HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Staff Report dated October 24, 2017 (Item No. 23) 23
Staff Report
OPTIONS FOR LIMITING OCCUPANCY IN RENTAL UNITS
October 24, 2017
BACKGROUND:
With the recent change in the state law which prohibits cities from limiting occupancy in
rental units based on non-familial status, the City Council has begun an exploration into
what other alternative criteria might be utilized.
The following are a list of actions directed by the City Council that relate to the issue of
limiting occupancy in single-family and two family dwellings:
1) July 18, 2017, requested a proposal for increasing enforcement and inspection
efforts in the following neighborhoods: SCAN, Oak to Riverside, CCOAMS, and
west of Campus.
2) On September 12, 2017, asked for a modification to the Rental Code that
restricts occupancy to a maximum of three students in a single-family home.
3) September 12, 2017, sought possible options for rental concentration overlays
and maps of potential neighborhoods defined by reasonable boundaries.
4) September 12, 2017, inquired about ideas for adding to the Rental Code the
possibility for the City to revoke a property owner's Letter of Compliance when
there have been a specified number of violations within a certain timeframe at
rental property.
5) September 19, 2017, requested a memo regarding options to incentivize the
transition of rentals to single-family dwellings.
6) September 26, 2017, requested options for limiting rental occupancy based on
building size, number of bedrooms, and /or number of off-street parking spaces.
Based on the information provided regarding increased enforcement (Request 1), the
City Council authorized the addition of one Rental Housing Inspector position to be
hired in FY 2017-18. The extra position will allow us to engage in proactive
enforcement and perform annual inspections for the single-family dwelling units in the
four neighborhoods that abut the campus. In addition, it was agreed that the memo
regarding methods to incentivize the transition of rentals to single-family dwellings
(Request 5) could come later. Therefore, the intent of this staff report is to respond
to the remaining four issues highlighted above.
LIMIT OCCUPANCY TO NO MORE THAN THREE STUDENTS:
The September 12th Staff report provided examples of communities that regulate the
occupancy of a dwelling by the number of students that live in the dwelling. Examples
included St. Paul, MN; State College, PA; Newark, DE; Philadelphia, PA, and Boston,
MA. All were in other states, and none in Iowa. None of these ordinances appear to
have been overturned by a court. Each definition varies in wording. Some definitions
include the wording "unrelated" which can no longer be used given the new state
law. As evidenced in Attachment I, defining students is done differently in these cities.
One possible definition of a student could be, "an individual enrolled or accepted for
enrollment on a full time or part time basis for post-secondary education with a school,
college, or university in the current, prior, or upcoming semester."
Under this alternative you restrict the number of students, but not the total
number of adults in a one and two family dwelling. This restriction would need to be
combined with other occupancy information and disclosure requirements to assist in
compliance at the time a lease is signed. Rental Code would need to require landlords
to maintain records of all occupants of a dwelling and their enrollment status and for this
information to be available for review by City staff upon request.
LIMIT OCCUPANCY BY BUILDING SIZE:
• Limit occupancy to the number of adult tenants by a specified amount of square
feet of finished area in one and two family dwellings.
For example, Prince William County, Virginia has established the following
maximum occupancy requirements for adult occupants.
Livable floor area of a dwelling unit (in Maximum number of adult
square feet): occupants*:
Up to 1,000 square feet 3
From 1,001 to 1,500 square feet 4
From 1,501 to 2,000 square feet 5
From 2001 to 2,500 square feet 6
From 2,501 to 3,000 square feet 7
From 3.001 to 3,500 square feet 8
From 3,501 to 4,000 square feet 9
Over 4,000 square feet 10
*Adult occupant means any individual 18 years of age or older, living or
sleeping in a building, or having possession of space within a building.
Another example, Cobb County, Georgia requires at least 390 square feet of
living space per adult in a single family rental dwelling.
LIMIT OCCUPANCY BY BEDROOM SIZE:
• Limit occupancy to the number of adult tenants by a specified amount of square
feet in each bedroom.
For example, the International Property Maintenance Code requires 70 square
feet for the first occupant of a bedroom, and an extra 50 square feet for each
additional person in the room.
