HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Letter from Gordon Meyer and Al Warren, points to be addressed LMAR
27 February 2001 _
�—
MI CLERK
Ames City Council members,
CITY OF AMES IOWA i
In an attempt to provide some kind of continuity across the rezoned city, a new ordinance regulating the
number of persons who may share a dwelling has been proposed. Rather than maintain the property rights
of the owners of those dwellings, the ordinance places further restrictions on those property rights. The
erosion of our rights erodes our freedom to adapt to a changing market. It restricts our flexibility, and
gives us nothing in return.
We feel the following points need to be addressed to the satisfaction of those who will be directly affected
by the changes in the ordinance.
1. There was no notification to anyone currently holding Letters of Compliance, even though the new
ordinance will affect most of those property owners who do hold LOCs. The public notice of a city
commission meeting does not provide sufficient notice, especially when many property owners do not
live in the area covered by those public notices, such as those who might find themselves in the
situation raised in point 2.
2. Families vs. 3 unrelated persons in single and double rental units. Parents buying a house in which
their college aged children could live would not be allowed to have roommates under the new
ordinance. If there is any familial relationship between any of the roommates, it constitutes a family,
and anyone not related is disallowed under the new ordinance. This would also affect owner-occupied
houses. If a family had a foreign exchange student living with them, for example, they would be in
violation of the new zoning ordinance, regardless of any changes to the Rental Housing code.
3. Restricting property use that has previously been allowed imposes a financial hardship on the
property owner. If the average cost to rent a house is increased by being forced to reduce the number
of persons sharing the rent, it will make those properties less attractive to renters. That would force
the property owner to either reduce the rent to remain competitive or allow the house to remain vacant
for longer periods of time, both of which would have a negative effect on any existing business plans
that did not have those factors when formed.
4. A family of twelve could legally occupy a one bedroom house. Yet, four friends can not occupy a
four bedroom house unless two are related, and under the new ordinance, being related would disallow
that. It is difficult to imagine that a family of twelve would have less an impact on the neighborhood
than four friends. If there is a problem with noise, that is the problem that should be dealt with, not
the number of persons sharing a house to keep their expenses affordable.
5. The ordinance changes do not take differences in houses into account. It applies a single standard
(family or 3 unrelated persons)to every house, whether it is a one bedroom house or a 5 bedroom
house. One size does not fit all.
6. ISU students living in dormitories live two or three to a room. ISU students living in fraternities
t
and sororities live two or three to a room.The new ISU housing in Hawthorn Court allows four
roommates in a two bedroom unit. Apparently, the state does not feel two unrelated people per
bedroom is an issue. Yet it is somehow wrong for four or five students to share a house with four or
five bedrooms and additional living space.
7. If properties can't be used efficiently, it forces a lower density with little resulting benefit. The
arbitrary use of 3 unrelated persons as equivalent to a family does not match national and state
averages. A family is typically considered 4 persons, but can and often is more. Yet, any house with
more than three bedrooms will have empty spaces because only 3 unrelated persons can occupy it.
8. The City of Ames has already identified 38 properties that will be affected by this change. That is
almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. The actual number could be as high as 80. Or 200...
Nobody knows where that figure of 3 unrelated persons came from. Only that it's been there for 30 or 40
years. It has been stated that the code is 20 years old and out of date. Why retain something older than the
code, simply because it's there? Even if this is not the time to debate the 3 person point over single-family
houses, we feel that the old standard of 3 unrelated or a family with 2 roomers allows flexibility for the use
of the property and its legal bedrooms. Property that was acquired under the standards of the old Rental
Housing Code allowed better use of the existing facilities and more efficient housing density for the
community. If there are bedrooms that could be legally occupied,the property owner should be allowed to
let their renters decide if they want to occupy it, not have the City say, `sorry, you can only have three
people renting this five bedroom house' or `sorry, if you two brothers are going to both live here,you can't
have any roommates, even if you do have four bedrooms.' Now, at least, property owners have the
opportunity to find related renters and unrelated roomers to make the best use of a four or five bedroom
house. The new ordinance takes that away.
If the City is seeking consistency, it should apply consistent standards. Grandfathering is not a perpetual
waiver. It should have a predetermined ending point, whereupon the new standards will apply. Not all
properties will be grandfathered in. Only those that fall within specific areas that were previously zoned
R3 or R4. If those properties are grandfathered, why not all properties, regardless of their old zoning
classification? If they had a LOC,that LOC should allow them to continue as they were for whatever
period the grandfathering will cover. To be consistent, either all properties should be grandfathered or
none.
In conclusion, the single family and duplex rental units are typically those owned by individuals, not big
development corporations. Hardships imposed upon them by changes in the ordinance have a far greater
impact on their owners than they do to multi-million dollar corporations. It can mean the loss of a
investment that's depended upon for their future financial needs. All like units should be treated
consistently, with either all grandfathered in or none. If a rental property unit currently has a Letter of
Compliance, the occupancy limits should remain unchanged.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.
Al Warren G rdon Meyer
3121 Maplewood Road 927 5d' Street
s
L �at'
�Z�
FIN11
y y.I
F* -
PRESS RELEASE
After the recent Municipal Zoning Code changes occurred, the City of Ames Inspection
Staff discovered that these changes made parts of the Municipal Rental Housing Code
outdated, causing possible conflicts between the two codes.
After reviewing both codes, Planning & Housing and Inspection personnel agreed to
present the following to the City Council.
A -One & two family dwellings in all zoning districts may be occupied by a family only
' or three unrelated people
F _ ,
� B — 3-plexes and above may be occupied by a family or unrelated persons in the
amount of one more than the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit to a maximum of
five.
C - All other situations which have been verified by a Letter of Compliance for
occupancy limits higher than allowed by A & B above will be allowed to be continued
until such dwelling unit is not registered with the City for a period of one year or more.
These situations will be considered legal non-conforming.
Personnel from both departments believe these occupancy limits meet the intent of the
City CounciVs d as-ion=v e►nth ZoningrOrdinance was approved:
Personnel from Planning & Housing and Inspections will host a public meeting on
February 26, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Staff will then proceed to
the March 13, 2001, City Council meeting for a public hearing and the first reading of
the proposed ordinance changes.
N
P
F
ak
AM
NR
y
r t
r
i
E
t
C
O
N
Q U)
LO
O O x C cn
E N
Q O Q N Q
O >,
L
d 0 c O O O O Q O E
L L ci E 'J _0 4--
0 O O Q) � L o L
4- N O O O O
N N } � 70 "a
E C�6
o� a) cn O E a i -a a ca
L L L O O C
Q O M L C
M M r ( C O N
fn L
L
rn E E
0
0 0
U N N
O >, >, ca _ a L)
N E E U ECZ
AU EQ-U E U
E O
o O
� C O � O L � �
O O O C) N N O O 1 O a)
a _0 a E
mQ) m 0
00 �L °- 0o :�: 3 L-
C: o C: O C: .r- o co o
M N co M `� to to co
U U
N � �
C 0) 0
� �_ C
C
N N
co It E
3 x x 00
4- E QO O- O 0)O O N c O
a) �
Q" cn
T o
~ E F E Q v
4- Q � o � o Qc
a� �x axi o Q o 0- U)
cm i � c)
D a- o 0 c M c M �)
to Q c� U) o in .S M a)
U)