HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5210 Doc ID : 012679090005 Tvae : REL
Recorded : 01/26/2009 at 11 : 46 : 49 AM
Fee Amt : $35 . 00 Pace 1 of 5
Mashinaton Countv . AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
F11e2009-00002519
ORDINANCE NO. 5210
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN INDUSTRIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT TITLED I-PZD 08-3062 WESTSIDE
STORAGE, LOCATED AT 1192 NORTH RUPPLE ROAD,
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.77 ACRES; AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed
as follows:
From R-O, Residential Office to I-PZD 08-3062 Westside
Storage as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit
"B" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2 : That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master
development plan, development standards, statement of commitments and the conditions of approval
as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council; further, that the conditions
of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the
City of Fayetteville.
Section 3 : That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the
requirements of the master development plan have been met.
Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
,4111:11IIf11Dry
PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of January, 2009. G•°GSA Y O'C'
a (j • • � S
APPROV 'D: ATTEST: = ; FAYETTEVILLE ;
ANS s
44L,
_ 'y/�G70N G�J� $
By: '�� By: fin'444 / �� gDuuuuu �
L NELD VkbjdA, Mayor SONDIIA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
r
: w
EXHIBIT "A"
IPZD08- 3062 WESTSIDE STORAGE
Close Up View
R�
OLJ
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RF
C �
R-0
V.'I OiOOiC� f�F
R-0 Ra
Overview
s
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
o FOM
EXHIBIT "B"
I-PZD 08-3062
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2°34' 19"E 267.00
FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF, THENCE S87°05 ' 1751E 373 . 10 FEET TO A FOUND
5/8" REBAR, THENCE S02°28'31 "W 92.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE
S86049' 36"E 254.23 FEET, THENCE S03021 '48"W 131 .38 FEET, TO THE EXISTING NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WEDINGTON DRIVE (ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY # 16), THENCE
N870 19' 16"W 252. 18 FEET, ALONG SAID ROW, THENCE NO2°28 '31 "E 133 .56 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.77 ACRES, MORE OR LESS . SUBJECT TO THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WEDINGTON DRIVE (ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY # 16) ON THE
SOUTH AND TO ALL OTHER EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAYS OF RECORD.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
I-PZD 08-3062
Page 1 of 2
Conditions of Approval Adopted by the City Council:
Streets and Right-of-Way
1 . Planning Commission determination of design standards. Staff generally finds in favor of the
proposed building elevations as submitted. However, in an effort to present a building that serves
as a screen for the remainder of the storage facility, the applicant shall utilize a varying parapet
or other feature to vary the building fagade and conceal the low sloping roof often associated
with storage facilities.
2. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 48.5 ' feet from centerline along Wedington Drive shall
be dedicated by warranty deed prior to building permit approval. If right-of-way for Rupple Road
has not been obtained, the applicant shall dedicate 53 .5 ' of right-of-way from centerline prior to
building permit.
3 . The existing north driveway on Rupple Road shall be limited to exit only and shall be clearly
marked with signage indicating such restriction. The existing south driveway on Rupple Road
shall continue to function as an entrance and exit, but shall be signed to prohibit vehicles with
trailers. At the time of project development, all remaining parking spaces shall be removed or
screened adjacent to Rupple Road.
4. Landscaping along Wedington Drive and Rupple Road shall be installed to meet the requirements
of the Landscape Ordinance. A landscape plan will be reviewed at the time of development. As
part of the Rupple Road widening, approximately six trees may be required to be removed. The
City will attempt to protect the trees in front of the storage building along Rupple Road.
However, because their survival can not be guaranteed due to the proximity of the new sidewalk,
the City has agreed to pay Mr. Caudle $3,000.00 for these trees. If the trees survive and are in
good health at the time of development of the PZD, these trees may be counted for the total
required along Rupple Road.
5 . Signage within the I-PZD zoning district shall be in accordance with the R-O zoning district.
6. In addition to the requirement of the Bill of Assurance to preserve 60% of all existing trees with a
caliper of 8" or more, the development shall also be required to comply with the Tree
Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of
development, with a minimum of 25% canopy.
7. The project shall meet the Tree Preservation Ordinance for Planned Zoning Districts (25%
canopy) at the time of development. Mitigation for canopy removed, should it fall below the
minimum percent required to be preserved, shall occur at that time, pursuant to city ordinances.
8. Large scale development approval shall be obtained within one year from the date of City Council
approval of the Planned Zoning District and prior to the commencement of construction. A final
certificate of occupancy shall be obtained within three years from the date of large scale
development approval.
9. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted
by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of
approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
I-PZD 08-3062
Page 2 of 2
Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
10. All mechanical and utility equipment on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof
mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening to the
structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. Smaller ground-mounted
equipment may be screened with tall grasses or shrubs. A note shall be added to all construction
documents indicating as such.
11 . Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the surrounding
structures, with access not visible from the street. Architectural elevations for these structures
shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of a building permit.
12. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and
cut-sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning
staff prior to building permit.
13. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the
applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western Gas,
SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
14. Provide a CD containing the proposed Large Scale Development drawings in AutoCad or similar
digital format.
15. 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.
16. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be
located underground.
i Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
01 /26/2009 11 :46:49 AM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2009-00002519
Bette Stamps - Circuit Clerk
by
RECEIVED
Ayj',�� c ...r,} {{.,� JAN 20 2009
ArkawaSDemocrat OaxCftC CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE
- -- - - - ------ -� _- -
r CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
r -
Northwest Arkansas Times
Benton County Daily Record
P. O. BOX 1607
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702
PHONE : 479-571 -6421
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I , Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County
Arkansas , (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and
reference to the files of said publication , the advertisement of: City of
Fayetteville Ordinance 5210
January 13,2009
Publication Charge : $ 107.60
Signed:
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This /I day of 2009 .
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: y7i/ G o -r?,
0 '
Do not pay from Affidavit, an invoice will be sent .
�:,co
otARy. .. ,.�
wE = � •
ry
��
POW
•.!kavas..
HGjDty.GO•'
1
X, :`�4✓ 1��q a A.
or
ORD
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form I 1 l9
City Council Agenda Items yoZ� p
and
Contracts, Leases or Agreements I P,./z D
12/2/2008
City Council Meeting Date d'tUf�SL.
��pp Agenda Items Only VV
Jeremy Pate` Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
I-PZD 08-3062: Planned Zoning District (Westside Storage, 400): Submitted by Steve Clark for property located all
1192 North Rupple Road containing approximately 0.77 acres. The request is for a zoning and land use only
application for an additional climate controlled storage building, a new entrance from Wedington Drive with new
management buildings at that entrance.
Cost of this request Category / Project Budget Program Category / Project Name
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program / Project Category Name
$
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
i1 �� 8 Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Department Director Date
^� Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Numbe
CityyA tome Date
Received in City S
Clerk's Office — 7
Finance and Internal Service Director Date
Received in l� p
p0 ��- 9 Mayor's Office
i
Mayor Da e
Comments:
Revised April 16, 2007
S -- e , rlook
4{Y �� �
City Council Meeting of December 2, 2008
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations �p
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning 0�
Date: November 13, 2008
Subject: Industrial Planned Zoning District for Westside Storage (I-PZD 08-3062)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance creating an
Industrial Planned Zoning District (I-PZD) for Westside Storage, based on the
development standards, plans and statement of commitments submitted. This action will
establish a unique zoning district for a self storage facility on approximately 0.77 acres.
BACKGROUND
Westside Storage development totals approximately 5.05 acres with frontage on Rupple
Road and Wedington Drive. The northern part of the property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and the southern portion is zoned R-O, Residential Office.
Background: The City Council rezoned approximately 3.5 acres of the property on July
17, 1990 with a Bill of Assurance that limited the property as follows: 1) the 3.5-acre
tract shall be limited to mini-storage development only; 2) at least 60% of all existing
trees with a caliper of 8" or more are to be preserved; 3) and access to the 3 .5-acres shall
be restricted to Rupple Road. There are currently 12 mini-storage buildings located on
this portion of the property.
The property owner returned in 2000 with a request to rezone the remaining 1 .5 acres to
C-2. The request was denied by the Planning Commission, but was appealed to the City
Council. During discussions with the City Council, the applicant amended the request to
rezone only 0.52 acres to allow one additional storage building. The City Council
returned the amended rezoning request to the Planning Commission for additional
review. The Planning Commission then forwarded the amended rezoning request to the
City Council with a recommendation for approval and the City Council approved the
request on January 23 , 2001 with a Bill of Assurance that limited the property as follows:
1 ) the 0.52-acre tract shall be limited to a climate controlled storage facility and/or mini-
storage facility; and 2) screening shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission and City Council noted several times that although rezoning
0.52 acres to C-2 would lead to an additional storage unit, there would still be sufficient
room along Wedington Drive to construct a building in the future that would screen the
storage facility from the street.
City Council Meeting of December 2, 2008
Agenda Item Number
On November 04, 2008 the City Council, by Resolution No. 204-08, approved a
settlement with Westside Storage, Inc. for right-of-way and easement acquisition for the
Rupple Road widening project. As part of this approval, the City Council also officially
permitted access to the development from Wedington Drive which had been restricted by
a Bill of Assurance offered by the property owner in 1990, subject to the applicant/City
agreement.on a negotiated right-of-way purchase.
The applicant requests rezoning and land use approval of an Industrial Planned Zoning
District (I-PZD) to allow for one additional self storage building, manager's office and
sleeping quarters.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 in favor of this request on November 10, 2008.
Recommended conditions were approved by the Planning Commission and are reflected
in the attached staff report.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN INDUSTRIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT TITLED I-PZD 08-3062 WESTSIDE
STORAGE, LOCATED AT 1192 NORTH RUPPLE ROAD,
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.77 ACRES; AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed
as follows:
From R-0, Residential Office to I-PZD 08-3062 Westside
Storage as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit
"B" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the. approved master
development plan, development standards, statement of commitments and the conditions of approval
as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council; further, that the conditions
of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the
City of Fayetteville.
Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the
requirements of the master development plan have been met.
Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2008.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
EXHIBIT "A"
IPZD08-3062 WESTSIDE STORAGE
Close Up View
•--i CLT�'�TT:1FA@LY6l
Y
N
�S s&at
�Y.
Z
k'^5
ii*
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
G. 4
a
r
Sx
::
•
v 1 ,.
/IIIIII
.`MiJ,
J.—V.T..
_
_
Overview
o..,..•
0
37.5
75
150
225
300
'Feet
• it
EXHIBIT "B"
I-PZD 08-3062
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE
NO2°34' 19"E 267.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF, THENCE S87°05'17"E
373.10 FEET TO A FOUND 5/8" REBAR, THENCE S02°28'31"W 92.20 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE S86°49'36"E 254.23 FEET, THENCE S03°2I '48"W
131.38 FEET, TO THE EXISTING NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WEDINGTON DRIVE
(ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY #16), THENCE N87°19'16"W 252.18 FEET, ALONG SAID
ROW, THENCE NO2°28'31 "E 133.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 0.77 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
WEDINGTON DRIVE (ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY #16) ON THE SOUTH AND TO
ALL OTHER EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAYS OF RECORD.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
I-PZD 08-3062
Page 1 of 2
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the following conditions of approval
associated with I-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage).
Conditions of Approval Adopted by the City Council:
Streets and Right -of -Way
1. Planning Commission determination of design standards. Staff generally finds in favor of the
proposed building elevations as submitted. However, in an effort to present a building that serves
as a screen for the remainder of the storage facility, the applicant shall utilize a varying parapet
or other feature to vary the building facade and conceal the low sloping roof often associated
with storage facilities.
2. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of48.5' feet from centerline along Wedington Drive shall
be dedicated by warranty deed prior to building permit approval. If right-of-way for Rupple Road
has not been obtained, the applicant shall dedicate 53.5' of right-of-way from centerline prior to
/tiilding permit.
, The two existing driveways on Rupple Road shall be limited to exit only and shall be clearly
marked with signage indicating such restriction. At the time of project development, all
l 1 remaining parking spaces shall be removed adjacent to Rupple Road.
4. Landscaping along Wedington Drive and Rupple Road shall be installed to meetthe requirements
of the Landscape Ordinance. A landscape plan will be reviewed at the time of development. As
part of the Rupple Road widening, approximately six trees may be required to be removed. The
City will attempt to protect the trees in front of the storage building along Rupple Road.
However, because their survival can not be guaranteed due to the proximity of the new sidewalk,
the City has agreed to pay Mr. Caudle $3,000.00 for these trees. If the trees survive and are in
good health at the time of development of the PZD, these trees may be counted for the total
required along Rupple Road.
5. Signage within the I-PZD zoning district shall be in accordance with the R -O zoning district.
6. In addition to the requirement of the Bill of Assurance to preserve 60% of all existing trees with a
caliper of 8" or more, the development shall also be required to comply with the Tree
Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of
evelopment, with a minimum of 25% canopy.
Though this PZD is conceptual only, the Urban Forester has visited the property and assessed the
condition of the existing trees. Many are in poor condition, and their removal is recommended
with development. However, the Urban Forester is recommending that at the time the
development plan is submitted, the applicant shall evaluate reducing the building size and/or
placement to potentially protect additional trees that are in good health (#9-14), in addition to
those currently being planned for protection. Final recommendations will take place at the time
of development review. Please see the attached comments from the Urban Forester for more
information.
8. Large scale development approval shall be obtained within one year from the date of City Council
approval of the Planned Zoning District and prior to the commencement of construction. A final
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
I-PZD 08-3062
Page2of2
certificate of occupancy shall be obtained within three years from the date of large scale
development approval.
9. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted
by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of
approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the
Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
10. All mechanical and utility equipment on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof
mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening to the
structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. Smaller ground -mounted
equipment may be screened with tall grasses or shrubs. A note shall be added to all construction
documents indicating as such.
11. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides withmaterials compatible with the surrounding
structures, with access not visible from the street. Architectural elevations for these structures
shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of a building permit.
12. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and
cut -sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning
staff prior to building permit.
13. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the
applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western Gas,
SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
14. Provide a CD containing the proposed Large Scale Development drawings in AutoCad or similar
digital format.
15. 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.
16. All existing utilities below l2kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be
located underground.
a e e le
Y ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
Planning Commission Meeting
November 10, 2008
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: November 4, 2008 Updated November 13, 2008
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
I-PZD 08-3062: (WESTSIDE STORAGE, 400): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property
located at 1192 N RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains
approximately 0.77 acres. The request is to review a zoning and land use only. application for an
additional climate controlled storage building, a new entrance from Wedington Drive with new
management buildings at that entrance.
Planner: Jesse Fulcher
Findings:
Property Description: Westside Storage development totals approximately 5.05 acres with frontage
on Rupple Road and Wedington Drive. The northern part of the property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial and the southern portion is zoned R -O, Residential Office.
Background: The City Council rezoned approximately 3.5 acres of the property on July 17, 1990
with a Bill of Assurance that limited the property as follows: 1) the 3.5 -acre tract shall be limited to
mini -storage development only; 2) at least 60% of all existing trees with a caliper of 8" or more are
to be preserved; 3) and access to the 3.5 -acres shall be restricted to Rupple Road. There are currently
12 mini -storage buildings located on this portion of the property.
The property owner returned in 2000 with a request to rezone the remaining 1.5 acres to C-2. The
request was denied by the Planning Commission, but was appealed to the City Council. During
discussions with the City Council, the applicant amended the request to rezone only 0.52 acres to
allow one additional storage building. The City Council returned the amended rezoning request to
the Planning Commission for additional review. The Planning Commission then forwarded the
amended rezoning request to the City Council with a recommendation for approval and the City
Council approved the request on January 23, 2001 with a Bill of Assurance that limited the property
as follows: I) the 0.52 -acre tract shall be limited to a climate controlled storage facility and/or mini -
storage facility; and 2) screening shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission and City Council noted several times that although rezoning 0.52 acres to
C-2 would lead to an additional storage unit, there would still be sufficient room along Wedington
Drive to construct a building in the future that would screen the storage facility from the street.
K:\Reports\2008kPC Reportsl21- November 1018-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Slorage).doc
A
Surrounding zoning and land uses are depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Surrounding Land Use/Zoninq:
Direction from Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
The Links at Fayetteville
R-PZD
South
Airways Freight
R -O
East
Undeveloped
R -A
West
Shopping Center
C-1
Proposal: The applicant requests rezoning and land use approval of an Industrial Planned Zoning
District (I-PZD) to allow for one additional self storage building, managers office and sleeping
quarters.
Access: Access to the site is currently limited by a Bill of Assurance to Rupple Road. The existing
curb -cut on Wedington Drive was constructed by the Highway Department and the driveway was
installed for emergency access only.
At this time Rupple Road is being widened as part of the improvements associated with.The Links at
Fayetteville project located to the north of the subject property. The street widening will reduce the
length of the entrance drive from approximately 85' to 45'. The property owner has stated that the
reduced driveway length will result in moving trucks and trailers not being able to fully exit the
roadway while awaiting the security gates to open. This could result in a dangerous situation for the
truck drivers and general vehicular traffic on Rupple Road. Consequently, the applicant is requesting
that the City Council amend the Bill of Assurance from 1990 to allow access from Wedington Drive,
as part of a negotiated agreement for purchase of additional right-of-way. This item is currently on
the consent agenda of the City Council at its November 6, 2008 meeting.
Water & Sewer: Water and sewer lines shall be extended to serve the development.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Wedington Drive (Principal Arterial) and Rupple Road
(Principal Arterial Parkway)
Tree Preservation: The subject request is for zoning and land use approval and therefore a detailed
tree preservation plan has not been presented. However, the applicant is still required to maintain
60% of all existing trees with a caliper of 8" or more pursuant to the Bill of Assurance from 1990,
and the applicant is required to preserve 25% of the existing canopy on the subject property pursuant
to Chapter 167 Tree Preservation, for a PZD.
Public Comment: Staff has not received comments from surrounding property owners.
Police
and
Fire Service: The Fayetteville
Police and Fire Departments reviewed this rezoning
request
and
concluded that adverse impacts to
provision of service would not occur.
Recommendation: In general, a self storage development on the subject property is not
consistent with the goals and policies of City Plan 2025, or the Future Land
Use Plan for a City Neighborhood pattern of development. However,
previous policy decisions recommended by the Planning Commission and
K: IRepor1s120081PC Reporlsl2l- November I0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Weslside Storage).doc
adopted by the City Council have permitted the development of a self storage
facility at this site over the majority of the property, which at the time was
also inconsistent with the City's adopted General Plan. It was anticipated that
there would be sufficient room between the last storage building and
Wedington Drive to permit the development of a structure that would screen
the storage facility. It appears that this could be accomplished; however, it is
unlikely that a sufficiently sized building could be located on the site to serve
as an effective screen, with sufficient parking provided and in compliance
with tree preservation requirements. Ultimately, a well designed storage
building in this location could also serve as a screen, meeting the goal of
previous city boards, and solve the access issues that are the result of a much
needed street improvement project. In addition, the existence of the storage
facility is well -established as a land use on this property. The present request
does not introduce a new land use that is deemed incompatible to surrounding
properties. Therefore, staff recommends forwarding I-PZD 08-3062 to the
City Council with a recommendation for approval with the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
Planning Commission determination of design standards. Staff generally finds in favor of the
proposed building elevations as submitted. However, in an effort to present a building that
serves as a screen for the remainder of the storage facility, staff recommends that a gable,
hipped, other roof style, or varying parapet be utilized in place of the low slopping roofs
often associated with storage facilities.
11/10/08: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF DESIGN STANDARDS
WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT SOME TYPE OF PARAPET FEATURE BE INSTALLED.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE ROOF STYLE WERE NOT RECOMMENDED.
2. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 48.5' feet from centerline along Wedington Drive
shall be dedicated by warranty deed prior to building permit approval. If right-of-way for
Rupple Road has not been obtained, the applicant shall dedicate 53.5' of right-of-way from
centerline prior to building permit.
3. The two existing driveways on Rupple Road shall be limited to exit only and shall be clearly
marked with signage indicated such restriction. At the time of project development, all
remaining parking spaces shall be removed adjacent to Rupple Road.
4. Landscaping along Wedington Drive and Rupple Road shall be installed to meet the
requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. A landscape plan will be reviewed at the time of
development.
5. Signage within the I-PZD zoning district shall be in accordance with the R -O zoning district.
6. In addition to the requirement of the Bill of Assurance to preserve 60% of all existing trees
with a caliper of 8" or more, the development shall also be required to comply with the Tree
Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of
K: 1Reports120081PC Reportst2i- November I 0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Stomge).doc
development, with a minimum of 25% canopy.
Though this PZD is conceptual only, the Urban Forester has visited the property and assessed
the condition of the existing trees. Many are in poor condition, and their removal is
recommended with development. However, the Urban Forester is recommending that at the
time the development plan is submitted, the applicant shall evaluate reducing the building
size and/or placement to potentially protect additional trees that are in good health (#9-14), in
addition to those currently being planned for protection. Final recommendations will take
place at the time. of development review. Please see the attached comments from the Urban
Forester for more information.
8. Large scale development approval shall be obtained within one year from the date of City
Council approval of the Planned Zoning District and prior to the commencement of
construction. A final certificate of occupancy shall be obtained within three years from the
date of large scale development approval.
The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards
submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property.
Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with
review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall
also be binding.
