Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5490 ORDINANCE NO. 5490 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY" FOUND IN CHAPTER 151 DEFINITIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE UP TO FIVE (5) UNRELATED PERSONS IN SOME UNITS OF A PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the current definition of "Family" in the Unified Development Code has been in effect over the last decade and has been approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development after being challenged by a landlord or tenant; and WHEREAS, the current definition of "Family" in the U.D.C. limits the number of unrelated individuals in a housing unit to three (3) for single family districts and four (4) in multifamily districts in order to protect neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, in rare circumstances and with appropriate safeguards the City Council should be authorized to allow up to five (5) unrelated persons in a unit within a Planned Zoning District designed for such occupancy. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby repeals the current definition of "Family" found in the Definitions Chapter of the Unified Development Code and enacts a new definition of"Family" as shown below "Family. (Zoning) In R-A, Neighborhood Conservation and all single family districts including single family Planned Zoning Districts, a "family" is no more than three (3) persons unless all are related and occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. 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 the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit with the exception that the City Council may permit a definition of "family" as no more than five (5) persons unless all are related and occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit in a specific Planned Zoning District with proper safeguards for the surrounding neighborhood such as applying the parking requirements of §172.11 (even though this is a multifamily PZD), requiring that each five Page 2 Ordinance No. 5490 person unit must be placed within a freestanding structure of not more than two stories and be buffered from other residential districts outside the Planned Zoning District. The City Council shall consider whether an applicant's PZD with one or more five unrelated person structures would cause unreasonable traffic into an adjoining residential neighborhood before approving any such PZD. Persons are "related" for purposes of this definition if they are related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship, or other duly-authorized custodial relationship. The definition of"family"does not include fraternities, sororities, clubs or institutional groups." PASSED and APPROVED this 3`d day of April, 2012. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: &At�, _ hki�l✓ YOKELD Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer 0l Y°O,c SGp s FAYETTEVILLE: c q .9R A °4°°NGTONAt"N�� AGENDA REQUEST FOR: COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012 FROM: ALDERMAN RHONDA ADAMS ALDERMAN MATTHEW PETTY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT: An Ordinance To Amend The Definition Of"Family" Found In Chapter 151 Definitions Of The Unified Development Code To Allow The City Council To Authorize Up To Five (5) Unrelated Persons In Some Units Of A Planned Zoning District APPROVED FOR AGENDA: S- k,--AA" Rh nda Adams Date Alderman Matti ew Petty Date Alderman City Attorney kas to form) Date ccol Lk41rs r O al�la� ec . �7 a e evl le Departmental Correspondence Y ARKANSASLEGAL www.accessfayetteville.org DEPARTMENT Kit Williams TO: Mayor Jordan City Attorney City Council Jason B.Kelley Sondra Smith, City Clerk Assistant City Attorney FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: March 13, 2012 RE: Resuming consideration of proposed ordinance to amend definition of "family" for zoning purposes At the last City Council meeting, the City Council approved a Motion to Table the ordinance amending the definition of"family" for zoning purposes until the Ordinance Review Committee could consider and make a recommendation concerning a possible ordinance to adopt a civil enforcement procedure to the City Council. The next afternoon at 5:00 P.M. the Ordinance Review Committee met to discuss the draft ordinance for civil enforcement of residential overcrowding issues. At the Ordinance Review Committee meeting, Jeremy Pate and Yolanda Fields assured the Ordinance Review Committee that the current enforcement procedures in response to residential overcrowding complaints were functioning well. I then recommended to the Ordinance Review Committee that my draft ordinance should not be presented to the City Council for approval while the City Council further monitored the current enforcement procedures. The Ordinance Review Committee made suggestions to Community Services about better citizen communication to ensure residents knew of their right to lodge complaints about residential overcrowding. Additionally, a suggestion was made encouraging Community Services to report back to the citizens who had complained about residential overcrowding to explain its investigation, findings and resolution of the complaint. The Ordinance Review Committee took my advice and unanimously agreed not to pursue the alternative civil enforcement ordinance at this time. It also asked how to bring the definition ordinance back to the full City Council. I explained that this ordinance could be "taken from the table" during the next City Council meeting by majority vote. I recommended that the public be advised of this action at the City Council Agenda meeting. My review of Robert's Rules of Order and the Municipal League's "Procedural Rules For Municipal Officials" confirms that a Motion To Take From The Table (Robert's Rules) or Motion To Resume Consideration (characterized by the Municipal League as the more modern version) can be made. Since the definition ordinance was supposed to be returned to the City Council automatically when the Ordinance Review Committee had sufficiently reviewed the enforcement ordinance, I believe it is proper to place this definition ordinance back on "Old