LIMIT OCCUPANCY BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
• Limit occupancy of adult tenants in one and two family dwellings to 1 per
bedroom. Or
• Limit occupancy of adult tenants in one and two family dwellings to 1 per
bedroom, up to a specified maximum number of tenants. Or
• Limit occupancy of adult tenants in one and two family dwellings to 1 more than
the number of bedrooms. Or
• Limit occupancy of adult tenants of one and two family dwellings to one more
than the number of bedrooms, up to a specified maximum number of tenants.
Under any of the options listed above, it will be very important to agree on the
definition for bedroom. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance requires that any room
exceeding 70 square feet and meeting the Building Code definition of a sleeping room
must be counted as a bedroom. Bedrooms cannot be rooms that lead to other living
spaces and they cannot be kitchens, living rooms, bathrooms, or foyers.
LIMIT OCCUPANCY BY THE NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES:
• Limit occupancy of adult tenants in one and two family dwellings by requiring 1
off-street parking space per tenant. Or
• Limit occupancy of adult tenants in one and two family dwellings by requiring 1
off-street parking space per tenant, with a minimum of two parking spaces. Or
• Limit occupancy of adult tenants in one and two family dwellings by requiring a
minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces and 1 additional parking space for every
tenant over 3. (This option is the most similar to current requirements of two
parking spaces for rental of a single-family home to no more than 3 unrelated
people)
Note: the Staff is not proposing to change parking requirements for apartments or
dwelling houses that are typically 1 parking space per bedroom.
Under this approach, the City Council will have to decide how to apply
requirements for parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires for single-
family homes to provide two off-street parking spaces per home. Single-family homes
may count up to two stacked parking spaces to meet this minimum parking requirement.
For example, a home with a one car garage would be able to count the garage space
and one space in the driveway to meet minimum parking requirements. Due to the
stacked parking restriction, many homes would be restricted to two or three parking
spaces to meet the occupancy standard. The Zoning Ordinance also requires paved
surfaces, dimensional requirements, and a prohibition on front yard parking except
when leading to the side or rear yard of a home. Some property owners could develop
more parking areas in the side or rear yards to meet the standards.
Therefore, if any of the options listed above are pursued, the City Council will
have to address two primary issues regarding parking requirements related to
occupancy. The first is whether or not the City Council would be more flexible on
stacked parking for rental purposes and allow for additional stacked spaces to count
towards occupancy limits. Secondly, the City Council would need to clarify if all parking
on site must conform to zoning standards for location, paving, access, and dimensions.
LIMIT CONCENTRATION OF RENTAL UNITS TO A SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC
AREA:
City staff has reviewed registered rental properties in neighborhoods in close proximity
to campus. Staff has calculated total rental properties within defined areas based upon
zoning districts primarily established for single-family home purposes. Staff excluded
high density zoned or commercially zoned areas from the calculations. Staff used
neighborhood association boundaries where applicable, but for areas that had no
defined association staff based the areas upon the street network to formulate logical
boundaries.
Attachment II includes the boundaries analyzed by staff with the percentage of
properties with low and medium density zoning that are registered rental properties with
the City. The percentage of rental properties is between 3% and 90% for these sample
areas. Prior analysis in September's staff report stated the city-wide average for rental
percentages in RL areas was approximately 19% based upon 2014 data.
If the City Council chooses to establish a rental concentration restriction, it would
need to provide direction on what are acceptable boundaries and what
percentage of rental concentration would be acceptable with these areas. It
should be emphasized that changing boundaries can have a significant effect on
either reducing or increasing the percentage of rental properties in a given area.
Based upon review of other communities' rental limitations and the percentage of
rental within the areas near campus, staff believes a 20% threshold would be
appropriate for supporting a diverse mix of housing choices in an area with a
preference for maintaining primarily ownership home choices. Staff recommends
defining the area boundaries with a map and the calculated percentages for those areas
at the time a rental concentration overlay is adopted by the City.
When creating the overlay, City Council will also need to provide direction on allowing
for previously registered to renew their registration when an area exceeds the limitation.
Staff assumes the City Council would permit existing licensed properties to be
renewed, but properties with transitional licenses would not be eligible, because
they would need a new license. Any property owner that failed to maintain their
licensing would also not be allowed to reestablish a rental property if the area is
over the concentration limit.
In addition, staff assumes that if a registered rental dwelling is torn down, the
newly built structure would be required to register as a new rental. In this case,
occupancy concentration limits may prohibit this dwelling from becoming a
rental. City Council could provide alternative direction on how to accommodate existing
rentals in areas that would be over concentrated.
