential use. A portion of this may be removed if cross -access is
provided to the east.
10. Monument style signs are the only permitted freestanding sign in the I-540 Design
Overlay District (DOD). The current proposal is for a 10 foot tall sign, which exceeds the
maximum height of 6 feet. Electronic message boards (direct lighting) are prohibited in
the DOD. A sign permit shall be approved prior to any sign installation.
11. Any fencing shall comply with commercial design and design overlay district standards.
12. All tree preservation, landscape, and fire department conditions included herein shall
apply. All revisions shall be addressed prior to construction plan approval.
Standard conditions of approval:
13. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City
ordinance.
14. If applicable, a business license shall be obtained prior to opening the business to the
public.
15. 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).
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
G: IETCIDevelopmeni Services Revie1020130evelopment ReviewU24295 LSD Casey's Wedinglonl3- Planning Commission U-11-131Commenis
& Redlines
19. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials complimentary to and
compatible with the principle structure. Elevations of the proposed dumpster enclosure
shall be submitted to the Planning and Solid Waste Divisions for review prior to building
permit.
20. 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. Freestanding pole signs and electronic message boards
(direct lighting) are prohibited in the Design Overlay District.
21. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities
shall be located underground.
22. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
23. 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.
24. 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 Improvements" 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.
Planning Commission action: ❑ Approved ❑ Tabled 0 Denied
Meeting Date: March 11, 2013
Motion: Hoskins
Second: Cabe
Vote: 3-5-0 Motion to approve failed with Commissioners Winston, Bunch, Cabe,
Pennington and Cook voting against. Chesser was not present.
G: ETOL)evelopment Services Revieiv120130evelopment RevieivV2-4295 LSD Casey's WedinglonU- Planning Commission U-I1-131Commenls
& Redlines
Ztee
�nEiKAP15A5�
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION — Chapter 167
To: Bates and Associates
From: Megan Dale, Urban Forester/Landscape Administrator
CC: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Date: 14 February 2013
Subject: LSD 12-4295: Casey's General Store Subdivision Review Comments
Requirements Submitted.•
N Initial Review with the Urban Forester
Y Site Analysis Map Submitted
N Site Analysis Written Report _Submitted
N Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted
N/A Tree Mitigation Form Submitted
N/A Tree Preservation Wavier Submitted
Canopy Measurements:
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
1455 S Happy Hollow Rd
f l 1 Fayetteville, AR 77701
P 1-1791.14.13471 FM771321.771•I
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
Total Site Area (minus Pilaster Street Platt ROW, existing easements, and Dedicated Parkland)
acres
1.54
square feet
67,000
bisting Tree Canopy (minus existing easements)
feet
13,184
_square
percent of site area
19.6%
Tree Canopy Preserved
_ square feet
gent of total site area _ T
Tree Cangy Removed (including off:site canopy)
square feet (7,149 below min + 990 offsite = 8,139)
percent of total site area _
Site Percent Min. Canopy Re uired — Zoning C-2
_
2,901
_ 4.3%
10,283
15.3%
15%
•i 1•l'', i. ':i 1"I[] {!. ... �[ .I '. _ -,yets 2yiH A' I_,01
Page 1 of 3
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 7 of 24
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Mitigation. Required -
Canopy Below
Required
Preservation
Priorit Tr a
Forestation Base
Density ft2
Number of 2" caliper
trees to be planted
8,139 ft2
High Priority
218
37
ft2
Mid Priority
290
ft2
Low Priority
436
Total Mitigation
37
Tree Escrow (at $675 per tree) equivalent of $25,715
Mitigation Type Requested:
® On -Site ❑ Off -Site ❑ Tree Escrow ❑ Not Requested Yet
Mitigation Type Requested Approved: ❑ YES ® NO
TREE PROTECTION PLAN CHECKLISTS AND COMMENTS:
Plan Checklist;
NA = not applicable
Yes = submitted by applicant
No = required by City Code but not included on submitted plan
The Site Analysis Plan f167.04[H)1).l
Tech Plat
SD
PC
Site Analysis Plan Components
Y
_Y_
Y
NIA
5 year aerial check on existing trees
Property Boundary
Natural Features 100ft beyond property line shown
Existing Topography with slopes < 15% highlighted
_
Y
—WA
Y
Y
_N/A
N/A
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Soils
Y
Y
N/A
N/A
Significant Trees : 24", 18" and 8" DBH
Y
Y
Table listing,Sig. Trees with species, size, health, priority
Y
Y
N/A
Grouping of Trees: all other trees that do not meet significant requirements
Y
Y
N/A
Table listing Grouped Trees with average species, size, health, 2riority
Y
Y
N/A
All existing utilities
N/A
N/A
N/A
All perennial and intermittent streams with approximate center line
N/A
N/A
N/A
Flood lains/Floodways
Y
Y
N/A
Existing street, sidewalk or bike path ROW
N
N
N/A
Submitted Site Analysis Plan
Page 2 of
At
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 8 of 24
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
The Analvsis Plan Report 1`167.00I)t411
Tech Plat
SD
PC
Anal sis Plan Report Components
Detail Design Approaches used to minimize damage to OR
removal of existing canopy
N
N
N/A
N
N
N/A
Justification for removal of individual or groupings of trees/canopy
Details providing information on on -site mitigation OR off -site
alternatives
Submitted Analysis Report
Y
Y
N/A
N
N
N/A
Tree Preservation Plan [167,04(H)(2)]
Tech Plat
SD
PC
Tree Preservation Plan Components
Shows ALL Proposed Site Improvements
Y
Y
Y
Y
_
N/A
N/A
N/A
Delineates trees/canopy to be preserved and removed
Delineates existing and proposed grading
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Depict limits of soil disturbance
Detail methods that will be used to protect trees during
construction:
Y
Y
N/A
1. Tree Protection Fencing
Y
Y
N/A
2. Limits of Root Pruning
Y
Y
N/A
3. Traffic flow on work site
N
N
N/A
4. Location of material storage
Y
Y
N/A
5. Location of concrete wash out
Y
Y
N/A
6, Location of construction entrance/exit
N
N
N/A
Location of ALL existing and new utility/drainage easements
To Subdivision Committee:
1, This application is recommended for DENIAL,
2, No justification in Analysis Report or Plan has been provided to remove Trees #10-13. The site design could be
modified to shift the building and pump canopy to provide the following Tree Preservation Numbers.
Removed::7333 —10.9%
Preserved; 5851— 8.7%
Mitigation: 4199 + 990 offsite = 5189 = 24 trees
Conditions of Approval:
3. Address all redlines and items above marked with "N."
4. Show demo of shed on Tree Preservation Plan. Add note that has vertical planking on Tree #3 and #4. Provide
detail. Add note about depth of asphalt removal so that roots are not damaged.
5. Show all utilities on plan. Move gas line and required easement / construction buffer out of tree preservation area.
6. Prior to Building Permit approval, all required landscaping will require a performance bond and a completed
Landscape Surety Form, Submit a landscape estimate for review at time of construction plan review.
T Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a 3-year Maintenance Plan must be submitted with a 3-year surety (letter of
credit, bond or cash) and completed Landscape Surety Form.
Page 3 of 3
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 9 of 24
Za e
mAftK,1Hi.t5�
LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS — Chapter 177
To: Bates and Associates
From: Megan Dale, Urban Forester/Landscape Administrator
CC: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Date: 14 February 2013
Subject: LSD 12-4295: Casey's General Store Subdivision Review Comments
Applicable Requirements.
Y Site.De"velopment &Parking Lot Standards
Y Street. -Tree Planting Standards
Y Sformwater Facilities
Plan Checklist:
Y= submitted by applicant
N=required by City Code but not included on submitted plan
NA= not applicable
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
1455 S Happy Hollow Rd
it I L F.IRIlevllle, AR 72701
n . � P WF01 44,1 1471 F (4791521-7114
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
Tech Plat
SC'
PC
All Landscape Plans
Y
Y
NA
Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib 700'o.c.
177.03A.7. & 177.04,B.3.a
Y
Y
NA
Species of plant material identified (177.03.A.7.d & e
Y
Y
NA
Size of plant material at time of installation indicated minimum size 2"callperfor
trees and 3 al. shrubs 177.03.A.7.b & c
_
Y
Y
NA
Soil amendments notes include that sal is amended and sod removed 177.03.C.6.b
Y
Y
NA
Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds
(177.03.C.6.c & d)
N
N
NA
LSD and Subdivisions plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect, others
by Landscape Designer (177.03.B
Y
Y
NA
Planting bed contained by edging
177.03.C.6.0
Y
Y
NA
Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual (177.03.C.6.g)
..�.oaC•_1. i1't 4 Ti AP'i7Q
Pagel of 3
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 10 of 24
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Tech Plat
SC
PC
Site Development & Parking Lot Standards
Y
Y
NA
Wheel stops/ curbs (177.04.B.1)
Interior landscaping (177,04.C)
Narrow tree lawn (8' min width, 37.5' min length/ 1 tree per 12 spaces) OR
N
Y
NA
Tree island (8' min. width, 16 7' min. lenghdl tree per 12 spaces)
,411,oalLnj lot trees must be deciduous (177.04.C.3
Placement of Trees (177.04.C.2)
Y
V
NA
Either side at points of access (entrancelexit
Perimeter landscaping (177.04.D)
Side and rear property lines (Ywide landscaped)
Front property line (15' wide landscape) (177.04. D.2. a)
N
Y
NA
Shade trees planted on south and west sides of parking lots (177.04.D.2.e)
Parking lot adjacent to R.O. W - continuous row planting of shrubs - 50% evergreen.
Remaining landscaping to be ground cover and l or turf,) (177.04. D.4a)
NOTE: Shade trees are described in street tree /JnLg standards
Street Tree Planting Standards (time ofF:)6.` or peimifJ (117.05)'
NA
NA
NA
Residential Subdivisions-1 large species shade tree/ lot tree planted within R. 0, W.
ITpossible
Y
Y
NA
Nonresidential Subdivision-1 large species shade tree/30 L.F. tree planted within
15-25' greens_ pace _
Urban Tree Wells -urban streetscape only- 8'sidewalk, trees every 30 L.F.
NA
NA
NA
177.05.13,3,a
Structural Soil -if urban wells are used, a note or detail of structural soil must be
NA
NA
NA
indicated on the landscape plan
NA
NA
NA
Timing of plantin indicated on plans (subdivisions onl) 177,05.A.4
NA
NA
NA
Written description of the method for tracking plantings (177.05.A.4.e)
Plan contains 3-year Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement. The owner shall
Y
Y
NA
deposit with the City of Fayetteville a surety for approved landscape estimate.
177.05.A.2.e
Tech Plat
SC.
PC
StormwaterFacilities (Ame ofF.P orpermil)(177.,06AA C)
N
NA
NA
1 deciduous or evergreen tree/ 3000 square feet
/V
NA
NA
4 large shrubs or small trees (3 gal) / 3000 square feet
Y
NA
NA_
6 shrubs or grasses (1 gal) / 3000 square feet
Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified
Y
NA
NA
Y
NA
NA
50% of facility planted with grass or grass like plants
Landscape Requirements Table
37
Miti ation Trees
3- ear bond required
16
Street Trees
3-year bond required
1
Parking Trees
3
12 _
18
Detention Large Trees
Detention Small Trees / Large Shrubs
Detention Small Shrubs
Page 2 of 3
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 11 of 24
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
r.:.-�-�ixa:.,Y:t..xs--�--.r�=:,:rv:s��--a��.vrxrr.• mac+...-.ss..r.sir�mtr_.�:^+�4�s»«-ihr arta'-n.•��•:--•r.a+�..—ir•r�: ..-•^
To Subdivision Committee:
1. Variance #4 requests that additional landscaping be used along the west elevation to screen. No additional planting
is for screening is shown.
Conditions of Approval:
2. Address all items above marked with "N" and redlines.
3. Update Landscape Requirements Table.
4. Mitigation tree type requests do not match Landscape Plans.
5. Move large species Street Trees 20' from overhead powerline,
6. Leyland Cypress and White Pine have not been tolerating drought, insect or disease. Choose another species.
Consider the native Eastern Red Cedar,
7. Prior to Building Permit approval, all required landscaping will require a performance bond and a completed
Landscape Surety Form. Submit a landscape estimate for review at time of construction plan review.
S. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a 3-year Maintenance Plan must be submitted with a 3-year surety (letter of
credit, bond or cash) and completed Landscape Surety Form.
9. Landscape Architect of record shall inspect site and direct Contractor to make changes to meet Approved plans and
details prior to Urban Forester Certificate of Occupancy inspection. No changes to the approved landscape plan
may be made without Urban Forester approval.
Page 3 of 3
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 12 of 24
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
125 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Tavetre;—ille Phone (479)444-3-344 443
ARKAri5A$
To: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner March 4, 2013
From: Glenn Newman, P.E.
Staff Engineer
Re: Plat Review Comments (March 11, 2013 Planning Commission)
Development: LSD 12-4295 Casey's — Wedington Drive
Engineer: Bates & Associates, Inc.
Standard Comments:
1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets and drainage). Review
for plat approval is not approval of public improvements, and all proposed improvements are subject to
further review at the time construction plans are submitted.
2. Water and sewer impact fees will apply for the additional impact to the system. The fees will be based
on the proposed meter size and will be charged at the time of meter set.
3. Prior to engineering approval of the building permit, either the required public improvements must be
installed and accepted, or performance bonds in the amount of 150% of the construction cost for all
public improvements must be submitted, accompanied by a unit price estimate approved by the
Engineering Division.
Plan Comments:
1. Staff is not in support of the entrance off Wedington Drive without a physical barrier installed in the
highway to prevent left turns fro the east bound traffic — remove from plan.
2. Adjustments to the inlet design may be necessary to ensure 100% capture to direct flow to detention
pond. Adding extensions and adjusting grade of gutter to be above 100 yr WSE.
Drainage Report Comments:
1. The Underground Detention Model is not approved and has not been be re -designed since Subdivision
Committee. The area draining to the detention pond shown in the drainage area map does not match the
calculations. Additional information requested to support CN and Manning "n" used in the report.
2. In general the AHTD storm drain network is not designed to convey the 100 yr storm events, therefore,
there may be downstream capacity issues. The downstream network must be modeled to verify the
HGL of the network is less than the HGL of the detention for each storm event. Offsite improvements
are anticipated or the detention shall be designed to meet downstream capacity.
3. Gutter and downspouts must be designed to convey the 100 yr flow.
Standard Construction Comments:
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf TDD (479) 521-1316 113 West Mountain -Fayetteville, AR 72701
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 13 of 24
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
1. The engineer of record shall provide "Full Time" inspection for utilities and "Part Time" inspection for
the storm drainage and roadway construction for this project. The engineer of record shall also review
and approve material submittals (_i; ; rm'Cd 4,11billi(MIS Q1211 he titihmiuetl tO [IT City I'Or c011curi-slice burr c
material is ordered)— weekly inspection reports should be submitted to the City of Fayetteville's public
works inspector.
2. 2012 Standard Water & Sanitary Sewer Specifications & Details apply. (Document available at
www.accessfayetteville.org/govei-nment/engineering )
3. Demolition shall not begin until the appropriate erosion control measures and required tree preservation
fencing are installed
4. Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the following
items must be performed or provided to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department:
o The work shown on the civil site package must be complete and the items on the final punch list
completed.
o Vegetation must be established in accordance with Section 169.06 of the UDC and perimeter
controls removed.
o One (1) set of as -built drawings of the complete project (excluding details) as a hard copy and in Tiff
or PDF format;
■ Public infrastructure and services shall be surveyed after installation in relation to easements,
property lines, and rights -of -way.
■ Professional surveyor shall provide stamp drawings specifically identifying the limits of as -
built survey performed.
■ More than 2 ft deviation of design alignment shall require new easement dedication or
adjustment of the utility/storm drain.
o Unit price construction costs and a single 2 year maintenance bonds in the amount of 25% of the
public improvements have been provided to the city;
o Certification that the streets, sidewalk, storm sewer, water, fire line, and sewer lines, etc., were
installed per approved plans and City of Fayetteville requirements;
o Certification that the designed retaining walls were installed per approved plans and City of
Fayetteville requirements;
o Cross Sections, Volume Calculations, and Certification Retention/Detention Ponds are in accordance
with the approved Drainage Report.
o Surveyor's Certification of Compliance for monuments and property pins.
o The As- Built Final Drainage Report in PDF format.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf TDD (479) 521-i 316 113 west Mountain - Fayetteville, AR 72701
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 14 of 24
P i V
Z e
�ABKANSAS�
3/5/13
Geoffrey Bates P.E.
Bates and Associates
91 W. Colt Square Dr.
Fayetteville, AR. 72703
(479) 442-9350
RE: 12-4295
Mr. Bates,
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
15605, Happy Hallow Road
Fayollevllle, AR 72701
P(479)575,0390 F (479) 444-3478
The enclosure for this development should be sized at 30' wide and 12'deep. Please provide dimensions on the site plan
and provide architectural plans to ensure serviceability of the enclosure. The other issue I have is that there seems to be
parking in front of the enclosure which could cause a service issue if there was a car sitting in a parking space when we
tried to service the enclosure.
Please contact me at 479-575-8397 or idnlinmondPci,fayetteville.ar.us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jason Drummond
Commercial Sales Representative
Fayetteville Solid Waste and Recycling
Telectnlrnunicatlons Device for the Deaf TDD (479) 521-1316 113West Mountain - Fayetteville, All72701
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 15 of 24
�rJ
January 15, 2013
Planning Staff
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Bates
Associates,1 nc.
Clvll Engineering Surveying
91 W. Colt Square Dr. Suite 3 / Fayetteville, AR 72703
PH: 479-442-9350 " FAX: 479-521-9350
RE: Casey's — Wedington variance request
Dear Planning Staff,
Casey's General Store is proposing a site on the corner of Wedington Drive and Futrall Drive.
The project will consist of a convenience store, parking lot and 16 pumps. The site is zoned C-2
and there is a home and a closed auto repair shop currently located on the site.
