HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4323 ORDINANCE NO. 4323
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING §159.01 A. FEES
BY ADDING LANGUAGE TO ALLOW THE
CITY COUNCIL TO REDUCE OR WAIVE ANY
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEES REQUIRED BY
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City Council should have the right to reduce or waive
development permit fees in Chapter 159 and elsewhere within the Unified
Development Ordinance when it is in the best interest of the City of Fayetteville
to reduce or waive said fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 . That to §159.01 A. Fees of the Unified Development Code of
the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is added the following language at the end of
current section A.:
" An Alderman may present a resolution to the City Council to waive or
reduce development permit fees otherwise required by this Chapter or elsewhere
within the Unified Development Ordinance. If the reduction or waiver would
serve the public interest, alleviate an unfair burden upon an applicant, or be
beneficial to the City as a whole, the City Council may grant such reduction or
waiver of permit fee."
PASSED and APPROVED this the 191hday of June, 2001 .
b % . APPROVED:
10 `''.N
By: iL
' Ce ! AN COODY, May
ATTEST:
By: Ad& e ✓
Bather Woodruff, City Cle k
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4323
CROSS REFERENCE:
06/ 19/01 Ordinance No. 4323
05/29/01 Planning Commission Minutes (pp. 26-28)
05/17/01 Planning Division Correspondence (pp. 1 -3)
04/04/01 Planning Division Correspondence (pp. 4)
04/09/01 Planning Commission Minutes (pp. 107- 123)
06/19/01 Staff Review Form
06/21 /01 Departmental Correspondence to Tim Conklin, Planning Director, from
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
07/11 /01 Proof of Publication
NOTES:
• • Pta
Mi
Mi
Planning Commission
May 29, 2001
Page 26
AD 00-46.00: Administrative Item to Amend the Definition of a Family in the UDO.
Estes: The remaining item is item number seven. This is an administrative item to
amend the definition of a family contained in the Unified Development
Ordinance. Mr. Conklin, what background information do you have available for
us as we consider this administrative item?
Conklin: At the April 91" Planning Commission meeting, which was a very long meeting,
the Commission directed staff to bring forward an ordinance that would leave the
number of unrelated individuals at three in single family zoning districts and then
increase the current number which was at three to four in all zoning districts that
allow other than single family homes. That' s what we are bringing forward to
you this evening. On page 7.3 we have a proposed recommended definition and
I ' ll read that at this time.
Family. (Zoning) In single family residential districts, a family is no more than three (3) persons
unless all are related and occupy a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit in the RE (Residential
Estate), RA (Residential Acre Lot), RL (Residential Large Lot), R-1 (Low Density Residential),
and RS (Residential Small Lot) zoning districts. In all other zoning districts where residential
uses are permitted, a family is no more than four (4) persons unless all are related and occupy a
dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. A family is when all persons are related by blood,
marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized custodial relationship. The definition
offamily does not include fraternities, sororities, clubs or institutional groups.
Staff is also recommending that we add a definition for single housekeeping unit
as follows:
Single Housekeeping Unit. (Zoning) A dwelling unit with common access to and common use of
all living and eating areas and all areas and facilities for the preparation, serving and storage of
food within the dwelling unit.
Another amendment to the definition of a family is the removal of the provision
for domestic servants. Prior to this recommendation, domestic servants were not counted against
the number of unrelated individuals in a family. Staff is proposing that the domestic servants
provision be eliminated altogether. That is our recommendation. We started out with
subcommittee meetings and went to Planning Commission on April 9" and this will be our
second Planning Commission meeting on this item.
Estes: Tim, does the staff recommendation also include allowing a maximum number of
three unrelated individuals in residential estate, residential acre lot, residential
large lot, low density residential and residential small lot zoning districts and to
Planning Commission
May 29, 2001
Page 27
allow a maximum number of four unrelated individuals in all other districts that
allow residential uses?
Conklin: That is correct. For clarification for the public and Commission, staff is not
changing the number of unrelated individuals that currently exist. The current
number is three. We are expanding that to allow four in multi-family and non
single-family zoning districts. We are actually increasing the number in those
zoning districts where we may have apartment type complexes where you may
have four bedrooms with four individuals living in one dwelling unit and that will
help take care of that situation.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes: Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this
administrative item 00-46.00 definition of a family?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions.
MOTION:
Marr: I was recalling the minutes from the last meeting and I think this recommendation
is in line with what I recalled and reread through the minutes. I 'll move for
approval of administrative item 00-46.00 as submitted by City staff.
Hoffman : I 'll second with a question for staff just for clarification. Do we have a provision
or do we need a provision in this if we are creating any existing non-conforming
structures that are used presently as sorority houses, as an existing non-
conforming use with a certificate of occupancy, does this in any way affect their
ability to continue to function or will they have to come back to the Planning
Commission to get a conditional use to continue those functions?
Conklin: This ordinance is not changing the situation where you may have that type of use.
We are keeping up to three unrelated individuals in the single family zoning
districts and we are allowing four unrelated individuals in other zoning districts
that allow duplexes, triplexes and apartments. If there is a situation that they are
in violation of the ordinance, of course we would go out and investigate and
request that they cease using that structure in that manner. If that doesn't work,
we would send them over to the City Prosecutor.
Planning Commission
May 29, 2001
Page 28
Hoffman: I think we've got at least four or five of those type with the domestic servants and
there are sororities. Not that I'm advocating that we have a conditional use for
them but I just wondered what their course of action would be.
Conklin: If there is a complaint and they are in violation of our ordinance, they' ll receive a
violation notice.
Hoffman: That answers my question and my second stands.
Conklin: We did receive information from Lindsey apartment communities on what their
current policy is. I would like to read that since they took the effort to get that to
staff today. "Occupancy is limited to no more than two persons per bedroom.
Children under the age of two at the time of the lease or extension or renewal is
executable not be counted toward this limit. Three adults may occupy an
apartment only if related to each other by blood or marriage. Occupancy by more
than three adults is not permitted." Lindsey Management already has in place
similar restrictions on their rental units.
Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve administrative item 00-
46.00 and a second by Commissioner Hoffman, is there any other discussion?
Marr: I wouldjust like to make a comment. I think it's appropriate to thank the 100
hours of committee work, a lot of research and I appreciate the time that they put
into that. The analysis from City staff that we got on town comparisons, I thought
the work was excellent.
Estes: Any further discussion? Would you call the roll please?
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call AD 00-46.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 6-0-0 and will be forwarded to
City Council for consideration.
0 •
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501 ) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: May 17, 2001
AD-00:46.00: Administrative Item (Definition of Family) to revise the definition of "family" in the
Unified Development Ordinance in a manner that best preserves the character of single-family
neighborhoods.
BACKGROUND
Two situations prompted the discussion about revising the definition of family:
( 1 ) Staff found that the reference to domestic servants in the definition of family could be used
to circumvent the limit of no more than three unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling
unit.
(2) Staff continues to receive complaints about single family residences containing more than
three unrelated persons and about the perceived side effects, including overcrowded parking on
streets, loud noises, and deteriorating property conditions.
February 1 , 2001
A special subcommittee of the Planning Commission met to discuss changes to the definition of
family with regard to domestic servants. The city attorney summarized the legal aspects of
defining family. In public comment, residents expressed concern over trash, traffic, noise, and
parking. This meeting was a working session and the subcommittee made no motions.
February 15, 2001
The Planning Commission subcommittee met again to discuss the number of unrelated persons
that should be considered a family. The subcommittee briefly discussed the definition of
congregate housing, which is currently addressed through Use Unit 4. A motion was made and
passed, with one abstention, to change the definition of family to "Family is one or more
persons living together in a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all such persons are
related by blood, marriage or adoption, shall not contain over four persons.
FL9USERSIC0MM0AVhe11&S1gff ReporuWD 00-4 Def of FamdyUD 00-4 DefofFamily2.upd
AD-004 Definition of Family
April 19, 2001
Page 2
April 9, 2001
Staff made a recommendation to the Planning Commission to amend the definition of family to
better define what is considered "related", to identify a family as living in a single housekeeping
unit, to remove the section about domestic servants, to consider increasing the maximum
number of unrelated individuals from three to four (as recommended by the special
subcommittee), and to add an exception statement identifying what is not considered a family.