Business" now as the Ordinance Review Committee discussed the enforcement ordinance and decided not recommend it to the City Council now. We have always applied "common sense" parliamentary procedure rather than a hyper-technical interpretation. Thus, my position is that the City Council did not intend to "kill" the definition ordinance if the Ordinance Review Committee determined not to recommend the civil enforcement ordinance. Instead, the City Council wanted the Ordinance Review Committee to review and recommend what action to take on the civil enforcement ordinance before returning the definition ordinance for City Council action. That has been accomplished so I recommend that the definition ordinance now be placed back on the final Agenda under Old Business. To further ensure no one can claim the City Council violated parliamentary procedure, I request Mayor Jordan ask for a Motion To Resume Consideration of the ordinance at the City Council before any discussion. Like a Motion To Table, a majority of those aldermen present and participating are needed to pass a Motion To Resume Consideration which is a "Subsidiary" motion. 2 OBJECT TO CONSIDERATION: To oppose discus- SPECIAL MEETING: A meeting called to consider sion and decision of a main motion. certain specific business that must be set forth in ORDER OF BUSINESS: The formal'program of se- the call. quence of different items or classes of business STANDING COMMITTEE: A committee to handle arranged in the order in which they are to be consid- all business on a certain subject that may be referred Bred. - to it, and usually having a term of service correspon- ding to the term of office of the officers of the organi- zation. a municipality. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Any business deferred by PENDING QUESTION: A question, or motion, be- a motion to postpone to a definite time, or any busi- fore the council which has not yet been voted upon. ness that was incomplete when the previous meeting POSTPONE DEFINITELY: To defer consideration of adjourned.Unfinished business has a preferred status a motion or report until a specific time. at the following meeting. POSTPONE INDEFINITELY: To kill a motion or re- VIVA VOCE VOTE: A vote taken by calling for port by deferring consideration of it indefinitely. "ayes"and "noes"and judged by volume of voice re- port Sometimes called "voice vote." POSTPONE TEMPORARILY: To defer consideration. VOTE IMMEDIATELY: Motion to close debate,shut of a report or motion until the council chooses to take it up again. The old form of the motion was "lay on off subsidiary motion and take a vote at once the table." WITHDRAW: Motion by a member to remove his PRECEDENCE: The right of prior proposal and con- motion fromconsideration by the council sideration of one motion over another,or the order or priority of consideration. PRIVILEGED MOTIONS: The class of motions hav- ing the highest priority. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE: Request or motion af- fecting the comfort or convenience of the council or one of its members. RECONSIDER: Motion to cancel the effect of a vote so that the question may be reviewed and redecided. REFER TO COMMITTEE: Motion to delegate work to a small group of members for study,decision or ac- tion. RESUME CONSIDERATION: To take up for consid- eration a motion that has been postponed temporarily. The old form of the motion was"take from the table." SPECIAL COMMITTEE: A committee appointed to accomplish a particular task and to submit a special report.It ceases to exist when its task is completed, 14 15 1114 1 Rules of Order Motions and Their Order of Precedence [ 115 1 the motion may be made again after an adjournment it. Also, an affirmative vote on it can't be reconsidered even when the next meeting is held on the same day. In (see Section 27); it removes the subject from consider- Congress, though, the motion can't be renewed the same ation until the assembly votes to take it from the table. day. (See Section 8 for the order of precedence of this If a member incorrectly makes a motion to La on the motion.) Table some question for a specified time, the chair The motion to Suspend the Rules applies only to rules shouldn't rule it out of order but should recognize and of order or standing rules (see Section 49) since an orga- state it as a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (Sec- nization's constitution and bylaws can't be suspended tion 21). The motion to Lay [a subject] on the Table even by unanimous consent, unless they provide for their can't be limited in any way. Some of the correct forms of own suspension. But they should never be suspended this motion are shown in these examples: except in the case of a bylaw relating to the transaction of business,and then the reason for the suspension should I move to lay the question of—on the table. be specified. The rules of an assembly, therefore, must not be sus- I move that the matter of _ be laid on the i pended except for a definite purpose, and then a two- table. thirds vote is required. Also,no rule should be suspended, I move that the question of_lie on the table. except by unanimous consent, that gives any right to a minority as small as one-third. It would be pointless, for example, to have a rule allowing one-fifth of the mem When someone wants to take up the question again, one be present to order the"yeas and nays" (see Section 38 of the forms here should be followed: and 39) if two-thirds could simply suspend that rule. 1 move to take the question of _ from the The If form of this motion is as follows: table I move to suspend the rules that interfere with I move that we now consider the question of In organizations with th sessions of a day or less, occur- ring as often as monthly, it should be permissible to take g Subsidiary Motions from the table any question that was laid there at the previous session (see Section 42). In the case of a resolu- tion, however, it would be better to offer it again as a Section 19. To La the Table new resolution. jr on The motion to Lay [a subject] on the Table has no privilege, is undebatable, and can't have any other sub- sidiary motion applied to it. The