10. The following revisions shall be completed to the booklets/plats prior to re -submittal for City
Council consideration:
a. Provide the percentage of lot area covered by buildings and paved areas for the entire
5.05 acre site.
b. Booklet. Page 3 and 4. The permitted uses listed on Page 3 do not match those listed
in the zoning comparison chart on Page 4. Remove Use Unit 8.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
• 11. All mechanical and utility equipment on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened.. All
roof mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating
screening to the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building.
Smaller ground -mounted equipment may be screened with tall grasses or shrubs. A note
shall be added to all construction documents indicating as such.
12. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the
surrounding structures, with access not visible from the street. Architectural elevations for
these structures shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of a building permit.
13. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan
and cut -sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by
Planning staff prior to building permit.
14. 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).
ti: IReports120081PC Reporlsl2l- November I0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage)_doc
15. Provide a CD containing the proposed Large Scale Development drawings in AutoCad or
similar digital format.
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 existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall
be located underground.
Planning Commission Action: O Denied O Tabled Forwarded to C.C.
Motion: Anthes
Second: Winston
Vote: 7-0-0
Meeting Date: November 10, 2008
Comments:
The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by
the entity requesting approval of this development item.
Signature
K:IReports120081PC Reportsl2l- November !0R-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage).doc
Date
Findings associated with MDP I-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage)
See. 166.06. Planned Zonin¢ Districts (PZD).
(E) Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned Zoning Districts
The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the
review of a planned zoning district application based on the proposed master development plan:
(1) Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the UDC and the City
Plan 2025;
FINDING: Staff finds that the application is not consistent with many of the goals and
objectives of City Plan 2025, but is generally in compliance with the requirements of the
Unified Development Code. The development is an expansion of an existing mini -storage
facility that has been in operation since the 1990's. As a result, the goals of City Plan 2025,
which are to: 1) make appropriate infill and revitalization a priority; 2) discourage urban
sprawl; 3) make traditional town form the standard; 4) grow a livable transportation network;
5) assemble an enduring green network; and 6) create attainable housing, are a challenge to
fulfill and may not be as applicable in this instance. The land use on the property has been well
established for about two decades now; this land use was extended by approval of the Planning
Commission and City Council within the past decade. As a policy decision, staff has taken the
position that mini -storage units do not contribute to a desirable neighborhood form or
development pattern. In this particular case, however, the form and development pattern are
already well established. Additional property to expand this use, if it is to be expanded, is not
available. It is staff's opinion, after researching Planning Commission and City Council
minutes and records, that the greatest concern was the view of the storage units from the street.
With specific attention to the facade of the structure facing the street, the proposed building
can meet commercial design standards much as any other use on this site would be required to
do. For that reason, and the fact that the proposed use is not establishing a new land use
within the context of an existing neighborhood, staff recommends in favor of the proposed
planned zoning district.
The Unified
Development
Code notes
that a
PZD
may
be appropriate if the development
proposed for
the district can accomplish
one or
more
of the
following goals:
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of
development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. The proposal
incorporates living quarters, office space and mini -storage.
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The proposed
building will be compatible with the existing shopping center and mini -storage facility.
However, additional screening will be required adjacent to the undeveloped, residential
property to the east.
(3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are
harmonious and beneficial to the community. The proposal is for an expansion of the
K; IReportsl20081PC Reports12l- November 1018-PZD 08-3062 (Wesiside Storage).doc
existing storage facility.
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or
commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and
integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. The proposal provides living
quarters for an on -site manager.
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the
area. Expanding the existing facility should not have a negative effect on the future
development of the area.
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and
cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and
in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. The facility has been developed over the
past 15-20 years and has not been coordinated with surrounding developments to a
great degree.
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas
and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional
land development regulations. The development has not incorporated recreational
areas, but has preserved at least 60% of all existing 8" caliper trees, in excess of the
City's requirements.
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural
features and amenities. Tree preservation has been provided throughout the
development in accordance with ordinance requirements.
(9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet
harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. The
proposal is not necessarily innovative planning or design, rather, it focuses on the
expansion of a use on existing property, the catalyst of which the applicant states is the
change to access brought about by the City's purchase of additional right-of-way for
the Rupple Road expansion..
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic
location, topography, size or shape. Large species trees have been preserved along the
boundary of the development.
(2) Whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory provisions;
FINDING: The application has been reviewed and found to be compliant with applicable
statutory provisions.
(3) Whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of
public facilities and services;
K:IReporis120081PC ReportsW- November 1018-PZD 08-3062 (Westside StorageJ.doc
FINDING: The general impact of the development will be very minimal given the use and size
of the expansion. Comments from the Fire and Police Departments are included.
(4) Whether the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses;
FINDING: The existing storage facility consists of 13 buildings on approximately four acres
and has been in operation for approximately 15 years. Rezoning the property to allow for one
additional storage building will not be incompatible with surrounding land uses. Additionally,
an appropriate designed building could serve as a visual buffer between the right-of-way and
the existing storage facility. Care should be taken to ensure the future development of the
residential property to the east is not adversely affected by the project expansion.
(5) Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the
natural environment;
FINDING: The land is suitable for the intended land use and with tree preservation
requirements the building expansion will be compatible with the natural environment.
(6) Whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing
road network;
FINDING: In general, storage facilities generate very little traffic. Constructing an additional
storage building will not noticeably increase vehicle trips, or create traffic congestion.
(7) Whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a
unified plan;
FINDING: The booklet and master development plans submitted provide for said unified
development control.
(8) Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD.
FINDING: No other zoning considerations are proposed to be violated.
(B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines
(1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose
and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards and
review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree
preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of
watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that
specific development features, including project density, building locations, common usable
open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and
perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity
K:1Reports120081PC Reports121- November J0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage).doc
and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance
shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for
zoning and subdivision applications.
FINDING: Developing the subject property with 14 storage units today would likely be
incompatible with surrounding land uses, and would not enhance the neighborhood or further
the health, safety and welfare of the community. However, the current proposal is to construct
only one additional storage building on the property, essentially realizing full build -out on the
remaining property owned by the applicant at this location. Staff finds that if designed
appropriately, the new building will serve as a screen for the existing storage facility, ultimately
enhancing the property.
(2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the
development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning
Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and
landscaping shall be provided as set forth in § 166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part of
the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission. ,Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality
(size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, berms
and plant material to be used.
FINDING: Landscaping along Wedington Drive is required by ordinance and will be installed
around existing trees. Screening is required adjacent to the residential properties to the north
and east; however, the north. property line is currently screened by a row of existing pine trees.
Screening along the east property line shall be evaluated at the time of development review and
will likely include an opaque fence, vegetative buffer, or a combination of the two.
(3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply:
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of
the projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local collector
and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate
relationship with one another.
(c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such considerations
as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, general
attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different land uses.
(d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system,
providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development.
(e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the planned
zoning development and to adjacent areas.
(f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and
K:Vieports120081PC Reports2l-November I0IR-PZD 08-3062 (WVestside Storage).doc
interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code.
FINDING: Access to the site was limited to Rupple Road by the Bill of Assurance accepted in
1990. Due to the planned widening of Rupple Road and subsequent reduction in driveway
length, a full access driveway will need to be allowed on Wedington Drive. The two existing
driveways on Rupple Road will be restricted to exit -only drives.
(4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172
Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the
respective use areas.
FINDING: Parking will be provided for the storage facility in accordance with City ordinance.
(5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all
uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this
chapter of this code.
FINDING: This requirement will be met for the area of expansion.
(6) Sidewalks. As required by §166.03.
FINDING: There is an existing. 5' sidewalk along Wedington Drive. Staff will evaluate at the
time of development whether a new sidewalk will be required. Sidewalks along Rupple Road
will be constructed with the ongoing street widening project.
(7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Street lights are required to be installed at all intersections and with a maximum
spacing of 300 feet along. The requirement for additional street lights shall be evaluated at the
time of development review.
(8) Water. As required by §166.03.
FINDING: Public water is available to the property and shall be extended to serve the
development.
(9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Public sewer is available to the property and shall be extended to serve the
development.
(10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or
private.
(a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards of
the City.
K:1Reports120081PC Reports 2I- November 1018-PZD 08-3062 (Weslside Starage).doc
(b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to the
following conditions:
(i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul-de-
sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing
City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street.
(ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public
streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below.
(iii)All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage and
drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical Alteration
of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open drainage
systems may be approved by the City Engineer.
(iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density served
by a loop street shall be 80 units.
(v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private
street."
(vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a
neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the responsibility.
of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall be established
by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the City is a third
party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce the.. street..:
maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the other
parties to the covenants.
(vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as
required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to
maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the
PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes
and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for such cost. The protective
covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private streets for purposes of
providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and any other of the municipal
functions. The protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be
amended and shall not terminate without approval of the City Council.
(viii) The width of private streets may vary
according to
the density served.
The following
standard shall be used:
Paving Width
o On -Street Parking)
Dwelling Units One -Way Two -Way
K: IRepores120081PC Reports12.1- November I0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage).doc
1-20
14'
22'
21+
14'
24'
*Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is intended.
(ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private streets
within a PZD.
(x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street.
(xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not
exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which
shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic.
FINDING: The applicant does not propose public or private streets.
(II) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building
permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In
the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential
facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with
the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities.
FINDING: Not applicable. This is not a residential PZD.
(12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree
preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The location of
trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings,
underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade
levels.
FINDING: A Tree Preservation Plan is required to be submitted at the time of development
review. In addition to the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance, the development is
subject to the Bill of Assurance from 1990, requiring 60% preservation of all existing trees with
greater than an 8" caliper.
(13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or
commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in
§ 166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for
Commercial Structures.
FINDING: In an effort to provide a functional storage building, but that is also attractive from
the public realm, the applicant is proposing a brick facade with all of the garage doors on the
rear of the building.
K. 1Reporis120081PC Reporls121- November I01R-PZD 08-3062 (Wesiside Storoge).doc
(14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish special
height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall have the
right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant restrictions.
FINDING: No scenic views have been identified.
(E) Revocation.
(1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to
the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be
voided under the following circumstances:
(a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed.
(b) Phased development
schedule.
If
the applicant does not adhere to the phased
development schedule
as stated in
the
approved development plan.
(c) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common
open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are
proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components.
Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of
each quarter, so that the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development
accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission
finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial
structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public
recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission
may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if preceding
phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue
issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued.
(2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent
to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to
appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to
totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be
forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is
revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the
public zoning record duly noted.
(3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those
portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and
effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the
City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued
issuance of building permits.
(F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations.
(1) Legal entities.
The developer shall create such legal entities as
appropriate
to undertake and
be responsible
for the ownership, operation, construction, and
maintenance
of private roads,
K:IReports12008PC Reports121- November I0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Smrage).doc
parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building,
lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city
encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other
nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts
and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and
maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally -owned facilities shall be
approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission
as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal
instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the final
plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a
preliminary form.
(2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the
developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee
that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
(a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are
granted.
(b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer.
(c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years,
(d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other
common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes and
other public assessments.
(e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance assessment
levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property. The
association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changing needs.
FINDING: The applicant shall comply with these requirements.
Sec. 161.29 Planned Zoning District
(A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage
comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development,
cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit
the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process. The rezoning of
property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the development proposed for the district can
accomplish one or more of the following goals.
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of
development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts.
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
K:IReporis12008IPC Reporis121- November I0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Wesiside Storage).doc
(3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are
harmonious and beneficial to the community.
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or
commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and
integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities.
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of
the area;
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and
cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands
and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas.
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation
areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under
conventional land development regulations.
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural
features and amenities.
(9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet
harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan.
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of
geographic location, topography, size or shape.
FINDING: By presenting an attractive facade to street, limiting the garage doors to the rear of
the structure, preserving many of the large species trees and installing screening along the east
property line, the applicant should be able to expand the storage facility in a manner that is
harmonious and compatible with surrounding properties.
(B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in
accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each rezoning
parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and
development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label, along with the
designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development plan
and development standards.
FINDING: The submitted development plats and Master Development Plan booklets, along
with the conditions of approval found applicable and appropriate, are binding with the
approval of the requested rezoning. Should the Planning Commission forward this item to the
City Council, an ordinance will be drafted for consideration of rezoning this property in
accordance with the submittal herein.
K: IReports120081PC Reportstl- November /0tR-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage).dac
(D) I-PZD, Industrial Planned Zoning District
(1) Purpose and intent. The I-PZD is intended to accommodate industrial parks and single use
industrial developments that are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application
than a general industrial rezone. The legislative purpose, intent and application of this district
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) To provide for manufacturing activities in a manner compatible with the surrounding
area.
(b) To provide for orderly development in order to minimize adverse impact on surrounding
areas and on the general flow of traffic.
(c) To maximize manufacturing potential without adversely affecting the living environment
of the community.
(d) To encourage industrial development that is consistent with the city's General Plan.
FINDING: Staff is recommending approval of this application, finding that the proposed use is
more appropriate for a PZD application than a general industrial rezone. Compatibility with
surrounding properties can be achieved through proper building design, tree preservation, and
screening.
(2) Permitted Uses. All permitted uses identified within § 162 Use Units of the Unified
Development Code shall be allowed as permissible uses, unless otherwise specified, subject
to City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District request.
(3) Conditional Uses. All conditional uses allowed within (Residential, Commercial, Industrial)
zoning Districts established in the Unified Development Code shall be allowed with Planning
Commission approval, unless otherwise specified, subject to the code governing Conditional
Use requests.
FINDING: Permitted and Conditional uses are outlined in both the Master Development Plan
booklets and plats.
(4) Condition. In no instance shall the industrial use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%) of
the gross leasable floor area within the development.
FINDING: The majority of the facility will be used for self storage, with a small portion
dedicated to office use and sleeping quarters.
(F) Bulk and area regulations
(1) Residential density. Residential densities shall be determined on the basis of the following
considerations:
(a) The densities of surrounding development;
K:IRepores120081PC Reports121- November 1018-P71) 08-3062 (Yestside Storage).doc
(b) the densities allowed under the current zoning;
(c) the urban development goals and other policies of the city's General Plan;
(d) the topography and character of the natural environment; and
(e) the impact of a given density on the specific site and adjacent properties.
FINDING: The proposal is for an industrial planned zoning district with an accessory dwelling
unit permitted for on -site management quarters. The densities of surrounding developments
are varied, but tend to be multi -family due to the location along Wedington Drive. The existing
zoning district (R -O) would allow several types of residential dwelling units.
(2) Lot area and setback requirements. Taking into consideration the unique aspects of each
project, preliminary development plans for Planned Zoning Districts shall conform as closely
as possible to the existing standards for lot area minimums and setback requirements under
this chapter.
FINDING: The proposed building setbacks are consistent with the setbacks required in the R-
0 zoning district.
(3) Building height. There shall be no maximum building height except as may be determined
by the Planning Commission during the review of the preliminary development plan based on
the uses within the development and. the proximity of the development to existing or
prospective development on adjacent properties. A lesser height may be established by the
Planning Commission when it is deemed necessary to provide adequate light and air to
adjacent property and to protect the visual quality of the community.
FINDING: The building height proposed for this project is less than that allowed in the R -O
zoning district.
(4) Building area.
The Planning
Commission
shall review specific proposed lot coverages
which generally
correspond to
the guidelines
for lot coverage in the respective residential,
office, commercial
or industrial
district which
most depicts said development scheme.
FINDING: The lot coverage or building area should be less than the lot coverage in the R -O
zoning district, where there is a 60% maximum building area
*Required Findings for Rezoning Request.
Land Use Plan: The City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as City
Neighborhood Area. Rezoning this property to I-PZD 08-3062, with the associated Master
Development Plan, is generally inconsistent with this designation. However, the majority of the
property has already been developed for mini -storage use and been in operation for many years.
An appropriately designed building that does not resemble a conventional storage building would
conceal the remainder of the storage facility and increase the level of compatibility with
surrounding developments.
K:IReports120081PC ReponsL2l- November t 01R-PZD 08-3062 (Westside Storage).doc
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed zoning and mini -storage use are not consistent with most land use
planning objectives or policies, especially as they relate to existing or proposed
neighborhoods. However, the use proposed on this property is an established one
that is viable and functional for surrounding residents. Expansion of the use at this
location by one building is more desirable and consistent with land use plans than a
proposal for a new facility within an existing or proposed neighborhood. An
appropriately designed building could conceal the intended use of the building and
generally meet the same design standards required of uses already allowed within
this area.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is justified and needed at this time. The current entrance to the
development is from Rupple Road, as was required by the Bill of Assurance from
1990. However, additional right-of-way has to be obtained along the property
frontage to allow for. the widening and construction of Rupple Road. This
construction project will render the existing entrance unsafe for the larger moving
vehicles (U -Haul, Allied Van Lines, etc), since the length of the vehicles will be
longer than the resulting driveway. Consequently, the entrance is proposed to be
relocated to the Wedington. Drive side of the property. Relocating the entrance
drive also requires relocating the manager's office. The applicant has stated that
the only way to recoup the cost of the building a new office is to construct one
additional storage building that will generate revenue.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion. I
Finding: The addition of one additional storage building will not appreciably increase traffic
danger or congestion.
4. .A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and
thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer
facilities.
Finding: The proposed development will not undesirably increase the load on public services.
Engineering: Public water service is only available to the site along Rupple Road. Service will
need to be extended through the site to serve the proposed building.
K:IReportsi20081PC Reportsl2!- November I0IR-PZD 08-3062 (Wesiside Storage).doc
Sanitary sewer service is available to the site along both Rupple Road and
Wedington. A sewer tap will need to be purchased from the City of Fayetteville
at the time of building permit.
The site has access to Wedington and Rupple. Wedington is a fully improved
five lane state highway. Rupple Road is planned to be a four lane boulevard with
five -lanes near the Wedington intersection. Street improvements will be
evaluated with the proposed development.
Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the
development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not
substantially alter population density and will not create an undesirable increase
on police services.
Fire: The subject property is located 0.3 miles from the Engine 7 located at 835
Rupple Road, with an estimated response time of 1 minutes. No adverse impacts
on call volume or response time are anticipated.
Ifthere are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted
under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even
though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the
proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: The widening of Rupple Road could adversely affect the subject development if
access to Wedington Drive is not permitted. Relocating the entrance creates the need to
relocate the office, so that the facility can remain secure and customers can access the site. The
owner has stated that a new office creates an expense, but results in no revenue. The only way
that the owner can justify the new office is to construct additional self storage units that will
produce an income to cover the initial costs.
K:\Rcports2OO8PCRcpons2J- November IOIR-PZD 08-3062 ({Vesvide Storage).doc
Taye tev1ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
TREE PRESERVATION REPORT
To: Fayetteville City Council
Copy: Jesse Fulcher, Planning Division
From: Greg Howe, Urban Forester
Date: November 6, 2008
Subject: Westside Storage Tree Protection
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 444-3470
It is the understanding of the Urban Forester that the widening of Rupple Rd. is adversely
affecting Westside Storage through no direct fault of owners. This road widening will
enhance traffic from The Links, Oakbrook and other subdivisions adjacent to Rupple Rd.
Due to this widening a new entrance, other infrastructure and office need to be moved from
the Rupple Rd. side of Westside Storage to the Wedington Dr. side. This shift in on -site
development will require the removal of several of trees.
The Urban Forester is recommending approval of this project with the following conditions;
1. Recommend transplanting, on -site trees #1-4. If this can not be accomplished
• suggest replacing 4 trees along the exterior structure wall facing Wedington Dr.
similar to how these trees are planted now.
2. Trees #5-8 and #15 are in poor health and should be removed which is consistent
with the plan dated 7/03/08. Since the road widening is generating the need for tree
removal no mitigation trees will be required. However, the Urban Forester highly
recommends to the owner to replace these trees if the project budget will allow it.
3. Tree #14 is a very large tree in good condition. The Urban Forester recommends
retaining this tree. This will require the sidewalk currently planned to the east of the
new building to be removed and a stem wall or other special construction at the
corner of the structure. This will also allow for the retention of Tree #13.
4. Trees #9-14 need to be retained and standard tree protection measures put in place
as outlined in the Landscape Manual. Root pruning is advisable on Trees #13 and 14.
These recommendations are based on the plan dated 7/3/08 which does not show any
utility easements impacting the trees to be retained.
Date 8/4/08
Jeremy Pate
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed
C-PZD 08-3062: (Westside Storage, 400): Submitted by Steve Clark for property located
at 1192 N. Rupple Road would substantially alter the population density and thereby
undesirably increase the load on public services and create an appreciable increase in
traffic danger and congestion. The property contains approximately 5.05 acres.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this C-PZD would not
substantially alter the population density, and may possibly create an appreciable or
undesirable increase in the load on police services. This C-PZD may possibly create an
appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion with an entrance from Wedington
Drive. With the management office being relocated to the Wedington entrance, this may
cause traffic to back up onto Wedington which is a major thoroughfare.
Sincerely,
Captain William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
The City of Fayetteville Fire Department
303 W. Center St. Fayetteville, AR. 72701
Phone (479) 575-8365 Fax (479) 575-0471
To: Dara Sanders, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher
From: David Williams, Battalion Chief
Date: November 4, 2008
Re: C-PZD 08-3062: (WESTSIDE STORAGE, 400):
Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 1192 N. RUPPLE ROAD. The property
is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.05 acres.
The request is for an additional climate controlled storage building, a new entrance from
Wedington Drive with new management buildings at that entrance.
This development will be protected by Station 7 located at 835 Rupple: RD.
It is .3 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 1 minute to the
beginning of the development.