The Planning Commission tabled the decision on the definition of family and asked that staff
revise the definition to allow a maximum of three unrelated individuals in low-density single-
family districts and allow a maximum of four unrelated individuals in all other districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings presented in the initial definition of family staff report, the recommendations
made to the planning commission on April 9, 2001 , and the requested revision, staff recommends the
following changes to the definition of family.
1 . Expand the definition of related family members to include adoption, guardianship or
other duly-authorized custodial relationship.
2. Add a statement requiring that all persons are living together as a single housekeeping
unit.
3 . Remove the portion of the definition of family that discusses domestic servants.
4. Allow a maximum number of three unrelated individuals in the RE (Residential Estate),
RA (Residential Acre Lot), RL (Residential Large Lot), R- 1 (Low Density Residential),
and RS (Residential Small Lot) zoning districts and allow a maximum number of four
unrelated individuals in all other districts that allow residential uses.
5 . Add an exception statement to distinguish family from a sorority, fraternity, club or
institutional group.
6. Add the definition of "single housekeeping unit' to the definitions section of the UDO.
H.'I USERSICOMMOMShelliLStaffReporisLl D 00-4 Def of FamilyUD 00-4 DefofFami1y2. upd
AD-004 Definition of Family
April 19, 2001
Page 3
Assuming the recommendations made above, the ordinance would state:
Family. (Zoning) In single family residential districts, a family is no more than three (3)
persons unless all are related and occupy a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit in the RE
(Residential Estate), RA (Residential Acre Lot), RL (Residential Large Lot), R-I (Low Density
Residential), and RS (Residential Small Lot) zoning districts. In all other zoning districts where
residential uses are permitted, a family is no more than four (4) persons unless all are related
and occupy a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. A family is when all persons are related
by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized custodial relationship.
The definition offamily does not include fraternities, sororities, clubs or institutional groups.
Single Housekeeping Unit. (Zoning) A dwelling unit with common access to and common use
of all living and eating areas and all areas and facilities for the preparation, serving and
storage offood within the dwelling unit.
HAUSE"COMMOAlShellinaj(Reports UD 00-4 Def of FamilyUD 00-4 DefofFamilyl.ivpd
• •
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501 ) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE "'
Di
l
TO: Tim Conklin, City Planner
FROM: Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner
DATE: April 4, 2001
AD-00:46.00: Administrative Item (Definition of Family) to revise the definition of "family" in the
Unified Development Ordinance in a manner that best preserves the character of single-family
neighborhoods.
BACKGROUND
Two situations prompted the discussion about revising the definition of family:
(1 ) Staff found that the reference to domestic servants in the definition of family could be used
to circumvent the limit of no more than three unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling
unit.
(2) Staff continues to receive complaints about single family residences containing more than
three unrelated persons and about the perceived side effects, including overcrowded parking on
streets, loud noises, and deteriorating property conditions.
February 1 , 2001
A special subcommittee of the Planning Commission met to discuss changes to the definition of
family with regard to domestic servants. The city attorney summarized the legal aspects of
defining family. In public comment, residents expressed concern over trash, traffic, noise, and
parking. This meeting was a working session and the subcommittee made no motions.
February 15, 2001
The Planning Commission subcommittee met again to discuss the number of unrelated persons
that should be considered a family. The subcommittee briefly discussed the definition of
congregate housing, which is currently addressed through Use Unit 4. A motion was made and
passed, with one abstention, to change the definition of family to "Family is one or more
persons living together in a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all such persons are
related by blood, marriage or adoption, shall not contain over four persons.
H:I USERSICOMMONLShellilStaff ReporisW D 00-4 Def of FamilyUD 00-4 DefofFamily.wpd
AD-004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 2
ISSUES
Revising the definition of family involves three predominant issues:
1 . Determine whether or not domestic servants should be included in the definition.
2. Establish the most appropriate number of unrelated persons allowed to live in a
single family dwelling unit.
3 . Define what are considered "related persons".
Related issues include parking, noise and trash in rental properties with unrelated persons. A
summary of cities that have started to address these concerns are discussed briefly at the end of
the report.
FINDINGS
Staff gathered definitions of family from 13 cities similar in size to Fayetteville that are home to
a college or university. The following summary of findings discusses the issues identified
above.
1 . Domestic Servants
Including domestic servants in the definition of family is relatively uncommon. Of the
comparison cities, only two, Ithaca, New York and Springfield, Missouri, included a statement
regarding domestic servants not being part of a "family". In early 1998, Athens-Clarke County,
Georgia deleted a provision in the definition that allowed household employees to live in a
residence without being counted among the unrelated people. Staff from Athens-Clarke County
states that the change has eliminated the chance that the limits placed on unrelated persons
living in a single family dwelling unit can be bypassed by claiming renters as domestic servants.
2. Number of Unrelated Persons
A maximum of three or four unrelated persons defined as a family appears to be the leading
trend. In the comparison cities, the number of unrelated persons defined as "family" ranged
from one or more unrelated persons to not more than five unrelated persons. Some ordinances
apply one definition of family to all zoning districts that allow single family uses. Other
ordinances define family by zoning district (see Auburn, AL, Athens, GA, and Lawrence, KS).
In such ordinances, two to three unrelated persons are allowed in more restrictive single-family
zones and four unrelated persons are allowed in all other zones that allow single family uses.
Courts have found that, in establishing a definition of family, cities must look at how unrelated
individuals function together within the housekeeping unit. If in every respect but biological the
unrelated individuals act as a family, they should be considered a family, also termed a
"functional family." The courts have identified three factors that suggest the unrelated
HAUSERWOMMOMSMIRStaff ReportsWD 004 Def of FamilyWD 004 DefotFamily.wpd
AD-004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 3
individuals are acting as a functional family:
1 ) a family-like structure of household authority;
2) a stable and integrated housekeeping unit; and
3) does not threaten the preservation of the character of single family areas.
Nine of the 13 comparison cities address the second factor with a statement about the occupants
living as a single housekeeping unit.
This issue also requires a brief discussion about group homes or family homes. These homes
are designed to serve as a residence to help rehabilitate persons with disabilities and usually
have on the premises between six and ten residents and two surrogate parents. City ordinances
may not discriminate against group homes, however may limit the number of individuals to
ensure the character of single family neighborhoods. (Dwight H. Merriam AICD and Robert J .
Sitkowski, AICP, The Seven-Nun Conundrum: Seeking Divine Guidance in the Definition of " Family ", Land Use
Law, June 1999, pg 3 ) (New York State Department of State, Legal Memorandum LU 05: Definition of "Family "
in Zoning Law and Building Codes; The Law of Planning and Zoning). Two of the comparison cities,
Ames, Iowa and Champaign, Illinois, address the issue of group homes within the definition of
family. Other cities define group homes separately.
Five of the 13 comparison cities also include a statement about what is not a family, often
excluding fraternity and sorority houses.
3. Definition of "Related"
Ten of the 13 comparison cities included the "related" term within the definition. These cities
defined related persons as related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly-
authorized custodial relationship.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on these findings, staff recommends the following changes to the definition of family.
1 . Expand the definition of related family members to include adoption, guardianship or
other duly-authorized custodial relationship.
2. Add a statement requiring that all persons are living together as a single housekeeping
unit.
3 . Remove the portion of the definition of family that discusses domestic servants.
4. Consider changing the maximum number of unrelated individuals from three to four, as
recommended by the special subcommittee.
5 . Add an exception statement to distinguish family from a sorority, fraternity, club or
institutional group.
HAUSERWOMMOMSMIRStaff ReponsAD 004 Def of Family\AD 004 DefofFamily.wpd
AD-004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 4
Assuming the recommendations made above, the ordinance would be amended as follows:
Family. (Zoning Famely. is defined as bone or more persons occtTying a a ingle
related by blood,i or marriage,O)
adoption, guardianshiti or other duly=authorized custodial-relationshipioceupying a
dwelling as.a !'!single housekeeping unit, or no pore than_ f�fourw(4) unrelated persons
occupying a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit.