object of it is to post The motion to Lay on the Table a particular subject pone a subject so that it can be taken up at any time at (set it aside temporarily) takes precedence over all other the same or in a future meeting. You couldn't accomplish subsidiary questions (see Section 7). But it yields to any this by a motion to Postpone Indefinitely(Section 24) or incidental motion (see Section 8) or privileged motion definitely. The motion also is used frequently to suppress (see Section 9). This motion is not debatable and can't be a question (see Section 59) for a particular session; it can amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to do this as long as there will never be a majority vote to • a e evl le Departmental Correspondence ARKANSASLEGAL Iorg DEPARTMENT Kit Williams city Attorney TO: Mayor Jordan Jason B.Kelley City Council Assistant City Attorney CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney !! DATE: January 26, 2012 RE: Possible affordable option between houses and apartment buildings within a new PZD Alderman Rhonda Adams asked Jeremy and me to consider and work on a possible amendment to the U,D.C.'s definition of"family" in order to facilitate an alternative housing model that would allow higher density than a house, but would be more "home-like" than a standard apartment building. With the U of A's recent announcement that it will continue to strive to grow by over a thousand additional students for the next few years, the City needs to plan to make new, attractive and affordable housing options allowable for our increasing student population to protect our existing single family neighborhoods. Without such an option, our neighborhoods will likely see increasing pressure and problems from over- occupied houses. To meet this need and Alderman Adams' request, Jeremy and I worked out a possible amendment to the definition of"family" with Rhonda that would increase the maximum number of unrelated persons in a housing unit from 4 to 5 in a specific PZD approved by the City Council in a case by case consideration and with proper safeguards for the surrounding neighborhood. Such safeguards would likely include buffering from other residential housing, limitations as to the number and type of structure allowed ("free standing structure of not more than two stories") and whatever else that the City Council, after listening to public comment, would believe to be appropriate to protect the surrounding neighborhood. Alderman Rhonda Adams has approved this proposed amendment and submits it for your consideration. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY" FOUND IN CHAPTER 151 DEFINITIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE UP TO FIVE (5) UNRELATED PERSONS IN SOME UNITS OF A PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS,the current definition of"Family" in the Unified Development Code has been in effect over the last decade and has been approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development after being challenged by a landlord or tenant; and WHEREAS, the current definition of "Family" in the U.D.C. limits the number of unrelated individuals in a housing unit to three (3) for single family districts and four (4) in multifamily districts in order to protect neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, in rare circumstances and with appropriate safeguards the City Council should be authorized to allow up to five (5) unrelated persons in a unit within a Planned Zoning District designed for such occupancy. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby repeals the current definition of "Family" found in the Definitions Chapter of the Unified Development Code and enacts a new definition of"Family" as shown below "Family. (Zoning) In R-A, Neighborhood Conservation and all single family districts including single family Planned Zoning Districts, a "family" is no more than three (3) persons unless all are related and occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. 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 the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit with the exception that the City Council may permit a definition of "family" as no more than five (5) persons unless all are related and occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit in a specific Planned Zoning District with proper safeguards for the surrounding neighborhood such as applying the parking requirements of §172.11 (even though this is a multifamily PZD), requiring that each five person unit must be placed within a freestanding structure of not more than two stories and be buffered from other residential districts outside the Planned Zoning District. The City Council shall consider whether an applicant's PZD with one or more five unrelated person structures would cause unreasonable traffic into an adjoining residential neighborhood before approving any such PZD. Persons are "related" for purposes of this definition if they are related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship, or other duly-authorized custodial relationship. The definition of"family"does not include fraternities, sororities, clubs or institutional groups." PASSED and APPROVED this 6`h day of March, 2012. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer G �, rr�� !