HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4307 ORDINANCE NO, 4307
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AD01-12.00 TO AMEND
CHAPTER 161 ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, RMF-6, RMF-12 AND RMF-18,
SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIVISION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 . That the City Council hereby Approves AD01-12.00 to
Amend Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance
to include additional Multi-family Zoning Districts, RMF-6, RMF-12, and RMF-
18, submitted by the City of Fayetteville Planning Division.
PASSED AND APPROVED this _/Z day of April, 2001 .
$1 FAyeeT
k. APPROVED:
By:
AN COODY, M or
By:
Bather Woodruff, City Cler <
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4307
CROSS REFERENCE:
04/17/01 Ordinance No. 4307
03/22/01 Planning Division Correspondence
03/26/01 Planning Commission (Pgs. 63-65)
04/17/01 Staff Review Form
04/24/01 Memo to Tim Conklin, Planning Director, from Heather Woodruff, City
Clerk
05/10/01 Memo to Kit Williams, City Attorney, Tim Conklin, Planning Director,
from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk, regarding Ordinance approving AD
01 - 12.00
07/05/00 Ordinance No. 4253
07/05/00 Exhibit "A" (Chapter 162 : Use Units) (Ord. No. 4253)
NOTES:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AD 01 - 12.00 TO AMEND CHAPTER 161
ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, RMF-
61 RMF- 12 AND RMF- 18, SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
PLANNING DIVISION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 . That the City Council hereby Approves AD 01 - 12.00 to Amend Chapter 161
Zoning Regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance to include additional Multi-
family Zoning Districts, RMF-6, RMF- 12, and RMF- 18, submitted by the City of
Fayetteville Planning Division.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of April, 2001 .
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: March 22, 2001
AD 01 -5.00: Administrative Item (Multi-family Zoning Districts) was submitted by the
Planning Division to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to include additional multi-
family zoning districts.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the creation of three new zoning
districts, RMF-6, RMF-12 and RMF-18 as defined in this report.
Background :
During the General Plan 2020 update which was adopted by City Council December 19, 2000,
there was discussion regarding the large range of permitted density within the R-2, Medium
Density Residential zoning district. Currently a property zoned R-2 may be developed with
anywhere between 0 and 24 units per acre. An additional implementation strategy regarding
residential areas was added to the General Plan and is shown below:
Excerpted from General Plan 2020, Chapter 6 : GUIDING POLICIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Residential Areas : Implementation Strategies
6.3 .m Develop an ordinance that provides a transition in multi-family zoning density from 6
units per acre to the current 24 units per acre allowed under R-2 Medium Density
Residential zoning.
The following zoning districts (RMF-6, RMF- 12 & RMF- 18) have been designed to address this
issue. The intent is to create districts which permit the same uses and provide for the same land
area requirements as the current R-2, Medium Density Residential district, while allowing for a
progression of densities. If adopted by City Council, applicants would have three more possible
H:1 USERSICOMMONIDAWNYV"ORTS1PC13-16-01 lzoning_mfdisMcts.wpd
a 0
districts to use when considering a rezoning request. Having these options will also provide
greater flexibility for staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Because the density
ranges are tighter, the impact of a development in one of these districts will be more targeted and
specific and will therefore be easier to predict. The result is a development which matches the
zoning district with regard to density without the need for bills of assurance limiting number of
units. Another benefit to having more of a density progression in the multifamily districts is that
neighbors can better determine the impact of proposed developments. There is less guess work
involved when the number of units allowed by right is narrower.
H.I USERSICOA3afOMDAWN7VtEPOR?SIPC13.26.01 Izoning_mfdistricts.wpd
0 r
6161.061 DISTRICT RMF-6 LOW DENSITY 2. Lot Area Minimum.
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. Mobile Home Park 3 Acres
A. Purpose. The Low Density Multi-family Lot Within a Mobile 4,200 Sq. Ft.
Residential District is designed to permit and Home Park
encourage the development of multifamily residences
at a low density that is appropriate to the area and can Row House:
serve as a transition between higher densities and Development 102000 Sq. Ft.
single family residential areas. Individual Lot 2,500 Sq. Ft.
Single-Family 600 Sq. Ft.