(3)
r-..
_ tS)I he
definition offamdy does not includefraternities, sororities clubs or institutional
groups:As revised, the definition of family would state:
Family. (Zoning) Family is defined as one or more persons related by blood, marriage,
adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized custodial relationship occupying a
dwelling as a single housekeeping unit, or no more than four unrelated persons
occupying a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. The definition of family does not
include fraternities, sororities, clubs or institutional groups.
H:\USERS\COMMOMShelli\Staff Reports\AD 004 Def of FarnilyWD 004 Defoffamily.wpd
I
AD -004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 5
Comparison Cities for
Definition of "Family"
City
Approx.
Definition of "Family"
Population
Fayetteville, AR
58,000
One or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless
University of
all members are related by blood or marriage, no such family shall contain
Arkansas (15,000
over three persons; but further provided that domestic servants employed
students)
on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as a
family or families.
Unrelated persons limitation: None
Tallahassee, FL
124,000
One person or a group of two or more persons living together occupying the
Florida State
whole or part of a dwelling as a single housekeeping unit.
University
(30,000 students)
Norman, OK
80,000
A household comprised of one or more individuals.
University of
Oklahoma
(27,000 students)
Unrelated persons limitation: Two (2)
Iowa City, IA
61,000
One person or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption
University of Iowa
or placement by a governmental or social service agency, occupying a
(28,000 students)
dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization. A family may also be
two, but not more than two, persons not related by blood, marriage, or
adoption.
Ithaca, NY
29,000
One or more persons occupying a dwelling unit, provided that, unless all
Cornell University
members are related by blood, marriage, adoption or other legal relationship,
Ithaca University
no such family shall contain over two (2) persons, but further provided that
domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises
without being counted as family or families.
H:\USERS\COMMON\shelli\staffReporis\AD 00-4 Def of Family\AD 00-4 DefofFamily.wpd
I
AD -004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 6
Unrelated persons limitation: Three (3) or Two (2) with children
Springfield, MO
140,000
The following living arrangements shall constitute a family for the purposes
Southwest Missouri
of this Article:
State University
A. One (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or custodial
(16,000 students)
relationship living as a single housekeeping unit; or
B. Three (3) or less unrelated persons living as a single housekeeping unit;
or
C. Two (2) unrelated persons, plus their biological, adopted or foster
children or other minors for whom they have legally established custodial
responsibility, living as a single housekeeping unit.
Domestic servants, employed on the premises, may be housed on the
premises without being counted as part of the family. The term family shall
not be construed to mean a fraternity, sorority, club or institutional group.
Ames, Iowa
47,000
Family means a person living alone, or any of the following groups living
Iowa State University
together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living,
(25,000 students)
sleeping, cooking and eating facilities:
A) Any number of people related by blood, marriage, adoption,
This definition is
guardianship or other duly -authorized custodial relationship:
suggested in a
B) Three unrelated people;
commentary in Land
C) Two unrelated people and any children related to either of them;
Use Law authored by
D) Not more than eight people who are:
Dwight H. Merriam,
i) Residents of a "Family Home" as defined in Section 414.22 of
AICP and Robert J.
the Iowa code and this ordinance, or;
Sitkowski, AICP.
ii) "Handicapped" as defined in the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 3602 (h) and this ordinance. This definition does not
include those persons currently illegally using or addicted to or
using a "controlled substance" as defined in the Controlled
Substance Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 802 (6).
E) Not more than five people who are granted a Special Use Permit as a
single nonprofit housekeeping unit (a "functional family") pursuant to
Section 29,1 1503(4)(d) of this ordinance.
i) Exceptions - the definition of a "family" does not include:
a) Any society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge,
combine, federation, coterie, or like organization;
b) Any group of individuals whose association is temporary or
seasonal in nature; and
c) Any group of individuals who are in a group living arrangement
as a result of criminal offenses.
H:\USERS\COMMON\Shelli\Staff Reports\AD 00-4 Def of Family\AD 00-4 DefofFamily.wpd
AD -004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 7
Unrelated persons limitation: Four (4)
Champaign, IL 63,000 Family shall mean a person living alone, or two (2) or more persons living
University of Illinois together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, as distinguished
at Urbana- from a group occupying a rooming house, motel, hotel, fraternity, or sorority
Champaign house, provided, however, that for the purposes of definition, "family" shall
(34,000 students) not include more than four (4) persons unrelated to each other by blood,
marriage, or legal adoption. "Family" shall include members of the service
dependent population living in community living facilities and recovery
homes as herein defined.
College Station, TX 53,000 Any number of related persons or not more than four (4) persons any of
Texas A & M whom is unrelated to another living as a single housekeeping unit. Persons
(44,000 students) are related within the meaning of this definition if they are related by
consanquinity, affinity or legal guardianship.
Grand Forks, ND 45,000 Any number of individuals related by blood, legal adoption or marriage, or a
University of North group of not more than four persons who need not be related by blood or
Dakota marriage, living together on the premises as members of a single
(10, 000 students) housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding
house, lodging house, or hotel as herein described.
Unrelated persons limitation: By Zoning District
Auburn, AL 33,000 One (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or
Auburn University guardianship, plus one (1) unrelated person occupying a dwelling unit and
(22,000 students) living as a single housekeeping unit in the Limited Development District,
Neighborhood Conservation District and the Development District Housing;
or not more than five (5) unrelated persons occupying a dwelling unit and
living as a single housekeeping unit in all other zoning districts where
residential uses are permitted.
Athens, GA 126,000 A. For the purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply:
University of Georgia Family: Two or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit where all
(30, 000 students) members are related by blood, marriage, adoption or are in foster care. The
term "family" does not include any organization or institutional group.
AR Neighborhood: Property in any AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning
district which are in proximity of ten or more single family dwelling units,
not separated by other uses or vacant property.
B. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any single dwelling unit located in
any RS zoning district or any "AR neighborhood" to have more than two
unrelated individuals residing therein, whether or not a family also resides
therein. When a dwelling is located in any zoning district other than RS or in
an "AR neighborhood" one of the following is permitted:
1. Family related by blood, marriage, adoption or foster care may have two
additional unrelated individuals; or
2. Unrelated individuals not exceeding four.
H:\USERS\COMMOMShelli\Staff Reports\AD 00-4 Def of Family\AD 00-4 DefolFamily.wpd
•
AD -004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 8
Lawrence, KS
78,000
(])(a) Family In RS zoning districts, Family shall be defined to mean:
University of Kansas
i) a person living alone, or
(25,000 students)
ii) two or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption,
guardianship or other legally authorized custodial relationship or
iii) a group of not more than three (3) persons unrelated by blood,
marriage and their children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in
a dwelling unit as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house,
lodging house, motel, hotel, fraternity house or sorority house.
(b) Family in all other zoning districts, and for those uses governed by Use
Group 7, Family shall be defined to mean:
i) a person living alone or
ii) two or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption,
guardianship or other legally authorized custodial relationship, or
iii) a group of not more than four (4) persons unrelated by blood or
marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit as
distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house,
motel, hotel, fraternity house or sorority house.
Columbia, MO
69,000
(1) An individual or married couple and the children thereof and no more
University of Missouri
than two (2) other persons related directly to the individual or married
couple by blood or marriage, occupying a single housekeeping unit with
single kitchen facilities, used on a nonprofit basis. A family may include not
more than one additional person, not related to the family by blood or
marriage, provided that such additional person may be provided with
sleeping accommodations but not with kitchen facilities; or
(2) a.l. In zoning districts R -1 and PUD (when PUD development density is
five (5) or less dwelling units per acre, a group of not more than three (3)
persons not related by blood or marriage, living together by joint agreement
and occupying a single housekeeping unit with single kitchen facilities on a
nonprofit basis.