The Fire Department anticipates 1(0 EMS — 1 Fire/Other) calls for service each:year after
the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred. Typically, this type
of development usually takes 12 — 18 months, after the development is started, before
maximum build -out occurs.
The Fayetteville Fire Department does not feel this development will affect our calls for
service or our response times.
Measured hydrant flow in this area is "Unknown" gallons per minute.
If you have any questions please me.
®av�fWilriams
David Williams
Fire Marshal
Fayetteville Fire Department
Honor, Commitment, Courage;
Our people make the difference!
C-PZD 08-3062: (WESTSIDE STORAGE, 400): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property
located at 1192 N. RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.05. acres. The request is for an additional climate
controlled storage building, a new entrance from Wedington Drive with new management
buildings at that entrance. Planner: Jesse Fulcher
Public water service is only available to the site along Rupple Road. Service will need to be
extended through the site to serve the proposed building.
Sanitary sewer service is available to the site along both Rupple Road and Wedington. A sewer
tap will need to be purchased from the City of Fayetteville at the time of building permit.
The site has access to Wedington and Rupple. Wedington is a fully improved five lane state
highway. Rupple Road is planned to be a four lane boulevard in this area. Street improvements
will be evaluated with the proposed development.
Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the development.
This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain.
RZN 08-3065: (HEDGE, 481): Submitted by RICHARD HEDGE for property located at 1201
E. HUNTSVILLE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY -4 UNITS/ACRE and
contains approximately 1.0 acre. The request is to rezone the subject property to NC,
Neighborhood Conservation. Planner: Andrew Garner
Public water is available to the property. There is an 8" water main along Huntsville on the
north side of the roadway. -
Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There is a 6" sewer main along Huntsville on the south
side of the roadway. Improvements to the sewer system may be required dependent upon the
demand placed by the development. The capacity of the existing main may need to be studied at
the time of development
The
site has access to Huntsville
Road.
Huntsville is currently an un-improved two lane paved
city
street. Street improvements
will be
evaluated with the proposed
development.
Standard improvements and.requirements for drainage will be required for the development.
This property is affected by the 100 -year floodplain.
lark
onsulting
J. STEVE CLARK, P.E.
CIVIL / ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
August 15, 2008
Mr. Jeremy Pate
City of Fayetteville, Planning Division
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Westside Storage I-PZD 08-3062
Rupple Road
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Dear Mr. Pate
This letter is submitted in response to the August 13, 2008 staff comments on the
referenced project. We have revised our plans and project booklet in accordance with
the comment except as follows.
9. The east access drive is being proposed, to allow closer access to the entry
doors on that side of the building. Based on the owner's experience his
customers prefer to have immediate access to the building. If they have to walk a
distance to enter the building and then walk down a hallway they will go to a
alternate facility for their needs. The owner believes this convenient access is
necessary for the successful operation of the facility.
10. The previous building has four runs of storage rooms but also is accessible from
the north and south sides. This allowed for a single central hallway to access the
climate controlled storage areas.
With the proposed building there will be 5 runs of rooms and access to the south
side of the building has been eliminated. This will require that two interior
hallways be constructed with storage rooms on either side of the halls. This
configuration does not lend itself to a 60 foot wide building. In fact the owner
originally wanted a 75 foot deep building but the size was reduce to provide
additional separation from the trees that are being preserved.
11. We understand that the project has expanded beyond the original plan approved
in 1990. However, the number of trees required to be preserved on the original
project are still there. In fact there are numerically more trees preserved than
were originally required.
12 The owner recognizes that this expansion request is not consistent with his
previous agreements from 1990 and 2001. However the only reason we are
bringing this proposal to the Planning Commission and City Council is to attempt
3715 Business Drive, Suite 202 • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 • (479) 444-8171 • Fax: (479) 251-7982
to mitigate the damages being caused by the widening of Rupple Road. If the
City was not acquiring all of the Rupple Road Right -of -Way from the east side of
the road the owner would not be requesting this expansion.
The existing access into the West Side Storage will not be adequate nor will it be
safe for large moving trucks after the widening project is completed. There will
be approximately 43 feet between the gate and the sidewalk, which is not
sufficient for a truck to exit the roadway and wait for the security gate to open.
The best solution that is available is to relocate the entrance to the Wedington
Road side of the property.
From an operational standpoint it is important that the office and manager's
apartment be located adjacent to the entrance. This requires relocating these
spaces to the Wedington Drive side of the complex. Due to this relocation the
owner will incur a significant expense.
In order to amortize those costs, additional storage spaces will be needed. The
owner considered constructing a office retail building, however since he is not
setup to lease or maintain retail space it seemed like constructing additional
climate controlled storage would be a better option.
In order to overcome the City's past reservations on self storage units the owner
elected to design the street side of this new building with a brick and column
facade. From Wedington Drive side the building will not look like a self storage
facility. There will not be any roll -up type doors visible from Wedington Drive.
As an additional point if retail or office were proposed on this site the parking lot
would extend to the normal 15 foot buffer from the ROW. By constructing the
climate controlled storage facility we are able to provide a 50+' green space
buffer between the building and the ROW.
Please call with questions.
Sincerely,
Clark Consulting
J. Steve Clark, P.E.
City Council
November 6, 2008
Westside Storage, Inc. Right -of -Way Acquisition
f\. J
Westside Storage Inc.
1 of18
City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
or
Contracts
11/4/2008.
City Council Meeting Date
Ron Petrie Engineering
Submitted By Division
Action Required:
A resolution to approve a settlement with Westside Storage, Inc. in the amo
easement acquistion for the Rupple Road widening project.
$ 92,545.00
Cost of this request
4470.9470.5809.00
Account Number
06008
Project Number
Budgeted Item
$
500,00b.o0
Category / Project Budget
Funds Used to Date
500,000.00
Remaining Balance
Budget Adjustment Attached CJ
Department Director Date
D.IZL/ /Q/2r/a
City Attorn v Date
(1. , L 10 -u -n
Finance and Internal Service Director Date
Mayor
Date
Operations
Department
of $92,545 for right of way
Rupple Road (Wedington to ML Comfort)
Program Category / Project Name
Street Improvements
Program / Project Category Name
Capital Improvement Program
Fund Name
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Number:
• • •
• Westside Storage Inc.
2 of 18
City Council Meei...g of November 4,_ 2008
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Ron Petrie, City Engineer
Date: October 17, 2008
Subject: A resolution to approve a settlement with Westside Storage, Inc. in the
amount of $92,545 for right of way and easements for the Rupple Road Widening
Project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the settlement with Westside Storage, Inc. in the amount
of $92,545 for right of way and easements for the Rupple Road Widening Project.
BACKGROUND:
On May 15, 2007 the City Council approved the Planned Zoning District for The Links
Development located near the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. As a
part of the approval, the developer was required to 1) Construct the eastern half of Rupple
Road to its Master Street Plan designation along the project frontage (two travel lanes and
half a boulevard, 2.) Install new traffic signals on Rupple Road and on Wedington, and 3)
Widen Rupple Road to the south of the development to Wedington Drive including all
appropriate transition lanes and relocation of the existing signal. As a part of the
approval, the City Council committed the City to acquire the right-of-way from the two
existing property owners on the east side of Rupple and south of The Links Development
that are necessary to do the street widening.
DISCUSSION:
On February 13, 2008 the City Engineering Staff sent an offer to acquire the necessary
right-of-way and easements to Westside Storage, Incorporated based only on the acreage
of the land to be purchased and the value of the property based on Washington County's
appraised value. Several items that could be considered damages were brought up from
the property owner during several onsite meetings. In general, the road surface for
Rupple Road is currently 67' to the edge of the first building in the development. This
area currently contains the only parking for the facility. This first building contains the
offices for the business and a keypad that vehicles must use to enter the facility is located
at the southwest comer of the building. In order to use the keypad,. a vehicle that is
usually carrying a tow behind trailer must stop in this area between the building and the
existing roadway.
Westside Storage Inc.
3 of18
} City Council Meeti.,g of November 4, 2008
The plans for the widening of Rupple Road onto this property will bring the edge of the
sidewalk within 28' of the building which would eliminate three of the five parking
spaces. In addition, there will be insufficient room for vehicles towing trailers to utilize
the existing key pad. This can best be seen on the aerial drawing that is included in this
packet.
Several alternatives were examined to address these issues to the satisfaction of the
business owner. After many discussions, the property owner decided that the only way
that the business could continue was to relocate the entrance to access Wedington Drive
and to build a new office at this entrance. The business owner has now submitted a
conceptual PZD to be heard at the Planning Commission and tentatively scheduled for
the November 18, 2008 City Council Meeting.
A second offer was submitted to Westside Storage on September 24, 2008 (see attached
letter) subject to City Council approval which included payment of damages that includes
moving the entry gates and driveway to access Wedington Drive and payment of six trees
to be located in the proposed utility easement. It is important to note that the City
Council must officially allow the connection to Wedington Drive since a Bill of
Assurances dated July 10, 1990 (also attached) states that "Access for any development
on the most northern 3.5 acres of said property shall be limited to Rupple Road." This
offer was accepted in writing (also attached) on October.16, 2008 provided that an
additional $18,500.00 be added to the offer to pay for the additional expenses to move the
entry gates that was not included in the estimate. It states on the estimate that -the cost:. F:...
provided does not include the electrical wiring or conduit which is to be provided.by the
owner. Also, this is to help pay a portion of the expenses "incurred to pursue the PZD
approval which has been extremely costly to us this far."
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is currently $500,000.00 in the Rupple Road Capital Improvement Program
account that was established in 2006 to acquire property and begin the engineering design
for the widening of Rupple Road between Mount Comfort Road and Wedington Drive.
This project was placed on hold upon the submittal of The Links private development.
2
J
Westside Storage Inc.
4 of18
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SETTLEMENT WITH WESTSIDE
STORAGE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,545.00 FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND EASEMENT ACQUISITION FOR THE RUPPLE ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT.
BE If RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYEITEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby
approves a settlement with Westside Storage, Inc. in the amount of $92,545.00 for right
of -way and easement acquisition for the Rupple Road Widening Project.
PASSED and APPROVED this _ day of November, 2008.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By: .
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
I,. v
Westside Storage Inc.
} 5of18
w WESTSIDE STORAGE
• ' , ` m' 'I
.
'• �, ;;Iii •,� ,`• :' „'A
• I •r •r 1 II • .,
+
' '•'1.1 •. • 'iil .. • r ' I. I I u /
•'I .r • . I ry• ••• . • 'III . L
I.
'I
.• I .
• iA . ¢{y+
..III , .r
r, ...• ,-J, I
• iHl 9 II w• ' 1
II
• ,
"' , • A. rns;ssrc;I I'RO1 I"iiIY
•. • n I IN I. I. 4 . I' . •
I.
/
,........ L r: '...�. I ' II i • Yt 'i: I. .1 j•
''. .1• II
I II . n1 .I$ :: 17
df 1 .1 .� '... L'1 1� r r•
II '••.� •1 •'+ +I � 1:7• 'rA r I'I .I..� ir, , I. •. . I•-
I _...:_ •- l lull•--' •' •I I.. ..li-
i
SI
S YII III
I i.+)
II
•51'A f.�
u:Yti
C rtes
■ tl
Overview
O1
R -O
N
R -a
Legend
Boundary
Subject Property
CUPO4-1000
iti0l pla"I'l Area
Master Sfreet Plan
�000a
WetaY Disfiitt
FaYP!es'aY
Streets
w000g
L _ —I City Lmuls
PrincipalNtertat
�•v Existing
. Outside City
-'--Afmor Arterial
JiJ Iran et
♦ Cogeotor
•••.. wsto c CoUccior ADM
o 125 250
500
750 1.000
Feet
II
I
I
I
I
i
II
t
..
!:f
March 14, 2005
Planning Commission
41 (Westside Storage)
Page 2.53
.._ •.
: n.J
• Westside Storage Inc.
I ", LI 6of18
II 1 . I. 1 .+'
. • U. . I .:
•• •1 •,1r I•LI I ' 1 , i• •
i ,.J. ( . .IV.II •'1 • 1
•
•
,, X11. i• I. '!`r1 ..0 ��A '..J. i, "< •I
I
I 16 'I • ''�1" .l,Y I 141 t' �0 IO 11 1 •
. •Y, 1• ..•I UI II ..d\m /K 1. �j l•'1,If4'.m•U''.
UI
/Vr ,U '1 �• n'I k•'•. ,•. `i:aa ELI . �ti 1591 1
11 jj! 'wr'5....I •. • , 1. !, II I.. it lJ llrvv �n'� •6YIA•ll1M1+,,.Y •'i l9/V •, :y . • I. I .Y . •;, ■ ..M1 a,l:••I ..
, 'Y . • , .J' •, . •. rr.w I • 1 r III•
5 1 • r ` r I
5 . .. • . 1 I I • . .III I { U.• ; I `.. •�•• I.y
. y.I 1 .......
II I A. YI 'Y •' . I:. : I•I};,' 4 ri ,•I I .L.I n • I .•J
• •. 6 Y .•5 .0 -III I• . ' • • 1• . 1' ' I
.
•I 'IN 'USUtlt3!
s •I I .
•1. I•'
.1 ,• / •.I Il V: Ill rnl.. �^ ,AI I .1. p• '• u.
' !• •'iLIYY YI• i.Ow1�y�."' -`g— ,I. U. Awls l.'ll
I' �I ,�J.I••: .al•'w v!1I • _' .1 ••' i rl y• I •1
•� •. U'. I ..I 1 ,•; n I 1 Irr n.•.• . " 1^ • ,n,
Sr I.r a• ••,,' 'I II I, r•'1' • V 'IAA
t(N •1M 4 1 J„'I 1,1!
I '?• rl .d • L..Ln I
'llv i 1• f,,. �I, rYa•. ..: Vii' /r•Yr-_ ,.I �II_J•Y•+w�I�
!y •, •Y1 1, . W!. ,..1
f iI • APW Ipi,•, I. 1 Ir�ii, yl • n51, • .. ..-.I -
F `U11 rlI • • .,' I. 'yl' ' 1" mo• Ili 1, UI �5•NIU
'r� '.
U.
I I 1 ,. 11: I P
?• J. I I ' II +,MY S.
Y 'IIJ. J.' li
1 r•..I •
1111;', .. , +•,1• , I. 'I .
III• " II' • . . 1 I• 'I
O
• A.UL. • '•
.
• ,•, l 'nu. II u . • , •' •'' U •• . 1' • I�
II •.al .I. 't.I ',I,q • • "� ' V.U, 1 % LIB}I .1 I a
li I• . I..
" LIRA ,:••r�I
• II. Ali - .. ,I I. II ,air 1 X14 .I.T rl
•' J� • 1:"I �5I• I . {I •I • , '• 'Y a: g:I A11
I'1'I, i,., J • . . III, • '•`3'�w� f ..y:• r II{
. ii . ! :W''
i '. I.•Y i ..• :I, .i l.. y 111 I'. I•�,
•MI • 11o,IINo . I .II
(�
' }.,f '•". I 9 LL •' I.i • •Ilan ,� ' .�:
( p "1
L 'i in•I,•. " 1.\u. I• I 111•, r� I•• •• • • Yn
••. ++�
.✓P, M1 t' I • • a r7' •
a4 .C•'I
fi . f: I. 1•J .1.+ I', . . '1 'P..S ,I I •
.I. IS,' . .. . . ,, • I
L ii N. nq , n 'IN r44 • 0
1 111';; ,. .,•i. 4Y., !
' VVVV7
P• :"�I ••I'I.:i • II II'rv'I. • '=11.• y a
III. U
• n n'll 1: 'N.11• ry A
''P ill I'S :.I,I7J 1Y J• t J+4U.wI'�1 1 J I• • I •I.
'A''I� M1A'•' !.• 15. ,1 I, ',�. 11
I I P •Ill J. -, . ,.
: • _. ' 1 1 ' • .. ,
UU
w: • U.
• �� 1!{'�I.,,YwiY WY .,IM11''2�y .II. '. I' 1''
.I .I :I•Y••.f 1 ,'e'I' Ii:1,I fIIC 1'l 1. %I.'. •'. . . ^•J " ;'� • .I
q . t• • 1 !I. ' . . : ' ^I. • 111
.YI•ii . F l'11�uI,YI "I!•}' • ' 1 , V.1.: ..' . • I 1"•I
(U4'1' ,J/' 1 o-4•IU• yr .•i j,ti ,
yT J,
11^I I 1 ^ _ 1 1 _
;� 11 • I
Jr. 1,' 1. 1 J , n .. •
`— 4 ':1 I
�11T I �,• 11. •'1 1 1 1 •I 'I.'
n!I :`,II TIAN •' �• •I"II
\ • , •
ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
September 24, 2008
Westside Storage Inc.
Attn: Dennis Caudle
1192 N. Rupple Road
Fayetteville, AR 72704
RE: Rupple Road Widening and Improvements
Revised Offer Letter
Dear Mr. Caudle:
Westside Storage -Inc.
7 of 18
In response to several of the issues that you have raised during our meetings and conversations over
the last several months, the City of Fayetteville has revised•our previous offer. This new offer is summarized
below and will be contingent upon City Council approval:
➢ The City of Fayetteville hereby offers $18,900.00 for the acquisition of right-of-way (0.1.5 acres) and
$3,465.00 for the rights associated with the permanent easement (0.11 acres). There- is no
• compensation offered for the 0.11 acres in existing Rupple Road right-of-way. However, this area will be
removed from your overall property description along with the dedication of the new right-of-way,
;thus;
your tax bill should be reduced.
➢ the City of Fayetteville hereby offers $37,205.00 as proposed by P&D Services to move the entrygates,
and the associated keypads, wiring, and appurtenances as itemized on the attached proposal:
P. The City of Fayetteville hereby offers $11,475.00 (153 feet @ $75.00 per foot) for the installation.of an, , ,.
asphalt driveway from Wedington Drive to your existing back entrance.
The City of Fayetteville hereby offers $3,000.00 for the purchase of six (6) trees located within'the:utility
• easement boundary.
➢, The City of Fayetteville accepts the responsibility to provide one (1) fire hydrant along Wedington Drive if
required in association with any future development to replace an existing fire hydrant that was.previously
installed by Westside Storage, Inc. and removed by the AHTD during the Wedington Drive widening
project.
The City of Fayetteville will agree to revise the Bill of Assurance dated July 10, 1990 to allow access to
Westside Storage from Wedington Drive.
As previously stated, this offer will require approval from the City Council. At this point, the City will
need something from you in writing that states this offer will be acceptable and list any other special. provision
in order for this to be presented to the City Council. We understand that you wish to proceed with approval of
a Conceptual Planned Zoning Development before you give final acceptance. As an option, you can agree to
accept this offer but hold off signing the actual Warranty Deed and General Utility Easement until such time as
the PZD has also gained approval from the City Council.
Please give me a call to discuss at 575-8207.
Sincerely,
cfl
Ronald S. Petrie
City Engineer
Enclosures
SEP-11-2009 02:51 PM PAULTEEL
- ---— -479 67.5 3163 Ifl,1 Ul
Westsi'de �drage Inc.
8 of 18
P&D SERVICES
12014 East HWy.
10 Onenwood,M. 2930
Phone C 47% 0504770
Pux (4Th 875,7102
' r•et.
PROPOSAL
prgmN1 Ne.: 08180801
Bide: kuquat 18, 1908
• C
Dennis Caudal
rayetteville.Ar.
^"
S
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERPOP MEO
• VS;PECUIAUONSANDESTIMATESOFPROPSA
PARTS/DESCRIPTONAYYORK TUBE f'ERPORMEO
UNIT COST7s5f7500,00,
9
Move back gate and install controls and saftys
1
includes new concrete and wining and labor.
55,500.00
Move front entry grate and Jnat.ZJ.
con[rols,safties,.rireinq and concrete,labor.
$5,500.00
3.
New main entry, gate off ffeddington Dr.;concrete
l
base and verticle pivot lift gate aaftles,labor
S20,955.00
$20,955.00
Two keypads,500• control wire,canduie,2
%
goosenackatandtrenchinConeretlabOr.
$5,250.00
85,250.00
6
7.
I.
AadxlaW hlbpratNar bC4
aa
FIN wren dapaall hweee ww oomasateme.dde rot! Job
Cadkr
upon me�paamr of mSIMon.
& s1 $37,205.00•
Mb taM Sn I1M M* fra C 5 nawwg0
ApNgrfred
Sb►aAwe
1tl/lb/'Ltltltl!! lb.:44 4794446755.
..,E 1(o coos
WESTSIDE STORAGE INC
� • I Y
i' ,Juv PZD a.ppn,avoJ kaa' /awyv
U. Qjj jfli, a_ JJ, ta
au, dos.
turd Ca) JkwJsccit&oG tjU
I GUS( jth�ae
10%16/2008 15:44
4794446755
WESTSIDE STORAGE INC
i
sideNorage Inc.
10 of 18
Z
-v V YJ & e4AJL/L/t/ . .. ..L
VV�v
9LW2vt, . UjJ&jc2tjj',�
';qaM.
2
r'- oi.j
47q- QttL� (0755 ( ,c)
Westside Storage Inc.