B. Uses' 1. Uses Permitted. Two-Family 7,000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 1 City-Wide Uses by Right Three or More 91000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 8 Single-Family Dwellings Fraternity or Sorority 2 Acres
Unit 9 Multifamily Dwellings - Medium Professional Offices 1 Acre
Density
3. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit.
2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to Mobile Home 3,000 Sq. Ft.
the Planning Commission.
Apartments:
Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use Two or More 2,000 Sq. Ft.
Permit Bedrooms
Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities One Bedroom 1 ,700 Sq. Ft.
No Bedroom 11700 Sq. Ft.
Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities
Fraternity or Sorority 1 ,000 Sq. Ft. per
Unit 11 Mobile Home Park Resident
Unit 25 Professional Offices
E. Yard Requirements (feet).
C. Density.
FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR
Families Per Acre 4 to 6 YARD
D. Bulk and Area Regulations. 25 8 25
1. Lot Width Minimum. Cross Reference: Variances Chapter 156.
Mobile Home Park 100 Feet F. Height Regulations. Any building
Lot within a Mobile 50 Feet which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back
Home Park from any side boundary line an additional distance of
one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
One Family 60 Feet
(Code 1991 , § 160.033; Code 1965, App. A, Art.
Two Family 60 Feet 5(III); Ord. No. 2320, 4-5-77; Ord. No. 2700, 2-2-81)
Three or More 90 Feet
Professional Offices 100 Feet
H:1 USER,YICOAAdON DAWN7IREPORMS PC13-26011zoning_mfdis1Ncts.wpd
• r
§161.062 DISTRICT RMF-12 MODERATE 2. Lot Area Minimum.
DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. Mobile Home Park 3 Acres
A. Purpose. The Moderate Density Multi- Lot Within a Mobile 43200 Sq. Ft.
family Residential District is designed to permit and Home Park
encourage the development of multifamily residences
at a moderate density that is appropriate to the area. Row House:
Development 1000 Sq. Ft.
Individual Lot 2,500 Sq. Ft.
B. Uses.
1. Uses Permitted. Single-Family 6,000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 1 City-Wide Uses by Right Two-Family 71000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 8 Single-Family Dwellings Three or More 93000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 9 Multifamily Dwellings - Medium Fraternity or Sorority 2 Acres
Density Professional Offices 1 Acre
2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to
the Planning Commission. 3. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit.
Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use Mobile Home 31000 Sq. Ft.
Permit Apartments:
Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities Two or More 200 Sq. Ft.
Bedrooms
Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities One Bedroom 12700 Sq. Ft.
No Bedroom 1 ,700 Sq. Ft.
Unit 11 Mobile Home Park
Fraternity or Sorority 1 ,000 Sq. Ft. per
Unit 25 Professional Offices Resident
C. Density.
Families Per Acre 4 to 12 E. Yard Requirements (feet).
FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR
D. Bulk and Area Regulations. YARD
1. Lot Width Minimum. 25 8 25
Mobile Home Park 100 Feet Cross Reference: Variances Chapter 156.
Lot within a Mobile 50 Feet
Home Park F. Height Regulations. Any building
which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back
One Family 60 Feet from any side boundary line an additional distance of
one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
Two Family 60 Feet
Three or More 90 Feet (Code 1991 , § 160.033; Code 1965, App. A, An.
5(111); Ord. No. 2320, 4-5-77; Ord. No. 2700, 2-2-81)
Professional Offices 100 Feet
H.1 USERSICOMMOMDAWN7IHEPOR7SIPC13-26-011zoning_mfdis1Hc1s.wpd
a 0
4161.063 DISTRICT RMF-18 MEDIUM 2. Lot Area Minimum.
DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. Mobile Home Park 3 Acres
A. Purpose. The Medium Density Multi- Lot Within a Mobile 41200 Sq. Ft.
family Residential District is designed to permit and Home Park
encourage the development of multifamily residences
at a low density that is appropriate to the area. Row House:
Development 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Individual Lot 27500 Sq. Ft.
B. Uses.
1. Uses Permitted. Single-Family 69000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 1 City-Wide Uses by Right Two-Family 7,000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 8 Single-Family Dwellings Three or More 9,000 Sq. Ft.