�►� Fayetteville Code of Ordinances Facilities handling explosives. (Zoning) Any Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). (Flood function that involves a process dealing with a product Damage Prevention) The official map on which the with explosive potential. Federal Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of Fall zone. (Wireless Communications Facilities) special flood hazards and the Floodway. The area within which a tower or antenna might cause damage to persons or property should the tower or Flood Insurance Study. (Flood Damage antenna be knocked down, blown over or fall on its Prevention)The official report provided by the Federal own. Insurance Administration that includes Flood profiles, the FIRM, the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, Family. (Zoning) In single-family residential and the water surface elevation of the base flood. districts, a family is no more than three persons unless all are related and occupy a dwelling as a Floodplain. (Stormwater Management, Drainage single housekeeping unit in the RSF-.5 (Residential and Erosion Control) For a given flood event, that - Single-family — Half Acre), RSF - 1 (Residential area of land that is temporarily covered by water and Single-family - One acre), RSF - 2 (Residential that adjoins a watercourse. In FEMA regulated, or Single-family — 2 Acre), RSF - 4 (Residential Single- established floodplains,the floodplains shall mean the family—4 Units per Acre), and RSF - 7 (Residential area subject to inundation from any source during the Single-family — 7 Units per Acre) zoning districts. In regulatory event. all other zoning districts where residential uses are permitted, a family is no more than four persons Floodplain or flood-prone area. (Flood Damage unless all are related and occupy a dwelling as a Prevention)Areas that are subject to, or are exposed single housekeeping unit. A family is when all to,flooding and flood damage. persons are related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized custodial relationship. The definition of family does not include fraternities,sororities,clubs or institutional groups. FCC. (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) The Federal Communications Commission. FEMA. (Physical Alteration of Land) Federal V Emergency Management Agency. - Fenestration. (Development) An exterior opening in the surface of a structure, such as a window, door, clerestory window, curtain wall,etc. Fill. (Physical Alteration of Land) A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. _ __w. _ -. ., ------�---- First or ground floor. (DDOD). The finished floor facing a street right of way. Floodplain management. (Flood Damage Flashing sign. (Signs) An illuminated sign on Prevention) The operation of an overall program of which artificial or reflected lights is not maintained corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited l emergency stationary and constant in intensity and color at all preparedness plans, flood control works and times when in use. floodplain management regulations. Flood or flooding. (Flood Damage Prevention)A general and temporary condition or partial or Floodplain management regulations. (Flood Damage Prevention complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of flood waters, or the unusual and rapid codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances Development code, building accumulation or run-off of surface water from any ordinance) grading ordinance and erosion control source. ordinance) and other applications of police power. - The term describes such state or local regulations in Flood boundary and floodway map. (Flood any combination thereof, which provide standards for Damage Prevention) The official map on which the the purpose of flood damage prevention and Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both reduction. the areas of flood hazards and the Floodway. Flood-proofing. (Flood Damage Prevention)Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures which reduce or CD151:10 (2%23%2012 Ci Clerk- Form mail from AccessFayetteville -Ordinance Meetin ton! ht 6 m Seite 1 From: <themucks@gmail.com> To: <webmaster@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> CC: <city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> Date: 2/23/2012 10:27 AM Subject: [Form mail from AccessFayetteville]-Ordinance Meeting tonight @ 6pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey&Juanita Muckleroy Email: themucks@gmaii.com To: city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us Subject: Ordinance Meeting tonight @ 6pm Message: Please pass our concerns below to the Council tonight as these are major concerns for us in the Sang valley Neighborhood. Hello City Council Members- We are residents in the Sang Valley community. We would like to go to the meeting tomorrow night but have to be in Tulsa to pick up my Daughter. We have been out of pocket for a while now on what is going with our community, however the below email is very disturbing to us and we would like for our voice to be heard tomorrow night at this meeting. 1)We are not in favor for passing a new definition of a family! This is going to bring more unwanted traffic in our neighborhood that people in our community already complain about, plus we already have houses around this neighborhood that have more than the allotted residents in them. You can look down Ora and see more than 7 cars parked at it all the time. The corner of Sang and Weddington is another. Right on Cleveland is another. 2) If you pass the 5 instead of 3 for a definition it will not be a choice of the city approving on a case to case base. The city will do whatever brings in the most money! It doesn't care where the location is as long as it brings in revenue. 3)We have already complained about the traffic on Sang Ave. We have added a new church right down the street that has increased traffic already. With the increase of students at the University the traffic has also increased drastically. In front of our house on Sang at 7:30am-8:30am you can't get out of the driveway easily. This is also the same at 4:30-5:30 pm every day. What will you do when one of our children get hurt due to traffic that has increased in the neighborhood? 4) We put in speed bumps but they don't work!We have enough traffic flowing through here at all times of the day and night speeding! You can hear people going over the speed bumps like crazy... Some even sound as if they have lost part of their car. 5)Although we work for the University and am an advocate for the University we do not want more residential places in our neighborhood. We bought this house because it was a nice quiet place to live I (2/23/2012 Ci Clerk - Form mail from AccessFe etteville - Ordinance Meetin tool ht 6 m Seite 2 and raise our children. We now have a nephew that lives with us and we want him to grow up in a quiet neighborhood also. If the University needs more housing then look to the South by Baum stadium, the buses already run in that area. Plus there are a lot of Apartments that are needing renters... 