PENALTIES FOR MULTIPLE CODE VIOLATIONS:
One of the options that Council directed staff to investigate was the possibility of
revoking a Letter of Compliance after a certain number of multiple violations. In
response to this request, staff has developed a plan that divides violations into two
types: 1) Simple Misdemeanors; and 2) Municipal Infractions.
Staff is proposing the following point system:
• Simple Misdemeanors will be given two points per instance. Note: this means a
nuisance party in which three tenants are issued citations will result in two points,
not two points per citation.
• Municipal Infractions will be given one point per instance.
• An accumulation of five points between 8/1 and 7/31 of each year will result in a
one year suspension of the LOC
Suspension of an LOC allows the property to remain registered, but not be rented for
the specified amount of time. Staff believes that the proposed point system could be
enough incentive to maintain a property so annual inspections in the Council
established neighborhoods would not be warranted.
FEEDBACK FROM THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD:
Staff proposed a similar plan to enforce the suspension of letters of compliance on
properties with multiple violations to the Property Maintenance Appeals Board. The
Board was not supportive of this approach and felt the consequences were "quite
severe and did not match the severity of the violation."
In addition to the Board's opinions on the enforcement plan, members also expressed
their concern for annual inspections of rental properties. Members of the Board felt that
the inspections "would not be effective" and would prefer that the City spend that time
making sure that the exterior of the properties were maintained. The Board felt that we
were penalizing all property owners with annual inspections. Instead, we should "be
rewarding those owners that have no violations." The Board would like to see more of a
reward system than a penalty system. For example, all properties start with a one year
LOC. If at the next inspection, there have been no violations a two, three, or four year
LOC could be issued.
The Board's recommendation is consistent with the philosophy reflected in the
current Rental Code which rewards routinely compliant property owners with less
frequent inspections. Currently, a rental property can receive only a one year LOC if
they have had an over-occupancy violation, and a two year LOC with more than two
property maintenance violations in the past year.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
As the January 1, 2018 deadline approaches it is critical that the City Council
decides how to limit the number of adults in single and two-family dwelling units.
Due to the impending deadline, Council must choose immediately to focus their
attention on how to limit occupancy and address other issues raised in this
report prior to the end of the moratorium (April 30, 2018).
Attachment I
Examples of ordinances limiting number of students in a dwelling unit:
State Collese,PA:
"Student Home. Any living arrangement within a 1-family dwelling, 1-family dwelling with an
apartment, or 2-family dwelling by persons who are unrelated by blood,marriage or legal
adoption and are attending undergraduate or graduate programs offered by colleges or
universities or are on semester break or summer break from studies at colleges or universities, or
any combination of such persons. The residents of a student home share living expenses and may
live and cook as a single housekeeping unit. Student homes include living arrangements where
the landowner(s)or landowner's family members are residents of the dwelling unit. Student
homes do not include fraternities, sororities, rooming houses,townhomes, or multiple-family
dwellings."
Newark,DE:
"Student home: A single-family detached dwelling occupied by three post-secondary students,
regardless of age, unrelated by blood or legal adoption, attending or about to attend a college or
university, or who are on a semester,winter, or summer break from studies at a college or
university, or any combination of such persons. Student homes shall not include RM zoning-
permitted boarding houses or rooming houses; nor shall they include the taking of nonstudent,
non-transient boarders or roomers in any residence district; nor shall they include single-family
detached, semi-detached, or row dwellings located within the following subdivisions or fronting
on the following streets:"
Philadelphia,PA:
"Student Home. A living arrangement for two or more students unrelated by blood,marriage or
legal adoption attending or planning to attend either undergraduate colleges or universities, or
attending or planning to attend graduate programs at colleges or universities, or who are on a
semester or summer break from studies at colleges or universities, or any combination of such
persons. The residents of a student home share living expenses and may live and cook as a single
housekeeping unit but may also only share access to cooking facilities and not live and cook as a
single housekeeping unit. A Student Home shall not include any living arrangement within a
Student Residence Hall or a fraternity or sorority."
Boston,MA:
[As part of a definition of the term"family"] ..."provided that a group of five or more persons
who are enrolled as full-time,undergraduate students at a post-secondary educational institution
shall not be deemed to constitute a family."