2. The use of a dwelling unit by four (4) persons not related by blood or
marriage, living together by joint agreement and occupying a single
housekeeping unit with single kitchen facilities on a nonprofit cost -sharing
basis, prior to February 4, 1991, shall be allowed to continue in districts R -I
and R -1 PUD as a lawful nonconforming use.
B. In all other applicable zoning districts, a group of not more than four (4)
persons not related by blood or marriage, living together by joint agreement
and occupying a single housekeeping unit with single kitchen facilities on a
nonprofit cost -sharing basis.
H:\USERS\COMMOMShelli\Staf Reports\AD 00-4 Def of Family\AD 00.4 DefofFamily.wpd
r •
AD -004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 9
RELATED ISSUES
Revising the definition of family is just one step in addressing the problems that can arise from student
housing, from loud noises to parking problems to deteriorating property conditions. College towns that
are facing or have faced similar issues have created approaches for addressing these problems. These
approaches include rental property registration, enhanced code enforcement, and limiting space
between student housing properties. A brief summary of the programs and ordinances adopted by other
college towns is provided below.
Tallahassee, FL
In June 2000, Tallahassee passed a law prohibiting the construction of new dormitory style housing in
single family residential neighborhoods (see article attached). In conjunction, the'city established a
process to grandfather existing dorm housing, but that the grandfather status could be lost if certain
codes are violated. The process requires landlords to register with the city and designate an agent for
the property. A Rooming House Response Team answers questions and accepts rooming house
complaints.
Tallahassee's rooming house definition is as follows:
"A single family dwelling or either unit of a two-family dwelling (duplex) which is rented for a
valuable consideration or wherein rooms with or without cooking facilities are rented for a
valuable consideration to or occupied by four (4) or more natural persons unrelated by blood,
marriage or legal adoption to the owner or operator of the house. Foster children placed in a
lawful foster family home, a community residential home with six or fewer residents, a nursing
home, or a residential care facilities shall not be considered a rooming house. Temporary
gratuitous guests as used herein shall refer to natural persons occasionally visiting the single-
family house for a short period of time not to exceed 30 days within a 90 day period"
The city also created an Enhanced Enforcement Plan with strategies to reduce noise, parties, underage
drinking, and boom box violations predominantly related to rental properties. The plan included seven
primary activities:
Party Patrol with police officers specifically designated to address complaints associated with
parties.
Loud Car Stereo Critical Enforcement to reduce car stereo noise violations.
Noise Enforcement to reduce party -related noise nuisance.
Alcohol Availability to Minors to reduce the availability and possession of alcohol to minors.
Community Coordination and Orientation to Education Efforts to involve the community and
other agencies, governments and jurisdictions.
Enhanced Education to provide information related to rental property, party -related crime, etc.
Evaluation Process to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan.
H:\IJSERS\COMMON\Shelli\StaffReports\AD 00-4 Del of Family\AD 00-4 DefofFamily.wpd
AD -004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 10
Lawrence, KS
In February 2001, the City of Lawrence passed an ordinance that decreased the number of unrelated
persons in an RS (Single -Family Residence) district from four to three. In conjunction, the city passed
an ordinance requiring non -conforming uses, those properties with more than three unrelated persons,
to register with the city by June 1, 2001. (Registration form attached.)
State College, PA
In 1997, the State College Borough passed an amendment to the housing ordinance that placed
restrictions on property owners wanting to convert a home to a student rental property. The restrictions
are based on space separation between converted single-family homes to rental property, targeting
student homes. Student homes are defined as "three or more unrelated people living together and not
owning the home." A student home must not be within 250 feet of another student home in a residential
district.
Springfield, MO ; s
Springfield enforces rental property registration that requires a current valid registration in the city to
rent property. The ordinance applies to apartments, boarding houses, lodging houses, rooming houses,
fraternity and sorority houses. The registration includes designating each building for rent and
identifying a local agent (no more than four) that is legally responsible for operating the rental housing.
The registration fee is $12.00 and must be renewed annually. No unit may be occupied if a registration
is revoked or suspended. An occupancy permit will not be issued for any dwelling unit for a building
with two or more units unless a current rental housing registration is in effect, a registered local agent
is designated, and fees for registration and any other penalties are paid in full.
The city uses the following criteria to determine if an individual resides at a rental property:
• gives that location to any persons as a place where he may be reached by mail;
• pays or has money paid on his behalf, to use that location; or
• gives the phone number of that location to any person as his home telephone number.
The city also sets special provisions for two neighborhoods near the university. In those areas, the city
will notify the university dean of students of any student found to be renting property that is in
violation of the ordinance. The ordinance also requires that any lease or rental contract regarding rental
property in R -SF or R-TH zones in the designated neighborhoods must includethe following language:
"Occupancy limited to one family or three unrelated people. Each tenant must get an occupancy permit
from the City Manager. A violation of these requirements may result in afine up to $500 and 180 days
in jail." This statement must be posted on the rental property.
Norman, OK
Norman approaches the problem of too many people in a single-family unit by letting the Code
Compliance Inspectors inspect for zoning compliance. They work with the owners to reduce the
occupancy within a reasonable time frame. Follow-up inspections are made and the city notes that
compliance has been achieved in almost all cases. Files are charged in Municipal Court for those that
H:\USERS\COMMOMShelli\Staff Reports\AD 00-4 Del of Family\AD 00-4 DefofFamily.wpd
AD -004 Definition of Family
March 2001
Page 11
do not comply. If still unresolved, the case is forwarded to District Court. The city issues warnings,
then tickets, for cars parked on unpaved surfaces.
Ann Arbor, Michigan
The Ann Arbor Central Area Plan recommended that the city establish an educational campaign to let
residents know about city regulations regarding parking, trash, and other nuisances. The plan also
suggested a clean up week each semester and to offer extra trash pick-up during those times when
students are moving out. For serious trash problems, the residents and the property owners are notified
with a letter. If they do not comply, they receive a ticket. If the problem persists, the trash is hauled
away at the property owner's expense by adding it to the property tax bill.
H:\USERS\COMMON\Shelli\StaffReports\AD 00-0 Def of Family\AD 00-0 DefofFamily.wpd
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 107
AD 00-46.00: Administrative Item (Definition of Family) to revise the definition of"family"
in the Unified Development Ordinance in a manner that best preserves the character of single-
family neighborhoods.
Estes: The next item that we have on our agenda is Administrative Item 00-46.00,
Definition of Family to revise the definition of "family" in the Unified
Development Ordinance in a manner that best preserves the character of single-
family neighborhoods. Commissioners in your material, among other information
regarding this administrative item is a letter from a concerned constituent whom I
anticipate will be a presenter tonight request that anyone who owns rent property
within the City of Fayetteville recuse from voting on this item. I just bring that to
your attention for your consideration.
Hoffman: I just want to state that I do own rental property but I don't find it necessary to
recuse.
Estes: The staff has made recommendations and those are on page 13.3 of your material.
This matter was well considered by a Subcommittee of your Planning
Commission, I chaired that Subcommittee, Commissioner Bunch served on that
Subcommittee as did Commissioner Allen. The result of our work was that the
revision that we bring forward to you this evening is found on page 13.4 of your
material, as revised the definition of family would state:
Family. (Zoning) Familyisadefrned as gone or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit,
provided I/ia! unless all members are related by bloods or marriage, (1) adoption, =guardianship or
other duly hthbrized custodial relationship occupying a dwelling as a n)single?housekeeping
unit,`or no more thai:'''� fom (4) unrelated persons occupj'ifig a.dwelling as a. single
n hOUSelCee l"unn. ' (3)
p g_
cou;ztcd as family or families. a 5J Tlie•defJhition offamilydoesnot nclude•fJ•aternities, sororities?
clubs 6Finstimtional groups.
Estes: Tim, do you have any additional information, any additional recommendations
that you would like to make for us this evening?