6) We are not sure where you live Rhonda but if this were your area or road where your children grew up we do not think you would advocate for another huge community to come in. 7) We are also worried about the flooding form the creek! Although we are not on the creek our garage has flooded a lot from the rain flooding out of the drainage ditches. Which has always been an ongoing problem. The city came out on Easter last year to clean out the ditches. If you add more concrete to the mix this could be even more disastrous for this neighborhood. 8) We know that there will be some development on the Marinoni property at some point but please do not make it a burden on the already established older neighborhood and add more burden to an already existing problem. Please consider our thoughts on the above points. When you start opening up older neighborhoods for money which the city has a lot to gain from this (as our property taxes are already way to high and will just go up with a new residential neighborhood) then we lose sight of what Fayetteville is really about! Thank you both in advance, Juanita & Jeffrey Muckleroy Below is the email we received from John notifing us of this. From: John Faucette [faucette@coldwellbanker.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:07 AM To: Donn T. Johnson; Paula E. Johnson; Ed and Angie Baker; Darryl & Lea Criss; Deb Euculano; Tami Trzeciak; Shirley Lucas; Bill Mock; Juanita K. Muckleroy; Maliah Pinkleton; Kathy Short; Steven Skattebo; Martha Thornton; Carol Traphagan; Rania Trulley; Marcia Wells; Darrell Caplener; Vel Moses Subject: FW: the retreat at lubbock-the ultimate living experience sang valley important Please find below an e-mail I sent to Sarah Lewis, our current Ward 4 Representative regarding the Heckathorn property and the Marinoni property to the west a potential use of the land being considered. This is very important; if this consideration becomes a reality it will place a burden upon our existing neighborhoods and our surrounding streets, and a possible burden on drainage, and also nearby intersections such as the already somewhat dangerous intersection of Razorback and Maple, Cleveland and Sang, and etc. I just had a few e-mail addresses of folks in the Sang Valley Association, that is why I did not do a blind recipient so anyone could forward this e-mail on to others this was not sent to that live in the Sang Valley Association area, but it also needs to be sent to the Halsell Heights Association as well and I do not have any e-mail addresses there as well. This is being considered and being supported by the higher ups at the university. Projecting student enrollment to increase by 6,000+ - over the next 5 years because of football and basketball but not academics, but will that happen if tuition keeps increasing. Also, this Thursday evening Rhonda Adams our other current Ward 4 Representative at the Council of Neighborhoods is going to explain the new definition of a "family" with respect to the number of occupants 2/23/2012 Ci Clerk - Form mail from AccessFa etteville - Ordinance Meetin toni ht 6 m Sete 3 in a dwelling for planned zoning districts, but keep in mind this might effect existing housing. The push is to go beyond no more than 3 unrelated occupants to 5. So the housing being considered on the Heckathron property will have 1 to 5 BR family units, supposedly 600 units which would average 3.5 BRs per unit and when you look at 600 hundred units that is a lot of vehicles of college students. The Neighborhood Council will meet Thursday February 23rd at 6:00pm in room 326 of City Hall. If you would like to call please feel free to do so. My number is 479-871-8147 or 479-571-7730. For those of you that may not know, I live at 2104 W. Loren Circle. John John Faucette Accredited Buyer Representative Certified Marketing Specialist Coidwell Banker Harris McHaney & Faucette Real Estate jaucette@coldwellbanker.com http://jjfaucette.cbhmf.com 479-871-8147 cell 479-444-7546 fax "Pays Attention To Details" "Here To Help" From: John Faucette [mailto:jfaucette@coldwellbanker.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21,20126:06 PM To: 'Sarah Lewis' Subject: the retreat at lubbock-the ultimate living experience Sarah; Recently I was made aware that the planning commission may consider a housing development in the Sang Valley area; the reason in part why the commissioners and aldermen, and staff(Jeremy Pate, etc) are considering changing the number of non -related occupants per house hold. I am not sure to what extent you are aware of this. As I understand on the 25 acres of Heckathorn property which connects to the Marinoni property on the west there is a proposal being considered for 600 single family so called units that are to be cottages of ranging from 1 to 5 Bedrooms with one large common in several of the blocks that will act as common area backyards. If this moves forward then the Project will blend into the Marinoni property which will be commercial and I suppose possibly more housing. If you figure an average of 1- 5BR units As 3.5 BRs times the number of units that is potentially 2,100 people and figuring one car per person and when friends are over that is in addition. Isn't that a little ridiculous? Proposed outlets as I understand: 1)Sang Avenue 2)Maple Street bordering the homes on Loren Circle going east -west then to some degree north south. 