Tucson’s UDC Reorg: Mini Dorms & Talking Points (see previous blog on related topic “What Could Be Next Door”)

Joan Hall JPNA President, also provides the following info:

Stakeholder meetings on the Code Amendment on the group dwellings (mini-dorms) are coming up –

Dec 12, Dec 19, and Jan 9, 6 – 8 pm
at Mayor and Council Chambers, 255 W Alameda.

You can review the draft language presented at the November 2, 2011, public meeting at the following link – Planning Commission:Draft Language

Below points provided courtesy of Neighborhood Leaders

Talking Points for Lobbying Mayor & City Council

1. Residential neighborhoods, especially those in the core central historic areas, have been increasingly damaged by mini-dorm construction over the last ten years, resulting in the demolition of historic properties, loss of the character of these neighborhoods, flight of single families, diminished quality of life.
2. Tools to regulate behavior, like red tags, are not working.
3. This code amendment is based on existing code, and as such, does not trigger 207 claims.
4. Other municipalities have enacted similar laws, some with even fewer numbers of unrelated people. In Tucson, we need it to be no more than 4 unrelated people.
5. It will not affect group homes, which are a different category and protected by federal law.
6. It does not discriminate against nontraditional families (same sex unions, for example).
7. The conditional use waiver clause needs to be worked on further, and needs to protect vested rights of property owners while protecting neighbors as well. Any enforcement should focus making property owners comply, not only through assessed fines, but also by temporarily revoking the conditional use waiver.
8. We need to keep the “on site” language for parking requirements.
9. It does not prevent an arrangement where there is a family in the main building and tenants (if unrelated and fewer than 5) in an additional structure. The family counts as “1”.
10. Enact this as of Sept. 28th or earlier (for example, to the date of the first determination – March 17th).
11. The “grandfathering” of existing mini-dorms should not extend to plans for which permits have not been issued.
12. It’s not about the students. Jefferson Park and other neighborhoods do not dislike students.
13. There is not sufficient demand for student housing that bulldozing historic homes and putting up mini-dorms is necessary.
14. Historic neighborhoods add value to a city, and cohesive communities do too. Neighborhoods need your support.
15. Thank you for voting “yes” on this code amendment.

We need everybody to be on the same page for this, so we are asking interested folks to stay after the UDC meeting on Dec 8th to learn about the issue and prepare to lobby for the amendment. For more info on this meeting, please contact Bob Schlanger, rlsbcs@liveline.com, or Steve Prendergast, sprenderga@aol.com.