Conklin: Yes. With regard to changing the number from three to four, initially when I
brought this forward and brought it to the Subcommittee the intent was to remove
the section where it talked about domestic servants and that counting towards the
number in that family. I have put in the staff report the recommendation from the
Subcommittee and would like to let you know that I do believe we should keep it
at three and not change it to four. Changing it to four would eliminate a lot of the
I
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 108
violations for the Planning Division to investigate but I don't think it's going to
benefit the neighborhoods by changing that from three to four. I think it should
remain at three. The rest of the changes are the result the Associate Planner,
Shelli Rushing, taking a look at other ordinances across the United States and
adding some language in there with regard to the term related, the single
housekeeping unit, and making sure that it distinguished family from a sorority,
paternity club or institutional group. Those are the changes that we
recommended. The definition that you did read is correct except I would
recommend that you keep it at up to three unrelated people in a single family
home.
Estes: Would you make that a part of your recommendation to the Commission this
evening?
Conklin: Yes, I would.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes: With that said, is there any member of the audience who would like to provide
comment, suggestions, edification, guidance or enlightenment regarding
administrative item 00-46.00?
West: My name is Chuck West and I am president of the Sunset Woods Property
Owner's Association. That is located just a few block northwest of the University
campus. First of all, we are very much in favor of dropping the domestic servants
loophole but we are very much against raising the maximum number from three to
four. I'm glad to hear that Mr. Conklin is recommending that be dropped. I just
want to reiterate that the Commission please go along with that because we feel
that there has been encroachment of student population into large houses that have
resulted in a loss of the community, a loss of family nature and degradation of
yards, properties, noise, more traffic and so on. I don't want to belabor that too
much but our experience is that many landlords, too frequently, who rent to
students in our area, don't respect community standards and will allow extra
traffic and noise and litter and so on. I do urge the Commission to go along with
Mr. Conklin's recommendation to not increase to four. Thank you.
Mansfield: My name is Steve Mansfield. I wanted to focus a little bit on the issue because I
think some of the problems that have risen have been mostly in single family or
neighborhoods or duplex neighborhoods. I'm not sure if the Commissioners are
all aware, there are at least three apartment complexes in town that have four
bedroom apartments that specifically focus on the student market. Those, that I
C
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 109
know of anyway, include Woodway, College Park and Maple Manner. If the
number in the family is reduced to three rather four, in effect, all the four bedroom
units, which I believe is in excess of 150 apartments in this town, would have
significant loss in value. For the owners of those apartments, that could be pretty
drastic. I was wondering if you could consider either exempting larger apartment
complexes or in some way change the definition of a residence such that it really
focuses on the problem, which is the single family neighborhoods where there is
traffic congestion and trash.
Marr: Can I just get a point of clarification, this definition, does it apply only to R-1?
Conklin: No, it applies to all zoning districts, all residential uses. Just for clarification, we
are not changing the number of unrelated people allowed within a dwelling unit.
The current limitation is three. I understand the apartment complexes you've
described. Staff has done a lot of research and this is just one part of what I
intend to bring forward and we'll take a look other methods to deal with the issue
of student housing and what other communities have adopted to help regulate the
number of people.
Marr: Was there any look at different non -related, the number being different based off
of type of zoning, like an R-2 having a different requirement than an R -l?
Conklin: There are some communities that have done that. In your information there are
some zoning districts that have allowed different number of unrelated people and
that's a possibility we can take a look at anything above R-1 allow up to four in
order to help bring it into compliance these existing conditions.
Marr: I guess my point is, I think this warrants investigation of looking at a different
limit based off of zoning level, even square footage. I can speak for myself, I
actually bought a house that is 100 years old that used to be Mount Nord Club for
the University and I live on Mount Nord Street. The size of a location can also
dictate the difference in a facility that might be able to allow an unrelated amount
higher than three. I just throw that out for discussion.
Conklin: In Shelli's research, other ordinances define family by zoning district in Auburn,
Alabama, Athens, Georgia and Lawrence, Kansas, in such ordinance two to three
unrelated persons are allowed in more restrictive single family zones and four
unrelated persons are allowed in all other zones that allow single family uses.
They created that two to three for single family, four for other multi -family zoning
districts.
0
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 110
Cring: I'm responsible for putting those pictures together. My name is Tim Cring, I live
at 708 Fowler Avenue. I appreciate you staying here late at night. Six of my
neighbors left at about 10:00 p.m. I wanted to make one point that I'll come back
to. I think it's critical to remember we are at three now and the charge of the
Committee was to really look at revising the definition to best preserve the
characteristic of family neighborhoods and if we go to four, we have to think
about how going to four preserves that neighborhood. The other point I wanted to
make is we talk about students all the time and I'm a professor at the University,
this really isn't an anti -student issue, this is a anti -bad neighbor issue and an
overcrowding issue of a home that wasn't built for that. There are a number of
neighborhoods right around campus, north, south, east and west, I won't say those
street names, they are on that top part. Those are traditional student rentals over
time. Really, they are not anymore because the students don't like living in those
homes anymore. I imagine staff, when Tim was looking at different university
towns, other universities have actually purchased them back trying to reclaim
these neighborhoods that have degraded because the degraded areas around the
University reflect on the University. What our focus is, in the people that are
neighbors of mine, are mostly looking at areas that weren't rentals five or ten
years ago but are now. Those are a little further out and a little higher priced
ones, those are Washington Street, Prospect. There are still some isolated
neighborhoods where they haven't gone to the rental areas but when you see the
rental homes where there is multiple people, four and more that are avoiding our
ordinance, you see multiple cars parked at one place. That one picture on the
right, that was six cars, that was this morning. There was six cars parked on the
lawn and the driveway. This other picture down on the bottom right was also this
morning. That's where the students have to park on the front lawn, there is
typically eight cars at that location. There just isn't room, they want to get out at
different times and it really creates an obvious problem. The other issue we are
looking at is not really the extreme of use of the ordinances that exist now and
that's on the top of the second page. I know you've looked at that upper right
one, Maple Street and Oliver. Those have been the focus of other issues and a lot
of complaints. That's where the ordinance is completely ignored, there was 14
cars at that location this morning. The other issue I wanted to bring back is, when
we go from three to four, we are increasing that multiple that if you buy a house
and want to rent it out to students, you can actually make a much bigger house
and nicer house into rentals. The bottom two photos on that page are in
Waterwind Woods and right across form Waterwind Woods, these are over
$150,000 homes that are currently rented to groups of people now, more than
four. That's an issue we are trying to resolve and address. I really urge you to
remember the mandate and not go to four.
I
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 111
Manskey: Rita Ann Manskey, 6 North Hartman, Fayetteville. I would first like to express
my thanks to Mr. Conklin and the staff and to the Subcommittee for the work and
the research that you did on this issue. It's very much appreciated by all of us.
On my particular street, I represent the lower number of years of home ownership.
I have lived at 6 North Hartman for 18 years. Others have lived there for periods
of time from 20 to 45 years. We have some long term family renters who have
lived there for periods of 5 and as long as 10 years. We are now experiencing a
most unfortunate change in the stability and character of our neighborhood. Due
to our proximity to the University, we are increasingly being targeted as an area
for student housing. Single family homes are being purchased and rented to
college students, not one, two or three students but as many students as possible,
pseudo dorms, if you will. The one close to me even had their own so-called
dorm mother but it didn't do any good. This meant and still means, four and five
cars without room to park, they park in the yards, bags of trash left on the street
for a week, extra noise and traffic, increased crime. Our neighborhood was
designed and zoned for single family dwellings. Yards were not meant to be used
as parking lots, streets were not meant to be used as trash receptacles, young men
were not meant to urinate in the yard when my daughter is walking home from
school. Our property is consistently being devalued by these practices. We all
understand at least part of what has happened. An examination of the
University's dormitories would cause any parent to look for alternatives. Young
people of today are not impressed by the dorms our campus has to offer. The
rental market, especially anything convenient to campus will remain strong. Our
neighborhood does not owe it to the University to allow our property values to be
decreased. Our neighborhood does not owe it to the University to allow our
aesthetic standards to decrease. Our neighborhood does not owe it to the
University to allow our general sense of welfare and safety to decrease. We
cannot and will not become one big dormitory. My neighbors and I work in this
community, play in this community, we contribute to the community, we support
this community, we raise our children here and some of us raise our grandchildren
here, we pay taxes, we vote and most of us own our own homes and do not plan to
move. There are plenty of available neighborhoods in our town designed for
every imaginable rental purpose. Our neighborhood need not be sacrificed to easy
money. We, as citizens of Fayetteville, ask this Commission to help us protect
our investment, help us protect our security and safety and help us to protect our
neighborhood. There is no magic number. I strongly support the number three.