Casey's would like to request the following variances:
I. Increase driveway with off of Futrall from 24' to 36'. This is needed for the tanker
trucks to enter and exit the site
t—aeer-ease- the -tninii33aii3 Threat length f3'643340' to -7' Thi-g of a rYpioa1 „a; it
lot and 440 roll„ntion ip twe'do f r r.r.,.,nr traffiy circulatiop
3. Decrease the driveway separation on Wedington from 250' to 170' center to center.
The lot is not 250' wide so the minimum separation cannot be achieved_
4. The west facade is not built like a front and Casey's would like to propose additional
landscaping in this area to screen the building.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call.
Sincerely
Bates & Associates, Inc.
Geoffrey H. Bates, P.E.
President of Engineering
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 16 of 24
lb
• - • } , ` ` '4:�F•-jam \� �� ._ .`� , � � f t� ] � r +{: �
J
'; F
r---
���, i•t�\�1� r r
Irk Y
u
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 17 of 24
March 11, 2013
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 18 of 24
Planning Commission
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 19 of 24
.1 1
...........
L
A
- - - - -
- - - - -
,A
?
jj
L
ui
AM7111111111111k,b][91
A
io
z
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 20 of 24
z
i
ho
March 11, 2013
manning uommisston
LSD 12-4295 Casey
General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 21 of 24
LSD12-4295
Close Up View
r,'� `•'
CASETS
'ti^ inn ,
r L
IN
I
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RS"
PR11Ul7E 2V
5 ,rA, 'f..rye
'�.QR
R yf
• i I I
Bend
r Fu��a':T�ils�
''� ,.r•yattvi[I 3ty.:Lir+�i�s. ,
,. vi,l LSD12-4295
,'•�� Footprints 2410
Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District
�_• _� Design Overlay ❑i trict
Design Overlay ❑i trict
D 75 150 3W 450 600 arch 11L2O1,3Planning Rrea
Agenda Item 2
Page 22 of 24
R•O
5
ff
LSD 12-4295 Casey General Store
Agenda Item 2
Page 23 of 24
KUM & GO PACKET
2011
Tayverev—�*ille
ARKANSAS PC Meeting of October 10, 2011
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DNISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: October 5, 2011
LSD 11.-3903: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON DR./KUM & GO, 402):
Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at 2530 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE.
The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately
1.54 acres. The request is for a gas station and convenience store containing approximately 4,958
square feet. Planner: Jesse Fulcher
Findings:
Property and background: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Wedington
Drive (Hwy 16) and Futrall Drive, and is within the I-540 Design Overlay District. The property
is currently developed with an existing repair shop and single-family home. Surrounding land
use and zoning is depicted on Table 1.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Direction
from Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
Office
R-O, Residential Office
South
Undeveloped
C-2, Thoroughfare Corn mercial
East
Multi -family
RMF-24, Residential multi-famil
West
Commercial
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
Request: The applicant requests large scale development approval to construct a 4,958 sq. ft.
convenience store and gas pump canopy.
Water and Sewer System: The property has access to existing public water and sewer services.
Adjacent streets and right-of-way: This site is adjacent to the signalized intersection of
Wedington Drive (HWY 16), a principal arterial street, and Futrall Drive, a local street.
Street Improvements: Both of the adjacent streets have been improved, and therefore staff is
recommending that the existing sidewalk along Wedington Drive be relocated to the right-of-
way line and continued along Futrall Drive to the north property line. Street lights shall be
installed at the intersection and every 300' along the property frontage, if none exist.
G:IETCIDevelopment Services Reidewl20111Development Reviewll 1-3903 LSD Kum & Go Wedington117- Planning Commission110-10-
I IlComments & Redlines
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 1 of 46
Tree Preservation:
Existing Canopy: I0.86% *Preserved Canopy: L89% Required Canopy: 10.86%
*Mitigation Required: See attached memo from Urban Forester.
Access Management/Connectivity; The subject site is located at the corner of a Wedington Drive
(Hwy 16, a principal arterial street) and Futrall Drive (a local street), which is a signalized
intersection. The access management ordinance states that access shall be taken from the street
with the lower functional classification, Futrall Drive. Where a curb cut must access the arterial
street, it shall be located a minimum of 250 feet from a driveway or intersection.
These standards were adopted so that new. access to development would not create or contribute
to unsafe or congested conditions, especially along arterial roadways. As new access points are
created, the potential for vehicle conflicts between through traffic and traffic using the access
increases. In addition to decreased safety, poorly designed access points increase congestion and
traffic delays.
The applicant's original submittal provided a full three -lane driveway on Wedington Drive. Staff
informed the applicant that the access as designed could not be supported, due to concerns with
turning conflicts on a busy, high-speed arterial roadway, and that east bound traffic attempting to
enter the proposed driveway would block one of the thru lanes and cause vehicles to stack into
and through the signalized intersection(s) to the west.
Wedington Drive is also a state highway and subject to review by the Arkansas State Highway
and Transportation Department (AHTD). City staff asked AHTD to review and comment on the
proposed three -lane driveway on Wedington. AHTD stated that they supported the city's efforts
to prohibit a curb -cut at this location, "as it would further add to the traffic congestion at this
location."
In response to these concerns, the applicant employed an outside engineering firm to conduct a
traffic study and provide recommendations that could allow safe access directly to Wedington
Drive. The traffic engineer provided the following recommendation:
"Due to the high volume of eastbound thru traffic in the A.M. and the high volume of westbound
thru traffic in the P.M., we recommend construction of a raised median island (Figure 9) on the
east side of the Futrall Drive intersection creating a Right in/Right out only driveway for the
development. Although this improvement will prevent the eastbound left turn into the
development, it will also prevent a left turning vehicle from stopping in traffic and creating a
queue through the intersections. One might suggest adding a Two Way Left Turn Lane
(TWLTL), but due to the proximity of the entrance to the intersection, the westbound queuing at
the intersection would prohibit any left in or left out movements during the peak hours."
Staff found the proposed median to be a creative solution that prohibited left turns, reducing
turning conflicts and ensuring that east bound thru traffic would not be delayed by vehicles
attempting to enter the site directly from Wedington. Staff forwarded the new proposal to AHTD
for review. However, highway officials informed us that they would not be agreeable to a
median being constructed in the highway right-of-way for various reasons, including
G: IETCIDevelopmenl Services ReviewlM I Wevelopmen I Reviewlll-3903 LSD Kum & Go Wedington II7- Planning Commission110-10-
IIlCommenis & Redlines
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 2 of 46
maintenance responsibilities, obstructions that could be impacted, etc. Officials also stated that
"methods to help enforce turn restrictions should be handled inside the property."
Without further approval from AHTD, the applicant is only able to provide a right-in/right-out
driveway by constructing a raised median in the center of the driveway. This same design has
been employed on a few other sites accessing state highways, and is intended to prohibit left
turns into or out of a site. However, the design allowed by the state, as observed on several
occasions by staff, is ineffective, and does not prohibit or discourage the turning movements that
staff and the state are concerned with at this location.
Staff provided all of the above information and feedback to the applicant and asked them to
speak directly with highway officials about allowing the raised median to be constructed, or for
an alternative driveway design that will physically discourage left hand turns. Since the
Subdivision Committee hearing, the applicant has confirmed with highway officials that the
raised median will not be permitted in the highway right-of-way and that the applicant could
utilize the state's approved right-in/right-out design with a mountable curb (see plan attached).
The applicant is proposing a state approved right-in/right-out driveway design for the curb -cut on
Wedington. This access requires a variance from the 250' curb -cut separation, as it is
approximately 180' from Futrall Drive and approximately 120' from two driveways to the east
that serve an existing multi -family complex.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of LSD 1.1.-3903 with the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. PlggqLn Commission determination of a variance from Chapter 166.08(F) access
management and curb -cut separation. City staff, highway department officials, and the
traffic engineer hired by the applicant have all voiced concerns that eastbound traffic
stopping and attempting to access the site from Wedington will result in vehicles stacking
through one or both signalized intersections. The proposed median on Wedington would
physically prohibit left turns and address the concerns with queuing through the
intersection. However, the highway department is unable to allow this to be constructed
in the right-of-way.
The only remaining alternative for restricting left turns is to use the mountable island
(2"vertical face sloping up to a total height of 4") in the center of the driveway. A few of
these restrictive driveways are in use in the city, both on state and city roads, and are
intended to prevent drivers from turning left into or from the site. And despite very
restrictive designs allowed within city owned right -of way, drivers are still tempted to
and continue to perform left-hand turns. The right-irilri_ght-out design proposed for this
site, within state owned right-of-way, will be much less restrictive than city approved
designs, encouraging eastbound traffic to stop on Wedington to attempt a left-hand turn
into the site. This is exactly the concern voiced by the traffic engineer who studied this
site, and why the median was the recommended solution to allow safe access to
Wedington.
G:IETCIDevelopment Services RevieM201IWevelopmenl Reviewlll-3903 LSD Kenn & Go Wedinglonll7- Planning Commissionll0-10-
111 Copnnents & Redlines
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 3 of 46
It is unfortunate for the applicant that a reasonably designed access, with signage that
informs drivers to not turn left, still results in prohibited and dangerous turning
movements. One might even ask if prohibiting this curb -cut based on the actions of a few
drivers is appropriate. In staff s opinion, it is appropriate to recommend denial of the
access as proposed. A small percentage of all drivers may purposefully ignore the posted
restrictions, but an equal amount of drivers may also unknowingly attempt to use this
access. In either case, all drivers on Wedington will be subject to an increased number of
unsafe tuning movements, congestion, and delay. These conditions will be generated by a
private development at the expense of the general public. And as indicated by the Auto -
turn analysis provided by the applicant (page 4 of plans), a direct access to Wedington is
not required for their customers or fueling trucks.
For the reasons stated herein, including comments from the Arkansas State Highway
Department and Small Arrow Engineering, Inc. (traffic engineer), staff recommends
denial of the proposed variance- to allow a driveway on Wedington, finding that this
access will increase traffic danger, congestion and delay for the general public.
9/29/11: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MADE NO RECOMMENDATION
CONCERNING THE VARIANCE FOR ACCESS. THE APPLICANT WAS STILL
WORKING WITH THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ON ALTERNATIVE DRIVEWAY
DESIGNS.
2. Planiiing Commission determination of a variance request fi•om Chapter 172.040,
Parking Lot Design Standards. The applicant has submitted a variance request from the
maximum drive aisle width requirement of 24 feet and proposes to utilize a range of drive
aisle widths from 35 feet - 42 feet to accommodate turning radius required for large truck
parking lot circulation and access to the underground gasoline storage tanks. An Autoturn
diagram has been added to the site plan on Sheet 4 of the submitted plat to indicate that
the request is justified. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to exceed the
maximum drive aisle width of 24 feet.
9/29/11: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE.
3. Planning Commission determination of a variance rN uest from Cha Ler 172.04 F
Parking Lot Circulation. The applicant has submitted a variance request from the
maximum entrance width requirement of 2.4' for a driveway entering a local street, to
accommodate the turning radius required for large truck parking lot circulation and
access to the underground gasoline storage tanks. An Auto -turn diagram has been added
to the site plan on Sheet 4 of the submitted plat to indicate that the request is justified.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to exceed the maximum driveway
width of 24 `.
9/29/11: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE.
G:IEMDeveloprnent Services Reviev12011IDevelopmeni Reviewl11-3903LSD Kum & Go Walingtonll7- Planning Commission110-10-
IIlComments & Redlines
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 4 of 46
4. Planning Commission determination of a variance from Chapter 161.31(D)(1 re uirin
25' of greenspace along all public streets. Staff recommends approval of a reduction in
the greenspace requirement to 15', which is the requirement throughout the city. The
Planning Commission has reviewed a proposal to eliminate the 25' requirement;
however, this has not yet been approved by the City Council.
9/29/11: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE.
5. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards and Design
Overlay District Design Standards. Staff recommends in favor of the proposed design
finding that the building meets the minimum requirements of the Design Overlay District
Design Standards and Commercial Design Standards.
9/29/11: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF DESIGN STANDARDS.
6. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends that the
applicant relocate the sidewalk along Wedington Drive to the right-of-way, and continue
the 5' sidewalk north along Futrall Drive. The existing sidewalk shall be removed and
revegetated. Street lights shall be installed at the intersection and every 300' along the
property frontage, if none exist.
9/29/11: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED
STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
7. Denial of the requested access to Wedington Drive may require significant revisions to
the site plan and project layout, and may remove the need for certain dimensional
variances. These changes may require a major modification approval from the Planning
Commission at a future hearing date, prior to construction plan approval.
8. The driveway accessing Wedington Drive shall be placed in an access easement and filed
with the easement plat or by separate document. This easement should permit the
adjacent property to the east to utilize the curb -cut on Wedington and have cross access
to Futrall.
9. A vegetative screen, as indicated on the submitted landscape plan, shall be installed along
the eastern property line to screen the commercial building and parking/driveway areas
from the adjacent residential use.
10. Monument style signs are the only permitted freestanding sign in the Design Overlay
District (DOD). Electronic message boards (direct lighting) are prohibited in the DOD. A
sign permit shall be approved prior to any sign installation.
11. Any fencing shall comply with commercial design and design overlay district standards.
12. All tree preservation, landscape, and fire department conditions included herein shall
apply. All revisions shall be addressed prior to construction plan approval.
G:18TCIDevelopmen1 Services Review120110evelopmenl ReviewM-3903 LSD Kum & Go WedinglonUT Planning Commission110-10-
111Comments & Redlines
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 5 of 46
Highway Department
Correspondence
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
Agenda Item 5
Page 15 of 46
9/2612011) .less- Fulcher - R'�iV1�Y 1$lWedinfarigive _ - x _ _ Yr_ - - - F'ae 1.
From: "Adams, Chad D." <Chad.Adams@arkansashighways.com>
To: Jesse Fulcher <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
CC: Glenn Newman<GNEWMAN@CI.FAYETTEVILLE.AR.US>, "Arellanes, Michael D."
<M...
- 0- Date: 7/27/2011 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: HWY 16/Wedington Drive
Jesse / Glen -
We support your efforts to prohibit a curb cut at this location. It
would further add to the traffic congestion at this location. However,
our policies do not prohibit a drive in this situation, so we have
nothing to prevent it other than the fact that they have to meet
requirements of the local entities.
As far as comments, the owner/consultant should submit plans for our
review (the sooner, the better). If allowed, the drive onto Hwy 16
appears to meet AHTD requirements. We would ask for additional
information (dimensions), but it appears to be something that we would
permit.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Chad
----Original Message -----
From: Jesse Fulcher [mail to:jfulcher@ci.fayetteville. ar.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:47 AM
To: Adams, Chad D.
Subject: HWY 161Wedington Drive
Mr. Adams,
Paul Libertini gave me your contact information, so I could ask you
about a proposed gas station project that has been submitted to our
office for review. The property is at the northeast corner of Wedington
Drive and Futrall Drive, just east of 1-540. i have attached a copy of
the proposed site plan which shows a proposed curb -cut on Wedington
Drive. Are there any preliminary comments/concerns that your office
would like to provide to the applicant/developer as this project
proceeds through the city's review process? Fayetteville ordinance
actually prohibits the curb -cut on Wedington, since they have direct
access to a lower street classification, but I want to inform them of
any issues should they receive approval from the city for this curb -cut.
Thanks for your time and please let me know if you need additional
information about the project.
Thanks,
Jesse Fulcher
Jesse Fulcher
Current Planner
City of Fayetteville
479-575-8267
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 16 of 46
9! $ 2011 Jesse u cher - fkE: HWYI6/Wedington Drive �., _ _ - �=r - ,r ^r� Page��
From: "Adams, Chad D." <Chad.Adams@arkansashighways.com>
To: Jesse Fulcher <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville,ar.us>
CC: "Arellanes, Michael D." <Michael.Arellanes@arkansashighways.com>, GlennN...
--� Date: 9/14/2011 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: HWY 16/Wedington Drive
Attachments: Walmart @ Hwy 16 with Modifications.pdf
Jesse -
I did some checking and found out that we would not be agreeable to
building a median on the Highway for various reasons (maintenance
responsibilities, obstruction that could be impacted, etc.). The
methods to help enforce turn restrictions should be handled inside the
property.
Glenn previously indicated to me that the drive to Wal Mart really
doesn't do enough to effectively prevent, cars from turning left into the
property. However, if the radii of the island were better defined and
substantially broader/longer at the road edge, it should be more
effective. The red lines on the attached show a very generic outline of
how the island limits could be increased to be more effective.
«Walmart @ Hwy 16 with Modifications.pdf>>
On a somewhat serious side note, if the City were to request it, this
part of Hwy 16 (from the east side of the frontage road to Garland)
could be dropped from the Highway system and released to the City of
Fayetteville. If that were to happen, the City would be the sole
governing authority for any activity on that portion of the road.
Let me know if you have any questions or if the City is interested in
taking this street into their system.
Chad
-----Original Message ----
From: Jesse Fulcher [mailto:jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 11:53 AM
To: Adams, Chad D.
Cc: Arellanes, Michael D.; Glenn Newman
Subject: RE: HWY 16/Wedington Drive
Chad,
We've received revised plans for this project, and they are proposing a
C
raised median on Wedington. Please look over the proposal attached and
let me know if this median is a possibility, and if so, what type of
design restrictions there might be.
Thanks for all your help.
Jesse
Jesse Fulcher
Current Planner
City of Fayetteville
479-575-8267
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 17 of 46
105/2011) Jesse Fuicher - FIIV: fCum & Go Store #R4 at Wedington and 54 _.-.r..-- rs µ Page 1J
From: "Adams, Chad D." <Chad.Adams@arkansashighways,com>
To: <ERushing@ceieng.com>
CC: Jesse Fulcher<jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
-----40B Date: 10/5/2011 9:44 AM
Subject: FW: Kum & Go Store #414 at Wedington and 540
Attachments: RIGHT TURN ISLAND.pdf
Erin -
A couple of things -
1. I spoke too soon on the 6" curb height. There is some concern about
minimizing potential damage to vehicles that run over it, intentional or
otherwise. The island should be designed with the mountable curb (2"
vertical face, then sloping up to a total height of 4").
2. The drive should still be built to conform with the DR-1 design.
Modified curb will be required across the full width of the drive, with
a rectangular shaped concrete apron directly behind the modified curb.