Unit 9 Multifamily Dwellings - Medium Fraternity or Sorority 2 Acres
Density
Professional Offices 1 Acre
2. Uses Permissible on Appeal to
the Planning Commission, 3. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit.
Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use Mobile Home 35000 Sq. Ft.
Permit Apartments:
Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities Two or More 200 Sq. Ft.
Bedrooms
Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities One Bedroom 1,700 Sq. Fl.
No Bedroom 1 ,700 Sq. Ft.
Unit 11 Mobile Home Park
Fraternity or Sorority 1,000 Sq. Fl. per
Unit 25 Professional Offices Resident
C. Density.
Families Per Acre 4 to 18 E. Yard Requirements (feet).
FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR
D. Bulk and Area Regulations. YARD
1. Lot Width Minimum. 25 8 25
Mobile Home Park 100 Feet Cross Reference: Variances Chapter 156.
Lot within a Mobile 50 Feet
Home Park F. Height Regulations. Any building
which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back
One Family 60 Feet from any side boundary line an additional distance of
one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
Two Family 60 Feet
Three or More 90 Feet (Code 1991 , § 160.033; Code 1965, App. A, Art.
5(I1I); Ord. No. 2320, 4-5-77; Ord. No. 2700, 2-2-81)
Professional Offices 100 Feet
H:I USFRSICOAWONIDAWN7IRFPOR7SIPCI3-26-01 I.oning_mfdistricis.wpd
Planning Commission
March 26, 2001
Page 63
AD 01-12.00: Administrative Item (Multi-family Zoning Districts) was submitted by the Planning
Division to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to include additional multi-family zoning districts.
Odom: Item number ten on tonight's agenda is an administrative item AD 01 -5 .00 submitted by
the Planning Division to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to include
additional multi-family zoning districts. The recommendation is for Planning
Commission recommendation for approval of the creation of three new zoning districts,
RMF-6, RMF- 12 and RMF- 18 as defined in this report. Staff, would you like to go
over those three recommendations?
Warrick: Staff developed these three additional zoning districts based on the General Plan 2020
update process which was initiated this past fall and was adopted by City Council in
December of 2000. During this discussion on amendments and updates there was a lot
of discussion with regard to the large range of permitted density within the R-2 zoning
district which ranges between 4 and 24 units per acre as permitted. As a result of
discussion about that range of variable allowable density, staff developed three new
zoning districts RMF-6, RMF- 12 and RMF- 18. The RMF stands for Residential
Multi-Family, the number represents the maximum density permitted per acre, units per
acre. Each of these zoning districts is based on the R-2 zoning district, the land area
requirements and the uses permitted by right as well as by Conditional Use are also
represented in each of these three districts. We developed these as a way to better
regulate the amount of density that can be seen and these three zoning districts, if
approved by City Council, would be an available option for rezoning requests in the
future.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes: Thank you Dawn. Does any member of the audience wish to comment on this
administrative item? Yes sir, if you would please come to the podium and identify
yourself?
Maynard: My name is Richard Maynard, 1717 Sang Avenue. I'm here both as a citizen and
property owner and also have permission from our neighborhood association to speak
on this matter. May I ask a question of staff? When we talked before it was the R2-6,
R2- 12, R2- 18, R2-24, is what you are recommending, does that replace that idea?
Conklin: It's just a different name. The zoning ordinance and the zoning map, we are required to
have individual districts created with legal descriptions and I can't just combine R-2 and
have subdistricts underneath that. Most ordinances that I 've researched, they are
Planning Commission
March 26, 2001
Page 64
independent from each other. We still have the R-2 with 24, then we created these
three additional categories to allow for the different densities that we are proposing.
Maynard: There is not just R-2 anymore, there is R2-24 and then these three other categories, is
that right?
Conklin: No. We made R-2, we did not change the title of that zoning district.
Maynard: It's basically the same thing, right?
Conklin: It is exactly the same thing. We are adding three new zoning districts to create three
new densities.