We all know it only takes one person to be that really bad neighbor. Is it good
business to allow any circumstance that helps anyone to allow erosion and
deterioration of our established neighborhoods. There is nothing wrong with
setting a standard and there is nothing wrong with choosing number three and I
thank you for your very kind attention at this late hour.
0
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 112
Estes: Thank you. The seminal issue seems to be whether it's three or four. We are
going to vote on this definition of family. Staff has now recommended three. I
don't want to limit public comment in any way. Can we just have a show of
hands of how many people favor four? Show of hands of how many people favor
three? Is there anyone else that would like to offer comment to us that you feel
would be helpful to us and not redundant of what we've heard? Please come
forward.
Moeller: Bill Moeller, 1511 Markham Road, president of the University Heights
Neighborhood Association. I think you have all received the letter that I've sent
to you expressing the neighborhood association's position on this issue which is,
that we are for dropping the reference to domestic servants and we are against the
increase in the number from three to four. I wanted to mention one thing that
hasn't been mentioned here tonight, mentioned to me by a fellow that does not
have the endurance that all of you folks have and that I have. R-2 actually has
more protection for it's residents than R-1 because in an R-2 apartment complex,
the offended residents can go to a manager and say "Hey, I'm not going to pay my
rent if you don't quite these guys up next door." Who does R-1 turn to? You
folks. Thank you.
Weiss: George Weiss, 1614 Sawyer Lane. I was at both of the subcommittee meetings
and one reason that was given for wanting to increase from three to four was that
this was going to help senior citizens. That there might be for senior citizens, who
are unrelated but because of maximizing social security finances, would want to
live together. As it stands right now with the current ordinance, if such senior
citizens wanted to live together, they could come before the Planning Commission
and get permission to do so, if I understand it correctly. They probably would be
granted that permission. In other words, they have a remedy right now. I if they
didn't come to the Planning Commission and they wanted to do it and they just
moved into a neighborhood and didn't even realize there was an ordinance,
nobody is going to complain about them and therefore, the ordinance would not
be in force because it is a complaint driven ordinance. No complaint, Planning
Department doesn't go out and knock on the door to find out. What I'm saying is,
right now the senior citizens, and I am a senior citizen, will have remedies. Let's
examine this just a little bit in more detail. First I do want to say thank you for
anybody who does think of senior citizens but how real is this senior citizen
problem? I would ask you Mr. Chairman to ask the staff, how many of the
complaints that we've had about more than three people living in a house, how
many of those have been about senior citizens?
Estes: Tim, do you keep any records?
C
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 113
Conklin: With regard to senior citizens? I don't think I've received any complaints with
regard to senior citizens.
Weiss: How many senior citizens wanted to occupy a house and be unrelated with four in
a house, how many have requested that either through the Planning Department or
to the Planning Commission?
Estes: Tim, do you have an answer for that?
Conklin: None.
Weiss: This is a non -problem and therefore, I don't see that as a valid reason for wanting
to go from three to four. The problem, I think you've already heard it, is with the
younger generation. I'm not anti -student either. Those are the ones that seem to
cause the problems. If you do increase from three to four, not only are you not
helping the senior citizens but you are in fact hurting the senior citizens because
you are inviting more noise, traffic, safety, trash and problems. Therefore, I
would encourage you to follow the staff's recommendation and not raise from
three to four, the number of unrelated people in an household. Thank you.
L.Weiss: Lou Weiss, Fayetteville. Something just occurred to me, I don't know if it's
possible or not but in defense of the students, perhaps if somebody can talk to the
University and during their orientation if they could be given this information on
how many unrelated people can live together, maybe more of them could be
aware of this rule and follow this rule. We are always talking against the students
and I feel badly doing that because they are here for a higher education and so on
and I respect that. I have been scared, last night as a matter of fact, we live across
from Hotz Park and there were kids yelling all over the place and it sounded like
guns and sounded like they were in our driveway, we ended up calling the police.
There are a lot of problems but perhaps if students were educated a little bit more
to this problem, maybe they would behave themselves a little better or be aware of
these rules.
Baker: I won't take but just a moment because I know you are tired and I appreciate so
much you being here. I appreciate you giving me the chance to speak. I brought
pictures.
Estes: Would you tell us who you are and where you live?
Baker: I'm sorry. My name is Ruth Baker and I live at 99 West Elm, Fayetteville. I
brought some pictures that are worth a thousand words and hey just give credence
•
I
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 114
to what has already been said. As you look at them, I would like you to note how
many times the sidewalks are blocked. This particular neighborhood has
duplexes, three and four bedroom duplexes. It's also the closest residence to the
location for the new Boys and Girls Club. I know, in listening to the Planning
Commission when the Boys and Girls Club was being presented, one of the things
they talked about was children walking to the Boys and Girls Club and also riding
their bicycles. If you'll notice, in order to get to the Boys and Girls Club, by that
particular neighborhood, they would have to be riding and walking out in the
streets because there are so many cars. Two of the pictures shows a particular
duplex this morning that went by at 7:20 a.m. On one side there were seven cars,
six on the driveway, one in the yard, on the other side of the duplex there were
five cars, which gives a total of twelve cars. We have not even mentioned what
happens on Friday nights and Saturday nights. The only other thing that I would
like to add is, I thank you very much Mr. Conklin, for recommending three. I
think that was a wise decision because we seem to have enough trouble with three
and we don't want to open the barn door up wider. Also, the fact that something
was mentioned about people with four bedrooms not being able to have as much
income, there are families that need four bedrooms. I don't think that is going to
interfere with anyone's income. Thank you very much for listening.
Benedict: I'm John Benedict and I've lived on Oliver Street over 30 years in two different
houses. My mother and I chose to live on Oliver Street because it's zoned R-1. I
agree that we need to define a family and limit the number of unrelated persons
living in a house. It looks like that we are trying to address the problem after the
fact to me. The issue might be better addressed on the front end but the problem
that we are having at 527 Oliver, next door, might have been addressed in the
planning stage or the permit stage. In Fayetteville a builder can build just about
any structure within reason but if you see a plan calling for a long hallway with
many doors, a reasonable persons would say "That's probably a dorm, it's not an
R -I structure." I'm saying that there would seem to be many indications of what
a structure is going to be used for and what structure does not belong in R-1. It's
helpful to limit the number of unrelated persons but builders can continue to build
what amounts to dormitories in R-1 areas. The history at 527 Oliver is that the
neighbors had to get together and oppose the owner building a six unit apartment
complex there. Why did the neighbors keep having to band together to oppose the
building of structures that shouldn't even be considered in R-1? I object to there
being six students living in the house at 527 Oliver, in addition to the students
living at 1520 Maple on the same property. These students have not been bad
neighbors but there are too many of them living in one property. As near as I can
tell there have been as many as eleven people living in the two houses on the one
property, judging from the numbers of cars and the people coming and going that
r
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 115
I've seen. My mother and myself feel the existence of a rooming house next door
has adversely affected our quality of life and enjoyment of an R-1 private home in
an R-1 zone. That's the issue to us. I guess I would urge the Planning
Commission to go even further than this step that you are doing to protect R-1.
Thank you.
Reynolds: My name is Ben Reynolds and I am a student at the University of Arkansas.
Currently, I do live on campus but I am planning on moving off campus next
semester and I have many friends that live off campus. All this talk has been
about college students, I see that as a big problem. With the mention of the senior
citizens not causing problems, it's kind of like saying "If I'm speeding and there
is not a cop there, I'm not breaking the law." There are a lot of problems with a
lot of students living close together. You have problems with noise, illegal
parking and sometimes the threat of violence and illegal acts. All that is handled
by other ordinances, not by this one. There are other means to take care of that.