On both ends of the drive, the curb should transition from the modified
curb to the 6" curb over an 8' length. This may present a problem on
the east side of the drive because the drop inlets are in the way.
I was also asked about the angle of the drive. Go ahead and include the
angle on the drawing somewhere. Other than these minor details, the
other aspects of the drive (location, width, concept) appear to be in
compliance with our policies.
My ramblings above can get confusing. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Thanks,
Chad
-----Original Message -----
From: ERushing@ceieng.com [mailto:ERushing@ceieng.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 2:01 PM
To: Adams, Chad D.
Subject: RE: Kum & Go Store #414 at Wedington and 540
Chad, attached is a sketch of our Traffic Consultants proposed design
for the right in right out driveway.
Please let me know if this is conceptually an option AHTD will consider
for review.
(See attached file: RIGHT TURN ISLAND.pdf)
R. Erin Rushing, RLA
Department Leader
CEI
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 18 of 46
10 512011 }Jesse Fu char - RE: Ffll11Y 1 IiNedington Drive l '�--�-^� .c. � "�``__- _ Y Page 1
f
From: "Adams, Chad D." <Chad.Adams@arkansashighways.com>
To: Jesse Fulcher <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
CC: "Arellanes, Michael D." <Michael.Arellanes@arkansashighways.com>, GlennN...
Date: 10/5/2011 9:59 AM
Subject: RE: HWY 16/Wedington Drive
Jesse -
Other than a few minor details that will need to be included on the
plans, all appears to be in compliance with our Access Drive
Accommodation Policy.
If an access is allowed, I believe that a right in/out access is more
appropriate than a full access. As for how it will impact traffic
congestion, I don't know. That would be better answered with a traffic
study.
Keep in mind that my authority in this matter is limited to the
authority that the Department policies grant me. My opinions don't
necessarily matter.
Hope this helps.
Chad
-----Original Message ----
From: Jesse Fulcher [mailto:jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:14 PM
To: Adams, Chad D.
Cc: Arellanes, Michael D.; Glenn Newman
Subject: RE: HWY 16/Wedington Drive
Chad,
Thanks for all your input on this project. I did want to clarify one
final question. CEI and Kum and Go have submitted a right-in/right-out
design for the curb -cut on Wedington (see attached), which we have seen
( —1 ) used in a few other locations. It is my understanding that they are
working with your department to increase the curb height to 6". Does
AHTD still have concerns with a curb -cut at this location if they
construct a right-in/right-out design instead of a full access? Do you
think that a right-in/right-out design will address the additional
traffic congestion that would otherwise be created with a full access
driveway?
Thanks, Jesse
Jesse Fulcher
Current Planner
City of Fayetteville
479-575-8267
jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
(TDD 479-521-1316 Telecommunication Device for the Deaf)
>>> "Adams, Chad D." <Chad.Adams@arkansashighways_com> 7/27/2011 12:00
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 19 of 46
Traffic Study
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
Agenda Item 5
Page 21 of 46
i
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
A u-GUsT 2011
Kum & Go CONVEMIENCE STORE
IrS40 (FOLBRIGHT EXPY) & WEDi-N—GTON DRIVE
IN THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
WAMINGTON COUNTY, ARKAN-AS
API CANT: CEI tNG311N.EER-ING At-S-OCIAT-B, INC.
ARFF "N AS
R-Er.[aTBIRM
ENGINE]
* .6 1&
Nd. 14310.
12\�A/ H."30
216 SOUTH MAM STREET
PO BOX 1:538
joplin, IAO 6-4802
PHONE7 417-624-2333 fAX: 417-624-2441
SAE PROJECT No, 11137
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 22 of 46
1-540 & Wedingfon Dr
Kum &Go
Fayetteville, Arkansas
L=2 i
YIELDll1 III
v
Wedin-9jon Dr
-LI LLI L-
711 7TI w-- Wedington Dr
/7 YIELD
T vIll
III 111`
Ile,
III
/417
III
LEGEND
Traffic movemenis
XXX StorageLengthof Lane
STOP Stop Sign
Signalized InterseGtign
db
SMALL ARROW
Ltc
Misting r- 1 (37 U R I E
Lane Configurations & Traffic Control 4
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 23 of 46
Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Summary
Level -of -Service Criteria
Level of Service
(LOS)
Stop Control
Approach Delay
sec/veh
Sional.Coritrol
Approach Delay
sec/Veh
A
s10
S10
B
>10 and 5 15
>10 and:<_ 20
C
>15:'.and _s 25
>20 and 5 35
D
525 and _< 35
>35and 5:55
E
>3'5 and .<, 50
>55 and:<_: 80
F
>50
>80,
The existing signalized` iri.tersection of I-540 NB Exit Ramp is aperating of LOS D with
a delay .of 50.2. sec/veh for the A.M. peak hour and. LOS D with ..q delay of 44.6
Sec/veal for ttae PM peak hour.. The westbound thru. and the northbflund. left turn
movements. each operate. at LOS F in the A,M.. peak hour, while the westbound,
thru operates .at LOS F in the P.M.,peak hour and the northbound left -operates at
LOS- E in;`lhe: P.NI. peak -hour The eastbound left turn lane operates at LOS- E for the
A.ti1. peak hour LOS'C for the P.A41 peak hour. These levels of service are due to
thO extemlve: tlm'e given t0 The heavy eastbound I fi moveirhont in the morning,
-the heavy west. bound thru movement and 120 second cycle lengths which are
required due to the, series of coordinated signals at/near the interchange on
Wedington Drive.
The existing signalized intersection of Futrail Drive is operating at LOS A with a
delay of $8 see/veh for the A.M. peak: hour and LOS B with a delay of 15,8
see/veh "for the PM peak hour. This signal is coordinated with the signal at the NB:
Exit Romp and ofso.:has a 120 second cycle length:
figure 5 further" retails level of service for each movement. Capacity analysis
result -sheets are included in the Appendix.
The Manua! on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (v1UTCD - 2009 Edition) provides
eight .sighal Warrants for evaluation of signalizatiori at intersections. Typically, traffic
signalization 'is, warranted based on a complete review of traffic information
Including volumes, pedestrians, accident experience, and traffic progression. Due
to the fact there is an existing signal at Futroll Drive, traffic signal warrants were not
analyzed.
The existing eastbound Left turn lane storage length (approx. 600 feet) on
Wedington at the NB On Ramp is shorter than the 951h percentile queue length
(over 1000 feet]) in the A.M. peak hour. This storage length is necessary to
minimize traffic from blocking the eastbound thru lane and queuing through the
Intersection on the west side :of :the interchange. With volumes of 923 veh/hr (A.M.
SMALL ARROW'
ENGINEEERIING, LLC
vff_B_r
Page 6
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 24 of 46
Peak and.,-3 . 5 . 0 v.oh/hr (P.M. -Peak) under existing cQrd1fi ons, the "state' and locdl
agencies shopld,. consider building .dual Ipft.1 turnimprovementsith improveoimprovementsto the
, lanes.
sigi-t-al. It should be -noted that thNis.:oh e)(Mirig cbhdifidr! and -this.c6h.diffoh is not
geyser rte J as 0`:result of the: proposoO Opyalopment.
an oloptotp lonof-11YOVer 1000 fee.
-2 _Ttl _6 -pr volume, of eft- r f .O$On,� 6 i-df 1�)cdfusivn- left -ftj�h Ictm-- is -WeP.- mpji7a d.. by th,6 v6. u furn-laicf
opposing volumes. and safely considprotions. The need for- dual left turns -In. -the abserice
data should be considered when - there is. -a minimum liaff furry .volume of 300
veh/hr. (.Taken tipm -the Highway Capacity M1Gr]:L?al.)
SMALL ARROW
ENGINEERING, LLC
Page 7
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 25 of 46
Kum & Go-1-5:40 & Wedin.gton Dr
Fayetteville, Arkansas
i7
A- 0 0)
o
3q `� Dwy
w o
�o to
a
i o6 (.164)
27 (26)
0 (0)
a-- 341 (7&8)
- 3.5 (721)
(747) Wedington Dr
z 923 (350) 0 {o) J,
1267 (462) --O� 1339 (490) --o-
a♦�
Cq
N •.�•
Cam! p -�
v,
a
D
LEGEND L
XX (XX) - AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes V
Existing FIGURE
SMALL ARROW Peak Hour Volumes 3
EH GiN lERXH(.� �,�C
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 26 of 46
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 27 of 46
A traffic distribution was developed for the proposed site based on an analysis of
the surrounding area land use and existing traffic volumes. Figure 6 illustrates trip
distribution percentages.
The A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips for the .development, following distribution and
assignment to the roadway network, are illustrated in Figure 7. These
development site trips were added to the existing traffic: volumes. The resulting
existing + developed peak hour-traffi.cvplUmes are illustrated in. Figure 8.-
Due to the high volume of E6 thru traffic in the A.M. and the high volume of WB
thru traffic in the P.M.; we recommend construction of a raised median. Island an
the east side of the Futrall Drive irifersection credting a Right .In / Right Out only
driveway for the development. Although this improvement will prevent the
eastbound left turn into the: development, at will °also prevent a. left -turning vehicle.
from stopping in traffic and creatii'ig a queue through the intersections. One
might suggest addinga two Way Left turn Lane (TwLTC), but due to the proAmity
of the er*ance to the intersection, the westbound queuing at the intersection
would prohinit any :left in or ief1w op - maveanenis during the peak hours. The
recommended existing :r developed intersectioh gedmotrics and traffic control for
The stud'arena intersection are illustrated in Eig:ur+e 9.
5.3 Capacity Analysis. For the Developed condition under existing traffic volumes, a
capacity analysis was performed using the methodologies described in Section
4.2.
The existing signalized intersection of 1-540 NB Exit Romp would operate at LOS D
with a delay of $2.5 sec/ven for the A,iv1.,p:eaK hour and LOS D with a delay of 4g.1
sec/veil for the PM peak hour, which is only-2.3 seconds longer delay in the A.M.,
but is 4.5 seconds shorter in the P.M. when compared to the some intersection
without development. This reduction in delay anomaly can be contributed to a
slightly better balancing of the fraffic volumes.
T he existing signal zed intersection � of Fur oil, Drive. is operating at LOS B with a delay
of 15.7 sec/veh for the A.M. peak hour and LOS 8 with o delay of 19.6 sec/veh for
the PM peak hour, which is 5.8 seconds longer delay In the A.M., and 3.8 seconds
longer in the P.M. when compared to the same intersection wifhout development.
Figure 10 further details level of service for each movement. Capacity analysis
result sheets are included in the Appendix.
SPA! q.RSV
eALL ^r%aa%_FVV..rvm
EN:GINEERTNG, LLG
Page 13
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 28 of 46
Kum & Go -1-540 & Wedington Dr
(Fayetteville, Arkansas
PON
a
r
k
01
69 (72)
dw Y
a
a n
1:13 (1.7aJ
'-1 28 [2Z)
7� 'L 27 (611
2
a— 353 (828)
a-- 356 (745) d' E- 359 j71'7) W dit gtQn Pr
`
z 221 (348) w0i
57.(42)
g, *
1297 (4.84).-�
1313 (472) m�
l
LEGEND
XX (XX) --'AM (PM) Peok Hour Volumes Ob
SCE
Existing + Developed FIGURE
saw
SMALL ARROW Peak Hour Volumes S
gncxnennxnre, ue
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 29 of 46
Kum & Go - I-540 & Wedington Dr
Fayetteville, Arkansas
CL
YIELD
v1ledinglornDr
//I
III 111 �/ •i: "
LEGEND
Traffic Movements
XXX' Storage Length of Lane
STOP Stop Sign
�j Signalized Intwsection
r� Nlgdinglon or
RARD
1vt DIAN
Dee:,A.&
/kVV-Tb .
Existing + Developed FIGURE
SMALL arrow Lane Configurations & Traffic Control 9
Elfal-VlEAIHG, LLC
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 30 of 46
Kum & Go - 1-54.0 & wedington Dr
Fayetteville, Arkansas
LEGEND
XX (XX) - AM (PM) Level of Service
Existing + Developed
SMALLARROW Perak Hour Level of Service
ENGINEERING, LLC
FIGURE
10
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 31 of 46
8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the results of the capacity analyses, engineering judgment, and field
observations the following sections summarize the findings and recommendations for
roadway improvemehts for each condition.
8.1 Existlnq Conditions.
e The existing signalized intersection at 1-540 NB Exit Ramp & Wedington Drive
operates of LOS E in the A.M. and of LOS D in the P.M. peak periods.
The=ei�i5ting sigrip.lized intersection at Futrall Drive & Wedington Drive opetates
at LOS-kin the A M--ond, at LOS B in the P:M, peak periods.
• The;existing eas b.o.Qnd left turn lane at the intersection of 1-540 NB On Ramp. &
Wedington drive.operate,ct LOS E in the A:M., while the northbound left orid'
the weSfbound thru movemernts both operate at LOS 'F. These levels:ofservice
are :due` b the extensive -time given toi re heavy eastbound left movementin:
the morning" acid the 120 second cycle length which is required due to the.
series; 0f coordirigW signals at/near the interchange on Wedington Drive.
r With volumes df 923 veh/hr jA.M. Peak)::and 350 veh/hr (P.M. Peak) under
existing conditions, the -state and local agencies should consider building dual
left turn lanes with improvements to the signal. It should be noted that .this is
ail exist rig condition and this condition is not escalated by the new
development.
8.2 Existing + Developed Conditions..
• The existing signalized intersection of 1-540 NB Exit Ramp is operating at LOS D
with .a delay of 52.5 sec/veh for the A.M. peak hour and LOS D with a delay of
40.1 sec/veh for the PM peak hour, which is only 2.3 seconds longer delay in
the A.M., but is 4,5 seconds shorter in the P.M. when compared to the same
intersection without development. This reduction in delay anomaly can be
contributed to a slightly better balancing of the traffic volumes.
The existing signalized intersection of Futrall Drive is operating at LOS B with a
delay of 14.6 sec/veh for the A.M. peak hour and LOS B with a delay of 19.6
sec/veh for the PM peak hour, which is 5.8 seconds longer delay in the A.M.,
and 38 seconds longer in the P.M. when compared to the same intersection
without development.
Due to the high volume of EB thru traffic in the A.M., we recommend
construction of a raised median island on the east side of the Futrall Drive
intersection creating a Right In / Right Out only driveway for the development.
ENGXNEERING, LLC
Page 33
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 32 of 46
8.3 Future and Future + Developed Conditions 2021 .
• In 2021 the signalized intersection at NB Exit Ramp operates at LOS F with a
delay of 119.0 sec/veh for the A.M. peak period, and L9.5 F with a delay of
106,7 sec/veh for the P.M. peak period.
• In .2021 ahe signalized intersection at Futrall Drive .operates Of LOS A With a
delay .of .9 7 sec/veh for the A.M. peak period, and LOS B with a delay of 15:7
sec/veh for the P.M. peak period.
■ With the: proposed development the signalized Intersection at NB Exit Ramp
operates at LOS F with a delay of 118.1 sec/veh for the A.M. peak period,, and
LOS. F v '46 -ci delay of 106.2 sec/veh for the P.M. peak period..
• With the- .pfop.osed development the signalized interse..efian at. Futrall Dr1;Ve
operates of LOS. B with: a delay of 17.5 sec/veh for the A.M. peak period] and
LOS B-wth a.delay-of . 8.5sec/veh for the PN. peak period.
y, No furtherimprovements are recommended.
8.4 °Futu e acid Futu e + Developed Conditions f2031_Z
Ih 20331 the signalized intersection of NB Exit Ramp operates at LOS F with d
delay of 180:.6 sec/veh for the A.M. peak period, and LOS F with a delay of
164.2 sec/veh for the P.M. peak period.
• In' 2031 the signalized intersection at Futrall Drive operates at LOS B with 'a
delay of 12.-6 sec/veh_ for the A.M. peak period, and LOS C with a delay of 21.4
se:c/veh for the P.M. peak period.
With the; proposed development the signalized intersection at NB Exit Romp
operates at LOS F with a delay of 196.4 sec/veh for the A.M. peak period, and
LOS. F with a delay of 162.6 sec/veh for the P.M. peak period.
• With the proposed development the signalized intersection at Futrall Drive
operates at LOS C with a delay of 23.8 sec/veh for the A.M. peak period, and
LOS C with a delay of 28.8 sec/veh for the P.M. peak period.
> No further improvements are recommended.
SMALL ARROW
ENGINEERING, LLC
Page 34
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11-3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 33 of 46
'We. trust that this comprehensive analysis of the -traffic iMpdd for. this proposod
dr vel . prrterit 1cxddr sses all questions end concertls: fir the proteci lease advise. us
should you requfre:odditional information :or have further gt4estions about th1s_ rmatterr
? sincerely,
L4�
John R. Boite, R.E.
Principal
;Small grow Engineering
-SMALL ARROW
ENGINEERING, LLC
Page 35
October 10, 2011
Planning Commission
LSD 11.3903 Kum & Go
Agenda Item 5
Page 34 of 46
Za� �Vj_le
.
S�
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Jordan, City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
From: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Date: March 22, 2013
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
Subject: (LSD 12-4295) Appeal of Planning Commission decision - Casey's General Store
RECOMMENDATION
City Planning and Engineering staff recommended denial of a proposed driveway connection to Wedington
Drive. The driveway does not meet access and development regulations provided in the Unified Development
Code, and in staffs opinion, subjects drivers on Wedington Drive to an increased number of unsafe turning
movements, congestion and delay.
The Access Management Ordinance, adopted by the City Council in 2008, regulates the location of driveways
based on street classification, among other things. These standards were adopted so that new access to
development would not create or contribute to unsafe or congested conditions, especially along arterial
roadways such as Wedington Drive. As new access points are created, the potential for vehicle conflicts
between through traffic and traffic using the access increases. In addition to decreased safety, poorly designed
access points increase congestion and traffic delays.
Since the Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 191h, the driveway design has been slightly
modified. The entrance is now rounded in an attempt to limit access into the site from east -bound traffic on
Wedington. Similar modified driveway designs have been implemented at other projects with the same intent.