11 of 18
��f{ //11�� •north of i
F:! E9 cry PECK 1vil�+tthoLJQ]7il East of R �e Road
L 890-14 Rezoning
•90 8UG . 8 Pfl 355 Candle •
01 -
n ASIi It'J1'. u CO A
A. KOLLMEYER
This declaration of a Bill of Assurance made this 1 O4li day of -
____ _, 1990, by the undersigned owners of the following described
real estate located In the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas,
and more particularly described as follows, to -wit:
SEE ATTACHlIENT
WHBRRAS1'tbe aforesaid owner of the real property described above has
secured the approval of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors to amend the
Fayetteville zoning cap and rezone the most southern 1.5 acres of the above
• described property from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential -Office and the
most northern 3.5 acres of the above described property from A-1, Agricultural,
to C-2, Thoroughfare'Comoercialf and
WHEREAS, the owners have promised and agreed to subject the development
of laid real estate pursuant to certain covenants and restrictions pertaining .
• to same; and •WHEREAS. the the owners are desirous of making a as
claratiob *of. the same in -
the form of. this Bill of Assurance.aith the intention of` guaranteeing the = •: c,'. •:.
preservation of certain values and amenities in the tommumity and. to.bind -.
Lhemselves, the}r Successors and assignsamd the aforedescribed real estate and - ~
its subsequent owners with the obligations and rl&strictidns hereinafter set forth
for all present and future development and use of said property..
NOW,;ffi:BBEORH, the owners declare that the above described real property
shall be held, developed, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to
•the covenants, and restrictions herein set forth: -
.. ., I.
The use of the most northern 3.5 acres of saiitproperty.shall be limited
to mini -storage development only.
n.
•A tree preservation plan shall be submitted prior to any construction or
development subject to the followings a) the preservation of. 60 percent of all
existing trees with a caliper of -8 inches or more, b) the protection of trees
to be preserved during the construction and paving process, and c) the
understanding that the staff bas the administrative authority to reduce by as - , March 14,2005
_.much as 15 percent the percentage -of trees to -be preserved if the unforeseen Yfanning Commission
ADM 05-144 (Westside Storage)
removal' of certain trees is deemed necessary during the construction process- ifage 2.22
FX1—IIRIT A .....4o7n-.--4 A7
Westside Storage Inc.
12 of 18
..-uu nm; n "rn. a 2J
i
nI.
Access for any development on the most northern 3.5• acres of said property
shall be limited to Rupple Road. ^ ,�—
WITNRSS my band and seat this 1V"f • 7 day of
W CAJ cX-C
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS ) : ;.
)SS:
OON97 OF�WASB7NGICIN ) `: C _
BE IT BENEt7BERED that on this- day "came' before . the` undersigned, a Notary •
Public, within and for the Count
y aforesaid, duly commissioned sand action,
"' to me well kubwn, who acknowledged
that they had executed the foregoing Bill of Assurance for the consideration and
purposes therein mentioned and set forth,
my band and seal as: such Notary Public this /0 " day
____ of _
19$}
m`= Notary Public
W v - ..
9 ffig side Expires:
111tR 1379PA 148
March 14, 2005
Planning Commission
ADM 05-1441 (Westside Storage)
Page 2.23
Westside Storage Inc.
-;� 13 of 18
Rupple Road Right -of -Way
Part of Parcel No. 765-16231-000
WARRANTY DEED
BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT Westside Storage, Inc., hereinafter called GRANTOR, for and in
consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby, acknowledged, do hereby grant,
bargain, sell and convey unto the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter called GRANTEE, and unto Grantee's successors and
assigns, the following described land situated in the County of Washington, State
of Arkansas, to -wit
A part of the parcel as described in Warranty Deed Record 1420-568 as recorded in Circuit Clerk's Office
for Washington County, Arkansas, being part of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 12, Township 16
North, Range 31 West, Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the SW corner of said SEI/4 of the NE1/4; thence along the West line thereof
N00°00'00"E 267.00 feet to the SW corner of said parcel as described in Warranty Deed Record 1420-
568 for the Point of Beginning; thence along the West line of said parcel, N00°10'00"W'239.80 feet to the
NW comer of said parcel; thence along the North line of said parcel N90°00'00"E 47.88 feet; thence
leaving said North line 4.49 feet along a non -tangent curve to the left said curve having a radius of 140.00
feet and a long chord of S01°30'21"W 4.49 feet; thence S00°35'13"W 235.32 feet to the South line of said
parcel; thence along said South line N90°00'00' W 44.65 feet to the Point of Beginning containing 0.25
acres, more or less.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said lands and appurtenances hereunto belonging unto the said Grantee and
Grantee's successors and assigns, forever. And the said Grantors, hereby covenant that they are lawfully seized of said
lands and premises; that the same is unencumbered, and that the Grantors Will forever warrant and defend the title to the
said lands against all legal claims whatever.
WITNESS the execution hereof on this the day of 2008.
WESTSIDE STORAGE, INC.
By:
[Please print or type Name and Title]
ATTEST:
[Please print or type Name and Title]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
8$.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this date, before the undersigned, a duly commissioned and acting Notary Public
within and for said County and State, personally appeared and , to me
well known as the persons who executed the foregoing document, and who stated and acknowledged that they are the
and , respectively, of Westside Storage, Inc., and are duty authorized in
their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said company, and
further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for the consideration,
uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
WITNESS my hand and seal on this day of , 2008.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
Notary Public
1.'.,
Westside Storage Inc.
14 of18
,
ffi ?fig
W00yiE
YZytU
W1?
< WZ"�i S NNJJ
1Q SON
V® U NOxI
p=z�jo
t$jA
p <00W
ZZOZZ p� N
z
F—
,01109 3 .00,96,00 N
I.
NH
o m
o 'o
o .n
W � O
6
InuJ
d 1 O
r -o
096c3 3 .00,01.00 S
,00L9Z 3 .00,00,00 N
aVO8 3lddfia
n. a
Westside Storage Inc.
15 of 18
Parcel No. 765-16231-000
GENERAL UTILITY EASEMENT
BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT Westside Storage, Inc., hereinafter called GRANTOR, brand in
consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby GRANT,
SELL and CONVEY unto the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter called GRANTEE, and unto Grantee's successors and
assigns, a permanent easement for the purpose of construction, maintenance, repair
and/or replacement, enlargement and operations of roadway, drainage, sidewalks,
and general utilities including water and/or sanitary sewer pipe line or lines,
manholes, natural gas, electrical power, telephone, fiber optic cable(s) and television
communication line or lines, and appurtenances thereto, on over, across, and under
the following described land situated in the County of Washington, State of
Arkansas, to -wit: -
(Deed Book 1420 at Page 568)
A part of the Southeast Quarter (SEY.) of the Northeast Quarter (NE'%) of Section Twelve (12), Township
Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, being more particularly described as follows, to -wit
Beginning at a point on the West line of said forty acre tractwhich is 267 feet North of the Southwest Comer of
said forty acre tract, and running, thence East 373.1 feet; thence South 0 degrees 10 minutes East 267 feet to
the South line of said forty acre tract thence East 253.6 feet; thence North 0 degrees 25 minutes East along
an existing fence line 507.1 feet; thence West 632.1 feet to the West line of said forty acre tract thence South
0 degrees 10 minutes East 239.8 feet to the point of beginning, containing Five and Five hundredths (5.05):
acres, more or less.
LESS AND EXCEPT: A part of the parcel as described in Warranty Deed Record 1420-568 as recorded in
Circuit Clerk's Office for Washington County, Arkansas, being part of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 12,
Township 16 North, Range 31 West, Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows:,.
Commencing at the SW comer of said SE1/4 of the NE1/4; thence along the West line thereof N00°00'00"E
267:00 feet to the SW.comer of said parcel as described in Warranty Deed Record 1420-568 for thePointof:
Beginning; thence along the West line of said parcel, N00°10'00"W 239.80 feet to the NW corner of said.,
parcel; thence along the North line of said parcel N90°00'00E 47.88 feet; thence leaving said North line 4A9
feet along a non -tangent curve to the leftsaid curve having a radius of 140.00 feet and a long chord of,
S01 °30'21"W 4.49 feet; thence S00°35'13W 235.32 feet to the South line of said parcel; thence along said
South line N90°00'00"W 44.65 feet to the Point of Beginning containing 0.25 acres, more or less.
• PERMANENT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION:
A part of the parcel as described in Warranty Deed Record 1420-568 as recorded in Circuit Clerk's Office for
Washington County, Arkansas, being part of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 12, Township 16 North, Range
31 West, Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the SW
comer of said SE1/4 of the NE1/4; thence along the West line thereof N00°00'00"E 267.00 to the SW comer
of said parcel as described in Warranty Deed Record 1420-568; thence along the South line of said parcel
N90°00'00"E 44.65 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence leaving said South line N00°35'13E 235.32 feet;
thence 4.49 feet along a curve to the right said curve having a radius of 140.00 feet and a long chord of
N01 °30'21"E 4.49 feet to the north line of said parcel; thence along said North line N90°00'00"E 20.02 feet;
thence leaving said North line 4.70 feet along a curve to the left said curve having a radius 01 120.00 feet and
a long chord of S01°42'29"W 4.70 feet; thence S00°35'13"W 235.12 feet to the South line of said Warranty
Deed Record 1420-568; thence along said South line N90°00'00"W 20.00 feet to the Point of Beginning,
containing 0.11 acres, more or less.
Together with the rights, easements, and privileges in or to said lands which may be required for the full enjoyment of
the rights herein granted.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, until the use of said permanent easement is
relinquished, abandoned or vacated and so long as such pipe line or lines, electrical power, telephone and/or television lines or
cables, manholes and/or appurtenances thereto shall be maintained, together with free ingress to and egress from the real
estate first herein above described for the uses and purposes herein above set forth.
The said Grantor is to fully use and enjoy the said premises except for the purposes hereinbefore granted to the said
Grantee, which hereby agrees to bury all pipes, lines and/or cables where feasible, to a sufficient depth so as not to interfere
with cultivation of soil, and that manholes will be constructed flush with the surface of the ground except in bottom lands where
they shall be at a height above water.
The Grantor agrees no to erect any buildings or structures in said permanent easement
n. v
Westside Storage Inc.
16 of 18
GENERAL UTILITY EASEMENT
Westside Storage, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
The Grantee shall have the right to construct additional pipe lines, electric power lines, telephone and/or television lines
or cables upon the above described easement at any time in the future and agrees to pay any damages as a result of such
future construction as set out in this easement.
The consideration first above recited as being paid to Grantor by Grantee is in full satisfaction of every right hereby
granted. All covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be binding upon the respective heirs, legal
representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
It is hereby understood and agreed that the party securing this document in behalf of the Grantee is without authority to
make any covenant or agreement not herein expressed.
C
WITNESS the execution hereof on this the day of
By.
2008.
WESTSIDE STORAGE, INC.
[Please print or type Name and Title]
ATTEST:
(Please print or type Name and Title).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this date, before the undersigned, a duly commissioned and acting Notary Public within
and for said County and State, personally appeared and tome well known
as the persons who executed the foregoing document, and who stated and acknowledged that they are the
and , respectively; of Westside Storage, Inc., and are duly authorized in their
respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and.behalf of said company, and further stated
and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes
therein mentioned and set forth.
WITNESS my hand and seal on this day of
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
Notary Public
2008.
Westside Storage Inc. \. 17 of 18
\
Co
LU
� 2,»
|
|La.■4
§!!
.t
U, fl
-J2lKk{
)((/\\
;/Q
:
|
�
\!\
In
)72
Li
S
w;
2ti
0
,;o
•096CZ
at
POL9Z }
�
/.
2m p.
•\)
m
)k
&e
9 ON
oa31dd(Th
2
Background Information.
Planning Commission Minutes
City Council Minutes
Bills of Assurance
North of T.
R9ton, cal E�� rpo REC� ICROFIL�1gED East of R [e Road
R90 -1a Rezoning
�0 HUG. 8 P Caudle
WASh ,,>> F AssuaAl>
A.K0LLMEYER
This declaration of a Bill of Assurance made this _l day of
_________ 1990, by the undersigned owners of the following described
real estate located in the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas,
and more particularly described as follows, to -wit:
SEE ATTACHMENT
WHERRAthe aforesaid owner of the real property described above has
secured the approval of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors to amend the
Fayetteville zoning map and rezone the most southern .1.5 acres of the above
described property from A-1. Agricultural, to R -O, Residential -Office and the
most northern 3.5 acres of the above described property from A-1. Agricultural,
to C-2, Thoroughfare'Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the owners have promised and agreed to subject the development
of said real estate pursuant to certain covenants and restrictions pertaining
to same; and
WHEREAS, the -owners are desirous of making a declaration of the same in
the form of this Bill of Assurance with the intention of guaranteeing the
preservation of certain values and amenities in the community and to bind
themselves, their successors and assigns and the aforedescribed real estate and
its subsequent owners with the obligations and rhstrictidns hereinafter set forth
for all present and future development and use of said property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the owners declare that the above described real property
shall be held, developed, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to
.the covenants.and restrictions herein set forth:
I.
to The use of the most northern 3.5 acres of said property shall be limited
to mini -storage development only.
II.
A tree preservation plan shall be submitted prior to any construction or
development subject to the following: a) the preservation of 60 percent of'all
existing trees with a caliper of 8 inches or more, b) the protection of trees
to be preserved during the construction and paving process, and c) the
understanding that the staff has the administrative authority to reduce by as
much as 15 percent the percentage of trees to be preserved if the unforeseen
removal of certain trees is deemed necessary during the construction process.
EXHIBIT A LIBER137DPG_147
n . ra- o' 3a
t.,,T.:.:.,.. _.
-z-
III.
Access for any development on the most northern 3.5 acres of said property
shall be limited to Rupple Road.
WITNESS my hand and seal this ___ day of cTi_clV
19
l6 \tip Cl'1uoct
STATE OF ARKANSAS
)SS:
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day came before the undersigned, a Notary
Public, within and for the County aforesaid, duly commissioned rand action,
to me well known, who acknowledged
that they had executed the foregoing Bill of Assurance for the consideration and
purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
WITNESS my hand and seal as such Notary Public this // day of_
___________, 19 ,
u.`= Notary Public
I ::. i
p�6imis5,on Expires:
LIBFR 1379P66Et48
B' . OF ASSURANCE
`Qis declaration of a Bill of Assurance made thi `A day of .i,..., y-..-i , 2001 by
the undersigned owners of the following described real estate located in the.City of Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, and more particularly described as follows, to -wit:
SEE ATTACHMENT
WHEREAS, the aforesaid owner of the real property described above has secured the
approval of the Fayetteville City Council to amend the Fayetteville zoning map and rezone the above
described 0.52 acres that adjoins the existing storage facility to the north from R-0, Residential Office
to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the owners have promised and agreed to subject the development of said real
estate pursuant to certain covenants and restrictions pertaining to same; and
WHEREAS, the owners are desirous of making a declaration of the same in the form of this Bill
of Assurance with the intention of guaranteeing the preservation of certain values and amenities in the
community and to bind themselves, their successors and assigns and the aforedescribed real estate and
its subsequent owners with the obligations and restrictions hereinafter set forth for all present and future
development and use of said property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the owners declare that the above described real property shall be held,
developed, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants and restrictions herein
set forth:
The use of the 0.52 acres that adjoins the existing storage facility to the north shall be limited to
a climate controlled storage facility and/or mini -storage facility and shall contain screening to be
approved by the Planning Commission.
WITNESS my hand and seal this day of
Dennis Caudle
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
)SS.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
Now on this , day of Ja-Ait/ 'f-. _,2001, came before me,.the undersigned
Notary Public within and for the aforesaid County and State, Dennis Caudle, who acknowledged that
they had executed the foregoing Bill of Assurance for the consideration and purposes therein mentioned
and set forth.
WITNESS my hand and seal as such Notary Pub is 8 d of S Ani Z Ue I
2001.
p ls�
G Pu c
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 55
RZ 00-25.00: Rezoning (Caudle, pp 400) was submitted by Dennis Caudle for property located at
1192 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.5
acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is a rezoning RZ 00-25.00 submitted by
Dennis Caudle for property located at 1192 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned
R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.5. acres. The request is to rezone
• to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The recommendation of the staff is for denial of the
requested rezoning based on the findings as included as a part of this report. Staff, did
• you want to go over that or do you have anything further?
Conklin: Sure. Staff is recommending denial of this rezoning. Back in 1999 this tract was
included as part of a larger tract for C-2 zoning. At that time, Planning Commission
recommended it and the City Council rezoned only the, northern part of this property as
C-2. That same .year the Large Scale Development was processed for a mini storage
and a Conditional Use at that time, if you've read the minutes, it talks about keeping this
piece of property R-0 and developing it with an office type development which is
compatible with the neighborhood. Also, at that time, there was a bill of assurance that
was offered to save 60% of the trees with eight inch diameter. I have met with the
applicant this afternoon and went over that bill of assurance also restricted. access from
Wedington. Overall this property is near commercial there is a vacant C-1 property to
the west staff is not recommending approval of additional commercial property in this
area. If the Planning Commission did rezone it to commercial, C-1 zoning would be
more appropriate than C-2. C-2 zoning allows used car sales with all type of
businesses as conditional use. Dance halls and that type of use. About a month ago we
did change our allowable uses in C -I to provide more neighborhood commercial uses.
The purpose of the C-2 zoning request is to be able to come back to the Planning
Commissioner with a Conditional Use request for additional storage facilities on this
piece of property. Staff is not in favor of additional storage facilities located in this area
on this piece of property. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to
answer them.
Odom: Staff you touched on the bill of assurance that was offered. You said 1999, but you
meant 1990 when that originally came through. You mentioned the bill of assurance
and that 60% of the trees would remain or something to that affect and that there would
be restricted access. What is the current status of how well that bill of assurance has
been maintained?
Conklin: With regard to 60% of the trees being left on the site, after meeting with the applicant
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 56
today, it is difficult for me to determine whether or not that has been met. There were
large pine trees located on the north and south property lines that were saved as part of
the large scale development. That was approved by the Planning Commission. Those
are existing. There were some trees shown, the number was twelve trees shown up in
front of this facility on Rupple Road. Those have all died in the past ten years
according to the applicant. With regard to the existing trees on this property that we
are looking at today, I am not sure whether or not that bill of assurance with regard to
the 60% of the tree preservation would apply -to those trees. The bill of assurance did
apply to this piece of property that we are looking at tonight but I'm not sure what the
total number of trees that were existing on the site prior to development and what
remains out there today. That's going to take additional research. The applicant may
be able to give more information on that. With regard to the access off of Wedington,
there has been a curb cut that has.been installed on Wedington and a gravel drive and
gate installed on this facility. According to the applicant that gate is only used three to
four times a year to bring in.large moving vans onto this site. The bill of assurance is
clear. It states that there shall be no access from Wedington. I did talk to the applicant
today about this issue and he feels that three to four times year and the gate is locked
most of the time, doesn't count as access. A. strict.interpretation of that bill of
assurance means no access to that facility so that would be in violation of that bill of
assurance.
Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Do you have any
presentation that you would like to make?
Caudle, Dennis: I'll answer some of the questions that he brought up there. As far as the
original bill of assurances that were given. The facility is more than did that on
the trees, we kept more like 70%. There is 193 trees right not on a three and a
half acre development that is there today. The number of trees was far in
excess of the original request. As far as the road that was put in at the same
time the new highway was being built out there which was completed the other
day, to put access to that property that was the time, speaking with the state,
that the road needed to be cut in there because there would be no access to
that property if we didn't put in a road. Something will be built on the property
sooner or later of some type. The state indicated that would be the proper time
to put in the road so a road was put in. As far as use, all the use is off of
Rupple. Just several months ago we put in a we had two gates off of Rupple
and we put in another gate off of Rupple, both electronic gates for one is a
entrance gate and one is an exit gate. There is no access off of Wedington and
is not to be used for that purpose. As far as the zoning that we are asking for,
i
Planning Commission -
October 23, 2000
Page 57
the Large Scale was approved ten years ago was just completed this year. It
was a long term. We put the buildings in as the area grew and as the need was.
That was just completed this year. The thing that we are looking at came up
with some people that rent there recently. I drove up to Bentonville and Bella
Vista and Springdale and looked at the facility there. There are no climate
control facilities in'the City of Fayetteville of this type. All the residents of the
City are forced to go to Springdale or further depending on whether they are
full. What we were proposing was to put in a climate controlled facility which is
exactly like the same type of building as what is there now except it will be
climate controlled with heat and air. It would require going just in front of the.
existing buildings toward the highway, not even half way to the highway to put
in the one building which would be a climate controlled facility. There was a
stated by several tenants that recently had to move out because the FDA
passed a law that they had to be in climate control. Now they live in
Fayetteville and they are forced to go to Springdale. That's why we would like..
to build another building to serve the people for that purpose which would be
the same thing than what is there now. It would look the same and be the
same. All it's access would be off of Rupple with the two gates. That is the
purpose of why we would like to do this, it does require a C-2 is what.I
understand for the storage business. That's why we are asking for C-2. That's
the purpose of what we are looking to do.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Odom: Thank
you
Mr. Caudle.
Let me
ask now,
is there any member of the audience that
would
like
to address us
on this
rezoning
request?
COMMISSION. DISCUSSION:
Odom: Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant
for questions and comments of the Planning Commission.
Ward: Not that we have much around here but I noticed in Bentonville and Rogers areas that
they are putting in a lot of really nice looking office complex on the front of the road
with nice looking buildings glass and brick and stone. With the large climate controlled
self -storage attached to them behind them for the vendors of Wal-Mart. Those have
really been filling up fast I noticed. It's a very nice looking facility from the road -
because it is.office type areas all along the front of the road attached to it, behind it is
part climate controlled storage units that these businesses can use or whatnot for
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 58
warehousing that would be something I would consider more towards than I would just
a self storage property out there on Wedington Drive.