As far as other people providing services to the community and helping out the
community, even as a member of the University, I do perform a great deal of
service for the community. I help out routinely with the Boys and Girls Club, I
helped volunteer at this rescheduled First Night and occasionally I'll go out to the
animal shelter when my class schedule permits. A lot of students are more active
in the community than people realize. Many are registered voters, after this last
election. We do frequent many of the businesses around Fayetteville. Even
though we do not pay property tax, we pay sales and FIMR taxes. Not all of these
problems of trash and noise are not college students. The further you get away
from campus you still have a lot of these problems, the further you get away from
campus the number of students decrease. I have several ideas on how to solve this
problem. The only option I see tonight is increasing it four people. I don't see
how changing the number will increase any problems that you already have. I am
for making it more strict and getting the loophole out, I am for that. As far as
letting more people live there, when you are renting out a house for $1,000 which
is an average price around Fayetteville, especially close to campus, if you are only
to let three unrelated people there, the cost of living in that house is $330. If you
let four people live there that's $250. That's a difference of $80 and that can
make a difference if someone eats or not. Also, if you increase the number and
it's legal, more people will try to live closer to campus and if we live closer to
campus we won't spread out and invade other areas which seems to be the
problem. Also, a lot of people claim that we are bad neighbors, I think the
number of good neighborly students is not known here because they don't get
reported. Maybe if when students moved into a residence or house that is in an
area where there is a neighborhood association, they should be encouraged to join
it and then they could realize that they could actually help out and maybe they do
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 116
cause problems at certain times. For the domestic servants, an idea to get rid of
the loophole I thought of was to get an update annually or semi-annually, even
quarterly on what they do and report on such things and have to be approved by
the City. Also, you can discourage the owners of these properties from doing it
and not focus so much on the students themselves. If the owners didn't let this
happen then the students wouldn't have the opportunity to be in this position.
What I thought would make an even better idea would be to make the number of
residents dependant on the number that the residence can handle. You could have
a number of people living in a house to be dependant on the number of bedrooms
and the number of parking spaces because that's one of the biggest complaints
I've heard. If you can figure out a relationship between all that, you might be able
to help out because I know there are several houses and apartments that are four
and five bedrooms but you are only going to let three people live there, you are
wasting a lot of space and there is a lot of space going unused. Just to close, I
would like to say that I know I'm not the only one that has come here to
Fayetteville and started a life in town but if I'm not made to feel welcome here, I
don't know if I would want to come back. Thank you.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Estes: Thank you for your comments. Are there any members of the audience which
would like to comment? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public discussion and
bring administrative item 00-46.00 back to the full Commission for motions,
considerations, comments, discussion.
Ward: I'm going to ask the City Attorney about if we limit to three, is that some kind of
discrimination? First of all, I know if somebody wants to buy a home in a
residential area and use it for a rental, which has happened many times in this
college town, that's how neighborhoods start changing. I see that our
Subcommittee recommended four people. Is this too discriminatory?
Williams: Since this would be a continuation of a current ordinance, I don't think would be
more of a problem than it's been in the past. I don't think we've been challenged
in the past over that.
Ward: I think the only place we need to use this would be strictly in R-1 zoning only.
Williams: I would like to say that might make some
sense.
Tim, you were
talking earlier
about the fact that you were going to look
at that
also?
Conklin: Yes.
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 117
Williams: My only suggestion to the Commission might be that if we are going to try to
change this, maybe we ought to do it all at once rather than change this a little bit
now and send that up to City Council and then come back and re -change it again.
It may be that we are not ready at this point in time to do the finished product.
Ward: The real problem I see with all this stuff is that if you rent a house to three boys,
the next thing you know, if you are in the rental business, there is a girlfriend
moves in for a few weeks or weekends and things like that. Another thing that I
noticed, parking is a problem at a lot of these places, friends do come by. Up on
Mount Sequoyah where I live, everybody has parties on weekends and there is 8,
10 or 15 cars. I don't think that's a thing we need to concern ourselves too much
with as far as seeing a bunch of cars parked somewhere. I just think there is no
real perfect solution to this problem. You can't legislate people from buying
property, that's discrimination. I'm not sure that there is a really is a real solution
to our problem. I understand. I live up on Mount Sequoyah and there are lots of
rental properties up there and a lot of nice homes.
Shackelford: Just to expand a little on what Commissioner Ward is saying, I agree in theory
with what we are trying to accomplish with this ordinance but I'm very much
struggling with the fact that we have apartments and duplexes that are built four
bedrooms for four unrelated occupants. I'm afraid that if we approve this as it's
presented that we are going to be put in a position where we are either making a
lot of conditional use acceptances to this or we'll just kind of be picking where we
are applying the law and where we are ignoring the law. I don't think that's fair
to anybody. As much as I hate to, I'm going to have to say that I won't support it
stated as three people instead of four unless it's tied to zoning. I think that's
perfect for R-1. I think other zonings to where there is specific rental properties
already built that are for four unrelated people that we are going to have to address
that. I don't think I've ever voted for a motion to table in my life but I'm not so
sure we are exactly where we want to be with this ordinance before we send it to
City Council. That's my thoughts on the issue at this time.
MOTION:
Marr: I was going to actually move to table based on the comments. I support the three
particularly in an R-1 zoning. I'm not comfortable having three across the board.
I agree with our City Attorney that we should address it all at one time. I know no
one wants to probably deal with the thought of revisiting this again, particularly
when it's 11:25 at night, at a future meeting but I think it's the most appropriate
thing to do. I'll move to table administrative item 00-46.00.
•
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 118
Estes: There is a motion to table by Commissioner Man, is there a second?
Ward: Second.
Estes: Second by Commissioner Ward, is there any discussion?
Conklin: Would it be appropriate to vote on the issue of limiting to three for single family,
R-1 zoning district so we can have direction of staff to bring that proposal
forward? Not to send it to the City Council but, since we've discussed it this
evening whether or not it's three or four, to vote on that to keep it as is or change
it.
Estes: I have some questions but I think first Commissioner Hoffman has something.
Hoffman: I think that's a good idea to give direction because I'm a rental property owner but
I do find the same things that Commissioner Ward had said. I think there are
more responsible landlords out there than not but the ones that are not really stand
out and we know where they are and we know who they are. I would like to send
a message to those people that it really does decrease property values, it really
does create an eyesore for Fayetteville that can be easily avoided if we limit the
number of people and get rid of these loopholes. Then we can certainly sort out,
at another time, what to do with the apartment complexes that have the adequate
parking, we have non -conforming duplexes that don't have adequate parking but
maybe they are already in a really dense district that we can deal with that in some
manner. When I first sat in on the Subcommittee, I was thinking it needs to be
four but I've been considering it since then and had some discussion about it with
various people and I do believe that in a single family neighborhood, and we are
really talking now a lot about preserving the character and integrity of our
neighborhoods, that if we keep it to three it sends a message. Maybe somebody
slips four in under the door but if they act as responsible citizens then they won't
have a problem as in the senior citizen example. If we could make some kind of
suggestion or give a direction for staff or take a consensus before we table it. Can
we table it with a show of hands or something like that?
Estes: Mr. Conklin, a couple of questions. There was a Subcommittee appointed, which
of course I chaired, the seminal issue that brought this all about was the domestic
servant clause in the existing definition of family, is that right?
Conklin: That is correct. That's all I ever wanted to remove was just that last sentence in
the ordinance that talked about domestic servants.
C
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 119
Estes: Then we got off on the discussion of three or four or six or eight and, help me out,
the definition of family is seminal to our zoning code because it is in our zoning
code that we talk about single family, multi -family, R-1, R-2 and we use that
definition to define R-1 or to define R-2, is that a correct statement?
Conklin: I use that definition when we go out investigate a complaint to determine whether
or not there are more than three unrelated people within a dwelling unit.
Estes: Is not our zoning code based upon, for example R-1 is single family, R-2 is more
than single family, so we must have a definition of family for our zoning code to
function, is that fair?
Conklin: That is correct.
Estes: All we are doing is that, you asked that we look at the definition of family and
consider removing the domestic servant clause?