However, in staff s opinion, they have not been successful in discouraging the most dangerous turning
movements, left -in and left -out. The new design will still allow east -bound traffic on Wedington to enter the
site. City staff, the Arkansas Highway and Transporation Department and a traffic engineer (hired by the
previous applicant on this site, Kum & Go) have all voiced concerns with this situation. The concern is that
east -bound traffic will stop on Wedington in an attempt to turn into this site, which will result in vehicles
stacking back through two signalized intersections, one which supports the on and off -ramps for I-540. There is
currently a dedicated left -turn lane at Futrall Drive for east -bound traffic on Wedington that will provide a safe,
signalized left -turn without vehicles queing through the intersection. In addition, this same intersection will also
allow west -bound right turns to enter the site easily, without the need for another curb -cut onto the already
congested arterial.
It is unfortunate that a reasonably designed access, with signage that informs drivers to not turn left into or out
of this site, still results in prohibited and dangerous turning movements. One might even ask if prohibiting this
curb -cut based on the actions of a few drivers is appropriate. In staff s opinion, it is appropriate to recommend
denial of the access as proposed. A small percentage of all drivers may purposefully ignore the posted
restrictions, but an equal amount of drivers may also unknowingly attempt to use this access. In either case
drivers on Wedington will be subjected to an increased number of unsafe turning movements, congestion, and
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
delay. These conditions will be generated by a private development at the expense of the general public.
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the Planning Commission meeting March 25, 2013. Staff recommended denial of the
project due to tree preservation and the access proposed onto Wedington Drive. The Planning Commission
made a motion to approve the project as proposed, which failed by a vote of 3-5-0 with Commissioners
Winston, Bunch, Cabe, Pennington and Cook voting against. Commissioner Chesser was not present.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
Z61
aylPV,.1C
�AAKAI I I
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff I.A
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
Connie Edmonston, Parks and Recreation Director (Q
Alison Jumper, Park Planning Superintendent
From: Megan Dale, Urban Forester
Date: April 2, 2013
Subject: LSD 12-4295 Casey's General Store Tree Preservation
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
PROPOSAL:
Casey's General Store is a commercial development proposed on the north side of Wedington Drive, east of I-
540. The property is zoned C-2 requiring 15% minimum tree preservation (10,050 sf).
The ordinance states the following:
§ 167.01(B) Principles. This chapter shall be enforced according to the following principles:
(1) Preservation shall be the first, best, and standard approach.
(2) If preservation cannot be achieved, on -site mitigation shall next be pursued.
(3) If on -site mitigation cannot be achieved, off -site preservation shall be pursued.
(4) If off -site preservation cannot be achieved, off -site forestation shall be pursued.
(5) If none of the above approaches can be achieved, payment shall be made to the tree escrow
account.
The previous Planning Commission design only preserved 2,901 sf (4.3%) with 37 mitigation trees. This is less
than a third of the minimum preservation requirement. The Urban Forester has requested since Technical Plat
Review that alternate site designs or justification for removal be submitted. In particular, the Urban Forester
requested the building be shifted to save Trees #10-13 which would increase the preservation to 5,851 sf (8.7%)
with 19 mitigation trees.
The design submitted for City Council has shifted the building and is preserving 3,601 sf (5.4%) with 34
mitigation trees. The applicant is requesting to preserve Tree #10 and #11, however 30" of fill is proposed over
Tree #11 roots affecting over 30% of the canopy; therefore, the tree cannot be counted as preserved. In order for
this tree to be counted as preserved, any disturbance must be outside the dripline.
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Staff recommends building a retaining wall (see 12-4295 Tree Preservation Plan submitted for City Council
Redlines 2 April 2013) to preserve Tree #10 and #11 which would bring the preservation numbers to 4,373 sf
(6.5%) with 31 mitigation trees. Variation in tree sizes would increase mitigation numbers to 37 trees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of LSD 12-4295 with 4,373 sf (6.5%) of preserved canopy by constructing an
additional retaining wall to preserve Tree #10 and #11.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact to the budget.
Attachment:
12-4295 Tree Preservation Plan submitted for City Council Redlines 2 April 2013
12-4295 Tree Preservation Plan submitted for Planning Commission 11 March 2013
Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection
Planning Commission
March 11, 2013
Page 1 of 12
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 11, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. in Room
219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS DISCUSSED
Consent.
MINUTES: February 25, 2013
Page 3
Old Business:
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
LSD 12-4295: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON RD./CASEY GENERAL STORE,
402): Page 4 Denied
PPL 13-4304: Preliminary Plat (INTERSECTION OF N. HUGHMOUNT RD. & W. MT.
COMFORT RD./HUGHMOUNT VILLAGE, 282):
Page 6 Approved
IV~ Ruci"Ove.
ADM 13-4332: Administrative Item (4149 W. BRADSTREET LNJRUPPLE ROW POA, 439):
Page 7 Approved
RZN 13-4310: Rezone (N. OF THE INTERSECTION OF N. GREGG AVE. AND W. VAN ASCHE
DR./HAAS HALL, 172):
Page 8 Approved
PPL 13-4312: Preliminary Plat (S. OF GULLEY RD. AND E. OF N. OAKLAND-ZION
RD./BUFFINGTON S/D, 176):
Page 9 Tabled
CUP 13-4311: Conditional Use Permit (2220 E. HUNTSVILLE RD./DOLLAR GENERAL, 566):
Page 12 Denied
Planning Commission
March 11, 2013
Page 4 of 12
Old Ru.cinn.c.c
LSD 12-4295: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON RD./CASEY GENERAL STORE, 402):
Submitted by BATES AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 2530 WEST WEDINGTON ROAD. The
property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request
is for 4,223 square foot convenience store with associated parking.
Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, read the staff report.
Megan Dale, Urban Forester, discussed the recommendation for denial and discussions with applicant during
review process.
Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, stated that staff is opposed to the right -in access design based on previous
traffic study.
Geoff Bates, applicant, stated that Casey's has to have the right -in access and the project won't go forward
without it. AHTD has said no to constructing a raised median on Wedington. Casey's doesn't want to move the
building closer to the apartments, so we weren't able to save the cluster of trees by the building.
Commission Hoskins asked if staff could support a right -in design similar to what Kum & Go proposed.
Newman stated that staff is a little hesitant at this location, but possibly could with a restrictive design.
Commissioner Hoskins asked staff if there was a design that could work.
Newman stated that the traffic engineer hired by Kum & Go recommended a different design. I'm not a traffic
engineer.
Bates stated they can't build a median as recommended by the previous traffic engineer.
Fulcher stated that a full access can be approved by AHTD. They don't have regulation that denies access, only
the design of the access. However, the state did agree with restricting access when we reviewed the Kum & Go
project in 2011. If the applicant wants to redesign the driveway then it needs to be presented to the Planning
Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Hoskins stated he was going to ask the applicant if he wanted to table and come back with a new
design and tree preservation plan.
Dale stated that the site is relatively flat and the applicant could save additional trees with site changes.
Bates stated that Casey's won't move the building. There is 5 feet of ill on the east side, so the site isn't
necessarily flat.
Commissioner Cabe stated he agreed with staff and the traffic engineer. Access on to Wedington in this location
won't be safe and the trees should be preserved.
Commissioner Winston stated he agreed with Commissioner Cabe's comments.
Planning Commission
March 11, 2013
Page S of 12
Motion 1:
Commission Hoskins made a motion to approve a right -in only driveway on Wedington with final design
approval required by AHTD and the City Engineer, as a separate motion. Commission Noble seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion to allow a limited access on Wedington failed with a vote of 3-5-0.
Commission Honchell asked if the decision could be postponed until the final highway design was complete.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that it would be too long to wait.
Commissioner Cook stated that we aren't limiting access to this site. It has full access through a signalized
intersection. Part of the issue with access is the intensity of traffic generated by this business type.
Commission Hoskins stated he didn't see the point in tabling the request.
Motion 2:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve LSD 12-4295 finding in favor of the driveway access
and tree preservation plan, and agreeing with staff on the remaining conditions. Commissioner Cabe
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-5-0 with Commissioners
Winston, Bunch, Cabe, Pennington and Cook voting `no'.
DEDICATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO BACK OF SIDEWALK
EXISTING I
GRAZE -�
1NLE1
i
EXISTING?
7' CURB
k GUTTER
REMOVE AND INSTALL
EX. HANDICAP RAMPS AND
SIDEWALK AS NECESSARY
TO MEET ADA
`EXISTING
l `�Ro�swAil[5
1
- 1
t
1
EXISTING BUILDING
DEDICATED
ROW
10.37'
I�
EXISTING
FENCE
I
r
I m
I LA
x
I j z
I CD
- I
I „ z
r �
I
I
I
I
T
i
I i-
T
rI
f XIS EING I � N
Fi NCf
I �
I
I 1 �xj
I
I
+ j
I
fix!$i�eG r.
EXISTING ASPHALT
ExisTING
± y�
I
i
i r
k' r'
f
I
1 ate.
I' tn
7
I I sfi
I
I I 5�_
I
� 1
;Driveway denied
by Planning
Commission
I
------------ -EDINGTON ROAD ARKANSAS HIGHWAY #16140
- ROAfl 1MpiH' VAR1f5 � ROW VAR1E$ -----
rvK1rcln
20 4
0 0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
NOTES:
1 ALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHALL BE RENEWED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL FOR COMPLIANCE PATH THE
OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE
ADA NOTES
I CONTACT CITY ADA ADMINISTRATOR AND REQUEST AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO POURING ANY ADA
ACCESSIBLE PARKING/LOADING STALL MAXIMUM SLOPE FOR ADA SPACE IN ANY DIRECTION IS 2%
2 CONTACT A H T D PERMIT INSPECTOR AND REQUEST AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO POURING ANY SIDEWALK
OR DRIVEWAY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY
F[[EM
F'Ro•oTAa
[RsTPsc
O[IGI,PTWN
AVRULT S[acE}
/ .y AAT JUVACE3
EK1LLAna
Er/LOP4 surmA WE
tACLI: n uNO[wcngLRlp
—4�N
CACTI IY OVERMICAp
gNTUFLNIE
cmvte[ EUGC]
[UNCR[1[ SURfAC[}
EIiRI9RiRNFE1RRRIRIFRR!
GGRwr
��IriyIrbs
CONTOon
.
CURD ■ LUF"
MI AE[ nL
_
I -
i
oF1Mi5w?
YFY
EICCmICAL uhO[RdIWNO1
EEECFRICAE Kf11iR1(Ap}
CLECS FRM$FOwEN
EROSION CONFm DALES
ERaSaN CONIRGL FEN"
-
ERO$IAN CONFROL W-RAFT
EER[E CRUIe/NpoG/ulUN3
FTRER C"c CAQ E
_.7
mF[ Hnpµ1 ASSEUBLY
ILMK
aRu ruN
H1
GAS RUN
-'.
GAS R[ICA µrE
CR.AYEL [OLL
GRAVEL SWAIX
0
■
WON PIN - R[-CAR
LANOSCAM EOPNL
LIVFT
G
f]
ROWIMENI C,ONVgiEFE}
Rwo
VOMER rou
--
— --
PRGP[RrY FANG %XIERNALI
RE rM -Au
RQIT-W-WAN
Su Wtl SERER NAkPO,U
en
SAMTIwr SEWER PIPE
TAR' $['A[q SER''w
stc ION me
7-1
sm[1rAi1E
sa
f 1s]0
sPw REvAnc-
STABUZEO CGNSNWCTIOM (kT.
SfORv YMFR AWET
$'OPA stwm PIPE
STFnnE vAwl[T3 w 5tloo]
rELuwK PEa cm
KF
TELf:PHORE (NRL moNAO
TIC CONE GHNIt'AU
�.,J�nAA.A..n.AAII
fREC LV4 :AMCPY
TREL Tll[E 1A ♦3F RCWxp
YIiOPEN&UNAL
E1+iGtNEER
FR6Y R5.0
4N1` OE )yt,
SAFEA11•
o
,
s
z
O
=n
>
W
I,z
obi
15 3
a
z cn
Q a
J (n
L1J a z
Lr a
o z Y
v L1J z a
J cl-
Qo LLI
� LL J LiJ J
J
Lz IJ (n J
Lil
J >_
Q Q
L1J Li
c/1) U-)
UL_LJ
r ^
Q
J
C SY
u
^
L
w
dS
N
W
a�
EE2
cc
ci
r ;
r
iN1pjECT NO
12-185
EXISTING BUILDING
f DEDICATED
�� ROW
DEDICATE !
RIGHT-OF-WAY
i0 BACK OF SIDEWALK
EXISTING .
GRATE
INLET .
EX15TIHG'
2' CURB
& GUTTER
EXtSTINC ���
CONCRETE Ex ROW
DRIVE
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
EXISTING
FENCE
r
1
I
I I',
I
I
r
r III
C'>
I
I
I
1
1
F.]u51INC'
.
f E'HCE �
I
�
VQ
r
!
I
X
c�
1
1
Ex151]HG
6011 HGj —-,-•---
••-
-•• •-- _. .
EXISTING ASPHALT
_ _., J
EXISTING {
'
CONW4
_j
_ r
r
1
is
1
. r
' f %
V.
I k
I �
m
fR'
w v
� x
C•+
-WALL r
i
1 J
I + + I + +
PROPOSED
•
5' SIDEWALK
I
REMOVE AND INSTALL
- - - - _
EX. HANDICAP RAMPS AND - ..
-
- - _ - - 1
SIDEWALK AS NECESSARY --
TO MEET ADA
,•
•
a<
ASPHALT.
_ ." _ • -- _ -- _ _
�'EXISTING
2' r ROPO 2'
Ri p
U1R8 & GUtTER �` CURB & UTTER
EXISTING
RIGHT 1N
��,.=..7
.._.----•---- �-••----.. _-
-.. ONLY-:_�---
`
WEpINGTON ROAD ARKANSAS HICHWAY
z)
11E {4Q AlPH)
RDAD WIprH VARfES
_
J Row VARIES
1
Nun I r+
CI 2p AI]
CN A1YrC SCMI ui [[[+
NOTES:
I ALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHALL BE RENEWED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE
ApA NOTES
1, CONTACT CITY ADA ADMINISTRATOR AND REQUEST AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO POURING ANY ADA
ACCESSIBLE PARKINGAOADING STALL MAXIMUM SLOPE FOR ADA SPACE IN ANY DIRECTION IS 2%
2, CONTACT AN T,0 PERMIT INSPECTOR AND REOUEST AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO POURING ANY SIDEWALK
OR DRIVEWAY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY
Driveway design
for City Council
review.
r
P+row>5AD
LM�I�MG
DEs�HD..
ASPHAII Lrxis
AS A+ F ISIAFACO
Du[ARo
DVADMG UIWpf VK
uC>ru
CAo[t k�O(NG9W+0
-
MLL IV [o1Y cm)
^�
fENIER,WK
_ _ -
�. ''•y _ .'F 1
+.��"]•
calwcn .��I
CLrI TE SYRfRLC
I1III iimr..AI H51HiHHIR{IJIRIFI
p7WW,
^Oyf
[c mn
[OUR A GIIIIER
E"•-r�
VA—CE ROW
01
DIIIIIYTER
-
CA5{WiT
CIECI4iGH�RERD11rrRDx_
a[
CM:L i4�CM fo+wMEAo]
ILLI.CT. IRANSEORuER
069* COVIROL GALES
ERDS10" [W rN L ftYCE
ER09DM CONI¢ RP -RAP
LViCC (MR[/RDW AIR
r*EA opRC GADLL
"
r1RC .IVDRAMT FSSEu 11
rLOWAC
rom RMr
—
w3 w
C-S RETER ur[
0"WL JEWEJ
0
n
mpM wx - Ar-sAA
LA%DSCAK CD G
uGHr
[7
I
MCWiyuENI [00A CTE
PaRv
POWER ME
--
--
P40KRIY IRK I[YIEI-R ]
RErA WKL
NP+i-of-+eAv
SwTAR+ SIWEA -mmDLE
eYt
• SARY SE'AEA APE
SWTART SEAM SERAfCE
-- -- - -
5E[noR WE
Sgr11AAK
r
SIGN
:);•�I •:
a OT to-1.6,
31ADR m EORS1RuCnW Ear[
SIDWM SDREW nyET
$IORR SEWER PPE
3TRwE SPA'NRD DR Sm"VI
TIt MOKE KDNu N ME
ufr
tnLM WC [VW*0R VHo]
MEP QWE O W"AO
, •�.A �
SWM [RR C wv
TWE[ fm To 8[ REW0,40
b I�KLIII.SSnrl�ll
E(fl' 11.I: 9
r. r:.,111111
pa$�
4 V
4
z cn
can
W Z
c I— Q
O Z Y
(/7 2f Q
Q 0 0- J J
L�Ji I—
z W U5 L.LJ
LLJ C� cn
_j
� Q Q
W U L'-
(/) Ln
W
U (-D
_j Al
I•�ep,c: ac
12-185
COORDINATE RIP RAP IN'
WITH URBAN FORESTER
�r ► I
y I T
{A! I
l 01.