Caudle: I looked at facilities in Springdale and I've looked at them in Bentonville, I haven't been
to Bella Vista or that far north. I've been as far as Bentonville and looked at the
facilities. I've been to the ones in Springdale, as far as there is two different type of
buildings between the two I have seen and then talking with the builder that built the one
in Bentonville, which is also the one that built all the buildings that I've built over the.
years. That's the one that I looked at and the one he was describing. I did look at the..
one in Springdale which he did not build but they are a entirely different type.
Hoffman: If everybody is done speaking I have some questions too. Let me start with staff. .1
understand the need for expanded storage area however, I am quite opposed to having
it the front on Wedington. Have you looked at the possibility of instead of rezoning,
doing a Conditional Use that carries with it certain guarantees that what is constructed
is not visible from Wedington along the lines of Commissioner Ward's statement either
by landscaping, screening or by a more attractive office type of building. Is that
possible to do instead of just rezoning? I couldn't be comfortable with rezoning it for
the storage units to face Wedington. We are really trying to take care with this
important corridor because it's just going to continue to grow and you have all the
references and cross-references to College Avenue and quite frankly self -storage
facilities are not the most attractive buildings in the world but there is a good need for
them. That's my question for staff on the Conditional Use, when he has addressed that,
I would like to ask if you considered just conditioning the existing buildings? Tim, could
you go first?
Conklin: Mini storage or storage units require a Conditional Use in C-2. They are not allowed in
C -I zoning. They are not Neighborhood Commercial use. The Conditional Use part
of it you can not apply for unless it's zoned C-2. This issue came up ten years ago and
Mr. Caudle walked with a bill of assurance to build a mini storage on the back part
that's zoned C-2. We have had what you talked about built in Fayetteville. The
Keating's built some mini storage over by Brahm's on College Avenue with office and
retail space up front. It's been built on Highway 265 also. I think Mr. Wilkins has built
some offices up front, mini storage in the back. Overall, I'm concerned about our
Commercial Design Standards and trying make it an attractive commercial area for the
residents that live out on Wedington Drive. When you have a storage building it's
difficult to have anything other than just a metal building due to the cost involved. I'm
all in favor to have that type of mixed use if we could have some type of office or retail
up front but just stand alone, I do not support that.
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 59
Hoffman: Back to the applicant, have you considered conditioning your existing buildings?
Caudle: As far as what we are talking about there; like I said I was only coming out a little not
even near close to half way to the highway. This new building would only go out a little
ways out from the existing fence now. The fence would be moved in front of that
building and there is still the large lot, probably close to an acre. Just a fraction under
probably for something would be built in the front whether it be an offrce. As far
blocking the view, there is still plenty of room there that something canbe built on the
front of the property. As far as this building here where all the.other, if you are driving
down Wedington, you see all the ends of every one of them and you can see up the
alleys. This building would face east and west which would block most of the buildings
on that end with that one building instead of all the buildings on the end this would be
blocked with the one building. As far as the way of prettying it up, if it's possible to do
that, I would consider some kind of prettying up that side of the building if that would
be something you would be interested in looking at because I just have to talk to the
builder and see what could be done. Whether you can put aside on that side of the
building that faces the highway that is more attractive, I would be willing to look at that
for sure. Definitely something will be built in front of it, facing from this building to the
highway in the future. That was one concern ten years ago.
Hoffman: They only thought is for expansion then?
Caudle: The what?
Hoffman: The only request then is for expansion, you had not considered the retro fitting of the
conditioned space in the existing buildings?
Caudle: The additional space?
Hoffman: Conditioning the existing space.
Caudle: I talked to the builder, it would almost be impossible to do due to the electricity. These
do require air and heat and it's just like your living room as far as humidity what they go
by. Climate control factors. As far as asking about reconditioning something that we
got and he said it probably could be done but is an impractical item.
Hoffman: Okay. My final question for the applicant, on the east side of the property, it looks like
there is an area that is vacant and has no buildings, could that be a location for what you
are proposing? On our little site plan on page 4.17, I don't know if you have the same
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 60
sheet or not.
Conklin: Since this data was received from the City with,regard to building footprints, two
additional storage buildings have been built. There is no additional room. They built
that at the Large Scale Development plan that was approved ten years ago.
Hoffman: That's all the questions I have. Thank.you very much.
Conklin: I would like to just to inform you as a Commission and the applicant and public that
when I did meet with the applicant today, we did talk about the existing trees on this
site. I did encourage Mr. Caudle to get with our Tree and Landscape Administrator
with regard to the existing oak trees on this piece of property for considerationof
development and future developments on this piece of property. I will work with Kim
Hesse and go over the bill of assurance with her to make sure that it was met in 1990
• and today and look at any remedies that we. have to take to make. sure it's not being
• violated.
Ward: Mr. Caudle, what is the size of the lot? Do you know what the depth is?
Caudle: From Wedington back to where the C-2 starts is 254 feet, I believe.
Ward: You are planning on using 125 feet of that?
Caudle: Far less than that. The building where the other units are 20 wide or 30 wide and fairly
long, the climate control has to be a lot wider building because of they way this is
handled as far as the heat and air. This building will be 60 feet wide, twice as wide as
any building there facing the other direction, it would be approximately 170 long.
Ward: So you really only need 70 feet?
Caudle: Approximately 70, what I was looking at it would be from the front of the building
facing Wedington to where the fence would be re -erected there would be
approximately twenty-five feet to drive around. the building so you are looking at about
85 to 90 feet probablytoward Wedington.
Ward: I'm just trying to work with you, in my case, I would not rezone the frontage on
Wedington anything but R-0, which it is right now. We do allow a lot more uses in R-0
than we used to. There is a possibility that, I can't speak for anybody else but I would
be maybe interested in helping you. I do think there is a need for some climate control
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 61
warehouse type of buildings out there and we can maybe zone C-2 a small parcel back
there for you, 70 or 80 feet of it. As far as changing the whole thing to C-2, it's not
going to happen tonight, I know that. Those are some ideas that you might think about.
Caudle: It's zoned half way to the highway to accomplish this building so the climate control
could be completed. Again I'm trying to fulfil the need that I've had a lot of requested
for. As far as the frontage, I don't intend to put a storage building out on Wedington up
against the highway. I never have. When the Large Scale was done there is no more
property in the C-2 area and it was just a case of there are times of the year when
storage units are hard to find around the City of Fayetteville. This building here was to
accomplish that.
Ward: I don't feel like I can support your change to what you need. [think it would be smart
to table it or come back with a different proposal than what you have tonight for sure.
Caudle: Not only going part way to the highway?
Ward: We can't.
Odom: Since we are throwing, I'm going to go ahead and let you know, I'm not going to be in
favor of that proposal as well. I think a lot of concession were made originally when
this property was zoned C-2 with the bill of assurances. and the R-0 up front. I think all
this negotiation has already taken place and the work has already been done. I think
we have plenty of C-2 Commercial inside the city limits of Fayetteville and so if there is
a need for this type of facility I think that there are plenty of areas that this type of
facility could go. So I'm not going to be in support of any proposal to accommodate
this piece of property any further. I think you need to know that up front before you
decide to start negotiating or doing anything of that nature. You may want to get the
feel of the rest of the members of the Commissioner. Anybody else?
Man: I agree with you completely.
Allen: As do I.
Bunch: As do 1.
Hoffman: In your proposal you said you would have a 60 foot wide building with about a 25 foot
drive aisle and you only have 1.5 acres here so that tome implies that would be taking
up a greater part of it. In the sixty foot wide building would that be a double loaded
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 62
building with the garage doors facing Wedington and facing the other side? In other
words, doors from the north and from the south?
Caudle:
Hoffman:
Caudle:
The facility I've seen in Bentonville, it's climate control is inside the center. There is an
outer border.
Right. So you would have garage doors facing Wedington.
Yes. In that facility I've seen up there. That is what I was talking about what to do on
the front of it there.
Hoffman: That being the case, I always hate to be negative toward a need but I. would suggest
•
you to look elsewhere and find some land that is already zoned appropriately for this
because this is an important aesthetic issue to this corridor. It was addressed ten years
ago. I too would deny a.zoning vote tonight.
Man: Do we need a motion?
Odom: Yes.
Hoffman: Unless he wants to withdraw the request.
Odom: We can move to approve, we can move to deny or if we don't take any action...
Conklin: You do need to take action on it. I think our ordinance states that if you don't take any
action you can deem as approved. I want you to take action on it this evening.
Odom: • Not only that, it give the applicant something. We are nothing more than a body that
recommends something anyway. Even if we approve it, he's got to go to the City
Council. If we deny it, it give him a right to appeal it. For the applicants sake, I think
we owe him the courtesy of doing something.
MOTION
Man: I would like to move to deny RZ00-25.00 based on the comments that you have heard.
Allen: Second
Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Man, second by Commissioner Allen, RZ 00-
Planning Commission
October 23, 2000
Page 63
25.00.
Caudle: The comment that was made a short time ago as far as possibly tabling it and
resubmitting with only partial for this building.
Odom: You can certainly do that if you want to but I'm here to tell you right here, right now, it
doesn't sound as though that's even going to fly.
Caudle: You are telling me that's not going to work either.
Odom: That's right. You have only one member even talking in favor of that. I would think
you would be better served to go ahead and accept thedenialand negotiate with. the
City Council if they are willing to do that. I don't know if they would be. I wouldn't
delay your project any further, if I was you but that is your call. If we deny you tonight,
you have the right to appeal that to the City Council.
Hoffman: If the City Council denies his request, is it six months or one year?
Conklin: It's one year.
Hoffman: It would be then another year before you could bring another idea forward.
Odom: No. That's not necessarily true. You could bring another idea forward. You can't C-
2 the whole thing.
Conklin: You could modify your request and bring it forward.
Hoffman: I just want to make sure you understand what to expect.
Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call RZ 00-25.00 is denied by an unanimous vote of 6-0-0.
. }
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 46
RZ 00-25.00: Rezoning (Caudle, pp 400) was submitted by Dennis Caudle for property located at
1192 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately
0.52 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Hoffman: The final item on our agenda is a Rezoning for Caudle submitted by Dennis Caudle for
property located at 1192 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R -C), Residential
Office and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial. I believe that we have seen this item before and Tim could
you,let us know. Before you get started, Mr. Caudle do you understand that you also
need five positive votes to approve this rezoning. Appeal on a rezoning request goes to
City Council not District Court.
Conklin: It's going to go City Council. That's correct.
Hoffman: You still need five positive votes.
Conklin: Yes.
If you don't recommend it with five
positive
votes then they have to appeal to the
City
Council. That's how they get before
the City
Council.
Hoffman: I think I misstated it when I was talking earlier that everybody had to go to District
Court, that's not the case with you. ,
Conklin: On October 23, 2000, the Planning Commission heard a request for .52 acres along
with adjacent property so they heard this request this evening of .52 acres with adjacent
property. That total property was 1.5 acres. The request was from R-0 to C-2. Staff
did not recommend that rezoning request: The Planning Commission voted
unanimously 6-0-0 to deny the request. I do have those minutes attached. The
applicant appealed the decision to City Council and on November 21, 2000, the City
Council heard this appeal request at that time they addressed an amended request with
the applicant that he did not want to rezone the entire 1.5 acres but a smaller portion,
.52 acres. The City Council did request that this .52 acres be brought back to the
Planning Commission for your consideration and recommendation to them. Keep in
mind the applicant originally requested the C-2 in order to apply for a conditional use
permit to build additional storage on this property. That is his same intent at this time.
Staff's original recommendation still stands with regard to denial. We are bringing this
back to you because the City Council would like for you to take a look at this rezoning.
The main differenpe is it'p smaller area, it's 90 feet in width, 253.6 feet long rectangle
that adjoins the West&de ni &orage facility located on Rupple Road. Just at the last
Planning Commission meeting, when we did hear this item, there was concern about the
N
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 47
Bill of Assurance and I just want to make sure the applicant didn't misunderstand what
I said at the Planning Commission and that was I was going to go out there with out
Landscape Administrator to make sure that there weren't any violations of that Bill of
Assurance. We have gone out there. We counted the trees. There are substantial
numbers of pine trees that are along the north/south and west/east property line. Based
on those numbers and the size of those trees, that Bill of Assurance has not been
violated. He's meeting that requirement to save those trees on that site. With regard to
the access from Wedington Road, that access has been barricaded and is not being
used for this facility. Those were the two things in the Bill of Assurance, tree
preservation and the access from Wedington. Both of those, for me, are not being
g
violated. Kim Hesse and I have taken a look at the trees and it's meeting that
requirement. I just wanted to clarify any misunderstandings that the Commission may
have had on that Bill of Assurance or the applicant or myself.
.Hoffman:_ .._._.Before we_get.to you,.Timlhave_a question, about- that. _Are you referring to the entire
site or just to the subject now up for us for rezoning?
Conklin: When I talked about the Bill of Assurance, the Bill of Assurance -was for -the entire -5.-.--
acres.
Hoffman: So we do have a good buffer between Wedington and the site?
Conklin: With regard to trees, it's interesting, the Bill of Assurance reads 60% of the trees. He
has pine trees that are spaced probably five feet apart, approximately 200 along the
south, north and east property line. Overall, when you look at the total number of trees
just because those pine trees are soldiered up along the property lines, he's meeting that
ordinance: With regard to our current Tree Preservation Ordinance, that's something
that Kim Hesse would have to take a look at with regard to the existing oak trees that
are on this property that are remaining.
Hoffman:. Okay. Thank Tim. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Tell us
your name please.
Caudle: Can I give you a copy of that?
Hoffman: Yes. You need to tell us who you are even though we know.
Caudle: At the time that this came
up
the first time in Planning
Commission
meeting, the original
property that was rezoned
ten
years ago was
originally
5.5 and they
rezoned the back
t
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 48
• portion and we built the storage facilities. At the time there was an indication that there
was. an need for them in the area and they were right, there has definitely been a need.
There has been a lot of houses built out there over these last ten years. What we find
now, we came to the little piece there on the front that turns back towards the highway,
-kind of a backwards L, we built as many buildings as we were originally designed to do
from the ten years ago plan. The thing that's come up is a need for storage in the area.
The climate control is a big factor that we come up with is the fact that there is no
climate control inside the City of Fayetteville. We thought we could build a building to
supply the need for the people that need that type of service. Right now there are
several people that have to go to Springdale. There was six people that we were
•• renting the facility for the last several years that the FDA passed a new law that their
stuff had to be in climate control, so they have all been forced to go to Springdale
because there is hone in the City of Fayetteville. What I was proposing was to built a
building that would provide the climate control type storage facility. The original
-request was to just.simply rezone all the lot to C-2 because it was C-2 in the back.
We brought in sewer several years ago to put storage buildings on all of it. First of all,
--storage buildings doesn't need sewer so that money will be wasted The original
-request-was to be able to have justenough area there to put in this one building. As far
as being declined on the entire C-2 request well that was probably asking for too much.
• I should have probably done it like this in the first place because we did bring in the
sewer, we didn't intend to build storage buildings out front anyway. To go back 90
feet toward the highway would allow us to build this one building which is right next to
what's already there, that you see on the drawing there. There are twelve buildings that
• sit on -the property now. This will be no different, as far as appearance, than what's
_ there. There was some concern in the Planning Commission meeting from the 23d as
far as the appearance, whether or not they like them. The lot on the front of the
drawing there, on the corner of Rupple, I think it's called Wedington Plaza, I talked
with them the other day and apparently they are starting construction next month which
will take up a large coverage of where we are at in the front there as far as exposure to
Wedington. One thing I said in the City Council meeting was that we would be more
than willing to put in a privacy fence, a nice one that has brickpillars and privacy in
between them in front of this building which would separate it from Wedington and
there is still plenty of room on the front of Wedington, approximately 177 feet.
Hoffman: Is that to the building or to the line of the zoning demarcation, that 177 feet?
Caudle: The length of the property, back to where
it's currently R-0, is
267 as
is shown on the
drawing there. To rezone 90 feet forward
still leaves 177 feet
before we reach the
Wedington Highway. We brought in the sewer and paid for it
several
years ago. It is
I.
Planning Commission
December Ii, 2000
Page 49
set up for an office environment and that's probably what would be built there in time.
Like I said, we have no plans at this point to build anything out front. To be allowed
the 90 feet in conjunction with what is already there, does allow us to build this building
that there is no question there is a need for it because the people do not have an access
-to-this type of service in this city--
Hoffman: This 90 feet gives you access completely around the building and then have some room
-for the-fence-thatfaces-Wedington?
Caudle: The corner once you come along the bottom, the 373 corner, if you just gotten out of
-the-line that is currently C-2 extends straight -on -across 253 feet at that comer, we are.
proposing.to turn south 90 feet and then go back 253 which would allow this building
to go•in right next to the 12 that's already there. -
.Hoffman: ...Got-itxhanks------------
Caudle: Like I said, it's just a case that there is a need and it is inside the existing facility with the•
building-that"s ixed-tobe built -and -the —privacy fence. -One of the -people that had a-
• concern about that, about allowing me to build this new building, that would be part of
the. concern that was stated as far as the visibility. That takes out a lot of visibility but it
does make for a nice facility that offers a full service. -
Hoffman: Anything else you want to say?
Caudle: No. - -
PUBLIC COMMENT: --- -------
Hoffman: Is there any member from the public that would like to comment on this? I see one
person back there. No? Thanks.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Hoffman: I'll bring it back to the Commission and the applicant for further discussion. Anybody?
-Hoover: I have a question for staff. Just because-i-didn--t-get to read the comprehensive plan
before I got here but my understanding is that our future thought on this area is R-0 and
that we are only putting C-2 at the nodes?
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 50
Conklin: That is correct and with regard to the Community Commercial designation on our
Future Land Use Plan, I will recommend as wehave for the past five years that it be C-
• I zoning which will not allow for the additional warehousing or storage facilities as a
• conditional use. Even if it was shown as that commercial, we would still be
-recommending for.C-1 and not_the C-2.- -Mr--. _Caudle; I do have one -question, how
many square feet will the storage building contain?
Caudle:
Approximately 10,000 in the'new building. Itis climate control.- It's a different design
than the other buildings, it does require a lot of different type of construction to
accomplish the climate control facility.
Marr:
Where exactly is the access to this building proposed to be, is it off of Highway 16 or is
it coming fromthis?
•Caudle:
On the drawing you see the- twelve buildings going downthrough there, on each end of
that first building, originally there was access with a controlled computer type gate on
----Me south side of that-building.-Jii the -last year -we put in an access at the north end of
--that-building-for-an-exit-only-gate--T-here-is-an-i-n:and-an-out-basically onto Rupple from
the facility. The building we are proposing, like I said, if you just extend that 273
straight across, it picks up right on the border of what is now C-2 and R-0. It's just
enough to put in that building and you come right in the facility when you get down to
that point, you look left at your buildings or you look right at this new building. All the
access is off of Rupple and like I said we put in an extra gate, having this many buildings
-and-this muchpeople-coming an going, we did open up the other gate and put in
• _another -computer access -gate to help with -the -flow of the traffic. There are times on
weekends, a pretty day, you will have several people out there so it did help the flow.
Marr:
Help me understand too, where exactly when you talk about a proposed brick privacy
combination fence to screen this.
Caudle: Again on my little drawing the building that I put on the drawing, the proposed building
it says 175 feet on it, move directly out in front of it approximately 20, feet. J
Marr: Would it go the whole distance of this orjust the length of that building?
Caudle: It would go in front of the building is the way it's proposed. There is drainage on the
other area there. There is a designed drainage ditch where all the buildings are drained
to a point, the water that comes off the buildings and between the alleys and that is a
drainage ditch that was designed for that purpose. -
Planning
Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 5.1
Man:
The reason for my questions are not to do approval of design here because I
understand this is a rezoning but one of the things that would certainly make me
consider it is the ability that when it did come through for design that it would be
completely screened because.I go back to Chairman Odom's comment when we heard
:this back on the 23`° that I certainly believe and agree with you that there is a need for
this in the City of Fayetteville but I also believe that there are locations of commercial
• C-2 space to be able to do this within the city already. More importantly I want to stay
•
consistent with the Land Use Plan of developing that into R-0. If we did this, what's
important to me is the abilityto take it out of sight. This -is much more appealing to me,
not to say I will vote for it still but much more appealing to me than what was originally
-presented.
Ward: -
:_ I think I would be, instead of -putting up a wood privacy fence;.! think that south side of
•
the building, in my case, I think it needs to be some type of, meet our Commercial
—--------
Design Standards for articulation and using some type of split face block and some
things like that instead of metal. I would be much more for it then than just putting up a
--In al-buiidrngTout-th�re.rmtalking-abaatstrictly the -south -side -of -the -building -with
---some-articulation-and-some-typeof-material-that-fits into -our Commercial Design
Standards like block, brick and other type of products. -That way you wouldn't have to
be .worried about putting up fences and all that type of stuff.
Caudle:
I would be more than willing to look at, from the manufacturer's to what could be done
as far as to brick that side of it or something to that affect. Again, your visibility right
now when you drive down Wedington you look over there, this is what you see. You
see those buildings as they are today. You are not going to be seeing anything different
than what you are seeing today. If we did what you propose we can look into bricking
- -
that side of it, that would improve it. Whether it was a privacy fence, because there
•
was a concern about it, the distance we set off the highway back in the trees alleviates
that concern_ This would be a whole lot better than what we are looking at right now
as far as the concern of what's out there right now.
—Hoffman: .......Staff, I have a question. I'm concerned about design on a rezoning. I wish that there
were a way. I understand because this lot is contiguous with your existing property,
why you want to put it here and why you don't want to go find another site.