3) Which Marinoni would not want to do is go out onto Wedington Drive which would require a Dealing with the State in installing a stop light, which to me would make more sense? Oh by the way there is a proposal consideration where Maple intersects Sang on the west side to put s bus stop to pick up kids gong to the campus. This may entail taking some of Patty Lanning's backyard. Plus if Maple is widen and sidewalked that will take up a lot more yard along the south side of Westwood S/D.I can just see on a Saturday night a care ending up in someone's backyard because of being drunk. The outlet on Sang would be in the vicinity of Archer Drive in Waterman Woods, and I can see it now that Archer would to some degree be a cut through because the number of cars going up Cleveland will result (2/23/2012 Ci Clerk - Form mail from AccessFa etteville - Ordinance Meeting toni ht 6 m Seite 4 in a congested intersection, and in turn there will be increased traffic up Halsell to the south. Cars will be moving fast up Cleveland, on Sang, and up Halsell and maybe along Maple. The considered idea that sidewalks on both side of Cleveland would be a traffic calming devise seems absurd to me. The sidewalks would have to be really wide, more than 4 feet to be considered safe, and besides that I know on the south side there is a culvert near Ashwood on the south side how would the city handle that. I have seen cars hug the curbs on Cleveland going up and going down. It is dangerous even with the side walk that is there now. Cars go fast up the hill to be able to go up the hill and traffic goes down the hill just naturally going fast and with a congested intersection at the base of the hill, no telling what would happen. Here is another thing with the increase traffic using Cleveland and Halsell there are going to be congested intersections and made more dangerous: Razorback and Cleveland; Razorback and Maple to the north, west, east, and south(pretty dangerous already), Markham and Razorback.. If there is a bus transit that is in that Sang Valley area that will make more congestion and not so careful car drivers. Car speed on Sang going to Halsell, and if the traffic is high on Halsell then the idea of using sidewalks on both sides of Halsell as well needs to be done as well as widening Halsell. I bet Rhonda Adams would love that, especially since she proposed the increase in occupants per family unit. Oh yes, if the idea too is get people to walk up Cleveland to school, well, that isn't going to happen. Maybe a few. That hill is a little hard to pull and someone may be worn out by the time they get to the top. Also, another access would be out of Marinoni's property, the private drive that goes out onto Wedington, however, I am sure Marinoni does not want to do that nor the potential developer because then that would mean that they would have to deal with the State Highway department and install a stop light, so put the burden back on the residential areas. Here is something else, Hamstring Creek meanders through the Heckathorn property as you well know. Part of that creek is in the flood plain, I believe that back northwest portion of the Heckathorn property. I also have a feeling that the stream ordinance will be pushed aside to some degree to allow the developer and the city staff to get what they want to achieve. There will be drainage issues. What you may not be aware of is that as the creek meanders northwestward it brings part of West Berry Street into its flood plain. The question will this development impact the creek's already existing flood plain upon the Berry street owners much greater than it is already and will there be other drainage issues. Also, what does this do to the ecological aspect of the prairie type property that the Heckathron property seems to be? This will potentially be a drainage burden upon the Berry Street homes that are already in the flood plain. Aren't drainage and water shed concerns are in your line of work? No one has approached the Sang Valley residents about this proposal so what's up with that. I tell you what's up with that, it is controversial so Marinoni knows already the objection that would be voiced. There is a lot of burden that will be placed upon this area that no one of course is thinking about. The city staff doesn't really care, since they want to achieve this cottage concept, and of course the developer and Marinoni probably have the blessing of the university. There is mumbling that the population of the university will increase by say 6,000 students in 5 years because of the football and basket ball program. Too bad the student population will not increase because of academics, and as more buildings go up so will the tuition which will theoretically decrease the student population. The Sang Valley Neighborhood needs to know I think this idea of increasing the occupants per household is a bad idea especially if it ever gets into the existing housing. I would also like to say that I think it is very wrong for the city staff and planners, aldermen to adjust the light ordinance to suit their own convenience regarding that stupid tree on the Old Post Office property even now more so since there is now the integrity of the transaction that the has gone on in counter offer negotiations. Just so a lighted tree will look pretty on a post card. Bah !. You know a house in our S?D seems to have lights on in their backyard strung up on a tree and deck that seems to be a little bit of a bother, what about that property? This is long, but it had to be said. 2%23/2012) City Clerk - [Form mail from Ai sFa etteville - Ordinance Meetin toni ht 6 m TSeite 5 John John Faucette Accredited Buyer Representative Certified Marketing Specialist Coldwell Banker Harris McHaney & Faucette Real Estate jfaucefte@coldwellbanker.com http://jfauoette.cbhmf.00m 479-871-8147 cell 479-444-7546 fax "Pays Attention To Details" "Here To Help" Juanita Muckleroy Administrative Support Supervisor Arkansas Union Room 634 Office(479) 575-2146 Fax(479)575-7191 jmuckle@uark.edu Harmony, Responsibilty, Restorative, Empathy, Consistency RECEIVED MAR 05 2012 TO: Alderman Rhonda Adams and Matthew Petty: cITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: Ordinance to amend the definition of "family" Pardon my late entry into the discussion of this topic, but I have been on the road working with clients for most of December, January and February and I missed the discussion and coverage of this proposed change. I have three concerns about the long-term impact of this proposed change: 1. How will the city enhance enforcement following these changes? My personal experience from twice enforcing the family code for Waterman Woods, I found the process to be confrontative and ponderous. The complainant becomes the "bad guy," not the party violating the code. The city staff seemed passive in the enforcement with seemingly more interest in the rights of those violating the code. Finally, once there is a finding of violation -the letter had no teeth. 