►
i I1
l !l
�A
TREE PROTECTION NOTES
1 ALL TREES AND NATURAL AREAS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ID BE PRESERVED SHALL BC PROTECIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH TEMPORARY
FENCING
2 PROTECTIVE FENCES SHALL BE ERECTED ACCORDING TO CITY OFFAYITTIENLLE STANDARDS FOR IKE PROTECTION
3 PROTECTIVE FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY SITE PREPARATION WORN AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT ALL
PHASES OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
A EROSION AND SEGMENTATION CONTROL BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED OR MAINTAINED INA A MANNER WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN SOL BUILD-UP
WITHIN DRIPUNES
5 PROTECTIVE FENCING 94ALL SURROUND IHE TREES OR GROUP O TREES AND WLL BE LDCATEO AT ME DRIPLINE FOR NATURAL AREAS,
PROTECTIVE FENCES SHALL FOLLOW ME LIMNS Or CONSTRUCTION BELOW TO PREVENT THE FOLLOWNG
51 SOL COUPACTION IN THE ROOT ZONE RESULTING FROM VEHICULAR IRAFFICI OR STORAGE OF EOUIPMENT
52 ROOT ZONE DISTURBANCES DUE TO GRADE CHANGES (GREATER THAN 6) ROOT TRENCHING NOT VIE3WED BY CITY ARBMISTS
5 J WOUNDS TO EXPOSED ROOTS, TRUNK, OR LIMBS BY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
5 N OTHER ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO TREES SUCH AS CHEMICAL STORAGE, CONCRETE TRUCK CLEANING MO FIRES
6 EXCEPTIONS TO INSTALLING FENCES 10 DRIPLINES MAY BE PERMITTED IN ME FOLOWNG CASES,
r THfl T DEVELOPMENT
61 WHERE MERE IS TO BE AN APPROVED GRADE CHANGE,IMPERMEABLE PAVING CT ACE TREE WELL OR 0 E SUCH SITE DEVELOP E
I I 1 OTHER LIMITS M PERMEABLE PAVING 6 WHERE PERMEABLE PAVING DI TOO INSTALLED WITHIN A MESS DR SEPARATELY NC ERECT THE FENCE A THE 0 O L S OF E ER EAGLE G
2
AREA (PRIOR TO 9TE E TOING SO MIS AREA IS GRADED EFENCPRIOR W PAWING INSTALLATION TO YINIYIZE ROOT DAMAGE)
6 J WHERE TREES ARE CLOSE 10 PROPOSED MINTS DUE
ERECT CT FEND: 10 ALLOW 6 TO ID FEET a WORN SPACE,
1 T H IR u OT 64 WHERE MERE ARE SEVER SPACE CONSTRAINTS iS OUE TO RAC SIZE OR OTHER SPECIAL REOU E E S
] WHERE ANY OF ME ABOVE FEET
RESULT INA A FENCE CLOSER THAN N FEET TO A REDUCED
PROTECT ME TRUNK WITH STRAPPED ON
I T HEIGHT F T IYIT fl N IN ADDITION TO R U TENON PROVIDED.
PLANKING ODi B EE OR L S O LOWER B A GNG OO ON C CO CEO E
I P F Y YA R NOT SOIL L TREES i BE PRESERVED
B PEES APPROVE OR REMOVAL SHALL BE REMOVED NA A NNE WHICH DOES 0
P Y CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY N PRUNED F WITH THE S BA[NFI L ORGANIC
AREAS L IN 0000 QUALITY WHICH
TOPSOIL AS
9 ANY ROOTS EXPOSE B CONSIRUC ON AC VI SHALL BE U ED LUSH E SOIL L
M A MATERIAL IN A UANN R N51ICH REDUCES
SOOT AS POSSIBLE IF EXPOSED ROOT AREAS ARE VIOL BACKFILLED WMN 2 DAYS, COVER WI ORG NC TE L E
YP I WATER i EVAPORATION SOIL TEMPERATURE AND 4 N Y ES E LOSS DUE 0 CV Ofl ON
10 ANY TRENCHING REQUIRED FOR ME INSTALLATION O LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SHALL BE PLACED AS FAO FROM EXISTING NO TREE TRUNKS TE POSSIBLE
E
II NO LANDSCAPE ANY TREE
DRESSING GREATER THAN N INCHES SHALL BE PEfl11i1E0 WITHIN THE DfiIPLIHE OF TREES NO SOIL IS PERMITTED ON ME
R00N FLARE OF ANY TREE
12 PRUNING TO PROVIDE CLEARANCE FOR STRUCTURES, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, AND E STANDARDS
SHALL E IN PLACE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AN BEGINS
I] ALL FINISHED ANSI
-A.SG OUST BE GONE ACCORDING f0 RIST OF ZCE APPROVED SRUNER I O THE INDUSTRY TRW HE URBAN
RE AMERICAN NATIONAL
STANDIED ANSI-A300 PRUNING, RETAINED
OR LATER) A LIST RU CERTIFIED CUTS IRCC PRUNERS IS AVNLABE FRNYA THE URBAN FORESTER A OIY
CERTIFIED TREE PRUNER MUST BE RE TNNEO TO YAKS ALL PRUNING CUTS
IN DEVIATIONS FROM THE ABOVE NOTES MAY BE CONSIDERED ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS IF MERE IS SUBSI AN RAL NON-COMPLIANCE OR E A TREE
SUSTAINS DAMAGE AS A RESULT
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 5TANDARD NOTE5
FOR TREE AND NATURAL AREA PROTECTION
RTS
ULATIONS
YRIEE M% OPY CALCULATIONS
IIOTNL AREA or SITE
15. Am
6]A0D Si-
1T10R
I'D4L ARD or EXISTING TREE CMOPY
030 AM
I3,1& 5F
2ol
INTNG Tin cmOPF RENMO
022 ACRES
I0283 SF
753i
FL61NO HIES. cN OP1 IXESEMED
o0B
2.901 SF
.-N
zow
c-
Rmu
oITSPE CANEIY O
$E
1A10. 1EUIFED . tILSIDNEO1
1313. • .,
1 S
N)F RERACFMOi 7RFFs S] lYEES Afi LA90E
(REOUE5TNG VMNWTIOR N PLANTING SIZES)
23 URCE SPECIES DECIDUOUS TREES PROPOSED N 16 LARGE EVERGREEN TREES . 7 HOAEANG TREES • 46 TREES
EXISTING
- OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
—"--'—"---- PROPERTY LINE
-- - - - - - - - - -- RIGHT OF WAY LINE
EXISTING SEWER — — — — — — — —
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
® GAS METER
�y STORMWATER MANHOLE
PROPOSED
PROPERTY LINE
CONCRETE CURB UTTER
B AND G
INDEX CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR
—• —• —• WATTLE
—•n.— M— N� DRAIN PIPE
Q_A LL 069CQ._E!@_QILlCR1lSI_Q15.iVIWLR ABCAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 15 DAYS
IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING OR DISTURBANCE HAS CEASED
Q djgy�[T(yj-IILtry(SjySyf�I;)g SUCH AS STREETS, STORM SEWERS, CURB AND GUTTERS, AND OTHER
FEATURES FOR CONTROL OF RUNOFF SHALL BE SCHEDULED COINCIDENTAL TO REMOVING VEGETATIVE
COVER FROM THE AREA SO THAT LARGE AREAS ARE NOT LEFT EXPOSED BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF
TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES
E jEP Sft_09 I.9 ,dl _!j If) AL -5 [{xjIMLCD FCR YdEE IIIAN SD DAY5, A TEMPORARY COVER
OF ANNUAL RYE OR OTHER SUITABLE GRASS SHALL BE PLANTED
p FNi�4}'LC)tLjjQH-SEf(ML.L[-JjLiYMlyiQ�1J);[f111E fh LOWt PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
(SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL RE -VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED) UNLESS
OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER:
TOPSOIL A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL SHALL BE REOUIRED TO BE EITHER EXISTING OR
INSTALLED IN AREAS TO BE REVEGETATED AS SET FORTH INE16906(F)(6) BELOW ANY APPLICATION
OF TOPSOIL AND SEEDING UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF A TREE SHOULD BEMINIMIZED TO 3 INCHES SO
AS NOT TO DAMAGE THE TREES ROOT SYSTEM
• ZERO TO 107E GRADE: RE -VEGETATION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF SEEDING AND MULCHING SAID
SEEDING SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE AND UNIFORM COVERAGE THAT MINIMIZES EROSION AND
RUNOFF IN NO MORE THAN TWO GROWNG SEASONS.
• 10 1 UP TO 4:1 GRADE: RE -VEGETATION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF HYDRO -SEEDING WITH MULCH
AND FERTILIZER, SOU, OR GROUNDCOVER SAID PLANTING SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE AND UNIFORM
COVERAGE IN NO MORE THAN TWO GROWING SEASONS
• 4:1 To 3:1 GRADE: THE SLOPE SHALL BE COVERED NTH LANDSCAPE FABRIC AND
HYDRO -SEEDED NTH MULCH AND FERTILIZER, OR STAKED SOD, OR GROUNDCOVER SAID PLANTING
SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE AND UNIFORM COVERAGE IN NO MORE THAN TWO GROWING SEASONS
MORE THAN 3 1 GRADE: ANY FINISH GRADE OVER 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH ONE OR MORE
OF THE FOLLOWING:
RETAINING WALLS; CRIBBING NTH LANDSCAPE FABRIC; TERRACING WITH GROUNDCOVER;
RIPRAP; STAKED SOD (UP TO 2'1 SLOPE)
❑IF CRIBBING, TERRACING, OR RIPRAP IS USED, THE SLOPES STABILITY AND ERODIBILITY MUST
BE EOIVALENT TO OR BETTER THAN ITS PREDEVELOPMENT STATE
D_i�E9�/IEfLNj�RQ•SIL,M-CBEIIH{iL_ME DEVELOPER SHALL INCORPORATE PERMANENT EROSION
CONTROL FEATURES AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICAL TIME TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
WILL BE USED TO CORRECT CONDITIONS THAT DEVELOP DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT WERE
UNFORESEEN DURING THE DESIGN STAGE, THAT ARE NEEDED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT
EROSION CONTROL FEATURES, OR THAT ARE NEEDED TEMPORARILY TO CONTROL EROSION THAT
DEVELOPS DURING NORMAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, BUT ARE NOT ASSOCIATED NTH PERMANENT
CONTROL FEATURES ON THE PROJECT
0 OUST. WHERE EXCESSIVE DUST MAY BECOME A PROBLEM, A PLAN FOR SPRAYING WATER ON
HEAVILY TRAVELED DIRT AREAS SHALL BE ADDRESSED
0.LWWjDFjWN_QL7,$,f, STABILIZED ROCK EXIT IS REWIRED ON CONSTRUCTION SITES ROCK EXITS
MUST BE AT LEAST 20i WIDE BY 20OLONG (1 @ 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) OR 501 LONG (ALL OTHER
CONSTRUCTION SITES) BY 60THICK STABILIZED ROCK HAVING A MINIMUM AVERAGE DIAMETER OF 3
IF THERE IS AN EXISTING CURB, LOOSE MATERIAL SUCH AS FILL DIRT OR GRAVEL SHALL NOT BE
USED TO RAMP UP TO IT FROM THE STREET TEMPORARY WOODEN RAMPS IN FRONT OF CURBS ARE
ACCEPTABLE.
O,•,gCBRIs_ uuD_ AND sul IN F•I]BUC ST TS- DEBRIS, MUO AND SOUL SHALL NOT BE AUOaD ON
14NDuC SIREE IS BUT Ir ANY UEBRlS, MUD. OR 50EL FROU DEVELOPMENT SITES REACHES THE PUBLIC
STREET IT SHALL BE TMMCOAICLY' REMOVED VA SWEEPING OR OTHER METHODS OF PHYSICAL
RFMOVAL DEBRIS, MUO, OR SOL IN THE SLNEEI MAY NOT BE WASHED OFT THE STREET OR WASHED
INTO THE STORM DRANII SYSIENI. SFDRM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DOWNSIREAM OF A DEVELOPMENT
SITE 51401JLD BE 6"TEC1CD rRW DEBRIS. MUD. OR SOIL w THE EVENT MAT DEBRIS, MUD, W SOIL
REACHES THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Tree preservation plan
denied by Planning
Commission.
r.•. N 1no-7v6T T6•-101D
b.Tii56TLTS AI».fbI A.R I � IIR DI-141
II.F MS-L—TEN CASEYS GENERAL STORE
-p6M,arlRllol
11trIN• r.1C 2f.9U WEE7iNG1 pN ROAD
VAU N Mf FAYEi TEVILlE. AR
esa.TTNa+
LABEL WI{ICI I TREES RECEIVE PLANKING
ADD NOTE I XCAVAT ION Of ASPHAI T TOO ING TO 1
BE DONE WITH CARE AROUND PRESERVED TREES
L INSTALL P4, IN(; T&91 46VES REMOVAL NEAR ROOTS At I.OWFO
COORDINATE RIP RAP INS
WITH URBAN FORESTER
C 11
TREE PROTECTION NOTES
EXISTING
1 ALL TREES AND NATURAL AREAS SHONN ON MIS PLAN 10 OC PRESERVED SHALL BE PROTECTRED DURING CONSTRUCTION NTH TEMPORARY
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
FENCING
Z PROTECTIVE FENCES SHALL BE ERECTED ACCORDING 70 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE STANDARDS FOR TREE PROTECTION
—"—""—"'—"'— PROPERTY LINE
J PROTECTIVE FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR 10 THE START O ANY SITE PREPARARON WORK AND SMALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT ALL
PHASES OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
- - - - - - - - - - -- RIGHT OF WAY LINE
A EROSION AND SEGMENTATION CONTROL BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED OR MANTAINEO NA A MANNER WHICH DOES NDI RESULT IN SOL BUILO-TIP
VIES
N MTE DRIPPROTECTIVE
EXISTING SEVER
5 PROTECTIVE FENCING SHALL SURROUND THE IN ES CONSTRUCTION GROUP O BELO AND WILL BE LOCH TED AT ME DRIPLINE FOR HAMRAI. AREAS,
PROTECTIVE SNAIL FOLLOW LIMITS IN BELOW PREVENT THE FOLLOWNGEQUIP
— BUILDING SETBACK LINE
-------
51 SOIL COMPACTION IN ROOT NE OMHICU FI
ACTION FROM VEHICULAR TRATTICI OR STORAGE OF
T VIPMENT
51 ROOT ZONE DISMflBANCES DUE TO GRADE CHANGES gAANTIER MAN 6) ROOT TRENCHING NOT NEJNEO BY CITY ARBOLISTS
NC UE TO G ADERESULTINGCHAIN
53 WOUNDS TO EXPOSED ROOTS. MUNK' OR UMBS BY MECHANICAL EOUPMCNT.
5A OMER ACTIVDIES DETRIMENIAL TO TREES SUCH AS CHEMICAL STORAGE, CONCRETE TRUCK CLEANING AND FIRES
GAS METER
6, EXCEPTIONS TO INSTALLING FENCES TO DRIPLINES MAY BE PERMITTEO IN ME FOLLOWING CASES.
61 WHERE MERE IS TO BE AN APPROVED GRADE CHANGE. IMPERMEABLE PANNG SURFACE, TREE WELL. OR OMER SUCH SITE DEVELOPMENT
�_Iy STORMWATER MANHOLE
52 WHERE PERMEABLE PAVING 15 TO BE INSTALLED RTHIN A FREE'S DRIPLINE ERECT ME FENCE AT THE OMER LIMITS OF ME PERMEABLE PAVING
AREA (PRIOR TO SITE GRADING SO THIS AREA IS MADEO SEPARATELY Pfl'OR TO PAVING INSTALLATION TO MINIMIZE ROOT DAMAGE)
PROPOSED
5 J WERETREES ARE C. SE TO PROPOSED BUILDINGS. ERECT DE FENCE TO ALLOW 6 10 10 FEET OF WORK SPACE
6 A INHERE MERE ARE SEVER SPACE CONSTRAINTS WC 10 TRACT SIZE OR OMER SPECIAL REOUIREMENTS
Z WERE ANY OF ME ABOVE EXCEPTIONS RESULT INA A FENCE MOSER THAN A FEET TO A TRUNK. PROTECT ME MUNK NTH STRAPPED ON
PROPERTY LINE
HEIGHT 1 LIMITS R BRIMMING) IN ADDITION ID ME REDUCED FENCING PRONOED.