Maynard: First of all, again I would like to thank Tim Conklin and Dawn Warrick and staff, I think
this is a really good idea in just it' s simplicity. I come from a neighborhood that is a
mixed zoning and has a huge infill situation as some of you may remember. Certainly
zoning is a protection that we need. The problem before was with just an R-2 zoning
we were never quite sure what we were getting. I think one good thing that this does is
it keeps everybody honest. In other words, somebody can't say "I want to put in just a
few duplexes", get the zoning and somehow change their mind or sell it to somebody
else who decides to change their mind. I don't know if that' s happened or not but
certainly this will prevent that from happening, I assume. It almost takes the place of a
Bill of Assurance. When I say "almost" I still think you might want a Bill of Assurance
for another reason. I think the other thing it does, it makes it a little more difficult to
jump from an R- 1 zoning to a very high density which is almost R-3 . It doesn't prevent
anybody from doing that and I think they should be given that opportunity to do that but
certainly psychologically it works in that. I think this is a wonderful idea. Certainly in
neighborhoods like mine where we really need that zoning for our own security so we
know what we are moving into. I think some neighborhoods who think they are secure
because it's all filled in with R- 1 zoning also can be protected by this because they
never know what the future will bring. The one thing I do want to say is that all of these
things will mean nothing unless I think there is more respect and more deference given
to the present zoning. It certainly was in our case. I think this Board and staff take
great care when something changes from residential to commercial or agricultural to
industrial or something like that. I 'm not so sure in the past that the same kind of care
and the same kind of deference has been given when something moved from R- I to R-
2. Even in this case, moving from R- 1 to the first category, which will probably be
duplexes, certainly makes a major change into the character of the neighborhood. I
don't know quite how to say it without telling you all to do your jobs but without going
Planning Commission
March 26, 2001
Page 65
back, certainly in our situation I felt when we came up here a year and a half ago that
the burden was upon us who had the zoning to prove why it should be kept that way.
It was not upon the petitioner to make their case very strongly on why it needs to
change. That really threw me for a loop because I was not prepared to argue it that
way. Nothing else in our society works that way. I don't have to prove my innocence
for example. I think the same principle needs to be applied here. The question is
asked "Well, how does the present zoning not fit the findings of fact?" In other words,
the question is "Why should we change this at all?", instead of "Why not?". That's
what I would like to encourage and see happening. Certainly zoning, I am the property
owner certainly but I do think some property owners get a little bit confused, they think
their ownership of the property extends to the zoning and that's not true at all. It's the
City' s and more specifically it is the citizens. If we are asked to give up part of our
rezoning, we should at least be told why and how at least it' s not going to harm us, even
if the zoning meets the findings of fact, how that's going to change the character of the
neighborhood, how that' s going to affect the neighbors. I do think this is very good
resolution and I would encourage you all to pass it. Thanks.
Odom: Thank you Richard. Any other member of the audience?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Odom: I ' ll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission.
MOTION:
Marr: I would like to move for approval of administrative item 01 -5.00. Having been a
member of the 2020 revision plan, I want to thank Tim and Dawn for their work on it.
It's consistent with what we heard in public comment and I think it's a very well written
document.
Allen: I'll second.
Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and second by Commissioner Allen to
approve AD 01 -5.00. Do we have any further discussion? Call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call AD 01 -5 .00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0.
• STAFF REVIEW FORM •
X AGENDA REQUEST 04 -09 - 01A10 : 19 RCVD
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of April 17 , 2001 .
FROM :
Tim Conklin Planning Puhlir Worker
Name Division ��� Department
f A nft11 '✓ Aylc
ACTION REQUIRED : To approve eS"irfor AD 01 - 12.00 to amend Chapter 161 Zoning of the Unified
Development Ordinance to include additional multi-family zoning districts, RMF-6, RMF- 12, and RMF-18, submitted by
the City of Fayetteville, Planning Division.
COST TO CITY :
Cost of this Request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name
Account Number Funds Used To Date Program Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund
BUDGET REVIEW : Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget Manager Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW : GRANTING AGENCY :
Accounting Manager Date Internal Auditor Date
C ' y Attor y • Date ADA Coordinator Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommended approval and Planning Commission unanimously voted
9-0 -0 to recommend to City Council .
Divisio ead Date Cross Reference
ek
¢� S �dl New Item : Yes
DRrist�rati_
Dire`tor Date
1 J 1 Prev Ord/Res # '
Ae Services Director Da e
Orig Contract Date :
Mayor Dat
Orig Contract Number :