2. I predict that the family definition across the city will slide to the five in practice and that citizen enforcement will become even more difficult 3. As a consultant familiar with affordable housing projects across Arkansas through my work with the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, I am unclear how this provides that benefit, rather it seems to help the University and developers to provide for increased student housing. I understand the value of this amendment to the developers. How will this help low income people to become homeowners? What is the value to the tax -paying residents? How does it protect the quality of life and property values in residential communities in which we have invested our life savings? In conclusion, whatever happened to the discussion to license commercial and individual property rental agents and hold them accountable for code violations? Walt Eilers 2044 West Archer Drive Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.283.2784 at /4 % y-i-It, Lindsley Smith Communication Director City of Fayetteville Ismith(a)ci.fayetteville.ar. us PHONE 479-575-8330 FAX 479-575-8257 TDD 479-521-1316 Get connected to your community on the Community Link. Community Events, Ideas, News, & Volunteers. >>> On 1/30/2012 at 5:13 PM, John Acken <JAckan@capstonemail.com> wrote: Rhonda, Thank you for your help changing the zoning to allow for five unrelated persons to live in a unit. I have reviewed the draft change, and my only concern is that it requires "each five person unit must be placed within a free standing structure." This restriction would seem to prevent a five bedroom duplex unit as well as our "manor house" which is one building with 4 five bedroom units. The manor houses are extremely popular because the four units surround a common courtyard and gathering space. Likewise, we position the duplex units to create interior courtyards for the students. (I have attached marketing materials for our project in College Station, Texas. Pages 17 to 24 show elevations of manor houses and five bedroom duplex houses) If we are required to build all five bedroom single homes then we will have to separate the houses by 12 feet. Although 12 feet does not sound like a lot of space when you multiply it across an entire development it adds up to a considerable amount of space that is not usable by the tenants. Also, the decrease in density caused by having all single family homes offsets the economic benefits of allowing a five bedroom unit. Please feel free to give me a call either on my direct line or my cell phone at your convenience to discuss, and thank you again for your help. Sincerely, John Acken Senior Vice President Capstone Collegiate Communities Direct 205 414 6432 Cell 205 789 7452 -----Original Message ----- From: Paula Marinoni [mailto:pm@paulamarinoni.comj Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:02 PM To: John Acken; John E. Vawter Subject: FW: proposed amendment Paula Marinoni Executive Broker "Best Places" Realty pm@PaulaMarinoni.com 479-466-4128 -----Original Message ----- From: Rhonda Adams [mailto:rhonda@adamsward4.com] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:48 PM To: pm@paulamarinoni.com Subject: Re: proposed amendment Hello Paula, Here it is. Sorry I didn't get it to you this a.m. One of those crazy Monday mornings! Talk to you soon. Rhonda On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:59:00 -0600 "Paula Marinoni" <pm@paulamarinoni.com> wrote: > Hi Rhonda; > Do you have a draft of the proposed amendment yet? > We need to run it past the other developer to make sure it addresses >their needs too. > Thank you! > Paula > Paula Marinoni > Executive Broker > "Best Places" Realty frfg4AoQ 4J of 4 a. 4J1�&7 Ehlers April 3, 2012 comments to the Council Aldermen this evening I appeal to you as a Fayetteville Investor to step back from the usage of this amendment to the definition of family. the process to bring this change to a long-standing set of community devised standards has not been inclusive. It has not been consistent as is the culture of Fayetteville with the community plans. charettes and engagement of those directly affected I encourage you not to ring this bell, because once it is rung, it cannot be unrung. I mentioned that I speak as a Fayetteville Investor. Let me put this in a graphic for you. I speak for a class of us who were not included to any discussion on this amendment. Investors are those residents who own properly, pay our taxes, support our schools and donate to local charities and are consistently engaged in this community. These are the volunteers that give Fayetteville its uniqueness. Investors are different from customersnot better Just different In their level of commitment. Investors have an ownership stake to this community by virtue of their itme, talent and financial commitment We are here for the long haul. Customers are also Important In the community and economy, but they are here for a game, an event, a development or a semester and then they move along their life path. Customers have a vital place In the economy of the community, but they lack the degree of investment oft Investors. My apps to you this evening Is the same as It has been since I learned of this amendment In March: Consider the Impact on the quality of the lives of both the customers and the Investors. Consider the impact on the investors' properly values. Consider how this change will be explained and enforced so that It does not become the standard. Consider a broader, long-term view of how the community will grow and change as the university grows and changes. Wait Ehlers 2044W. Archer Orive 12701 419.283.2184 Isla 0 QM043EIU AN ORDINANCE CHAPTER 151 DE TO ALLOW THE UNRELATED PEI DISTRICT WHEREAS, the current de has been in effect over the last c Department of Housing and Urban tenant; and ND THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY" FOUND IN )NS OFT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE UP TO FIVE (5) IN SOME UNITS OF A PLANNED ZONING WHEREAS, the current $�flnitio. unrelated individuals in a housin unit to multifamily districts in