St.Paul,MN:
"Within the SH student housing neighborhood impact overlay district, a student dwelling is a
one-or two-family dwelling requiring a fire certificate of occupancy in which at least one unit is
occupied by three (3) or four(4) students. For the purposes of this article, a student is an
individual who is enrolled in or has been accepted to an undergraduate degree program at a
university, college, community college,technical college,trade school or similar and is enrolled
during the upcoming or current session, or was enrolled in the previous term, or is on a
scheduled term break or summer break from the institution.
i
I
Attachment 2
I
2017
Total RL 2017 RL %RL. UCRM UCRM %UCRM 201711M %RM
Area Neighborhood Parcels . Parcels Rentals. Rentals . Parcels. Rentals Rentals RM Rentals. Rentals
1. West-tide NA. 164 156 93 <; 60%';
2 Edwards NA 230 155. 36 23%:'`:
3 Oak=Wood-Forest NA 127 122 39 32%
A . West Street area-'Non NA'. 336, 20 18 :<;:�_90%<;_
5 College Creek.NA 283 236 129 :55f` = 9
6 CAN- North 413 291 105
7 SCAN-South 15.0 99 5.
V
0
8 Colonial Village 37• • 37 11 .;..-30/o.-s:i
9 Oak-Riverside NA 305 288 89. 31%
..,.
10 . South Brookside 60 60. . '2 . . 7 :3%.' -
11 North Brookside 98 97 7
12 Emanon NA and surrounding 263 . 252 28
=11%-
13 6th/9th/Grand/RR 116 116 25 :22%'
14 North.Old Town NA 17.1 123 24 • `-' 20%' ` 43.
15 Historic Old Town NA 176 - - 175 47
16 Downtown 169 42%
17. West
.of Main St 46 29%.:. I
123 51
.31 9
18 Ross Rd 222 216 47 22%`
i
19 North of Ontario. 146 114 30 i :26%`'` 16 !
20 Garfield-Ontario. . 109 .109.. 31
21 N Dakota-Ross 217
!
I
i
I
Swl
SKBM?�M■
1111® ��oo�lls■s■■■ s b���itl����i 1, �'s �■1� �� � • ��® �
s9� .ge
����tl�i■, pia � �_ � AI■�I �� � ®�',
r
;iRii�i■■■ie ,��11111111111�" °■IMES
MW
���,� �®■
ARC
I IN
OR
0 IRS���rv- mill '
I ON
mill , ' 0111
cm1 111111 F
�••�- _ . NOR
oil
�� ;w•oe 1111111 ter"Estli3i[ildllf��dt;9�
ANC
i
.. :1���11l1 E���O 1t1Sul!
��_.e�llllll` I:�
a-
r ��r�� ` �7 ■-� ® I I 1
� �� d;H�irj .=�= ■.� I I
L—
■ 1111111110 !>� . ■
NUNN-
mile
HIM
'■ n1111nIn
NEI
lilt' 11t,
WOMEN
Ah
M.
LOW
.� MIN
� oils
_.
�r �.� A ■ oils _
■r" �•�' min
WR ,r 11 1Ii. I■■ ■o �1 to .��� =1111 le
' ■ s_ Sodom.
�vol
a i— _ �•■
r ��+ -� - _ems ■; n Ii1 ��� ® f .� { �■Ih _'
Y ,c __ __ �{.7 �� ® IARO mElb}Q . ■�� �I 1�*ym
i
HOME r.
:. 1I��N��;® ■—���' a �` 1® ®�; MINE
Vvy
Mill I
Nil
,�I'- ,.�; I1 11 1 ■ � ' IIIIIIIlIIIIE Ijllllll�l
3®� ��� 1ell�! 4�11�° ��,o `-, ■ail 1111i�tn� �•����,��ir�:als„�e,.,
i1� :11 illli Of19 e,.� ems. _ �s■
� ... ��1 ��1 �g CRI IS! 11 ■►��1 ■��Odlr�_ �® 1■■■
:®r ® 10e1gn � � I� �I■ ®■t ®t1 � I! ■■III ■'
® _ r= .r .. _ ■.