Conklin: That is correct.
Estes: We did that. Now we have a motion to table which I will oppose because I think
we need to vote the ordinance up or down and send it on. There is not some grand
scheme here of ordinance revision, it is just simply that we needed to take a look
at the definition of family and it was suggested that we remove domestic servant.
Then we got into this discussion of whether it's three or four or whatever and here
we are tonight with a motion to table what I guess is about four months of work
for what purpose I don't understand. Maybe it's just the late hour and I'm not
capable of grasping the nuance of it all.
Marr: I asked the question during this discussion whether the definition of family was
used for R-1 zoning or all residential zonings. I don't believe, nor can I support,
the definition of family being three in an R-2 requirement when I know that there
are multiple properties in Fayetteville that have four bedrooms, that if I am a
landlord or a building owner, it is my goal from a profitability standpoint to have
maximum rental out of that property. Therefore, as I said in my table motion, I
support three. I think the feedback we've heard tonight is that it should be three
in R-1 zoning. I guess my questions would be, instead of staying here until
midnight, would have been was there a rationale that the Committee did not
address definition of a family in higher zonings? Were there additional
considerations to deal with properties that are out of compliance today? If we
pass this, are we going to on Monday or whatever point it becomes effective, have
100 citizens in Fayetteville calling because they've got pictures, they've got
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 120
property where more than three people are there in zoning that was built to
accommodate that? That's my rationale for tabling. I would certainly be happy to
vote it down or vote for R-1 only but I would not support leaving it the way it is
today.
Conklin: I don't mind tabling the issue, I would just like to let the public know, who are
here this evening, that the Commission acted on the issue of three or four and give
staff direction. To bring back something more to address the R-2 or whatever...
MOTION:
Marr: I would like to withdraw my motion to table and I would like to move that we
adopt a definition of family as presented with three unrelated individuals for R-1
zoning only.
Ward: Second.
Hoffman: I can't do that because Locust has C-4 or C-3 zoning or whatever. I just want to
vote on three or four and let them work on the different zonings.
Estes: We have a statement by Commissioner Marr that he withdraws his motion to
table, does the second accept that?
Ward: Yes.
Estes: Then Commissioner Man makes the motion to approve the definition of a family
as recommended by staff, "No more than three unrelated persons occupying a
dwelling as a single housekeeping unit in an R-1 district." That motion has been
seconded by Commissioner Ward. Is there any discussion?
Bunch: I realize that it is late and we have had various changes in the form of
motions and discussions. My concern is that we are going to, in our haste
to get out of here because it is late, that we are going to do ourselves a
disservice. I believe that responsibly we can respond to the community
and the community can know that we are addressing this issue without
having to jump through hoops right now to make a vote on three or four.
We have had information that has been presented to us at the last agenda
session, at the request of Commissioner Allen, from our last meeting of
the Subcommittee, which opens up considerable other alternatives. We
can look at possibly four if it's owner occupied. We've had things
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 121
presented tonight of ideas about other zonings. My concern here is that in
our haste to solve one problem we are going to create many more. The
idea of saying "Yes, we can live with three. Let's just jump up and do
three and wink at all the other violations of the three", puts us in a position
of selectively enforcing the law and I am just not comfortable with that. I
think that if we spend a little more time on it and come up with something
that is pragmatic and realistic that we will be better served rather than in a
haste come up with something that we know is improper and we wind up
enforcing selectively and playing favorites. I don't think that's a position
that we, as a City, need to be in where we can be readily accused and hear
"How come I have to move and these people over here don't have to
move?" I think we are putting ourselves in a real strange position to do it
that way.
Hoffman: I have a friendly amendment to this motion, can we say not more than three in a
house used as a single family dwelling or zoned R- I? That takes care of all the
people on Locust.
Conklin: In an effort to move forward, I think I understand the intent of Don Man's motion
and we'll bring forward an ordinance definition to the next Planning Commission
that talks about up to three unrelated people in a single family zoning district and
consider up to four in multi -family zoning districts. I don't know how you want
to word your motion. Basically I was trying to clarify, on this issue of a single
family zoning district, how many unrelated people. I would be more than happy
to bring that forward to the next Commission meeting.
Man: Are we in fact hearing to table the motion until we come back with those two?
Conklin: I just want a clarification. I was trying to clarify, for the public, a consensus of
the Commission of what you felt should it change from three to four so we don't
have to go through the public hearing portion again and debate whether or not it
was three or four.
Man: That was my intent.
Bunch: Seeing that Mr. Conklin has requested this, does it require a formal motion
or does it require just a consensus and a request of staff to bring these
things forward? The question I have is the "as presented" what is the next
step as presented in our packets? Is this something that goes back to staff
and then comes back to this Commission or is it as just described by Mr.
Conklin that it's something that goes back to staff and is represented to
S
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 122
this Commission for further consideration?
Estes: At the present we have a motion on the floor with a second. That motion will stay
unless amended or withdrawn. Is there any further discussion on the motion?
Bunch: I don't feel that the motion describes what Mr. Conklin has requested and
that's what our whole purpose is here, to gain some relief for the Planning
Department in addressing these issues.
Hoffman: It would get a
consensus
and
it could always be changed because it's just an
administrative
item. It's
not
into ordinance yet.
Williams: My experience has been, after you've had a six hour meeting and it's 11:30 at
night, you don't do very good drafting work. I would rather see a show of hands
three or four to Mr. Conklin and let him and me, in the next couple of weeks, do
some drafting work when we can think.
Estes: We have a motion and a second on the floor and we need to do something
dispositive with that motion.
Man Mr. Chair, I will remove my motion.
Ward: Reluctantly I'll agree.
Estes: Mr.
Conklin has requested a sense of the
Commission regarding three or four.
Let's
accommodate him in that
request.
All who would favor three?
Ward: In what zone? I'm not voting unless it's a zone.
Estes: Mr. Conklin, how do you want the sense of the Commission?
Conklin: In a single family zoning district.
Estes: R -I?
Conklin: There is more than one. Yes, single family zoning district.
Estes: What is the sense of the Commission for three unrelated persons in a single family
zoning district, signify by raising your right hand.
Shackelford: I'm sorry to do this. Tim, is that the current ordinance now?
;I
Planning Commission
April 9, 2001
Page 123
Conklin: Yes.
Estes: Any other discussion? Signify by raising your right hand if you favor three in a
single family zoning district. Those who are in favor of four or more in a single
family zoning district, signify by raising your left hand or your right hand. Does
that accomplish what you wanted to accomplish?
Conklin: Yes. I'll get with Mr. Kit Williams and we'll draft an ordinance.
• STAFF REVIEW FORM •
X AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of June 19, 2OO1.
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning Public Works
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: To approve an ordinance approving AD 00-46.00 to amend Chapter 151 "Definitions", of the
Unified Development Ordinance to change the definition of "Family" and to include the definition of "Single
Housekeeping Unit", 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:
Accountin Nana er Dat Internal Auditor Date
City A orney a e ADA Coordinator Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval and Planning Commission voted 6-0-0 to
recommend to City Council.
Date
Da e
I e d
aE
Date
Cross Reference
New Item: Yes
Prev Ord/Res #:
Orig Contract Date:
Orig Contract Number:
FAYETTEVI fLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDE
To: Tim Conklin, Planning Director
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: June 21, 2001
Attached is a copy of the ordinance amending the definition of a family. The original will be
microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Jim Beavers, City Engineer
I
,.I ,.I I % i I e
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
h (2!z4k ,do solemnly
swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat -Gazette Newspaper, printed and published at Lowell,
Arkansas and that from my own personal knowledge and
re ence to the files of said publication the advertisement of
h A X133
as inserted in the regular editions on
• 4 t xe
Publication Charge 13. U
Purchase Order #
Subscribe and sworn to fore me this
day of , 2001.
Public
My commission expires
P' OFFICIAL SEAL
'enue, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, (501)571-6467
Washington County
RECEIVED RECEIVED
JUL 1t 2001 JUL 19 2001
CITY OFFAYETTEVILLI= Cc CLERK'SOFFICE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
r