PLANKING TOFOR REMOVAL UNTIL BE REMOVED INA A MANNER WHICH DOTS TOE TREES TO BE PRESERVED
CONCRETE CURB AND CUTTER
A SHALL BE PRUNED HUSH NTII THE DIVE BATH OR ROOT AREAS NM GOOD dIALIIY TOPSOIL ES
FLUS SOIL B
M ANY ROOTS EXPOSED BY EXPOSED
SOON AS POSSIBLE E EMPOSTO ROOT ARCAS ARE NOl BACKFUED "THIN 2 BAYS, COVER NM ORGANIC MATERIAL IN A uANNCR NNIdN REDUCES
ROOT AREAS
INDEX CONTOUR
Shc TEMPERATURE AND ES WATER LOSS A DON
MINOR CONTOUR
D FOR N O LANDSCAPE
10 ANY TRENCAPE REQUIRED FOR MC REATE TH N O NCHEHA IRBE PERM SMALL N PLACED AS FAR FROM EXISTING TRCE TRUNKS AS POSSIBLE
11 NO LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL DRESSING GRATER THAN A INCHES SNAIL BE PERMITTED NMN THE ORIPUNC O TREES NO SdL IS PERMITTED ON ME
—• —• —• WATTLE
ROOT RARE OF ANY TREE
E O
12 PRUNING TO PROVIDE CLEARANCE FOR STRUCTURES. VEHICULAR MAFFIC. AND EQUIPMENT SMALL TAKE RACE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEONS
— .I� DRAIN PIPE
u~ -
IJ ALL FINISHED PRUNING MUST BE DONE ACCORDING 70 RECOGNIZED, APPROVED STANDARDS OfME INDUSTRY (REFERENCE ME AMERICAN NATIONAL
STANDARD, ANSI-A300 PRUNING, 2005 OR LATER) A LI5T OF CERTIFIED TREE PRUNERS IS AVMLABE FROM DIE URBAN FORESTER A OTY
CERTIFIED TREE PRUNER MUST BE RETAINED TO MAKE ALL PRUNING CUTS
IN DEVIATIONS FROM ME ABOVE NOTES MAY BE CONSIDERED ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS IF THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL NON-COUPLIANCE OR IF A MEE
SUSTAINS DAMAGE AS A RESULT
I
l 1
` � �Lw I•wa•w•Iwl I
(ay OF FAyrmyiLtr STANpARQ H T
f jkof AHj) k4IURAL "L�k[A. F'R011 tIpN
COUNT q10 AND
p11 AS PRESERVED
TREE CAROPT
'f0U1 AREA O SITE 151
II WAIL
F
100X
MIN. AREA O C»F6 TREE GHOPT Ox
EOSTNG TREE CANOPf REMIND 072
H
IJ 2X
M$pKl.5j
ZE.1FAt
s 31114£' On
(REOUESMG VARIATION IN PLANTING SIZES)
19 URGE SPECIES DECIDUOUS TRE&S PROPOSED ♦ IJ LARGE EVERGREEN TREES • 5 RDIEIINO ODES JZ IRE
URBAN FORESTER RECOMMENDS 1
Q"Au_{CT{Z7[([DWI,dR�".QTJI[fJj71,Sj,.,[„'yt [D• +N$ SHALL BE STABIUZED "THIN 15 DAYS
IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING OR DISTURBANCE HAS CEASED
O PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS STREETS, STORM SEWERS. CURB AND GUTTERS, AND OTHER
FEATURES FOR CONTROL OF RUNOFF SHALL BE SCHEDULED COINCIDENTAL TO REMOVING VEGETATIVE
COVER FROM THE AREA SO THAT LARGE AREAS ARE NOT LEFT EXPOSED BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF
TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES_
Qs 'E�+ $MIL"flL WALLa_Shc Hi lO BF S1Delif`IIEQ FBR LLl7RL }ItAk SZF OATS, A TEMPORARY COVER
OF ANNUAL RYE OR OTHER SUITABLE GRA55 SHALL BE PLANTED
0"Eil._1EDLMElLYR_SIIiVLI"IlLHGWLNLQ,!Q.Y(L.J!'�.,fthEQL12fL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
(SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL RE -VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED) UNLESS
OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER:
TOPSOIL A MINIMUM OF A INCHES OF TOPSOIL SHALL BE REWIRED TO BE EITHER EXISRNG OR
INSTALLED IN AREAS TO BE REVEGETATED AS SET FORTH IN116906(F)(6) BELOW ANY APPLICATION
OF TOPSOIL AND SEEDING UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF A TREE SHOULD BEMINIMIZED TO 3 INCHES SO
AS NOT TO DAMAGE THE TREES ROOT SYSTEM
• ZERO TO 10% GRADE RE -VEGETATION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF SEEDING AND MULCHING SAID
SEEDING SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE AND UNIFORM COVERAGE THAT MINIMIZES EROSION AND
RUNOFF IN NO MORE THAN TWO GROWING SEASONS
• 101 UP TO 4:1 GRADE: RE -VEGETATION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF HYDRO-SEEOING WITH MULCH
AND FERTILIZER, SOD, OR GROUNDCOVER SAID PLANTING SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE AND UNIFORM
COVERAGE IN NO MORE THAN TWO CROWING SEASONS
• 4:1 TO 3:1 GRADE: ME SLOPE SHALL BE COVERED NTH LANDSCAPE FABRIC AND
HYDRO -SEEDED WITH MULCH AND FERTILIZER, OR STAKED SOD, OR GROUNDCOVER SAID PLANTING
SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE AND UNIFORM COVERAGE IN NO MORE THAN TWO GROWING SEASONS
40RE THAN 3:1 GRADE. ANY FINISH GRADE OVER 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH ONE OR MORE
OF THE FOLLOWNG:
1. RETAINING WALLS; CRIBBING NTH LANDSCAPE FABRIC; TERRACING WITH GROUNDCOVER:
RIPRAP; STAKED SOD (UP TO 2:1 SLOPE)
i IF CRIBBING, TERRACING. OR RIPRAP IS USED. THE SLOPE'S STABILITY AND ERODIBILITY MUST
BE EGUIVALENT TO OR BETTER THAN ITS PREDEVELOPMENT STATE
0 PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INCORPORATE PERMANENT EROSION
CONTROL FEATURES AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICAL TIME. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
WLL BE USED TO CORRECT CONDITIONS THAT DEVELOP DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT WERE
UNFORESEEN DURING THE DESIGN STAGE, THAT ARE NEEDED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT
EROSION CONTROL FEATURES, OR THAT ARE NEEDED TEMPORARILY TO CONTROL EROSION THAT
DEVELOPS DURING NORMAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, BUT ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT
CONTROL FEATURES ON THE PROJECT
O OUST. WHERE EXCESSIVE DUST MAY BECOME A PROBLEM, A PLAN FOR SPRAYING WATER ON
HEAVILY TRAVELED DIRT AREAS SHALL BE ADDRESSED
�CONSfkuCDON EXIIS_-A STABILIZED ROCK EXIT IS REWIRED ON CONSTRUCTION SITES ROCK EXITS
MUST BE AT LEAST 201 WIDE BY 201 LONG (1 k 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) OR 50OLDNG (ALL OTHER
CONSTRUCTION SITES) BY BOTHICK STABILIZED ROCK HAVING A MINIMUM AVERAGE DIAMETER or 1
IF MERE IS AN EXISTING CURB, LOOSE MATERIAL SUCH AS FILL DIRT OR GRAVEL SHALL NOT BE
USED TO RAMP UP TO IT FROM THE STREET. TEMPORARY WOODEN RAMPS IN FRONT OF CURBS ARE
ACCEPTABLE
0 DEBRIS_ MUD. AND SO[ IN PUBLIC STREETS. DEBRIS, MUD AND SOIL SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON
PUBLIC STREETS BUT IF ANY DEBRIS, MUD, OR SOIL FROM DEVELOPMENT SITES REACHES THE PUBLIC
STREET IT SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED NA SWEEPING OR OMER METHODS OF PHYSICAL
REMOVAL DEBRIS, MUD, OR SOIL IN THE STREET MAY NOT BE WASHED OFF THE STREET OR WASHED
INTO ME STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DOWNSTREAM GF A DEVELOPMENT
SITE SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM DEBRIS, MUD, OR SOIL IN THE EVENT THAT DEBRIS. MUD. OR SOIL
REACHES THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
J;I;IRRI'•RI DESIGN
PLANNING
COUNT ONLY k10
COMMISSION
AS PRESERVED
DESIGN
WITHOUT WALL
3"DU1 5K'.
i11U7 .•S '1',.
ij •lA j � B90 ' ,'.,1"::'
; .!Al • '.E?[1 N5 I:iB
.IL!A1'TI�A71O51
'!JL TIi 1710N
0
sG.eE w ruI
2 APRIL 2013
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
COMMENTS
URBAN FORESTER
CASEY'S GENERAL STORE
25M WEDINGTON ROAD
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 167: TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
167.01 PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................................3
167.02 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TREE PRESERVATION, PROTECTION, AND LANDSCAPE
MANUAL............................................................................................................................................ 3
167.03 TREE REGISTRY AND URBAN FOREST ANALYSIS.................................................................... 3
167.04 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION DURING DEVELOPMENT.......................................4
167.05 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES AND CONSTRUCTION............................................................13
167.06 TREE PLANTING, MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL ON STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY
ANDOTHER PUBLIC GROUNDS....................................................................................................13
167.07 COMMERCIAL TREE PRUNER/SERVICE; CERTIFICATE AND INSURANCE
REQUIRED........................................................................................................................................14
167.08 HAZARDOUS TREES.......................................................................................................................14
167.09 LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY...................................................................................................15
167.10-167.99 RESERVED............................................................................................................................15
CD167:1
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
CD167:2
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 167: TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
167.01 Purpose
It is the purpose of this chapter to preserve and
protect the health, safety, and general welfare, and
preserve and enhance the natural beauty of
Fayetteville by providing for regulations of the
preservation, planting, maintenance, and removal of
trees within the city, in order to accomplish the
following objectives:
(A) Objectives.
(1) To preserve existing tree canopy;
(2) To create a healthful environment for
Fayetteville residents, businesses, and
industries;
(3) To moderate the harmful effects of sun,
wind, and temperature changes;
(4) To buffer noise, air and visual pollution;
(5) To filter pollutants from the air that assist in
the generation of oxygen;
(6) To reduce storm water runoff and the
potential damage it may create;
(7) To stabilize soil and prevent erosion, with an
emphasis on maintaining tree canopy on
hillsides defined as canopied slopes in
Chapter 151;
(8) To provide habitat for birds and other wildlife;
(9) To preserve riparian banks and beds, and
prevent sedimentation;
(10) To screen incompatible land;
(11) To promote energy conservation; and
(12) To protect and enhance property values.
(B) Principles. This chapter shall be enforced
according to the following principles:
(1) Preservation shall be the first, best, and
standard approach.
(2) If preservation cannot be achieved, on -site
mitigation shall next be pursued.
(3) If on -site mitigation cannot be achieved, off -
site preservation shall be pursued.
(4) If off -site preservation cannot be achieved,
off -site forestation shall be pursued.
CD167:3
(5) If none of the above approaches can be
achieved, payment shall be made to the tree
escrow account.
(Code 1991, §162.01; Ord. No. 3699, §1 4-20-93; Ord. No.
4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4340, 10-2-01)
167.02 City Of Fayetteville Tree
Preservation, Protection, And Landscape
Manual
The urban forester, in cooperation with other
members of city staff, shall promulgate and
periodically revise forms, procedures and regulations
to implement this chapter and publish this information
in the City of Fayetteville, Tree Preservation,
Protection, and Landscape Manual.
(A) Copies of the Tree Preservation, Protection, and
Landscape Manual are to be made readily
available to the public and shall include, but need
not be limited to:
(1) Specific criteria for gaining city approval of
tree preservation plans;
(2) The format and content of reports and plans
the applicant must submit to the city
pursuant to this chapter;
(3) Tree protection during construction;
(4) A glossary of important terms used in this
chapter;
(5) Size and species requirements for trees
planted for on -site mitigation or off -site
forestation;
(6) Maintenance of trees (including but not
limited to pruning, irrigation, and protection
from disease).
(B) The Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee
shall review and may recommend revisions to the
Tree Preservation, Protection, and Landscape
Manual at least every three years to reflect
changes in arboricultural and horticultural
practices, lists of preferred tree species, city
policies, or the content of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 4340, 10-2-01)
167.03 Tree Registry And Urban Forest
Analysis
(A) Tree Registry. Trees and groups of trees which
are documented to be of historic merit, of an
uncommon or endangered species, or are of
extraordinary value due to their age, size, or type,
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
may be registered in the City of Fayetteville's tree
that are not required to go through
registry. It shall be the duty of the urban forester
subdivision or large scale development
to maintain and keep this registry on file in the
process. There shall be no land disturbance,
urban foresters office.
grading, or tree removal until an abbreviated
tree preservation plan has been submitted
(B) Voluntary registration. Registration of trees shall
and approved, and the tree protection
be voluntary and may be done by the owner(s) of
measures at the site inspected and
the property on which the tree is located.
approved.
Registration shall not run with the land unless the
property owner wishes to use an express trust to
(3) Building permits. Tree preservation require -
transfer a benefit in the tree or groups of trees to
ments apply to all permit applications for
the city. Registered tree owners are entitled to
nonresidential construction, and the
consultation with the Tree and Landscape
construction of multi -family residential
Advisory Committee and/or the urban forester
buildings composed of three or more
concerning proper care and protection of the tree,
dwelling units. An abbreviated tree
as well as an evaluation of the tree's condition.
preservation plan, as set forth in § 167.04
(H)(3), shall be submitted with the
(C) Urban Forest Analysis. The city shall initiate a
application for building permits on projects
tree canopy analysis and an Urban Forestry
that are not required to go through the
Effects Model study or their current equivalent
subdivision or large scale development
studies within the current geographical
process. There shall be no land disturbance,
boundaries of the city by December 31, 2012.
grading, or tree removal until an abbreviated
Thereafter, the city should conduct these studies
tree preservation plan has been submitted
every ten (10) years.
and approved, and the tree protection
measures at the site inspected and
(Ord. No. 4340, 10-02-01; Ord. 5427, 8-2-11)
approved.
167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection
(4) Parking lots. Tree preservation require -
During Development
ments apply to all permit applications for the
construction of parking lots with five or more
(A) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall
spaces. An abbreviated tree preservation
apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale
plan, as set forth in §167.04 (H)(3), shall be
developments required by other chapters of the
submitted with the application for permits on
Unified Development Code to go through the
projects that are required to go through the
city's permitting process. Persons seeking to
subdivision or large scale development
build one single-family dwelling unit, or duplex,
process. There shall be no land disturbance,
are specifically exempt from the provisions of this
grading, or tree removal until an abbreviated
section except when the land is located within the
tree preservation plan has been submitted
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District; then all the
and approved, and the tree protection
provisions of this ordinance shall apply. Planned
measures at the site inspected and
Zoning Districts should meet the percent
approved.
minimum tree canopy based upon their primary
use, but may be allowed a lesser tree canopy
(5) Hillsidel Hilltop Overlay District. Undeveloped
requirement as part of the overall Master Plan
land located within the Hillside/Hilltop
approved by the City Council.
Overlay District shall submit a site analysis
plan, analysis report, and tree preservation
(1) Subdivisions and large scale developments.
plan with the preliminary plat or site plan.
Applicants seeking approval of proposed
Single and two family residential
subdivisions and large scale developments
development shall submit an abbreviated
shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis
tree preservation and site plan at the time of
report, and tree preservation plan with the
obtaining a building permit. Structural
preliminary plat or site plan. There shall be
changes to buildings located in the
no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District that do not
until a tree preservation plan has been
result in an enlargement of the building
submitted and approved, and the tree
footprint or roof dripline shall not require an
protection measures at the site inspected
abbreviated tree preservation plan. There
and approved.
shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree
removal until a tree preservation plan has
(2) Grading permit. An abbreviated tree
been submitted and approved, and the tree
preservation plan, as set forth in
protection measures at the site inspected
§167.04(H)(3), shall be submitted with the
and approved.
application for grading permits on projects
CD 167:4
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
(B) Tree preservation criteria. The urban forester
shall consider the following factors, and any other
relevant information, when evaluating tree
preservation plans:
(1) The desirability of preserving a tree or group
of trees by reason of age, location, size, or
species.
(2) Whether the design incorporates the
required tree preservation priorities.
(3) The extent to which the area would be
subject to environmental degradation due to
removal of the tree or group of trees.
(4) The impact of the reduction in tree cover on
adjacent properties, the surrounding
neighborhood and the property on which the
tree or group of trees is located.
(5) Whether alternative construction methods
have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
(6) Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces
the flexibility of the design.
(7) The general health and condition of the tree
or group of trees, or the presence of any
disease, injury, or hazard.
(8) The placement of the tree or group of trees
in relation to utilities, structures, and the use
of the property.
(9) The need to remove the tree or group of
trees for the purpose of installing, repairing,
replacing, or maintaining essential public
utilities.
(10) Whether roads and utilities are designed in
relation to the existing topography, and
routed, where possible, to avoid damage to
existing canopy.
(11) Construction requirements of on -site and off -
site drainage.
(12) The effects of proposed on -site mitigation or
off -site alternatives.
(13) The effect other chapters of the UDC, or city
policies have on the development design.
(14) The extent to which development of the site
and the enforcement of this chapter are
impacted by state and federal regulations.
(15) The impact a substantial modification or
rejection of the application would have on
the applicant.
'Note --The above items are not presented in any particular
order of importance. The weight each is given will depend in
large part on the individual characteristics of each project.
(C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large
Scale Developments, Industrial and Commercial
Developments, and all other improvements listed
above, trees shall be preserved as outlined in
Table 1 under Percent Minimum Canopy, unless
the Applicant has been approved for On -Site
Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth in
subsections I. & J. below. The square foot
percentage of canopy area required for
preservation in new development is based on the
total area of the property for which the Applicant
is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and
park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be
required to plant trees in order to reach the
Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land
where less than the minimum exists prior to
development, unless trees have been removed.
Table 1
Minimum Canopy Requirements
PERCENT
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
MINIMUM
CANOPY
R-A, Residential - Agricultural
25%
(nonagricultural uses
RSF-.5, Single-family Residential — One
25%
Half Unit per Acre
RSF-1, Single-family Residential — One
25%
Unit per Acre
RSF-2, Single-family Residential — Two
20%
Units per Acre
RSF-4, Single-family Residential — Four
25%
Units per Acre
RSF-7, Single-family Residential —
20%
Seven Units per Acre
RSF-8, Single-family Residential — Eight
20%
Units per Acre
R-O, Residential —Office
20%
RT-12, Two and Three-family
20%
Residential
RMF-6, Multi -family Residential — Six
20%
Units per Acre '
RMF-12, Multi -family Residential —
20%
Twelve Units per Acre
RMF-18, Multi -family Residential —
20%
Eighteen Units per Acre
RMF-24, Multi -family Residential —
20%
Twenty -Four Units per Acre
RMF-40,Multi-family Residential — Forty
20%
Units per Acre
NS, Neighborhood Services
20%
C-1, Nei hborhood Commercial
20%
CS, Community Services
20%
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
15%
UT, Urban Thoroughfare
15%
C-3, Central Business Commercial
15%
CD167:5
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
DC, Downtown Core
10%
MSC, Main Street Center
10%
DG, Downtown General
10%
NC, Neighborhood Conservation
20%
1-1, Heavy Commercial and Light
Industrial
15%
1-2, General Industrial
15%
P-1, Institutional
25%
PZD, Planned Zoning District
HHOD
25%
30%)
All residential zoning districts and C-1 districts within
the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have their
percent minimum canopy requirements increased by
5% to a total requirement of either 30% or 25%.
(D) Prior tree removal.
(1) 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
set forth in Table 1, plus an additional ten
percent (10%) of the total area of the
property for which the Applicant is seeking
approval, less the right-of-way and park land
dedications. The number of trees required to
be planted shall be calculated using the
Base Density for High Priority trees.
(2) Waiver. If an applicant is able to
demonstrate to the Planning Commission's
satisfaction that the trees were removed for
a bona fide agricultural purpose, and not with
the intent to thwart enforcement of this
chapter, the additional 10% reforestation
requirement shall be waived.
(E) Tree preservation priorities.
(1) Percent minimum canopy. Proposed
designs must meet the percent minimum
canopy requirements for the particular
zoning designation, emphasizing the
preservation and protection of high priority
trees on the site. Trees in utility easements
shall not be counted toward the percent
minimum canopy requirement, and such
utilities shall be routed, wherever possible, to
avoid existing canopy.
(2) Existing natural features. Each design shall
consider the existing natural features of the
site, the preservation priorities for the trees,
and the impact their proposed removal may
have both on and off -site.
(3) Preservation priorities. The list of
preservation priorities (See: Table 2) shall
guide the review of each development's
design. The submittal of designs which do
not incorporate preservation priorities for the
trees on the site shall result in the denial of
the tree preservation plan.
(4) High priority trees. The preservation and
protection of high priority trees shall be
enforced most stringently to meet the
minimum percentage of canopy
preservation. The preservation and
protection of lower priority trees shall not be
substituted for that of high priority trees,
except:
(a) When the justification for such a
substitution is set forth in the analysis
report; and
(b) The substitution is approved by the
urban forester.
Table 2
Preservation Priorities
High Priority
Mid -level Priority
Low Priority
Canopied slopes
Contiguous
woodlands
Invasive species
Floodways and
riparian buffers
Non-native
woodlands
Relic orchards
Native woodlands
Use buffers
Less desirable
species
Significant trees
CD167:6
*Note --Each of the above is listed alphabetically
beneath its respective category. They are not presented in
any particular order of importance within that category.
(F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed
Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions.
(1) Residential subdivisions. The Percent
Minimum Canopy in residential subdivisions
shall be located in areas that have the least
possibility of impact as utilities are installed
and homes built. The intent is to leave
undisturbed as many existing trees as
possible for the use and enjoyment of
prospective lot owners. Residential
Subdivisions requesting tree removal below
the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement
may choose either Residential On -Site
Mitigation, or to contribute to the Tree
Escrow Account as set forth in §167.04
J.4.a. Trees in utility easements shall not be
counted toward the Percent Minimum
Canopy requirement, and such utilities shall
be routed to avoid existing canopy.
(2) Nonresidential subdivisions. Two options
are available for establishing a tree
preservation plan for the development of
nonresidential subdivisions. The urban
forester shall recommend to the Planning
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Commission the option that will potentially
PZD, which would encourage more
preserve the largest amount of priority
open space and tree preservation areas.
canopy based upon the tree preservation
In this pattern of development, the tree
criteria set forth in § 167.04 (B) above.
preservation zone on each lot can be
transferred to a larger open space
(a) Preservation plan for entire subdivision.
instead of being required on the
The developer may choose to preserve
individual lots. The open space set
the percent minimum canopy required
aside during cluster development shall
for the entire development. With this
be placed in a permanent easement or
option, the preserved canopy shall be
land trust with all future development
located in areas that will not be
rights removed from the property.
impacted by future development of the
individual lots. Canopy to be preserved
(G) Initial review.
shall be noted on the final plat, and shall
be protected as set forth in §167.04 (L)
(1) Meeting with the urban forester. It is strongly
below. Should the entire percent
recommended that prospective applicants
minimum canopy requirement for the
meet with the urban forester for an initial
site be so protected, the final plat shall
review of the proposed tree preservation
include a statement that the individual
plan for the site prior to submitting a
lots, as represented thereon, shall not
preliminary plat, large scale development, or
require separate tree preservation
site plan to the city. During the initial review,
plans.
the urban forester shall make
recommendations to ensure the proposed
(b) Preservation plan for infrastructure only.
subdivision or development complies with
The developer, in consultation with city
the requirements of this chapter. These
staff, shall delineate the area required
recommendations shall be nonbinding.
for the construction of the infrastructure
However, applicants proceed at the risk of
and improvements for the development.
higher costs due to changes required by a
This area should include street rights -of-
noncompliant submittal should they choose
way, and utility and drainage
not to have the initial review or to disregard
easements. Lot lines, streets, and
the recommendations of the urban forester.
easements shall be located to avoid
placing a disproportionate percentage of
(2) Letter of confirmation. The urban forester
existing canopy in any one (1) proposed
shall document whether the applicant
lot. This option shall not allow the
participated in the initial review meeting in a
removal of trees during the grading of
letter of confirmation to the applicant. If the
individual lots, unless shown by the
applicant chose to attend an initial review
developer to be essential to the project's
meeting, the letter shall also document any
engineering design. The developer will
recommendations made. The urban forester
be required to compensate for the
shall ensure that a copy of the letter
canopy removed from this defined area
becomes part of the permanent file for the
by making the appropriate payment into
project.
the Tree Escrow Account. On all other
areas of the development, the developer
(H) Submittal of plans. Applicants should bear in
shall protect the existing canopy during
mind that all plans will be evaluated according to
the construction phase in accordance
the tree preservation criteria and percent
with §167.05 below. The final plat shall
minimum canopy requirements as set forth under
include a statement that the individual
§167.04 (B) and (C).
lots shall required separate Tree
Preservation Plans.
(1) Site analysis plan. On sites with existing
tree canopy, the applicant shall conduct a
(3) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Individual
site analysis to determine the approximate
parcels or lots located within the
age, health, size and species distribution of
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundary
the trees, noting each on a site analysis
shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation
plan, and clearly showing the locations and
plan as set forth in § 167.04 (H)(3) indicating
types of all natural features on a site,
the location of the structure and the
including features 100 feet beyond the
preservation of the minimum tree canopy
property lines. The site analysis plan shall
requirement.
also specifically depict the applicable
preservation priority level for each tree or
(a) Developers shall have the option of
group of trees on the site. The plan should
doing cluster development, such as a
include, but not be limited to, delineation of
CD167:7
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
the following features as they exist on the
site:
(a) The existing topography of the site
highlighting slopes of 15% or greater,
and indicating the natural drainage
patterns;
(b) The property line boundaries of the site;
(c) Soils identified according to the Unified
Soil Classification System;
(d) Any significant trees existing on the site,
and the location of trunks, spread of the
canopy, species, diameter at breast
height (DBH), and the overall health of
each significant tree;
(e) Groupings of trees, delineating the
edges of the overall canopy, noting the
predominate species, average height,
diameter at breast height (DBH), and
general health of the trees.
(f) All existing utilities and utility
easements;
(g) All perennial and intermittent streams
and creeks that exist on the site or
within 100 feet of the site;
(h) Floodplains and floodways on the site;
(i) All existing rights -of -way within and
surrounding the project site, including
any designated trails or bike paths; and,
(j) Any other factors that may impact the
design of the site.
(2) Tree preservation plan. The applicant shall
indicate all proposed site improvements, and
delineate in the tree preservation plan the
trees to be retained on -site, and the
measures to be implemented for their
protection. These measures shall include,
but need not be limited to, fencing, limits of
root pruning, as well as restrictions on traffic
and material storage. The plan shall also
clearly depict the limits of soil disturbance to
include all areas to be graded both on and
off -site, as well as the proposed location of
utilities. The applicant should consult the
City of Fayetteville Tree Preservation,
Protection and Landscape Manual for
details, examples and specific checklists.
(3) Abbreviated tree preservation plan.
Applicants requesting approval of
development projects that require building,
grading, or parking lot permits, but that do
CD167:8
not fall under the requirements for large
scale developments or subdivisions, shall
prepare and submit an abbreviated tree
preservation plan. The information for this
plan may be combined with the site plan, plat
drawing, or grading plan. The applicant is
expected to show the general location of all
existing groups of trees, individual significant
trees, and to clearly depict the limits of soil
disturbance to include all areas to be graded,
both on and off -site, as well as the proposed
location of utilities. Protective measures
such as fencing, limits of root pruning,
restriction on traffic and materials storage
shall be depicted on the plan. A preliminary
site visit with the urban forester is highly
recommended before applying for any of the
above -mentioned permits. The applicant
should consult the City of Fayetteville Tree
Preservation, Protection, and Landscape
Manual for details, examples and specific
checklists. Applicants submitting abbreviated
tree preservation plans shall not be required
to submit either a site analysis plan or
analysis report, nor shall they be required to
hire architects, engineers, or landscape
architects to prepare the abbreviated tree
preservation plan.
(4) Analysis report. The applicant shall submit
an analysis report detailing the design
approaches used to minimize damage to or
removal of existing canopy that were
considered in arriving at the proposed
design. Written justification shall be
presented as to why individual trees or
canopy must be removed. The report shall
also detail proposed on -site mitigation
options or off -site alternatives, as detailed
below.
(5) Grading and utility plans. All subsequent
grading and utility plans shall depict the tree
preservation areas on the site, to include the
preserved trees and the physical limits of all
protective measures required during
construction.
(6) Submittal requirements. The applicant shall
submit two (2) copies of a site analysis plan
and analysis report to the urban forester,
concurrently with their tree preservation plan.
Applicants submitting abbreviated tree
preservation plans shall not be required to
submit either a site analysis plan or analysis
report.
(7) Conservation requirements. The city shall
encourage the use of conservation
easements for the added protection of trees
preserved or planted to meet percent
minimum canopy requirements in those
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
instances where such would be of mutual
benefit to the applicant and the city.
(1) Request for on -site mitigation
(1) Timing of request for on -site mitigation.
Requests to remove trees below the percent
minimum canopy requirement must be
incorporated with the applicant's tree
preservation plan.
(2) Plan requirements. The tree preservation
plan must graphically represent the species
and location for all trees to be planted on -
site. It shall also include a chart clearly
stating the following information:
(a) The number of trees requested for
removal;
(b) The percentage below the percent
minimum canopy requirement they
represent; and,
(c) Tree removal due to the grading work
done to create tie backs for roads in the
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall be
mitigated by reforesting a minimum of
25% of the tie backs pursuant to the
landscape manual.
(d) Planting trees in non -canopy areas in
order to reach the minimum percent
canopy requirements for the site is not
allowed in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay
District.
(e) The species and number of trees to be
planted based on the forestation
requirements below.
(3) Planting details and notes. Planting details
and notes shall be included on the tree
preservation plan as set forth in the City of
Fayetteville Tree Preservation, Protection,
and Landscape Manual.
(4) Forestation requirements. The number and
species of trees required for forestation shall
be based upon the quality of the canopy lost:
(a) High priority canopy. When removing
high priority canopy below the percent
minimum canopy required, the canopy
square footage removed shall be
forested at a base density of 200, two
inch (2") caliper trees per acre removed.
(b) Mid -level priority canopy. When
removing mid -level priority canopy
required, the canopy square footage
removed shall be forested at a base
CD167:9
density of 150, two inch (2") caliper
trees per acre removed.
(c) Low priority canopy. When removing
low priority canopy below the percent
minimum required, the canopy square
footage removed shall be forested at a
base density of 100, two inch (2") caliper
trees per acre removed.
(5) Base Density. Compensating for the
environmental damage caused by removing
tree canopy shall be accomplished by
forestation on a per acre basis. The base
density formula used above is based on two
inch caliper trees. However, the urban
forester may approve the use of trees with
less than two inch (2") caliper for the planting
of smaller tree species required by spatial
constraints on the site. In such cases, the
number of trees to be planted may be
adjusted in accordance with the species
density table to be found in the City of
Fayetteville Tree Preservation, Protection,
and Landscape Manual, along with
examples for using the base density formula.
(6) Preferred species. All trees to be planted
shall be species native to the region, when
available, and selected from the list of
preferred tree species set forth in the City of
Fayetteville Tree Preservation, Protection,
and Landscape Manual. Species selection
shall be based upon the amount of space
available for proper growth on the site, and
must be approved by the urban forester.
(7) Placement of trees. The applicant is
expected to plant trees in locations on the
site where the environmental benefits of
canopy cover are most likely to offset the
impact of development. Trees shall not be
placed within utility easements, or in other
locations where their future protection cannot
be assured.
(8) On -site mitigation incentive. If all the
required trees can be located on -site, the
Urban forester may approve up to a twenty
percent (20%) reduction in the number of
trees to be planted. Any incentive reductions
allowed shall be based upon the following
factors:
(a) The species of the mitigation trees; and,
(b) The space needed for the healthy
growth of trees.
(9) Residential On -Site Mitigation. Applicants
requesting On -Site Mitigation for Residential
Subdivisions shall comply with all the
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
provisions of §167.04 I. 1-7, as well as the
following:
(a) The Applicant's Mitigation Plan shall meet or
exceed the required number of Mitigation
Trees based on the Forestation
Requirements as set forth at §167.04 I. 4.
(b) All Plans requesting Residential On -Site
Mitigation shall include a binding three (3)
year maintenance and monitoring plan,
which shall hold the Applicant responsible for
the health of all planted trees.
(i) Approval of a Plan requesting
Residential On -Site Mitigation shall
be contingent upon the Applicant
depositing with the City an
irrevocable Letter of Credit in an
amount equal to the estimated cost
of materials and labor for all trees at
the time of planting. The irrevocable
Letter of Credit must cover the
entire three (3) year maintenance
and monitoring period. Applicant
shall submit cost estimates to the
Urban forester for approval.
(i i) Upon completion of the three year
landscape establishment period,
the Urban forester shall inspect the
site and determine whether ninety
percent (90%) of the trees are
healthy and have a reasonable
chance of surviving to maturity.
Upon such a finding, the City shall
release the Letter of Credit.
(iii) In the absence of such a finding,
the Applicant shall be notified to
replace any unhealthy or dead
trees, or take other appropriate
action as approved by the Urban
forester. If the Applicant does not
take remedial steps to bring the
property into compliance, the City
shall use the necessary moneys
from the Landscape Establishment
Guarantee to do so.
(iv) In the event trees are injured or
destroyed by natural disasters,
including but not limited to,
tornadoes, straight-line winds, ice
storms, fire, floods, hail, or lightning
strikes, or through the independent
actions of third parties, the
applicant shall be relieved of the
responsibility of replanting the tree
or trees so affected.
(c) The Applicant shall establish a bona fide
Property Owners Association with a Bill
of Assurance and Protective Covenants
sufficient to ensure the continued health
and vitality of the mitigation trees within
the subdivision. The Bill of Assurance
and Protective Covenants shall be filed
of record with the Circuit Clerk and Ex-
Officio Recorder of Washington County,
Arkansas, and file -marked copies
thereof shall be provided to the Urban
forester prior to Final Plat approval.
(d) Developers requesting mitigation trees
be planted along the street right of way
of a Subdivision shall submit a street
tree planting plan that complies with the
standards outlined in the City of
Fayetteville Tree Preservation,
Protection, and Landscape Manual in
order to ensure that new trees planted
are of the highest quality, require low
maintenance, and do not interfere with
public safety. The species of trees to be
planted shall be selected from the
Approved Street Tree Species List, or
be otherwise specifically approved by
the Urban forester.
(i) The Applicant's Mitigation Plan for
planting street trees shall describe
in detail the method for tracking the
development of the individual lots,
which shall best ensure that
required number and species of
Mitigation Trees are planted.
(i i) The applicant shall submit an
annual schedule of the initial
structural pruning for all Mitigation
Trees planted along street right of
ways with the name and contact
information of the International
Society of Arboriculture (I SA)
Certified Arborist or pruning service
performing the work.
(J) Request for off -site alternatives.
CD167:10
(1) Timing of request for off -site alternatives.
Requests for off -site alternatives must be
incorporated in, and submitted concurrently
with the applicant's tree preservation plan.
(2) Off -site preservation. The applicant may
seek approval of the urban forester to
preserve an equal or greater amount of
canopy cover at a site within the city limits
or, with the express approval of the City
Council by its resolution, within one -quarter
mile of the Fayetteville city limits.
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
(3) Off -site forestation. If off -site preservation
cannot be achieved, the applicant may seek
(i) May be used for canopy mitigation,
approval from the urban forester to plant the
including planting site identification,
required number of trees on another site
tree acquisition, planting, and
owned by the applicant and located within
maintenance, utilizing either City
the city limits or, with the express approval of
Staff or contract labor;
the City Council by its resolution, within one -
quarter mile of the Fayetteville city limits. A
(II) Shall not revert to the general fund
tree conservation easement must be
for ongoing operations.
conveyed by the applicant to the city to
protect any off -site preservation or
(d) If it is not possible to plant trees within
forestation.
the subdivision, planting locations will be
sought in appropriate sites within a one
(4) Tree escrow account. Tree preservation on-
(1) mile radius of where the original
site is always the preferred option, with on-
project is located, but if this cannot be
site mitigation, off -site preservation and off-
achieved, the moneys shall be used to
site forestation to be considered in
plant the trees in the park quadrant in
descending order only if the more preferred
which the development took place, or
option cannot be fully achieved. If none of
pursuant to J (2) and (3). Data
these options can completely fulfill a
extracted from the Urban Forest
developer's obligation under this Tree
Analysis should be consulted when
Preservation and Protection Chapter, the
identifying appropriate locations to plant
developer shall pay into the City Tree
escrow funded trees.
Escrow Account $250.00 for each tree
required to meet the Base Density
(e) The City of Fayetteville shall refund the
requirements which fairly represents the
portion of the money contributed under
costs of material and labor to plant a tree.
this section, including the accrued
The developer shall also pay into the Tree
interest that has not been expended
Escrow Fund the reasonable maintenance
seven (7) years from the date of the
costs to ensure each tree survives at least
contribution. Interest shall be based on
three years. Tree planting and maintenance
a four percent (4%) annual rate.
costs should be adjusted at least every four
years to ensure it remains the fair market
(f) Refunds shall be paid to the Applicant
costs for tree planting and maintenance for
who made the original contribution.
three years.
(g) Notice of the right to a refund, including
(a) Residential Subdivisions which cannot
the amount of the refund and the
achieve the Base Density tree
procedure for applying for and receiving
requirements through preservation or
the refund, shall be sent or served in
mitigation shall contribute to the Tree
writing to the Applicant no later than
Escrow Account. The City shall use the
thirty (30) days after the date which the
money paid into the Tree Escrow
refund becomes due. The sending by
Account to plant trees within the
regular mail of the notices to the
subdivision along rights -of -ways,
Applicant shall be sufficient to satisfy the
detention ponds, common areas or
requirement of notice.
other areas where trees can be
protected and have a high probability of
(h) The refund shall be made on a pro rata
survival to a mature tree. This shall be
basis, and shall be paid in full no later
accomplished once the subdivision is
than ninety (90) days after the date
built out or as approved by the urban
certain upon which the refund becomes
forester.
due.
(b) Money contributed in lieu of On -Site (i) At the time of the contribution to the Tree
Mitigation or Off -Site Forestation shall Escrow Account, the Urban forester
be paid prior to issuance of a Building shall provide the Applicant with written
Permit on all Commercial, Industrial, or notice of those circumstances under
Multi -Family Residential buildings and which refunds of such fees will be made.
prior to Final Plat acceptance for all Failure to deliver such written notice
Residential and Non -Residential shall not invalidate any contribution to
Subdivisions. the Tree Escrow Account under this
Ordinance.