�_ � _ , ® ®ire ,�, �s� �1�1�� ® si ®i: I■
JIM
• row _I�� �n�4 ,I � ■��_� spa s ■e ��
n ,•
MEN A0
•
1 • •
Dear Mayor:and City Council Members:
:Upon further reflection and after speaking with several Council members individually,we have
come to the conclusion that,in the nearaerm,the City must focus on its-citywide occupancy
ordinance before.turning to the complicated issue of rental percentage caps in certain
neighborhoods. We feel that portions of.the-proposal we sent on October 14 can be adopted for
citywide use by the January 1 deadline and then,during-the moratorium,the City.can take the
time necessary to focus on rental caps in neighborhoods-where:that would.be appropriate. Our
revised proposal follows. .
Ciwyide Rental Occupancy.Proposal
1. The number-of adults allowed in low-density(R-L)rental housing-will.be equal to the number
of egal bedrooms in a property 'The number of bedrooms will be determined.as of the:most. .
recent rental inspection report filed prior to January 1; 2018..If-the property has not previously
been registered as rental,then the number of bedrooms will be.determined by the listing on the
Assessor's webpage,.with no.bedrooms counted that have received building permits subsequent
to-January 1,2018. (Note: We are willing to compromise and allow landlords to have the
`.`number.of bedrooms" occupancy limit they have pressed for-but only if that number is frozen.
Our ultimate.goal is to prevent the addition of bedrooms that would in fact circumvent_the intent.
of the rule.)
A)The allowable number of adult renters may be reduced from number.of bedrooms-
listed as described above if a'subsequent inspection determines that the number of legal
bedrooms is-actually lower than originally reported. In such cases,the number of allowable adult
tenants.will be adjusted.to reflect the more recent inspection. Under no.circumstances can the
number of adult renters be increased. And,
B)The number of.allowable:adult tenants may also.be-reduced due to insuffici_ent off
street parking:spaces as is outlined in Section 2; below.
2. Off-street.parking.must-accommodate a number of vehicles equal to the number of adult
:tenants.-Such parking must be confined to the garage, driveway;or City-designated alley. Back
And side yards are not to be used for parking and will not be counted for purposes.of this
provision. The.number of allowable adult tenants will be the lesser of the number of legal
bedrooms or the number of permissible parking spaces.
If the above.proposal is adopted citywide, it would then be relativelyeasy to identify-the:
neighborhoods that need the additional protection of a"Campus-Impacted"zoning overlay.
Additional Regiiiremenis.for SCAN and CC/GAMS
1) We have argued in the past that allowing,more renters per property will increase the housing
stock that is financially attractive to:purchase for rental investment. .This will further accelerate
the.continuing conversion of owner-occupied to rental property we are currently experiencing.
That is why it is crucial that:if we allow occupancy to be based on number of bedrooms, SCAN
and other campus-impacted areas must have a:zoning overlay designation that specifies.a
reasonable rental percentage cap(we request 25%).-Developing guidelines.for the cap is not a . .
simple task; in part because we are finding that the City's-data on-rental properties in SCAN and
Colonial Village:are incomplete.The moratorium allows the City time to make good-decisions
on which neighborhoods should be considered for an overlay,to precisely.articulate
neighborhood boundaries, and to determine-the appropriate cap for each.respective overlay.
2)Also as part of the overlay, SCAN in particular needs a provision that if a rental.property is
demolished; no rental.LOC can be issued for anything built in its.place.This.will.help_maintain
the historic nature of the SCAN neighborhood and will prevent a.small house-from-being-torn
down so a mini-dorm can be built in its stead.
Other Comments:
-1: In.:order:for violations to:be reported,neighbors need easy access to the City'-s database. We:
need to be able to see which properties are rental and the number of legal occupants as .:
determined by whatever formula the City adopts.
2.. The definition of an"owner-occupied"property-must be changed so that it.no Ionger includes .
properties occupied by a relative of the owner within the first degree of consanguinity. This _
would.be in line with the legislature's prohibition on.using family relationships to define
occupancy_and would reduce the number of homes where a son or daughter is living in.a parent- .
purchased home:along.With roommates.and has failed to register the-property as,a rental.
3. Penalties-and fines for-violations of City ordinances must be enforced. Time span over which
violations,are accumulated,must be longer than.one.year due.to frequent turnover of tenants.
4.The definition of a"bedroom"should be revisited to be sure it is clear and appropriate. This
can be accomplished during the moratorium period.
Barbara Pleasants, SCAN President
Leslie Kawaler, SCAN Board
Sandra McJimsey,SCAN Board