-Caudle:—It-was-mentioned-in-the meeting-onthe 23`a;-you'roegot-economic assets that are
already out there and you run a professional operation, you don't go out and buy
property and build a building and expect to come out at all.
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 52
Hoffman: The question I have for staff is that, given the discussion that we've had tonight
concerning the screening of, the building or the other appearance, I'm not really for
Lee's idea because they are still.going to have all those garage doors facing Wedington,
I'm really more interested in screening the whole building. How many overhead doors
•will -be -facing Wedington in the new building? -
Caudle: Approximately 16.
Hoffman: I don't know how you would meet the Commercial Design Standards. Given the fact
that we've got a reasonable proposal for screening that's contiguous and has traffic
flowing out to Rupple Road and not Wedington, is there any method that we can
approve a rezoning subject to the statements, can the applicant offer Bills of Assurance
for instance that would help us along the way?
Conklin: ---- Keep- in mind,. this: will have to-comeback.asa..Conditional.Use and may have to.conie
• back as a Large Scale -Development if it's over 10,000 square feet so you will have
.--- pother opportunity -to place any.condition on there that you feel is appropriate. Also, if
you -m--zone,-it-couldbe-any-C --use-also that -could -go -in -therefrom a used -car lot to a
• night club.
Hoffman: There is no way to bring the two through at the same time like we did our Conditional
Use and Large Scale Developments?
Conklin:.- --Not-at this. time.
Caudle: Excuse me, has that not already been done 10 years ago? It was only 10 years ago.
Conklin: If the applicant would like to voluntarily offer a Bill of Assurance he can offer that as
you did, I believe, 10 years ago.
Caudle: This 90 feet is for this building and that's the only plan I have whatsoever and I would
-definitely have no problem doing anything there. Like I said, it's just this classification
does require C-2.
Hoffman: If this use and idea would go forward.
Caudle: It is there now and it is what is required to build a climate control building that is
needed.
1
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 53
Hoffman: You don't mind making that a condition of this?
TAPE TURNED:
Caudle: --It's a survey; I don't know if -it's from the right-of-way, they are calling it 267 feet and
they.are calling it 507 down the east side of the property which would include the R-0
and the C-2. I don't know if that's where that point of beginning is.
Conklin: With regard to that number, that is not something that we would use to map this area
out. We require a legal description and we are working with Mr. Caudle to get a legal
description that accurately -describes that piece of property It's clear to me that it's 90
• feet south of the current C-2 zoning and that's something that we will be making sure
..__that_legal-description-descnbes,-by the time we bring it forward to the City Council with
an ordinance. It's 90 feet south of that existing C-2 property.
Bunch: My.major concern is questioning this was to see if the remaining piece of property that I
--believe-is currently -R 0-tc-seeif-itwas adequately-sizedto put -in an -.R 0•development
—complete- ith-setbacks-and-utility e-asement-sand-that-sort-of-thing. -
Caudle: It's going to be approximately 253 by 150 minimum up to 170 depending `on where
that starts. -
Bunch: That's what I was wondering.
Conklin: It's about an acre.
Bunch: I just want to make sure that it's adequately sized for a development as zoned..
Caudle: . Approximately 253 by 160 give or take a little.
Hoffman: Anybody else?
MOTION:
Shackelford: I guess my take on this is, basically what we are looking at is an extension of an existing
building by the same owner. We are only talking about a 90 foot strip of land with very
limited access off of Rupple Road basically through the property that the applicant
already owns. As long as the front property remains R-0 which has the Wedington
frontage on it and is developed R-0 and I think we meet the intent of the 2020 plan,
i
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 54
with that being said and the applicant being willing to do a Bill of Assurance, I'm going
to make a motion that we recommend approval of RZ 00-25.00.
Ward: I'll second.
Hoffinan: _ I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commission Ward,
anybody else? Any other further discussion on this item?
Ward: This does have to come back no matter what happens?
Hoffman: Is it of sufficient size that we have to see it again, Tim?
Conklin: It depends on what size
building he
proposes on this property.
If it's over 10,000
square feet, you'll see it
as a Large
Scale. You will see it as a
Conditional Use.
Hoffman: an: We could,at that time follow up on the discussion tonight regarding the screening and.
appearance and so forth.
Conklin: Yes.. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation and. the City Council
rezones it, most likely.the conditional use recommendation is going to be for approval
with Bills of Assurance.
Hoffman: Just so we are all clear, can you work with the applicant with regard to the wording of
the Bills of Assurance? Since they come from the applicant, I'm not sure how to get
that.
Conklin: Sure. For clarification, we are talking about use of this property for this climate
controlled storage facility.
CHoffman: With screening.
Marr: Just one last question, did you investigate any other C-2 space for locating this facility
other than this location?
Caudle: I looked at a couple of lots for possibly a new facility because there is a need for a
storage facility. I have not found anything suitable at this point. There is some C-2
property in several areas around the city. There are a lot of factors that go into it as far
as access, location and need in the area. Right now there are people who come a
considerable distance because of the availability of storage in the area. I have looked.
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 55
Hoffman: Thank you. Anybody else have anything they would like to say before we call the roll?
You all ready? Nancy?
Allen: I'm not really clear of what we are requiring the applicant to do.
Hoffman: In rezonings, Tim -you can take this one if you want to.
Conklin: Sure. The applicant has offered to give us a Bill of Assurance which is a legal
document to tie to this rezoning that this 90 feet, with the property, will only be used for
a climate controlled storage facility and will contain screening of some sort. Based on
that information you need -to determine whether or=not you can make -this -
recommendation to the City Council, if you feel that -it's appropriate with this Bill of
-----Assucance-to-rezone-tl;is to C-2. Does -that clear-that.up?..-._
Bunch: If in the Bill of Assurance since we can't ask for it that the applicant offers, there was
some statement about making sure that it went -to the Large Scale -Development process
in ditiof the Conditional"Use prcess.-tthinktherre aresome square footage-'
-- 1irt9itations1i-fthe-appheant-offeiedto-us-that-this-would come through that process, I
would personally feel a little more at ease with it to make sure that we could look at it
and see that it fit our standards. .
Caudle: As far as the Large Scale, again I'm not familiar with all the rules as far as that's -on
projects over an acre, over 10,000 square feet. It has certain criteria.
Conklin: An addition of 10,000 square feet or more. Since. 10 years has passed, you do need to
be aware that the fee has gone from $50 to $900 application fee.
Caudle: Everything has gone up, I know. The only thing that I can think of that would require a
Large Scale is the size of the building. What originally has been drawn out on paper
could be just under it or just over it depending on whether you build it 175 foot long or
170 foot long. It's going to get that marginal there. We could keep it under the 10,000
square foot by simply taking 5 feet off the end of it.
Conklin: You wouldn't be the first developer or applicant to do that either. What I'm saying is,
people are aware of that regulation in Fayetteville and we do have projects, two or
three aycar that -come in just -below that criteria -
Caudle:. I understand that. If you are talking about the difference between $50 and $900,L
don't know what else is involved.
Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 56
Hoffman: Let me make sure that no matter what happens Tim; this is going to be coming back as
a Conditional Use because of the zoning?
Conklin: Yes.
Hoffman: This zoning is the only one that will permit this use without going to industrial zoning or
something like that.
Conklin: That's correct.
-Hoffman: That -is so similar to Large Scale Development review that I would say that it would be
not something that would be as important to me personally because in Conditional Uses
— -- - ---- ---we—_have--ablankslate-on4hose-yeally,-interms of- requirements.that we can place, in.
terms of lighting, screening, appearance, hours of operation, revocation and so on. In
that case, I would just prefer to let the motions stand as they were and you with your
Bill of Assurance asit is.
Bunch: That's my main concern in brining that subject up was to make sure that -we have -
adequate opportunity for the oversight on it
Shackelford: That was the intent of my motion knowing that we would get a chance to look at this
and we could put those limitations on it in order to grant the Conditional -Use.
Hoffman: No -more discussion I assume? -Okay, if everybody is ready, I-'m-goingto go ahead and
call the roll. -
ROLL CALL: ------ — — —
Upon roll call RZ 00-25.00 is approved on a 6-1-0 with Commissioner Man voting no.
Hoffman: Tim is there any other business this evening?
Conklin: There is no other business.
Hoffman: With that; -we are adjourned.
City Council Minutes
January 2, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Brockwick, 200 W. Lafayette, stated he had some petitions against this. If they were to take
away the convenient stores and grocery stores they were not talking about much money at all.
They had a good ordinance. It worked. The A&P Commission collected record revenues in
November. $117,000 in November. They had never collected that much before. They were
taxing the little guy to be fair. He asked them to keep it as it was.
Alderman Zurcher stated the petitions had approximately 650 signatures.
Mr. Jeff Erf, an area resident, asked if the City Council passed the ordinance, what would the
additional revenue be used for specifically and would any of it go towards the Town Center..
Ms. Johnson replied the A&P Commission as set up by State law has total discretion over use of
those funds. It was her understanding that most of that could go into special projects. The Town
Center funds for the coming year are already set in the budget. They did not anticipate any
additional funds being needed for that.
Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE WAS REFERRED TO ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
NEW BUSINESS
RZ 00-25.00
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 00-25.00 as submitted by Dennis Caudle for
property located at 1192 Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and
contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Mr. Conklin stated this was the second time this request has been brought before the City
Council. The original request had been for an acre and a half to be rezoned to C-2. At that
meeting it was sent back to the Planning Commission. What had been considered was a ninety -
foot strip of property directly adjacent and south of existing mini -storage units. The Planning
Commission did approve the amended request. Along with the amended request was a Bill,of
Assurance. The Bill of Assurance will state that the property can only be used for storage
facility, climate controlled. There had been a lot of discussion on screen of the facility. That will
be dealt with at the Planning Commission during the conditional use process. In 1990 there had
been a request to rezone the property to C-2. At that time they had rezoned the northern 3.5 acres
to C-2. He requested that the item not go through all three readings. He still needed to work
with the applicant on the Bill of Assurance and legal description. Staff recommendation had been
denied. It remained the same. It was staff recommendation that additional storage units in this
I
i
City Council Minutes
January 2, 2001
Page 6
area were not appropriate. The basis for their recommendation had been that he had three and
half acres and the remainder should be left as R -O and developed as such.
Alderman Santos asked if they could make the rezoning conditional upon the Conditional Use
being approved.
Mr. Conklin stated they had not done that in the past, placing conditions on rezonings. His
understanding was that a Bill of Assurance could only be offered by the applicant. The applicant
had offered a new Bill of Assurance.
Mr.
Rose stated
he was concerned
about placing
a condition on a rezoning because they would
get
into contract
zoning.
Alderman Santos expressed concern about leaving only a half of a lot to be developed as R -O.
Mr. Conklin stated it was his hope that the R -O lot would develop with professional offices,
which would help hide the storage building. They would rather see the site develop as R -O with
professional offices to help screen the building. His hope was that something would develop in
front. The owner has proposed a solid fence in front of the storage facility.
Alderman Davis stated he thought the remaining acre of land would be enough for an office with
the proper amount of parking and landscaping.
Mr. Conklin stated they should be able to develop an office building on an acre, but they would
be limited on the number of parking spaces. One of the reasons the Planning Commission
decided to approve the amendment was that Mr. Caudle did have an existing facility out there
and to build an additional:building in another location he would incur additional expenses. They
also looked at the additional R -O out front and that in the future there could be something out
front to screen this building.
Alderman Zurcher asked if the staff still stood behind their findings.
Mr. Conklin replied that they still stood behind their findings. Those finding were from their
Planning Commission by-law. They required staff to make those findings with regard to
consistency. Based on those findings they had recommended denial.
Alderman Reynolds asked if the owner had agreed to remove the gate on Wedington Drive.
Mr. Conklin stated that he had not. The drive had been blocked off. The Bill of Assurance did
not talk about canopy, it discussed number of trees. Clearly, there were approximately 200 trees
on the site that had been kept.
r
City Council Minutes
January 2, 2001
Page 7
Mr. Dennis Caudle, owner, stated they had discussed the need for a climate controlled facility in
Fayetteville. They only needed ninety feet to construct this building. They had discussed
constructing a fence in front of the storage units. They had spent thousands of dollars to bring
the sewer onto the lot. They had never had any intentions of constructing a storage unit on that
lot. He did not agree with a lot of the staff findings. The traffic was not a problem. People went
for months without coming to the facility. There was no questions there was a need for this type
of building. This building was like the existing one. It was not going to be any different than
what was there.
ORDINANCE WAS LEFT ON THE FIRST READING.
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
An ordinance waiving competitive bidding for purchasing a replacement emergency generator for
use by the Police Department, authorizing Chris King Electric to install the new generator and
remove the old generator and ratifying staff actions in obtaining an emergency generator to
ensure emergency communications system maintains electrical power. The City's existing
emergency generator is inoperable and parts are not readily available. A replacement generator is
available.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Alderman Davis moved to suspend the rules and move to the second reading. Alderman
Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Alderman
Trumbo moved
to suspend
the rules and move
to the third and final reading.
Alderman
Davis seconded
the motion.
Upon roll call the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the third time.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion carried
unanimously.
Alderman Reynolds asked if we had retained the old generator.
Mr. Steve Davis, Budget Manager, stated the old generator would be reworked by their Water
and Sewer Department for use as emergency backup power for one of their lift stations.
ORDINANCE 4286 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
City Council Minutes
January 16, 2001
Page 2
OLD BUSINESS
RZ00-25.00: An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ00-25.00 as submitted by Dennis
Caudle for property located at 1 192 Rupple Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office
and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the January 2, 2001.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Alderman Young moved to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.
Alderman Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time.
Alderman
Santos stated he thought
the
plan for that part of the town had changed and he felt that
it did fit in
with what was.going in
out
there.
Alderman Jordan asked if the owner was planning to put up a fence
Mr. Conklin stated the city had a Bill of Assurance for this rezoning. The Bill of Assurance did
state that the Planning Commission would take a look at what type of screening is appropriate
when the conditional use was applied for the storage facility. In regard to the distance from the
street, it was 138 feet from Wedington to the new boundary line, which would be developed. It
was approximately .88 acres.
Alderman Thiel stated her biggest concern was the curb cut which had been made and the fact
that there was a driveway built back to this. The owner had stated he was not going to use that
and had put up a temporary gate. She was concerned that people would be using the driveway in
a few years. The fact that the garage doors faced out to the street also concerned her. She wished
there was some assurance that they could have that the drive would never be used.
Mr. Conklin stated there had been a Bill of Assurance which had been entered into in 1990 that
stated that access to the storage facility would be from Rupple Road and not Wedington. As with
all Bills of Assurances, the staff had to monitor them and make sure that they were being
enforced. In this instance, when it was discovered that the Highway Department built a curb cut
and a drive back to the facility they brought it to the owners attention. The owner had blocked
the drive. That Bill of Assurance was still in effect, if he violated the Bill ofAssurance, then the
City would take enforcement action to correct the situation.
Alderman Davis stated they could look at the curb cut as being a prudent business decision. The
drive would help Mr. Caudle in future development. He did not look at it as a negative on the
City Council Minutes
January 16, 2001
Page 3
owners part. He
hoped that
with
the Bill
of Assurance the owner was looking toward the future
and that the curb
cut would
help
with his
development cost.
Curb cuts were expensive.
Mr. Conklin stated that was the owners explanation, that when the Highway Department came in
and widened Wedington Road they had asked him what his future plans were and if he would
need a curb cut. The Bill of Assurance did not discuss having a curb cut on Wedington. It talked
about a driveway to the storage facility, which had been blocked off at this time.
Alderman Reynolds stated that what bothered him was that the owner had agreed to enter from
Rupple, then there had been a gate put up facing Wedington. When this proposal first came
through it was for all heated units. Those plans had been changed to include some without
climate control. He was not going to support this request.
Alderman Zurcher asked if staff still supported their staff findings in their report.
Mr. Conklin stated the staff still agreed with their findings. This past fall he had brought forward
an ordinance to allow additional commercial uses in C-1 zoning in order to provide
neighborhood type retail services for the residential homes in that area and other C- I areas.
Typically they had argued that they needed C-2 in order to allow different types of uses. He tried
to correct that this past fall. If this was shown as commercial on their Land Use Plan, the staff
would be recommending C -I and not C-2 zoning. C-2 zoning was required in order to have the
storage use on this property. With regard to compatibility and their Land Use Plan, it did not
meet their current Land Use Plan, which had been adopted December 19, 2000.
Alderman Zurcher asked if staff still supported their finding on traffic.
Mr. Conklin stated that they still supported that finding. With regard to potential and future
traffic it was always difficult to determine at the rezoning time. There were many different uses
in C -I and C-2 that would be on this property. It was always difficult to make a finding that it
will cause traffic congestion and danger.
Alderman Davis stated he assumed that Rupple Road would have a stop light in the future.
Mr. Dennis Caudle, owner, stated when the highway was being constructed the State had told
him that was the time to put in the driveway to serve that property. They were fixing to build on
the lot adjacent to it and there would be no access to that property. As far as the gate being put
in, it was put in at that time for the emergency entrance. They could read the minutes from 1990,
the Fire Chief required fire hydrants. It was to be used as an emergency exit. It was not going to
be used as an entrance or an exist. It was strictly for emergency use. The fence would be moved
when the new building was constructed.
a)
City Council Minutes
January 16, 2001
Page 4
Alderman Young stated another concern was changing the use from climate controlled to just
regular storage.
Mr. Caudle stated that was never changed. It was climate controlled in the middle and the outer
was regular storage units. This design would help insulate the building and secure the
intersection.
Alderman Young stated they had been under the impression that it was all climate controlled.
Mr. Caudle stated he thought that they had discussed it when they discussed the doors facing the
highway. A true climate controlled building had no doors on the outside.
Mr. Conklin stated when they had worked on the Bill of Assurance with the applicant, that was
when he discovered that this facility also included the mini -storage units on the north and south
sides. As with all Bills of Assurance, the staff could not request or require the applicant to sign.
It had to be voluntarily offered by the applicant. They had modified the Bill of Assurance and
put in a "climate controlled facility and/or mini -storage units." That was what Mr. Caudle had
agreed to and that was the Bill of Assurance being offered. He was concerned when he
discovered that this also contained mini -storage because at Planning Commission they had
discussed the type of assurance being offered. There were three or four places in the minutes
where he had talked about the applicant offering them a climate controlled storage facility Bill of
Assurance that the property would be used for this purpose. Now they were discussing mini -
storage and climate controlled. He thought one of main arguments had been that he had existing
mini -storage and. that was a new use that was needed in Fayetteville and it was a climate
controlled facility. It was one of the things the Planning Commission had considered when they
recommended that the property be rezoned to C-2.
Alderman Zurcher stated he was inclined to decline this request. The City had a 2020 Plan and if
they decided it was not a good plan for them, then they needed to go back and change it. Until
that happened, he felt pretty good about sticking to that plan.
Alderman Davis asked what percentage of the facility was going to climate controlled.
Mr. Caudle replied it was approximately half climate controlled and half regular type storage,
similar to the existing buildings. He added there was a need for this type of storage in the area.
If there was a misunderstanding, that was exactly what it was, a misunderstanding. There was a
strong need for the additional units. There would not be a unit available to rent, of any nature,
during the summer season. West Side Storage was completely full during the summer months,
from April to August. This building would contain eighty-four units. Forty of those would be
climate controlled. The climate controlled would be inside the building surrounded by the
regular units.
City Council Minutes
January 16, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Conklin stated it was his understanding the building would look like a mini -storage building
surrounding the perimeter of the building, then within the center of the building would be the
climate controlled storage facility.
In response to questions from Alderman Thiel, Mr. Conklin stated there was 138 feet in front of
the proposed storage facility, which was enough for a professional office building with parking.
In regards to screening, Mr. Caudle did have some proposed screening for the site. Staff would
also be making a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
would also debate the type of screening required for this facility.
Mr. Caudle stated the screening that he was most attracted to was the concrete pillars with
regular privacy type fence between them.
Alderman Jordan stated he had thought it was all going to be climate controlled. He wondered
how much of that swayed the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bob Estes, Planning Commissioner, stated he recalled that they had discussed that it was
climate controlled. It was his recollection that the area had been rezoned some time ago for this
purpose. He -recalled that it was to be climate controlled. It was not a determining factor in his
vote. What was, was the rezoning some years ago for this purpose.
Alderman Davis stated that in today's society there were many people who had to travel across
town to store their extra possessions in a storage unit. It was not a high traffic use. If traffic
were to drive by during the day, they would never see a lot of cars sitting there. As far as traffic
problems, there really should not be a whole lot of congestion due to this. In time, they would
see a stop light at Rupple Road.
Alderman Zurcher stated there was probably more C-2 land in Fayetteville than what could be
used in the next few years.
Mr. Conklin stated there was quiet a bit of land zoned C-2 that was undeveloped or could be
redeveloped.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the motion carried by a vote of
6-2-0. Zurcher and Reynolds voting nay.
ORDINANCE 4287 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
NEW BUSINESS
FIRST NIGHT: A resolution approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $15,000.
Westside Village I-PZD 08-3062
Planning Commission Minutes
November 10, 2008
I-PZD 08-3062: (WESTSIDE STORAGE, 400): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for
property located at 1192 N RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R -O,
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.77 acres. The request is to
review a zoning and land use only application for an additional climate controlled storage
building, a new entrance from Wedington Drive with new management buildings at that
entrance.
Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, discussing the history of the zoning
request on the property in the 1990s, 2001, etc. One of the big discussions in the last
request was to develop a building that would sufficiently screen the existing mini -storage
facility. Fulcher described the facade facing the street. It has been difficult to review this
application in the context of City Plan 2025. Rather, we looked more in context of what
is there on the site, the existing land use of the storage facility that is established. It was
staff's hope that with a properly designed building we would see, a facade that would
come close to meeting commercial design standards, something that would be required in
the R -O zoning rdistrict. The catalyst for this entire request is from:the Rupple Rd
expansion. As part of the Links project, two lanes of northbound traffic are being
constructed along the entire property frontage. This property and the property to the
south are where both of the lanes of right-of-way have to be obtained for the east side of
the road. There is a Bill of Assurance from 1990 existing on the property which limited
access to Rupple Rd., which the City Council has recently reviewed and changed. The
applicant would like to be able to access Wedington Drive with "this addition. Staff has
found in favor of the PZD, with some conditions. Staff is recommending a minor change
to the building facade to provide a parapet wall on the top for a different form. Fulcher
discussed other conditions of approval, including limited egress access to Rupple Road,
landscaping, signage, Bill of Assurance regarding trees.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated. that the City Council did approve a change to the Bill
of Assurance, to allow the access to Wedington. They also agreed to purchase right-of-
way for Rupple Road.
Denms;Caudle, applicant, stated that he received the report today. Several months ago I
received 'aletter discussing the right-of-way road expansion. I understand now why they
want to take all the right-of-way from the right side of the road. My first question was
what is it doing to me. Will this affect my ability to operate? There were several options
we looked at. One option was that I could move to the other lot I own on Wedington.
We agreed that would fix the problem. I'm being asked to operate with two parking
spaces. We're here because this is being brought on to me. I did not ask to build this
building. In 2001, it was made pretty clear this use wouldn't be extended. But this is
what we discussed as a solution. Caudle discussed Lindsey's project, occupancy of
buildings happening today. I am trying to work something out. Some of the conditions I
agree with, some I don't. The trees on Rupple today, they are going to remove 10 of
them. Three trees on my other lot were found to be healthy, one is inside the proposed
building. I have concerns with #6, it's leaning over the street, potentially a public danger.
It's unacceptable to keep the 3 that are inside the building. We approached the PZD
because we were told it would move the process along much quicker. To get to this
point, I've spent thousands of dollars. I didn't ask for this, just trying to find something
that works out for everybody.
Steve Clark, applicant, stated he would like to summarize the concerns. On the building
elevations, we feel it is attractive like it is, we would rather not change the elevation.
Right-of-way issues are non -issues; we will dedicate along Wedington and we have an
agreement in principle for Rupple. The entry/exit onto Rupple — we would prefer the
existing southern drive to remain as an entry only, and not be limited to exit traffic.
Williams asked if a truck/trailer would be able to fit into this entry without stopping in
[Rupple] road.
Clark stated that he thinks so, but doesn't know for sure: 'If it%turns out that there is not
adequate room for a truck/trailer, we would be willing'to look at that as an exit -only
drive, but at this time we would prefer it not be a condition of approval.
a
Williams stated that one thing that can happen: with a PZD is that since its: not only
looked at by the Planning Commission but they look�at it and make recommendations and
it goes to City Council, so even if that condition remains, it's something certainly you can
look at again and speak to the City Council about.
Clark stated that we concur and agree, and the owner has expected to plant the trees and
meet the Wedington Rd. frontage. However, along.Rupple,Rd several of his trees are
already being taken, he is being compensated,for them, but for us to have to go back in
and replant trees on 30' 'centers along Rupple Rd., especially when he's doing no
development along Rupple Rd Rupple Rd. development is finished, he won't be making
changes to that, so'again he would prefer not to be required to meet the standards.
Basically, the City is buying his trees and then he has to turn around and spend money to
put new tree • k i':ference would be not to have that. Signage is agreed to. It's
a catch -22 of i , r rvdtion. One, he is having to continue to meet the standards
that were ag:. r, I• i Claikk_discussed concerns with preserving the 25% of trees
on t &site. ving the building to ireserve the trees could be very difficult.
ti,•, p2
No public comment was received.
Commissioner Anthes''sia'ted that a LSD plan will be following this PZD plan within a
year. She asked, staff to clarify, given what has been discussed tonight, what is the
purview of us having to make a decision on tonight, and what will be decided at the time
of large scale.
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that with a PZD we are looking at use.
We don't typically get into a lot of design detail until we have a Large Scale
Develpoment. Historically, however, this applicant has had concerns about what is
approved at a Conditional Use Permit level and then a Large Scale Development level
later, so we're trying to be as detailed as possible on this particular application. While
not all the information is presented, for instance a grading plan to understand how this
impacts tree
preservation, because this
is a zoning and
land use only PZD, there are no
development
rights associated with it.
In reality, the
Large Scale Development would
look a lot like what you're seeing now
in terms of a site plan and elevations. It would be
accompanied
with a grading plan and
landscape plan,
but I would assume the site plan
would look a
lot like what you're seeing here.
Anthes stated she is hearing a lot about trees tonight but without a landscape plan and
grading plan and a report from our Urban Forester and staff, she is not prepared to answer
any of those questions tonight. I'm happy to say there are some current ordinances that
need to be followed, but then whether those are saved trees, mitigation trees, that is best
left to Large scale development.
Pate stated that is typically what we do with a Large scale"'development, we look at those
details and get a report from the Urban Forester. F•. r.
a.
Anthes stated that on page one, paragraph five Hof the project booklet;,"brick fascia"
should be changed to "brick facade." :
Clark stated he thought that fascia was the correct'term. He stated that it would be
changed. t.
Commissioner Anthes asked about d'esignstandards in industrial zones. What are we
reviewing for those? ,jji1l
r.
Pate stated that there were design standardswith any PZD. Because this is a mini -storage
use, we are not technically reviewing this for commercial design standards, but in the
UDC there are general design`.standards presented with each and every planning area.
These are the design standards, that are being presented for this one planning area.
.
Commissioner Anthes,asked,what we should be looking at for this building as opposed
wto what e would be looking at�for. commercial design standards.
Pate stated than the PZD ordinance states that an applicant is supposed to present design
standards. What,we do witli?all PZDs is compare them to existing zoning districts to see
how closely they)followrtthe existing standards. Sometimes they vary dramatically,
sometimes they're relatively close. I believe Jesse presented our comparison on this one
with an R -O office building, and that's what we were pushing towards for this particular
application. A lot of the discussion a couple years back when this originally came
through was if a building can fit on this site that would screen the other buildings. The
fence was considered to be a temporary screen at that time. So, another building, whether
it be an office building in R -O, could it meet those standards? That's why we've worked
with the applicant to look at different colors and materials to vertically break up the
facade. More than anything, the addition of a parapet -type structure may help to make it
appear more like an office building. That's a pretty detailed recommendation at this
point in time for a concept PZD.
Commissioner Anthes stated that at this point, we could say we're going to be reviewing
the building at large scale, but we appreciate they are breaking up the facade vertically,
and we'd like to see if they could come back with a variation of a parapet that would look
more like an office building, and then come back with that at large scale.
Commissioner Winston asked if the building is climate controlled, and if there will be
roof units.
Clark stated that it is climate controlled for most of interior. The north elevation will be
a standard, non -climate controlled storage. Four interior bays{are climate controlled.
Rooftop units are not planned but would be screened if they are installed. The existing
building does have two units on the roof now.
Caudle stated that a future building that screens what isbehind'it'is an idea. No office
building could be designed to screen on a lot this size'as a ell as th sICaudle discussed in
length that he did not know if there would be roof top units, and hevisnot the A/C guy.
There may be some there, there may not. 'a�, V
Commissioner Winston stated that his comment was simply to the point, like on another
application tonight, that screening of roof -top unitstend,to get forgotten about in the
design phase, and he just wants the applicant to be aware 'A parapet wall might be the
solution for that issue.
Caudle stated he can't tell where the A/C units; are going to go. He discussed roof units
and screening. \
Commissioner Winstonsuggt'ed a conditiob,could be included that the roof -top units
are required to be screened, Aea`sked,for clarifi ation on condition #6, tree canopy.
. A
Pate disci ssed'tree":canonv andtthe Bill of Assurance. The Bill of Assurance and tree
in
Commissioner Cabe asdi about current access on Rupple Road, and asked if the
applicant looked•at relocating the office to the next unit to the east. It seems like there
Fit
are some easy solptions without all of this project. Cabe discussed other options like
moving the office to the next building.
Clark stated that Caudle and I looked at alternatives. The problem is that it creates dead-
end spaces with drive aisles, with no turn -around. There's no good way to continue to
operate in a good and safe manner. .
Commissioner Lack stated he has a great concern with the primary entrance on
Wedington Drive. I know the City Council has spoken on that, but from a Planning
Commissioner perspective, it seems like we're giving up one dangerous condition for
another. 1 would prefer to see a negotiation on keeping the access on Rupple. The
storage on Wedington could still be pursued with an even longer building to conceal the
mini -storage facility.
Caudle stated that a good potential solution would have been to take property from the
west side of the road, but that was not the choice that was made, they chose to take it all
from the east side of the road. So the alternative answer to the problem was this PZD.
Commissioner Lack asked Pate to explain the negotiations.
Pate stated he was not involved from the beginning of this discussion, I will defer to the
City Attorney.
Williams stated that there were several meetings looking_ a: this issue and one of the
things the City Council and I consider in a situation like t&i s iS cost to the taxpayers. If
we are obtaining right-of-way from Mr. Caudle that w u d degrade, the functionality of
his property, then the taxpayers will pay for that. The -other tf. i , .'t want to do is
adversely affect his property for himself. The orily way his .a, I r, •'. ,' Ron Petrie as
the City Engineer could see to avoid a major diadvantage to his propertyiwould be to in
fact allow him to have access on Wedington, alt oUgh originally that was�ydenied, either
for safety or aesthetic reasons. This was explained to theCity Council and they agreed to
withdraw that portion of the Bill of,Assurance. I o hope we will reconsider on the
Rupple Rd. entrance because I thinkl at$or most vehicles'that would be the preferred
entry. I hope we can work that out betww een noand the City Council meetings. There
was not another way to configure the lorithat wwe could figure ut that would not cost a lot
to taxpayers and detrimentally affect Mr1Caudle's bu in ss. The decision to allow an
entry off Wedington and alter the Bill of'Assurancejhas been made, unless there is
something dramatic )41jh traffisafety we can point to and say City Council was wrong to
allow that. k ti,
Commissioner askedYate aboutaccess to other less -traveled roads, which is the
policy in our access managemenbordinances.
Pate discussed how Rup"ple.Road actually has a higher classification on the Master Street
Plan than.,Wedington, though Wellington is more commonly traveled. Rupple is a
Principal Attenal ParkwayYWedington is a Principal Arterial. We will potentially have
more traffic onFltupple in/he future, due to the fact that Rupple will be a true connecting
street, from Hwy 62 andFarmington north to the mall area. We also looked at curb cut
location in relationsliip to Wedington/Rupple intersection; the Wedington access is
actually further away than the Rupple access. In response to Mr. Williams' comment
about limiting access to exit -only on Rupple, staff presented the recommendation for exit
only because that's what Mr. Petrie presented to the Council when he presented the
negotiated purchase price and amended Bill of Assurance. So that's something we are
simply being consistent with. The Council will review this again if it goes forward, so if
they wish to review that decision, they can. But it was our understanding that everyone
was on the same page that this would be exit -only because of the concerns about safety.
Caudle discussed the Bill of Assurance, and trees in the yard on Wedington.
Motion:
Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a
recommendation of approval with conditions as listed in the staff report, agreeing with
staff's recommendations, noting on condition #1 that a gable or hipped roof may be too
onerous, but the applicant should add a parapet wall, and realizing that a Large Scale
Development will be reviewed within one year from approval, where we'll review all of
the other information, including tree preservation, landscaping, grading, final building
elevations, etc.. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. '`,
a.
,. 1 r.
'u4"Ml.a.•. — In -1 —a • � f
f r
- _
"}WFfIINf;TO Ri
r n
n
..:
t f
Y
.I'
{
• ocrts
/ Rtzoej3 Zoo1
. ye�
t • a ,'1 s .•r . J,w,
R q. •. .
c d • IR
D • `�..•Ti 1 ir•eO .•• I
;, 111 aww..+,.�r• . • '.r' -j
+j�]
i •,�,�� ` �.Ik �Di Fiir�•fJ �� 'e� •���..(•, r1y k } ; .. n. ..... ,. J�
IL
.V a�.�l Lard
i
0.
ti "`= SUBJECT PROPER1 Y
y
. j•���/j♦ r 1 7..2.
ci
_--_. __.. S'Y•♦-r:. ?, fib,.
t - e - - j
P
Overview
o:... 0 37.5 75 150 225 300
o_.
Feet
CPZD08-3062 WESTSIDE STORAGE
One Mile View
.j -_, I \.r•Y,.
gtlC bTk' a; 'S' •,,
� • ; "�
rr�ll w... r wa•IX
J/ 1 fIll \ . i aI •t,'_,__._,1.
•1YN AA' •w
•
P.
11 II
{ + r
L4•_• 1 ( • I. i 7
f'F•.r. YI �, ! • Y.'Yn '• •I '�; . L •
I..• •
• • nMINN. R.�
•ryYY!•i •• r' ;1 I • 'y • 4 ^TYI r! \•i .f: !•. r{• \L •a�xaryYyy WYIa� •; I1}..;.
IllIllig :ii1J Is
I Y �n.� ice. NIP!! ••I .\p. N. nor. �•,' V iI i
u I II • .I 1 • Wi •
1 •
JCJ
Y • rl 1. I. ; r\..r . IYi I
• IL •� ��1Vwwww • I IIi•iirf..r'yI{.I".Ii••
nI. a .I�°i ;
•
.j, WYpYII/�NYYi�77 1,�.
! • 1I L ,�••.M �rf � 1 I•• IS�I•.�•.' 'SiI
I`i,,. 1 .!\�^ili Lli■J9+�I ,'- •:. rF��••.� II
L J�_J ,'•.'""�Y{�!/Y�� I J I. ; .• _` F•��I/. I Y III
r ,.
•
P.
_ _ If
JF1" 1 i .l
''• •.. ..I ��r _•�Y qo• II!
rk I1 • I 1 • J
•I .•1 . .0 r_�JUl1 .l. Fti} V
• \ I �•r�11 nD1N ND' '`LIr• 1
I' YiaI\• YII r •1 • iY iL� • .6 11•
�r,"'•'•-r1•U• I .1'4 1 '.'• Y'11. b[
�•' • •
` WNW'.• . - •• 1 ••P.
1• •
••11•, ''+• 1• 1. f Ir YanIU•Y� .•
{ , YY 1 • •
•i 1 Y
•YI•••1M. r •• i gr
II
��• ��•_I I�, Innun_,ti._u•r.I 1 �. •
•'r .• 1 v7. •I p8
1r
/
1L I ti. • 1.1 .S
• 1k -A' b! -Y. .Y1d •..
I
' .In. J': Ill• ,�l''... H•'. ..
: l .•r•
• .
OL 1 .
I'
P
yr.
i.
•.
...........
II !
`. ,II
n.. 1 F.�• _ ME fl 1
Overview Legend Boundary
fl Subject Property
__"__::", -. `ri Planning Area
CPZD08-3062 oOOOc
I•II 0Overlay District
w000�
Outside City
Legend
Hillside-Hilltop O erlay District
0 0.25 0.5 1
M les
6 Si
Owner Proposed Conditions of Approval Westside Storage - I-PZD:
Condition # 1.
Staff Recommended Condition -
1. Planning Commission determination of design standards. Staff generally finds in favor of the
proposed building elevations as submitted. However, in an effort to present a building that
serves as a screen for the remainder of the storage facility, staff recommends that a gable,
hipped, other roof style, or varying parapet be utilized in place of the low slopping roofs
often associated with storage facilities.
Discussion -
The roof line as proposed will serve as a suitable screen for the storage buildings further to the
north. Additional parapets are not required to screen the existing buildings. The owner agrees
that any mechanical equipment visible from Wedington Drive shall be screen.
Owner Requested Condition -
1. Planning Commission determination of design standards. Staffgenerally finds in favor of the
proposed building elevations as submitted. The owner proposes to construct the roof line as
shown on the submitted elevations and without additional gables, hipped roofs or parapets. The
building as proposed will provide adequate screening of the existing buildings. The owner
agrees to provide screening for any rooftop units constructed on the proposed building.
Condition # 2.
Staff Recommended Condition -
2. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 48.5' feet from centerline along Wedington Drive
shall be dedicated by warranty deed prior to building permit approval. If right-of-way for
Rupple Road has not been obtained, the applicant shall dedicate 53.5' of right-of-way from
centerline prior to building permit.
Discussion -
The only reason this project is being proposed is because the City needs the ROW along Rupple
Road. If the City does not intend to acquire the Rupple Road ROW, then a building permit will
not be obtained.
Owner Requested Condition -
2. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 48.5' feet from centerline along Wedington Drive
shall be dedicated by warranty deed prior to building permit approval.
Condition # 3.
Staff Recommended Condition -
3. The two existing driveways on Rupple Road shall be limited to exit only and shall be clearly
marked with signage indicated such restriction. At the time of project development, all
remaining parking spaces shall be removed adjacent to Rupple Road.
Discussion -
The owner is not prepared to limit both of the driveways on to Rupple Road to exit only. He is
agreeable to making the north drive an Exit only with appropriate signs. However the south
drive should remain as an entrance. There is adequate stacking distance for cars, pick-up trucks
and bob -tail moving trucks, without compromising safety along Rupple Road.
It is our opinion that it is preferable that the south Rupple Road entrance be allowed to prevent
traffic from north of this property from having to pass through the Rupple Road- Wedington
Drive intersection and then turn left across Wedington Drive.
We do concur that Semi -tractor/ trailer vehicles and other vehicles pulling trailers shall be
prohibited from using this entrance. Appropriate signs will be used to mark this entrance.
Owner Requested Condition -
3. The north existing driveway on Rupple Road shall be limited to exit only and shall be clearly
marked with signage indicating such restriction. The south driveway on Rupple Road shall
continue to function as a entrance and exit, but will be signed to prohibit vehicles with trailers.
Condition # 4.
Staff Recommended Condition -
4. Landscaping along Wedington Drive and Rupple Road shall be installed to meet the
requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. A landscape plan will be reviewed at the time of
development.
Discussion -
The owner is not constructing any improvements along the Rupple Road frontage. Additionally,
the existing trees along Rupple will potential be damaged by the proposed construction. We do
not agree to construct any additional landscaping at the Rupple Road Right -of -Way.
The owner agrees to landscape along Wedington Drive in accordance with the current landscape
ordinance.
Owner Requested Condition -
4. Landscaping along Wedington Drive shall be installed to meet the requirements of the
Landscape Ordinance. A landscape plan will be reviewed at the time of development. No
additional landscaping shall be installed by the developer along Rupple Road.
Condition # 5.
Staff Recommended Condition -
5. Signage within the I-PZD zoning district shall be in accordance with the R-0 zoning district.
This is acceptable to the owner.
Condition # 6.
Staff Recommended Condition -
6. In addition to the requirement of the Bill of Assurance to preserve 60% of all existing trees
with a caliper of 8" or more, the development shall also be required to comply with the Tree
Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of
development, with a minimum of 25% canopy.
Discussion -
The owner made an agreement with the City during the original approval process regarding the
tree preservation. Additionally this would not be an issue at this time if the City was not
acquiring additional ROW along Rupple Road. The owner is bound by the original Bill of
Assurance and believes that the City should also honor their side of the previous agreement, as
well.
Owner Requested Condition -
6. The original requirement in accordance with the Bill ofAssurance to preserve 60% of all
existing trees with a caliper of 8" or more, shall continue and apply to this project. No
additional preservation requirements shall apply.
Condition # 7.
Staff Recommended Condition -
7. Though this PZD is conceptual only, the Urban Forester has visited the property and assessed
the condition of the existing trees. Many are in poor condition, and their removal is
recommended with development. However, the Urban Forester is recommending that with
the development plan submitted, the applicant shall evaluate reducing the building size
and or placement to potentially protect threes #5, 8, and 13, in addition to those currently
being planned for protection. Final recommendations will take place at the time of
development review.
Discussion -
The Owner is not able to amortize the cost of the relocation without the proposed building area.
The owner is agreeable to preserving tree # 13 if the existing grades will allow storm runoff and
preservation of the tree to be accomplished. Trees # 5 and 8 can not be preserved without
significant revisions to the design and will need to removed.
Owner Requested Condition -
7. Though this PZD is conceptual only, the Urban Forester has visited the property and assessed
the condition of the existing trees. Many are in poor condition, and their removal is
recommended with development. However, the Urban Forester is recommending that with the
development plan submitted, the applicant shall evaluate protecting tree # 13 ifgrades and
storm water drainage issues allow, in addition to those currently being planned for protection.
Final recommendations will take place at the time of development review.
The following conditions are acceptable to the owner.
Staff Recommended Condition -
8. Large scale development approval shall be obtained within one year from the date of City
Council approval of the Planned Zoning District and prior to the commencement of
construction. A final certificate of occupancy shall be obtained within three years from the
date of large scale development approval.
Staff Recommended Condition -
9. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards
submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property.
Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with
review of the Master Development Plan - Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall
also be binding.