order to pr, tect nei€ of "Family" in the Unified Development Code and has been approved by the United States 'pment after being challenged by a landlord or WHEREAS, in rare ci cumstances and should be authorized to allow p to five (5) unre District designed for such occylpancy. "Family" in the U.D.C. limits the number of \(3) for single family districts and four (4) in idods: and appropriate safeguards the City Council )ersons in a unit within a Planned Zoning NOW, THEREFOfl BE IT RESOLVED B THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVII7LE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That �e City Council of the City of Fayett ville, Arkansas hereby repeals the current definition of "gamily" found in the Definitions Chap er of the Unified Development Code and enacts a nevjdeflnition of "Family" as shown below "Family. (oning) In R -A, Neighborhood Conservation adsingle family districts including single faiily Planned Zoning Districts, a "family" is niorethan three (3) persons unless all are relat�d and occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeit. In all other zoning districts where re idential uses are permitted, a "family" is no morour (4) persons unless all are related anoccupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping uthe exception that the City Council may permit a definition of "family" as no more than ersons unless all are related and occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit ici c Planned Zoning District with proper safeguards for the surrounding neighborhood sequi ing that each five person unit must be placed within a freestanding structure of not an o stories and be buffered from other residential distri is outside the "related" for purposes of this definitihp harguardianship, or other duly -authorized cuoditalery(elat not include fraternities, sororities, clubs titutionl PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day APPROVED: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor Panned Zoning District. Persons are 7 related by blood, marriage, adoption, onship. The definition of "family" does groups." ebruary, 2012. A TEST: SONDRA E. SM City Clerk/Treasurer NORTHWEST ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE NORTHWESTARKANSAS THE MORNING NEWS OF SPRINGDALE N2:WSPAPERSLLC BENTONCOUNTYDAILYREECORD 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE. FAYEITEVILLE, ARKANSA572701 1 P.O. BOX 1607. 72702 1 479.442-1700 1 WWW.NWANEWS.COM RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION APR 30 2012 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE I, Karen Caler, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Northwest Arkansas Newspapers, LLC, printed and published in Washington and Benton County, Arkansas, bona fide circulation, that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: .. _ . ORDINANCE NO. 5490 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE �'_ City of Fayetteville DEfINITION , OF "FAMILY" FOUND x ₹ e Or inanCe 5490 `1CHAPTER'151 DEFINITIONS OF r + aaxx'nses �i1NFt 6{�NIFIED DEVELOPMENT `CODE $s 0 TOALLOW ,E CITY COUNCIL TO y -. TO TH AUTHORIZE UP TO FIVE (5) UNRELATED PERSONS IN SOME UNITS OF AI 3 -ELANNED:ZONING DISTRICT --t- 3C". -� • ^•- . Was inserted in the Regular Editions on: WHEREAS, the current definition of 'Family' Inthe Unified Development Gotle„ April 12 2012 has been In effect over the last decade and has been pprovetl by the United , Statess Department of Housing and Urban DeIbpmsitlafterbelng challenged, ,bya-landlord or tenant; and r €4 ,a, , : "Famil/'ln U�.$Cls rfa the number t Publication Charges: $175.09 WH,REAS, the current definition of the of- unrelated IndMduals in a housing unit to three (3) ioNsingle famiy districts and m `four (4).in multifamily districts in order to proteccneighborhoods;?and WHEREAS, in rare circumstances and withappropdiste safeguards the City ,1 Council should be authorized to allow upto"fiv`e.(5) Untelated persons In a unit, .t within 'aPlanned Zoning District designed for such ocedpanyy.r: e . y: .NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF-7HE i 3 r J /�'/ ^ CITY OF F: , ARKANSAS ' +Q .. lam) (` i+ J J/1 Hl _ � afI J1 t Selo." 1: That the City Council of the City of That the City Karen Caler found in thevDe nitlon 'Cl Iapaels. the curets definition of "Family" found ifa,lhe nitbna r of theUnfied Development Code and meet new deft op of Fa { Ras Shown below a{ s .q Ors �a .=r {„a �..T Family., (Zoning) In R A, Neighborhood Cow,+pervati andjil,single fam- ily districts including single family Planned c a,fam IS no lZopix thenthree all are 'rela and occupy the dwelling Subscribed and sworn to before me more (3) persons unless y as a"single .housekeeping unit. In all other zoning4Jiatrictaomerelresidential, This day of 2012. uses are permitted, a "family" is no more than fur fig) prsons .unless all> are related and occupy the dwelling as a snglehousekeepipg upit with the -S % exception that the City Council may permits deflnititiri of "family" as no more' ihSi five (5) persons unless all are related and pylme dweBlh aeasingle' housekeeping unit In a specific Planned Zoning Dl dot wlihpropet_Eafeguards: 11 for the surrounding neighbomood such as ep.RMn the parts reaugments §172.11 (even though this is a multlfen ly`rZD); equin lg tha9 Bch flue` 1 �/V of person unit must be placed within a freestanding'aVuclure of not more than Notary Public two atones and be buffered from otherresidenfiel.tlisGicts outside' ho Plannetl Zoning;Distnct. The City Council shall oonnid6r thhtalh Ilcantt sP,ZD five &t b5 W -u d Sus "n ems`onable / My Commission Expires: Z.f 2v /20I t f With one or more unrelated person str traffic Into an adjoining residential neighborhood before approving any such PZD. Persons are 'related" for purposes -of this definition If the are related `^ od'Ynamage, adotion, guardianshlpr o zedsto"d "family" does not ionahip. The definition of c. de r'ftles,- clubs or institutional groups.' PASSED end APPROVED this 3rd day of I 201Q. APPROVED: ' ATTEST By. By: r,.. LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA e.SMITH, City $ le'rk(Treasurer' **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent.