HomeMy WebLinkAboutA008 - Council Action Form dated July 10, 2001 COUNCIL ACTION FORM
�I
ITEM #
DATE: July 10 2001
SUBJECT: Consistency between Zoning and Housing Codes
BACKGROUND:
The Philosophy:
For many months the City Council solicited input from the public prior to finalizing the
revised Zoning Ordinance. The City Council received feedback from many citizens at
that time complaining about single family rental units in neighborhoods and the negative
impact in terms of noise, parking, and property maintenance. As a result of this
feedback the Council sought to establish a policy that would reduce the occupancy
allowances in single family units that were not designed to accommodate "extra"
occupancy both for the interior and exterior and, at the same time, maintain the
occupancy allowances in multiple family units that were designed to handle this higher
density per unit. This policy was implemented by amending the Zoning Ordinance to
eliminate the possibility of roomers in single family units, and to maintain the number of
unrelated persons (up to 5 unrelated people) in multiple family units without a
corresponding off-street parking requirement.
The Problem:
Although the Zoning Ordinance was changed to reflect the Council's new philosophy,
the Rental Housing Code retained the allowance for a family and two roomers or three
unrelated people in all dwelling units in all zoning districts. Hence, an inconsistency
still exists between the Zoning Ordinance and the Rental Housing Code in terms
of occupancy limits. It is difficult for the Inspection staff to issue Letters of
Compliance to rental property owners until these two ordinance inconsistencies
are reconciled.
On March 27, 2001, City staff presented this problem to the City Council for the first
time. Realizing that this issue is very complex, the matter was referred to staff to
schedule a workshop at a special meeting to allow more time to discuss the matter.
The workshop was held on April 17, 2001.
The Issues:
From our initial discussion, the Council requested occupancy options dealing with single
family units in low density areas, single family units in higher density areas, multiple
family units, and a "grandfathering" approach. The following items represent the
decisions for occupancy limits for each of the various situations from the April 17, 2001
workshop.
2
I. NEW AND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY UNITS IN LOW
DENSITY AREAS (RL & UCRM)
The City Council chose the No Roomer Option. Allow only a family as defined in
Section 29.201(62) of the Zoning Ordinance (see Attachment 1).
II. EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY UNITS IN MEDIUM AND HIGH
DENSITY AREAS (RM & RH)
The City Council chose to allow Occupancy Based On Bedroom Count If
Additional Parking. Allow a family as defined in Section 29.201(62) of the Zoning
Ordinance, or one more person than the number of bedrooms up to a maximum
of five persons if off-street parking meets current Code for apartments. (One
parking space per bedroom for two bedrooms or more in general, and 1 .25
parking spaces per bedroom for two bedrooms or more in University Impacted
area.)
Ill. IN EXISTING APARTMENTS (THREE UNITS OR MORE) IN ZONING
DISTRICTS OTHER THAN RM & RH (RL, HOC, UCRM)
The City Council chose Limited Occupancy. Because these are non-conforming
uses to allow only a family as defined in Section 29.201(62).
IV. IN EXISTING APARTMENTS (THREE OR MORE UNITS) APPROVED
BERORE MAY, 2000, IN MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY AREAS (RM & RH)
The City Council chose to allow Occupancy Based On Bedroom Count If
Additional Parking. Allow a family as defined in Section 29.201(62) of the Zoning
Ordinance, or one more person than the number of bedrooms up to a maximum
of five persons if off-street parking meets current Code for apartments. (One
parking space per bedroom for two bedrooms or more in general, and 1.25
parking spaces per bedroom for two bedrooms or more in University Impacted
area.)
V. IN NEW APARTMENTS (THREE OR MORE UNITS) APPROVED AFTER MAY,
2000, IN MEDIUM & HIGH DENSIY AREAS (RM & RH)
The City Council chose to allow Total Occupancy Based on Bedrooms. Allow a
family as defined in Section 29.201(62) of the Zoning Ordinance, or one more
person than the number of bedrooms up to a maximum of five persons. (Since
they are newly constructed, these units would already meet the new parking
requirements.)
3
VI. IN THE "GRAN DFATHERING CONCEPT"
The City Council chose to allow Actual Approved Occupancy prior to May, 2000.
Allow the occupancy to continue in accordance with the number of occupants
approved in the most recent letter of Compliance prior to May, 2000, unless
negated by a change in conditions of the property that would restrict the number
of occupants in accordance with the new law.
In most cases, the Letter of Compliance issued by the City will verify the number
of occupants prior to the change in the Zoning Ordinance. In the event that this
is not possible, the City would require some form of proof or affidavit as to the
occupancy at the time.
Following the City Council workshop on April 17, 2001, regarding occupancy limits and
consistency between rental and zoning codes, the city staff created Attachment II to
help inform property owners. The table, definitions of family and notice of a public
meeting were included in every bill containing the rental housing annual fees and was
mailed out the first week in May. A public meeting was held on May 28, 2001, with the
building official and a city planner in attendance. There were around 40-45 rental
property owners/managers who also attended. Most everyone who has been following
this issue over the last few months felt this table was an improvement from the last
proposal mainly due to the allowable increase in occupants in single family homes in
RM and RH zoning districts. However, many property managers see these multiple
situations as very difficult to enforce or interpret. They still believe a simple standard
similar to the most current rental housing code stating "three unrelated or a family and
two roomers" or such requirements like 'one more occupant than the number of
bedrooms up to five regardless of parking" would be easier to understand and enforce.
There was input from numerous property owners regarding this issue. Other
suggestions that were made at the meeting were as follows:
1. Public Comment: There is no allowance for homes in any district with 5, 6, 7 or 8
bedrooms. This is unfair to those owners and will devalue their property.
Staff Comment: Staff agrees that these structures are not allowed to have more
occupants than smaller structures, however, they were only allowed three
unrelated people or a family and two since the rental housing code was created,
therefore, staff does not believe additional regulation is needed on this issue.
2. Public Comment: Instead of all these regulations, enforcement on "bad landlords"
is needed.
Staff Comment: Staff believes that we can always have greater enforcement, but
this topic is not directly related to the inconsistency between the rental housing and
zoning codes.
4
3. Public Comment: Adopt a three strikes and you're out philosophy with "bad
landlords". For instance, three actions by city staff due to complaints/violations on
the same property, then the Letter of Compliance will be revoked for six months,
which means they can't rent the facility. This would give landlords an incentive to
do the right thing.
Staff Comment: Staff believes that we can always have greater enforcement, but
this topic is not directly related to the inconsistency between the rental housing and
zoning codes.
4. Public Comment: One landlord polled students and they felt the problem was lack
of strict enforcement by police and other city staff.
Staff Comment: Staff believes that we can always have greater enforcement, but
this topic is not directly related to the inconsistency between the rental housing and
zoning codes.
5. Public Comment: Keep family and two roomers in the RM and RH zones without
additional parking as well as option for one more person than the number of
bedrooms up to five persons if have parking.
Staff Comment: The staff continues to hear about peculiar combinations of persons
that don't fall into any category. Rather than write ordinances to approve or restrict
these uses, we discussed and received support from the City Council to allow one
more person than the number of bedrooms up to five persons in RM and RH zones
in all occupancy types when there is a mix of related or unrelated persons as long
as parking requirements are met.
6. Public Comment: Consider allowing tandem parking (stacked parking) in all zones
and in all building sizes.
Staff Comment: Staff would not recommend this practice. We currently allow this in
one and two-family dwellings and only for two stacked vehicles. As the number of
dwelling units grow per structure, this concept becomes impossible to control or
enforce.
7. Public Comment: Build parking ramps in various areas so all owners in an area can
rent parking for their apartments for use by their tenants. (This is what Iowa City is
doing because of philosophy that some land is too valuable to just park on.)
Staff Comment. Staff believes this is not directly related to creating consistency
between zoning and housing codes. If the council is interested in this concept,
further study could occur.
8. Public Comment: Find some way to keep all commuter vehicles to ISU out of the
residential areas.
Staff Comment: Staff believes this issue would be difficult to enforce and it is not
directly related to the consistency of the two codes.
5
9. Public Comment: The city should give incentives to developers to build more
parking structures along with apartments that can be utilized by other property
owners in the area.
Staff Comment: Staff reviewed the City's urban revitalization program and believes
this concept is already allowed to some degree regarding incentives, but the
Zoning Ordinance would have to be changed to have remote parking in residential
areas or to lease additional parking to others creating a commercial venture in
residential areas. If the City Council is interested in this concept, further study
could occur.
10. Public Comment: The concept of 1.25 parking spaces per bedroom in the
university-impacted area is too great of a ratio causing apartment projects that will
not work financially. One landlord reviewed data from their parking permit program
and only came to .97 parking spaces needed per bedroom.
Staff Comment: Staff does not have enough information at this time to determine if
1.25 parking spaces per bedroom is too great of a ratio due to the relatively few
apartments developed under the current regulations. This data, however, is not
directly related to the consistency issue at this time.
11. Public Comment: Allow for the same occupancy ratios in DCSC zone as in RM/RH
zones if provide parking as per RM/RH and university impacted areas.
Staff Comment: Following further research staff discovered that this would be
allowed by the existing ordinance.
The previous list, therefore, consists mostly of issues that may need further study, but
should not further delay the correction of consistency between the zoning and housing
code. Again, No. 11 seems possible by the existing ordinance and No. 5 was
previously approved by the City Council to just look at number of bedrooms and not
relationships of the tenants. Observing bedrooms and parking is much easier to review
than relationships. The rental housing and zoning codes have now been inconsistent
for over a year, creating a backlog of paperwork at the inspection process, so time
continues to be of the essence.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize the City Attorney to draft a change to the Housing Code to restrict occupancy
limits per dwelling units as shown in the attached table and which was previously approved
by the City Council during the April 17, 2001 workshop.
2. Direct the staff to review additional options.
6
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1,
authorizing the City Attorney to draft a change to the Housing Code limiting occupancy in
dwelling units to that proposed in the attached table and previously approved by the City
Council at the April 17, 2001 work session.
COUNCIL ACTION:
ATTACHMENT I
Municipal Code, Chapter 29, Zoning, Sec. 29.201
(62) Family means a person living alone, or any of the following groups living together
as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping,
cooking, and eating facilities:
(a) Any number of people related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or
other duly-authorized custodial relationship;
(b) Three unrelated people;
(c) Two unrelated people and any children related to either of them;
(d) Not more than eight people who are:
(i) Residents of a "Family Home" as defined in Section 414.22 of the
Iowa code and this ordinance; or
(ii) "Handicapped" as defined in the Fair Housing Act, 42 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
29.1503(4)(d) of this ordinance.
(i) Exceptions — The definition of a "Family" does not include:
(i i) (a) Any society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge, combine,
federation, coterie, or like organizations;
(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.
as
bD o v b4 o V b0 o v w .
U rn
o a o o a w
d a O on a ° ou o a ° an c C
O }. U O F, «+
A � -S
° ' C
F a > o > 0 3
Z " o � a a) O " o o o ai a�i
cd
Fri F
OOcqs
z o NQ, o .� a� o
U O U O U O
A C7 an o pp o to
�7O N °o oz N o 0 ooZ N °o cz y c
F ,� a' a o cd h °� M O cd o y = eqa
cd cl
to
abiabi ba,
cd cqs
cd cd cd 0
W O o ° o q O o 'O .0a ° WwA � � wA
v� db a 421 o .� p o .� a, o 0.
. L
F a' cls w O z co ° cd o aCi i
a o ai D ° c y ° ° Zs o ° ° a ° Zt N o
O a.n � �. d a p 0 a..a � `• ro,, a 3
y b tl � b 45
16, tl
V Z A b p by CS > h Oq h q N
H h Cc
a) blo
Q a � v
3p N °d� Nd o a' pZ '� o °d v, •C fhOZr es
U0 o s.� vNo O oo eio
to PL4 c°cd
cd a 'oa)
as rn UN r a xo Z w w
a
)
GWr u y L� cd
✓ O Cctscd C w C
F y. LTr 1. .O as . . 1.., O '> O
E" d o 3
W
� i. rm O
ea on on d b c� °
z
0 a N O y
�" b0