Staff Recommended Condition -
10. The following revisions shall be completed to the booklets /plats prior to re -submittal for
City
Council consideration:
a. Provide the percentage of lot area covered by buildings and paved areas for the entire
5.05 acre site.
b. Booklet. Page 3 and 4. The permitted uses listed on Page 3 do not match those listed
in the zoning comparison chart on Page 4. Remove Use Unit 8.
•
uo
fl I''I 8 ! d
2� LE i Hj f� E a C?
B S}[p p 1
gAg§8§91 aiD SaLL66 Lyp d6S $B hI
L��J �� ms$a� SSa ?€d r'+ �` rn O�
9${8 Sai = BF i°Sf ;�® '� y�i e$ •z vi n LUU
Ia
a d Set se @°Syy �9=jd m�LL'^
d t { 1 S2 F1 L9 •j SO�LL� .-. lILL
b11 h.11
° s Ilk e' 9 8 Q
O S S z Sa o
1B{( btfll 6dl S°€a a
19°611111141,111113111,11111 t€6
N
a.�
Co
LL
—c
C)c _ _
A n
- LD
t 9 R W L vv
C"O a ° �
E
4 1'YIIIL....J '^
V J
0 Q_Ct) _
o c
000 _ °'
a
e ? • ••V W
_ O n`\. gene. 4•W m V • �•
J
C
- W�0p(�' W v c Li
WOr 4
■ A` JJ t} a m
W Cs')—�m
I m� oil
rn mQ
V)
`V 0 a r' i
Cl)= I C I
<r
a N O
ONQ) I °' 8.0 P.
I Co
as oO8-°
_N sI
Ill $.I
r €
O
N 2e
+J }}
C
3
U o
Wom~oW u�3 uamomo q
I QuV Ei1Hfh
w S.ao o 39 mourn >W�OCa4o > I.I
m3 vUa• ea �aodl- 01' IV. eSorMa WIm.12<a
Ia_^'o�gg'SW�usa=oo�EmLL�.<I.�'��
IF <W I zkFuz3 1. �z r'^ `aio u roomI:
vFouscois 1�5o99� 6o uSzfR u� z �LL 3l,'i<gaae€'2 m^o'iwrd
5LL�A N..O ttF mO•, �jS 6 OF' FZ-M In'3 z
Fo vZ3: ,F,{W3oa'S aa' otI o F wah euW�.^..S�m soya
(p 1'z Q'3uooLLo uu ov a r3>�<m3pz 3 Y= 0z�y .�.tLzm Om O� m„6n $Ft•I'°i0 '^0<3a('
czz- SS pp YY
F-62 ZauOzF IF2WIOI: 0<O I`3�CU$OFo2m�FOA�o°n'<w
Lid i <F<Y Vm^ Irl�✓J zml^�T�
AY.Sn A.rnyW .rnw LiF I W�NjOaW Wm�OW-UZa�
Q m C Z Oy<Iw UZ Um �.Vb•-�6FW
F <
„C $
I
g sp_epuelg luawdo_anaa pue 6uiuo_ _.•• --C
—SO dWllC
f w Z a6eFolg aP!S isa/y� ...•,..aa—x•.��a.n•..-...�.o
I( ; Lj
-ar' n. ...; L ./. '3Y Im.9'!0 aaw PUgIU5U0
�y +Brmveo Ka3.Axa a3m4tl 31va ��115M aM's ' �J _
gg
� e i ��'p�p ��8 Y 7 ��z
Q Z 6Ebiq�J�jFQq>Ly e p o y O
w WM�e]dGiVif ma �8 S m, U
i
n 6
Y a U eON Off, 6® eaxe o z
�_<$$ <'
} i I aS�gy'n <ou8�y �'`R€€a qqpp
J a. w I Wee mi d �1imbry Gi
FI y' oat Va tt(OZ
1 F
Pc
Y fl 0
o z €
:1 S a 2 ° N W
e9� @ zfa �11111
�Is�0.� gg J 'lii3
t i , aI fi sa,@, aka aE 4E
tl f f }}' as�ag£$� ¢.
a
♦ 1 i3 a s -g
S Ya 1� 4sg€EEEsVV 2 $gxx g8^ s s ^N
°• r: ` H 8 CBTa Len N �z
g
e g e 8a l g� € N m °
` e=jm t �e� {Es +F a
a 3 8 E S86Elit
"�ta.a.tas
1ati
I
/1 F �
o j
_ v
! 1 4
Cu
Er
(a m
>_ E UN"nll u�L Ali ill
O a a•1--xO 507.10 I i §
N z G EIci $so -
•
a r
�8 isrn�m� 38m�
-- -- 40.29' 2 °
�_\)
S o
a =m�
YI �n
// e
{�YipV(l C c2 @ cR e2
/� I mmQQ ny5aj 6^ a 85SG EHy§<$
— \Vy I I I O LLLSp₹ a�i! g+FF6�
Cl) {fp/tea ,,:vr Y n a� 1�iFs e322iii rrlls�� pS$j•is
IQJ ¢ -' I 1111 I a m EAu. 0,-z�
� o � a io _ LL
N iii
•�V4? I vi �• 2� S � .�Zm `�
. CU•' ^ reW .L
Q v W I �• I Wo€�m�m
I 11yyzz7, v Jy`FO
.i. r ..F3SaSm Coo Ci �mv'.>pF,m
I I b I
(RRyii1..y 5«rFZFp % 0 I I Qr..� OCWCW hF�� �.A rJ.ev� n1 yW�v..OZ
X >4 O I w F °rar.rK<ao 6
C7 w �� �.. I N
It
I b¢aq ti0am wom
mox I
I
I
♦1Z£•09 I
I � z
;i
g 71
Ii' 5
Ati�Iq 7S(A. "D OH�ysi I: I s
a�
t;.;. .- • ............
I 3 r n; a
zSS9Z H„1£,8z0ZON I '"kO
3 a a a�F
6009-WLU MV'0IiiAfl0Aej
'ulN'N L qo108Z I `as
r1.4 Qv
M
g ueld Wawdganap false j .,'I. —
LLeTw,� ReBAO �Nc'a
i W E a6eio a 1 sa
rj 51 I_- 1S P.S 1 M
y i� �, — �sr a Caa eamea uw �nm`f`el�
E .'..i pp99 6 ae vxnm :�emv�so aaaxazw Ursa amps
rc�
i ggyy
}\.,+ as W ISe11k1 w�dd3`3 `3Y,'s`� U
2 U I NON B$ 8 O Nape o 111111111
__ _:'t inn
e� O
rz v miey� z
j o m w
z
p 'CC
♦ xv 'ea�xi 8j dli
n`a b p g U
-._�. -^ Ii mom nli It 6 .r j mer �enr _n VSF
1 �@
i � r
a gb
ES €s t
rn yy
rm TO Q'e
z s
z gy�gp
q <� 5 3 E`naf Yj $ n
a 5
�f�
JY�� •OLL� '1m bm� U38m_ � j
v S Y
q� I ' n q
4? .
N b €€ s
cu
C _ y
cc /3a9 ■eF1'O'd
a WOZIOMl ^al RJOa�Jl
•
O'21'48" W 507 000•oersasse I
aD °' ,_ .29' I m E
m
e
Q3
I
`vim I I 'aa LLei�OR I
N
y � '
t1_0 lY Y3gC
IZE509 /o jl
8 =g
I $ 88 Y
i
I I
ale4dsH .'• s� iia
1 ii • �y�. H..,� '� CGB �a•9 BQQ ':. sevl au�d v��rgi&' i0*i�' '• �I I I GF5 E eJIB
fL839W 3„ J " ! 3a g-
�o I Ids"gi:�
/aooeArlujgl.,N10eaecaj ✓ I ggB €"zs�g;
'� NWl'N BLIW €� � c e
eNel axlaed 4 eeaye0 I I 6 S �$ $k p
♦' v
Project Booklet
Westside Storage
I-PZD 08-3062
November 13, 2008
larknsultin
g
CIVIL/ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Project Booklet
Westside Storage Expansion
November 13, 2008
A. Current Owner
West Side Storage, Inc
Dennis Caudle
1192 N Rupple Rd
Fayetteville AR 72704
479 444 7177
B. Project Summary
This 5.05 acre tract is the site of an existing self storage facility located at 1192 Rupple
Road, just north of the intersection with Wedington Dr. The property also has frontage
on Wedington Dr, however a Bill of Assurance was executed on July 10,1990 (Bk 1379,
pg 147) prohibiting access to the self storage units from Wedington Dr.
The City of Fayetteville is acquiring additional Right -of -Way (ROW) along Rupple Road
for the widening project under construction. The widening project will take all of the
additional ROW from the east side of Rupple Road. Please see sheet 3 of 3 of the Master
Development Plan for plans of the street widening
Because of the additional right-of-way requirements of the widening project, the existing
entry drives into the storage buildings of off Rupple Road will no longer function safely
and effectively for large moving trucks. There simply is not sufficient stacking distance
to allow the trucks to completely exit the road before entering the gate, creating a
significant safety issue.
The Owner proposes to relocate the entry drive to Wedington Drive and to construct a
new office and onsite manager's quarters at the relocated entry. In addition to the
relocated office the Owner desires to construct an additional climate controlled storage
building.
The Owner will agree to construct the Climate controlled storage building such that there
are no overhead doors on the side of the building facing Wedington Drive. Additionally
the Owner will design the building so that the side facing Wedington Drive will have
brick facade and will be visually attractive for citizens traveling along Wedington Drive.
This project will be constructed in a single phase. Large scale development approval shall
be obtained within one year from City Council approval of the PZD. The project shall
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within three years from large scale development
approval.
C. Project Concept
I. The public streets will remain as currently established. The property will remain
as a single lot.
2. See attached site plan
3. No specific buffer areas are being proposed. The front building setback will be
50', actual building line will be 56' from the ROW to save several large oak trees.
The parking area will be constructed adjacent to the driveway.
4. The owner built the first phase of this project in the early 1990's. At that time he
agreed to preserve a percentage of the trees that existed at that time. His
understanding was that those trees would meet the preservation requirement for
all future phases. The rows of existing pine trees along the north and south
property line met that numeric requirement.
However in addition to those trees we propose to preserve four of the eight oak
trees that are in the front of the building. The existing pine trees along the west
property line will also be preserved. These trees will exceed the 15% preservation
requirement currently in place for commercial sites, for this portion of the total
development.
5. A shallow detention pond is proposed to be constructed in the area on the west
side of the entry drive. The existing site drains through an existing shallow swale
in this area. The peak runoff from the existing storage buildings will be reduced
to offset the increase in impervious cover from this development. Detention
calculations will be completed during the final design for the project.
6. The front setback area will remain undisturbed. There are several large oak trees
that will remain. No formal undisturbed natural areas are proposed.
7. There are existing utilities adjacent to the property along Wedington Drive. New
services will be installed to the building.
8. Since there is only a single building proposed there will not be formal
Architectural Standards prepared. The proposed building is presented with this
application.
9. See attached building elevations.
D. Phasing
This project will he constructed in a single phase. Large scale development approval shall
be obtained within one year from City Council approval of the PZD. The project shall
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within three years from large scale development
approval.
E. Proposed Planning Areas
There will be only one planning area in this project. The PA will be Industrial
Warehousing / storage in nature and uses with an ancillary onsite manager's apartment.
F. Proposed Zoning and Development Standards Westside Storage
Proposed Zoning Standards- Industrial PZD - Planning Area 1
B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 5
Government Facilities
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 38
Mini storage units
An attached ancillary residential use shall be permitted by right within I-PZD 08-3062 Westside Storage.
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities
(C) Density., maximum density 4 units/ac.
(D) Bulk and area regulations., None.
(El Setback reaulations..
Front
50 ft.
Side
10 ft.
Side- when contiguous to a
residential district
15 ft.
Rear
0 ft.
Height Restrictions = 30 feet maximum
Maximum Building Area = 15,000 SF
G. Zoning Comparison Chart
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning Westside Storage
RO
PA -1
Uses
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 5
Government Facilities
Unit 5
Government Facilities
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 38
Mini storage units
Unit 12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 25
Professional Offices
Conditional Uses
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use
permit
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use
permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
Unit 11
Manufactured Home Park
Unit 13
Eating places
Unit 15
Neighborhood Shopping Goods
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
Bulk and Area Regulations
Lot width
minimum
Lot width
minimum
None
Manufactured
Home Park
100 ft
None
Lot within a
manufactured
home park
50 ft
None
single family
60 ft
None
4
two family
60 ft
None
three or more
90 ft
None
Lot Area Minimum:
Manufactured
Home Park
3 acres
Residential
None
Lot within a
manufactured
home park
4200 SF
Non -Residential
None
Townhouses:
Development
Individual Lot
10,000 SF
2,500 SF
None
single family
6000 SF
None
two family
6500 SF
None
three or more
8000 SF
None
Fraternity or
Sorority
1 acre
None
Land Area per Dwelling Unit
Manufactured
Home
3,000 SF
None
Town Homes &
Apartments
No Bedroom
One Bedroom
Two or more
Bedrooms
1,000 SF
1,000 SF
1,200 SF
None
Fraternity or
Sorority
500 SF per Resident
None
Density
Units per acre
4 to 24
4
Setbacks
Front
30 ft
Front
50'
Front, if Parking
is allowed
50 ft
Front, if Parking
is allowed
50'
Front, in Hillside
Front, in Hillside
N/A
Overlay District
15 ft
Overlay District
Side
l0 ft
Side
10'
Side, when
Side adjacent to
contiguous to a
15 ft
residential
15'
residential district
Side, in Hillside
Side, in Hillside
N/A
Overlay District
8 ft
Overlay District
Rear, without
25 ft
Rear
0'
easement or alley
Rear, from
Rear, from
N/A
centerline of
to ft
centerline of
public alley
public alley
Rear, in Hillside
Rear, in Hillside
N/A
Overlay District
15 ft
Overlay District
H. Recreational Facilities
This is a commercial use only and does not require parkland dedication.
I. Reason for Requesting Change
This site is located at the intersection of Rupple Road and Wedington Road. Rupple Road is
currently being widened by another Developer in accordance with the approved Master Street
Plan. The widening project is requiring additional street Right -of -Way on the east side of Rupple
Road. When the project is completed the existing entrance drive to the storage facility will not
provide safe access into the business.
When the entry drive is moved to the Wedington Road frontage it will be necessary to relocate
the office/ security area to be adjacent the new access point.
J. Compatibility with Surrounding Property
The development will be compatible with the other commercial properties in the area. Access
into the property will be Wedington Drive. The existing driveways onto Rupple Road will
become exit only gates
K. Compliance with Fayetteville City Plan 2025
Development of this property as a commercial development is consistent with the city plan 2025.
This project is located in the City Neighborhood Area which confines mixed and low -intensity
non-residential use to corner locations. This project is located at the corner of Rupple Road, and
Wedington Road. Both of the streets are designated as Principal Arterial Streets and while this is
not the exact comer it is within 400 feet.
Additionally the project meets other City Plan 2025 goals by constructing in an infill area. Also
by constructing in the existing commercial area at the intersection it will not increase suburban
sprawl.
L. Traffic Studies
This development will not significantly increase traffic to the existing storage facility and does
not require a traffic study
M. Impact on City Services
Both
water and
sewer service
is available through existing public mains. This project will not
have
a negative
impact on the
City infrastructure.
N. STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS
Dedication - The developer will dedicate all easements and street ROW as part of the
easement plat required prior to building permit. The ownership of the remaining land
will be vested in the developer.
2. Offsite improvements may be required; however these improvements can not be
determined until detailed plans are submitted.
The developer proposes to leave several of the large oak trees when developing the
project. There are no wetlands or floodplains on this project.
4. This project will be constructed in a single phase. Large scale development approval shall
be obtained within one year from City Council approval of the PZD. The project shall
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within three years from large scale developement
approval.
5. There is an existing fire
hydrant at
the northeast
corner of the site. This will provide
adequate
fire protection
and meets
current code
requirements.
6. None
There are no requirements for parks or trails. This project meets the requirements for
open space.
O. Conceptual Development Standards
Landscaping will be in conformance with the Landscape Ordinance. Screening will be
required in conformance with Chapter 166.14(D)(6) and (7), for non-residential
uses/mini-storage uses adjacent to a residential district.
2. Adequate traffic circulation will be provided. The new connection to Wedington Drive is
required due to the Right -of -Way dedication along Rupple Road.
Parking standards will be in conformance with Fayetteville regulations.
4. Perimeter landscaping will be in conformance with the landscape ordinance.
5. Existing sidewalks in accordance with the sidewalk regulations were constructed along
Wedington Drive during the widening project recently completed.
6. Streetlights will be standard lights and will be installed per the Fayetteville ordinances.
7. Water service will be from the public water main on the south side of Wedington Drive
Right of Way.
8. Sewer service will be provided by the public sewer main at the southwest corner of the
property.
9. There will be no new streets dedicated
as a result of this project.
Wedington Drive is
currently at arterial
standards. Rupple
Road is being constructed
to arterial
standards.
10. The only residential building will be the onsite manager's apartment and will be
incorporated into the climate controlled storage building.
11. Tree preservation will be in conformance with the applicable ordinances.
12. There will not be separate architectural design standards. The building shown in this
document is the only proposed building.
13. Signage in compliance with the residential office zoning district shall be permitted. A
sign permit will be obtained prior to construction. Only monument signs shall be
permitted; pole/pylon signs shall be prohibited.
14. There are no view protection issues.
15. The owner acknowledges that the approval of this PZD can be revoked for
noncompliance with the conditions approved by the City. The owner agrees to meet the
conditions as approved
0
16. There will be no Restrictive Covenants, Trusts, or Homeowners Associations.
P. Fulfillment of intent of Planned Zonin! District
One purpose of the PZD is to allow flexibility in the zoning ordinance for non standard
developments when the tract has special features of geographic location, topography, size or
shape.
The necessity to relocate the entry drive due to the widening project along Rupple Road has
created an undue hardship on the owner. The facility will not operate safely without the
relocation of the entry drive and the ancillary office and onsite manager's apartment.
9
��•1 -may i `. - d �♦� 1
'.'
• `1 1
�e'1utlx.Jfi.C " .iefn,ir •
u..r♦ H.•r'•i"�w^^.-•'nii^.^ .✓.n.�Y..
y.R.
•.Ir 1• I•
� n 1
�� b !2'!4I
(�11.IyR. �i •
•YQIM� ay .e!.1 r• r!1 �: i
- " r". v... }•• -..
r• 4
kt:
y a1 ___
I ar.
� 1 S
:
It
lark
onsulting
CIVIL / ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
3715 Business Drive, Suite 202 Fayetteville, AR 72703 (479)444-8171
SCALE: 1'x-40'
DATE REVISED: I CHECKED BY:
DATE: 8/5/08 I —
Westside Stor
Ruple Road Im
JSC
DRAWN BY:
JSC
SVSNV)I Y '311V�3113AV! L4S.U3:L)3.LIHObIV
60- Lsz (sit')
BY 311IA31.L3AYd
3OVHOIS 3OIS 1S3M HO SS3NISfO'ONc
s. :Id.r. �L*CO)NI .1319OIN
Page 1 of!
Clarice Pearman - Ords. 5210 & 5211
From:
Clarice Pearman
To:
Pate, Jeremy
Date:
1.9.09 9:51 AM
Subject:
Ords. 5210 & 5211
CC:
Audit; GIS
Attachments:
Audit; GIS
Jeremy:
Attached is a copy the above ordinances passed by the City Council January 6, 2009 regarding the following:
1. I-PZD 08-3062 Westside Storage
2. VAC 08-2982 Markham Hill
Please let me know if there is anything else needed for this item.
Have a good day.
Clarice
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\cpearman.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49671 E31 FA... 1.9.09
RECEIVED
JAN 202009
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
SE10
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN INDUSTRIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED I-PZD 08-
3D62 WESTSIDE STORAGE, LOCATED AT 1192
NORTH RUFFLE ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXI-
MATELY 0.77 ACRES: AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE',
AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
a e ev' le
Y ARKANSAS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
• SQL That Me zone classAaation of the fofowing de, it,Jl het -0c,.11 ._,.
laws
From R -D, Residential Office to I-PZD 0&3062 Westside Storage as shown in Exhibit A
and depicted in Exhibit "8' attached hereto and made a part herett.
2 That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master deve
plan, development standards. statement of commitments and the conditions of approval as
ted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council. further, that the condiiuii.
approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the Coy
Fayetteville
Section 3. That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the repurt
ments of the master development plan have been net.
Section 4.. That the official zoning map of the City at Fayetteville. Arkansas. is hereby amended to
reflect Me zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this 6M day of January, 2009
APPROVED. ATTEST
By: By -
UONELD JORDAN, Bayer SONDRA E. WITH. City ONrk/Trwaunr
Exhibit A is a map and may be viewed in the office of the Fayetteville City Clerk/Treasurer during nor
mal business hours
EXHIBIT T
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWN-
SHIP 16 NORTH. RANGE 31 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS'. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE
TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE NO2°3119E 26700 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF.
THENCE S87`05'1TE 373.10 FEET TO A FOUND 5B' REBAR. THENCE S02°2831'W 92.20 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE S86°4936E 254.23 FEET, THENCE S03°2148'W 131.38
FEET. TO THE EXISTING NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WEDINGTON DRIVE (ARKANSAS STATE
HIGHWAY 016),. THENCE N8701916'W 252.18 FEET, ALONG SAID ROW, THENCE NO2°2831 -E
133.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 077 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. SUB-
JECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WEDINGTDN DRIVE (ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY 016j ON THE
SOUTH AND TO ALL OTHER EASEMENTS AND 11tGHT-OF-WAYS OF RECORD.