(c) Money contributed under this section:
CD167:11
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
(5) Maintenance agreement and landscape
establishment guarantee. All plans
(2)
The form shall also clearly indicate the
requesting on -site mitigation or off -site
applicant's plan is "APPROVED,"
forestation shall include a binding three year
"DISAPPROVED," or "CONDITIONALLY
maintenance and monitoring plan, which
APPROVED," and explain the reasoning
shall hold the applicant responsible for the
therefore.
health of all planted trees.
(3)
A statement shall appear on the form
(a) Approval of a plan requesting on -site
explaining the process by which a final
mitigation or off -site forestation shall be
administrative determination may be
contingent upon the applicant depositing
appealed in accordance with Chapter 155 of
with the city either currency, bond
the Unified Development Code.
irrevocable letter of credit or other
(4)
The urban forester shall sign and date the
surety, in an amount equal to the
form, and ensure that a copy becomes part
estimated cost of materials and labor of
of the permanent file for the project.
trees at the time of planting. The bond,
irrevocable letter of credit, or other
(L) Continuing preservation and protection under
surety must cover the entire three year
approved tree preservation plans.
maintenance and monitoring period.
The applicant shall submit cost
(1)
In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs,
estimates to the urban forester.
successors, assigns, or any subsequent
purchasers of the subject property are put on
(b) Upon completion of the three year
notice as to the existence and extent of an
landscape establishment period, the
approved tree preservation plan, tree
urban forester shall inspect the site and
preservation areas shall be clearly depicted
determine whether 90% of the trees are
on the easement plats for large scale
healthy and have a reasonable chance
developments and the final plats for
of surviving to maturity. Upon such
nonresidential subdivisions. This shall be
finding, the city shall release the
accompanied by a narrative statement
currency, bond, or letter of credit.
describing the nature of the protection
afforded, and bearing the signature of the
(c) In the absence of such a finding, the
urban forester. Lots in residential
applicant shall be notified to replace any
subdivisions are expressly exempt from
unhealthy or dead trees, or take other
these requirements. If it is impractical to
appropriate action as approved by the
include the actual depiction of the canopy to
urban forester. If the applicant does not
be preserved on the easement plat, or final
take remedial steps to bring the property
plat itself, a note cross referencing an
into compliance, the city shall use the
accompanying document shall suffice.
necessary monies from the landscape
establishment guarantee to do so.
(2)
The geographic extent and location of tree
preservation areas, once recorded, may only
(d) In the event trees are injured or
be modified, or abolished with the express
destroyed by natural disasters, including
approval of the City Council. Applicants
but not limited to, tornadoes, straight-
requesting such action shall bear the burden
line winds, ice storms, fire, floods, hail,
of proving to the City Council's satisfaction
or lightning strikes, or through the
that such modification or abolition is in the
independent actions of third parties, the
best interest of the City of Fayetteville. Such
applicant shall be relieved of the
requests shall be submitted to the urban
responsibility of replanting the tree or
forester, who shall ask the city clerk to place
trees so affected.
it on the agenda of the next regularly
scheduled City Council meeting.
(K) Tree preservation plan review form. The urban
forester shall use a standardized form for all
(3)
Property owners wishing to remove diseased
recommendations or administrative
or dead trees from within a recorded tree
determinations made regarding an applicant's
preservation area shall seek prior approval
tree preservation plan.
from the urban forester, who shall determine
if such removal is consistent with sound
(1) The form shall clearly indicate whether the
arboricultural and horticultural practices, as
urban forester is making a final
well as the intent of this chapter. Any tree so
administrative determination, or a
removed shall be replaced with a tree of like
recommendation to the Planning
or similar species, unless the urban forester
Commission or City Council.
determines that natural replacements of
CD167:12
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
sufficient health and vigor are already (A) Follow the Tree Preservation, Protection, and
present in the tree preservation area. Landscape Manual. All tree planting,
maintenance or removal on public grounds shall
(Code 1991, §162.10; Ord. No. 2699, §10, 4-20-93; Ord. No. follow the standards, specifications and
3901. §1, 7-5-95; Ord. No. 3963, §6, 4-16-96; Ord. No. 4100, guidelines provided in the City of Fayetteville
§2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4340, 10-2-01; Ord. No. 4539 Tree Preservation, Protection, and Landscape
02-03-04; Ord. 4855, 4-18-06; Ord. 4930, 10-03-06; Ord. Manual.
5308, 3-16-10; Ord. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5427; 8-2-11)
167.05 Tree Protection Measures And
Construction
(A) Site inspection. A preliminary site inspection
followed by periodic inspections will be
conducted by the urban forester to ensure
compliance with the tree preservation plan.
(B) Tree protection. Tree preservation areas shall be
protected from construction activity to prevent
impingement by or the storage of construction
vehicles, materials, debris, spoils or equipment in
tree preservation areas. No filling, excavating or
other land disturbance shall take place in tree
preservation areas. Before commencing any
construction activity, the applicant shall construct
tree protection barriers on the site along the tree
dripline or 10 feet from the trunk, whichever is
greater. The applicant shall also post signs at
each tree preservation area in accordance with
the standards, specifications and guidelines
provided in the City of Fayetteville Tree
Preservation, Protection, and Landscape Manual.
The urban forester may require other protective
measures based upon the individual
characteristics of the site and the proposed
construction methods. Tree protection measures
shall also protect any off -site trees the roots of
which extend onto the site of the proposed
construction. Any applicant damaging or
destroying an off -site tree shall be required to
mitigate such damage or destruction as
prescribed by the urban forester. If the required
barriers surrounding the tree preservation areas
are not adequately maintained during
construction, the urban forester shall prescribe
remedial measures, and may issue a stop work
order in accordance with § 153.07(C). All
remedial measures shall be completed within the
specified amount of time and shall be considered
prior to granting final plat approval or issuing a
certificate of occupancy.
(Code 1991, §162.11; Ord. No. 3699, §11, 4-20-93; Ord. No.
3925, §8, 10-3-95; Ord. No. 3901, §1, 7-5-95; Ord. No. 3963,
§7, 4-16-96; Ord. No. 4008, §1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 4100, §2
(Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4340, 10-2-01)
167.06 Tree Planting, Maintenance And
Removal On Street Rights -Of -Way And
Other Public Grounds
(B) Tree planting. Trees may be planted within street
rights -of -way or on other public grounds only
after notification to the urban forester; and
provided the selection and location of said trees
are in accordance with the requirements.
(C) Tree removal. Trees shall not be removed from a
street right-of-way or other public grounds unless
approval is received from the urban forester, with
the exception that city employees may remove
trees when necessary to accomplish emergency
repairs to sewer or water systems, or in order to
alleviate flooding.
(D) Damage to trees. It shall be a violation of this
chapter to damage, destroy or mutilate any tree
in a public right-of-way or on other public
grounds, or attach or place any rope or wire
(other than one to support a young or broken
tree or limb), sign, poster, handbill or any other
thing to any such tree.
(E) Top or cutback to stubs. It shall be unlawful for
any person to top or cutback to stubs the crown
of any tree in street rights -of -way or on other
public grounds.
(F) Reserved rights. The city reserves the right to
plant, preserve, prune, maintain or remove any
tree within the street rights -of -way, alleys,
squares, and all public grounds when such
interferes with the proper spread of light along
the street from a street light, or interferes with
visibility of any traffic control device or sign, or as
may be necessary to preserve or enhance the
symmetry and beauty of such public grounds.
(G) Line of sight. Trees shall not be planted to
conceal a fire hydrant from the street or impede
the line of sight on any street.
(H) Storm damage. Trees severely damaged by
storms, or other accidental causes, where
required pruning practices are impractical are
exempt from this chapter..
(1) City employees. Before cutting, pruning,
removing or trimming any tree, city employees
performing tree work on public grounds shall
attend an educational workshop on basic tree
pruning. A certificate will be issued when an
individual has successfully completed the
workshop.
CD167:13
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
(J) Public utilities. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit public utilities from pruning
or removing trees that encroach upon electric,
telephone, or cable television transmission lines,
or gas, sewer or water pipes.
(Code No. 1991, §162.07; Ord. No. 3699, §6, 4-20-93; Ord.
No. 3901, §1, 7-5-95; Ord. No. 3963, §5, 4-16-96; Ord. No.
4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4340, 10-2-01).
167.07 Commercial Tree Pruner/Service;
Certificate And Insurance Required
(A) Certificate required. Before cutting, pruning,
removing, or trimming any tree within the City of
Fayetteville, the owner and supervisory
personnel of each business performing
commercial tree work shall obtain a city issued
commercial tree pruner/service certificate.
(B) Liability insurance. Each business performing
commercial tree work, to include tree surgery,
within the City of Fayetteville, shall be required to
carry liability insurance in the following minimum
amounts:
(1) General aggregate: $100,000.00
(2) Personal & advertising: $100,000.00
(3) Each occurrence: $100,000.00
Proof of coverage shall include the name of the
insurance company issuing the policy, the name
of the insured, the policy number, effective and
expiration dates, and the signature of an
authorized representative of the insurance
company.
(C) Workshop. Owners and supervisory personnel
shall attend an educational workshop on basic
tree science and the proper techniques of tree
pruning; or shall demonstrate sufficient
knowledge of basic tree science and the proper
techniques of tree pruning by scoring 75% or
higher on a test provided by the International
Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.).
(D) Certificate issuance. A certificate shall be issued
when an individual has successfully completed
the workshop or scored adequately on the test.
(E) Job site. It shall be the responsibility of the
business owner to ensure that a copy of the
certificate is maintained at each job site.
(F) Supervision. All persons engaged in the
business of trimming trees shall be under the
supervision of a certified tree pruner/service.
(G) Worker's compensation. Those individuals
performing commercial tree work on public
grounds shall comply with all worker's
compensation requirements as set forth under
Arkansas law and shall hold a city issued
commercial tree pruner/service certificate.
(H) Licensure. Those individuals performing tree
surgery shall comply with licensure requirements
as set forth under Arkansas law.
(Code 1991, §162.13; Ord. No. 3699, §14, 4-20-93; Ord. No.
4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4340, 102-01)
167.08 Hazardous Trees
(A) Pruning. Every owner of any tree overhanging a
street or sidewalk within the city is responsible for
pruning the branches so that such branches shall
not obstruct vehicles or pedestrians.
(B) Order or removal. The mayor, or his/her duly
authorized representative, is hereby authorized to
order the owner of any real property within the
city to cause the removal of any dead or
diseased trees on their property, and further, to
order compliance, when such trees constitute a
hazard of life and property, or harbor insects
which constitute a potential threat to other trees.
Whenever any such condition is found to exist,
the mayor, or his/her duly authorized
representative, shall send written notice via first
class mail to the property owner ordering the
performance of such acts within 20 days. If the
property owner's identity or whereabouts are
unknown, a copy of the written notice shall be
posted upon the premises.
(C) Noncompliance. It shall be unlawful for any
person to fail or refuse to comply with any order
and notice given pursuant to this section.
(D) Removal by city. If the conditions described in a
notice given, as set forth above, are not removed
or corrected within 20 days after such notice
given, the mayor, or his/her duly authorized
representative, is hereby authorized to enter
upon the property and do whatever is necessary
to correct or remove the conditions described in
the notice. The costs of correcting said
conditions shall be charged to the owner or
owners of the property and the city shall have a
lien against such property for the costs.
Enforcement of the lien shall be set forth in
§95.03 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances.
Such action shall not be taken if the owner has
evidenced a willingness to comply by hiring a
qualified tree service before the expiration of the
20 day period.
(Code 1991, §162.06; Ord. No. 3699, §6, 4-20-93; Ord. No.
3963, §4, 4-16-96; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord.
No. 4340, 10-2-01)
CD167:14
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
167.09 Local Disaster Emergency
If it becomes necessary for the mayor to declare a
local disaster emergency pursuant to A.C.A. §12-75-
108(b)(2), the provisions of this chapter may be
suspended for up to 30 days, if strict compliance with
its provisions would prevent, hinder, or delay actions
necessary to cope with the disaster emergency.
(Ord. No. 4316, 6-5-01; Ord. No. 4340; 10-2-01)
167.10-167.99 Reserved
CD167:15
Departmental Correspondence
RKANSA
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: March 27, 2013
RE: Casey's General Store's Appeal
of its Large Scale Development denied
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Jason B. Kelley
Assistant City Attorney
I believe the three newly elected Aldermen may not have faced this street access
issue before and have not received my memos explaining that a property owner has
legally protected access easement rights to an abutting street. I hope that the Mayor and
the five other Aldermen forgive me for repeating my concerns expressed in previous
memos when a Large Scale Development is proposed for denial or otherwise denied
access easement rights. This is especially concerning when Casey's seeks a very limited
right -in only access along an abutting street.
The City Council adopted standards for streets and access management a few
years ago to enhance traffic safety and discourage too frequent curb cuts. Prior to
passage of the Access Management ordinance, I cautioned that the City should provide a
variance to ensure we would not violate established property rights of a landowner
abutting a street to access this street. Accordingly, the following specific variance was
enacted along with the rest of the Access Management requirements. During an appeal
from the Planning Commission's 5-3 denial of Casey's LSD, you sit with the same (but
no greater) powers than the Planning Commission. Therefore, you are required to follow
all the regulations of the Unified Development Code including this variance:
"(e) Variance. In order to protect the ingress and egress access
rights to a street of an abutting property owner, a variance to the
curb cut minimums shall be granted by the Planning Commission
to allow an ingress/egress curb cut at the safest functional location
along the property. Such a curb cut may be required to be shared
with an adjoining parcel of feasible. If a parcel on the corner of
an arterial or collector street provides such short frontage along a
major street that there is no safe ingress/egress functional location
on that street, the Planning Commission may deny the curb cut or
may limit such curb cut to ingress or egress only." § 116.08
(F)(1)(e) of the UDC.
Please note that the mandatory "shall" is used to require a variance be allowed
with the only exception being when the parcel "provides such short frontage along a
major street that there is no safe ingress/egress functional location on that street ...." I
believe our Planning and Engineering divisions have stated that they believe even the
very restrictive right -in only access from Wedington is too dangerous to allow. As the
finders of fact on this issue, you should carefully consider the City Staffs opinions, but
also consider well reasoned opinions and arguments of the applicant for Casey's General
Stores, Inc. and citizen input.
Both in 2011 and 2012, the City Council faced street access variance issues for
which I provided the results of my legal research. In the Liberty Bank on Joyce Street
issue, I presented that research in a memo dated December 6, 2011, from which I will
quote some relevant parts:
"(There is) very well established law that an abutting property owner has a legally
protected access easement onto a city street. Eighty years ago, the Arkansas Supreme
Court explicitly recognized an access easement as a property right.
`Under our decisions, the owner of property abutting upon a street
or highway has an easement in such street or highway for the
purpose of ingress and egress which attaches to his property and
in which he has a right of property as fully as in the lot itself; and
any subsequent act, by which that easement is substantially
impaired for the benefit of the public, is a damage to the lot
itself within the meaning of the constitutional provision for which
the owner is entitled to compensation.' Campbell v. Arkansas
State Highway Commission, 183 Ark. 780, 38 S.W. 2d 753, 753-
754 (1931).
"Four decades later, the Arkansas Supreme Court reaffirmed this access easement
right as a property right for a lot abutting a street.
`The owner of property abutting upon a street has an easement in
such street for the purpose of ingress and egress which attaches to
his property and in which he has a right of property as fully as in
the lot itself.' Flake v. Thompson, 249 Ark. 713, 460 S.W. 2d
789, 795 (1970).
2
"In that case, the City of Little Rock had passed an ordinance that would have
denied access to University Avenue to the property owner and argued that it could do so
because the property owner had access to another (lower level) city street. The Arkansas
Supreme Court held "that the ordinance constituted an unwarranted invasion of private
rights and was discriminatory and oppressive, and thus it is unreasonable and arbitrary."
Id. at 796
`The property right of ingress and egress of appellants in the
easement was one that could not be taken from them by the city,
at least without the payment of just compensation.' Id
"Ten years ago, the Arkansas Supreme Court yet again affirmed the property
owner's right to access a city street and found that interference with that right by the city
would require compensation to be paid to the property owner.
`We have held that the owner of property abutting upon a street
has an easement in such street for the purpose of ingress and
egress which attaches to his property and in which he has a right
of property as fully as in the lot itself. Flake v. Thompson, Inc.,
249 Ark. 713, 460 S.W. 2d 789 (1970). We have also noted that
this property right is not diminished merely because the property
owner has alternative means of ingress and egress.' Wright v.
City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420, 47 S.W. 3d 851, 857 (2001)."
CONCLUSION
There is at least a possibility that denial of Casey's General Stores, Inc.'s request
for its right -in only access from Wedington even for important traffic safety issues might
be deemed a takings by a Court for which the City of Fayetteville would have to pay fair
compensation.
3
S14-ltc
aj
CQ,GvV� Aktjj i I Z/ '13
Departmental Correspondence
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate, Community Services Director
Paul Becker, Finance Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
o(
DATE: April 2, 2013
RE: Resolution for Casey's General Stores, Inc.'s Appeal
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Jason B. Kelley
Assistant City Attorney
Attached is a slightly revised Resolution to grant Casey's General Stores'
appeal by including the Urban Forester's new suggested requirements to build
retaining walls to preserve more of the existing canopy on the lot. Please amend
the current resolution to the one on the back of this memo.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND APPROVE A LARGE
SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LSD-4295) FOR CASEY'S GENERAL STORES,
INC.
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard the appeal of Casey's General Stores, Inc
and determined that its proposed Large Scale Development should be approved to allow
the right in only access from Wedington as shown on its plat and to allow the tree
preservation/mitigation plan as modified by the requirements of the Urban Forester to
build retaining walls to satisfy the Tree Ordinance requirements.
NOW, 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 grants the
appeal of Casey's General Stores, Inc. and approves the attached Large Scale Development
and its plat as modified by the Urban Forester to require retaining walls to further
preserve more trees on the parcel and with all of the other conditions required by the
Planning Commission.
PASSED and APPROVED this 2nd day of April, 2013
FEW, 9:Z91kyja
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer