HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - June 20, 2023, Special Meeting of the Ames City Council
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
515 CLARK AVENUE
JUNE 20, 2023
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
WORKSHOP:
1. Minimum Property Maintenance Code Discussion
a. Property Maintenance Code Comments – Due to technical constraints, this item
must be viewed via “Links to Supplemental Materials” as it is not included in the
Complete Council Packet.
2. Affordable Housing Strategy Discussion
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as
provided by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa.
1
ITEM # ____1____
Staff Report
ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT
June 20, 2023
BACKGROUND:
In Summer 2020, staff had several code enforcement cases that they were struggling to
achieve compliance with, which resulted in several communications from neighbors to
the Council. At the City Council meeting on August 25, 2020, Council requested a memo
from staff regarding recommendations for potential additions or changes to the Property
Maintenance Code that would provide staff with additional enforcement tools.
Staff reviewed the Municipal Code and found that sections enforced by the Community
Codes Liaison (CCL) spanned nine different chapters within the Code , resulting in
contradictions and inconsistent language and enforcement processes. Additionally, staff
reviewed ordinances from numerous other jurisdictions and found that most had one
comprehensive property maintenance code that encompassed many of our existing
codes and provided swift and effective compliance techniques.
On May 25, 2021, Staff presented the Council with a very rough draft of a proposed
property maintenance ordinance (report) that consolidated current code requirements,
added a few new sections based on previous complaints, added additional enforcement
tools, and added an appeal process. Council requested that a workshop be scheduled to
receive public input and that a website be e stablished to gather input from those unable
to attend a workshop.
A press release was issued after the Council meeting notifying citizens of the workshop
on June 15, 2021 (Staff Report), and providing a link to an online survey on the proposed
ordinance. This was also emailed to neighborhood associations and other interested
parties (landlords, realtors, etc.) for their input. The workshop and survey results provided
an abundance of input from the community (20 citizens spoke at the workshop and about
250 provided survey responses). Council decided to work with staff to set another
workshop or place items by category on a future agenda for discussion.
2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
In preparation for a future meeting, staff compiled and studied the survey responses
(Attachment A) and public input. The findings were incorporated into a second draft of
the ordinance in hopes that it would provide clarification (many comments were that the
ordinance was vague) and alternatives based on the feedback.
This Staff Report is broken down into four categories: (1) Protection of General
Public (Traffic and Pedestrian Safety), (2) Public Health (Garbage, Junk, Vermin and
Junk Vehicles), (3) Protection of Property From Damage and/or Decay (Vegetation,
Structural, and Unoccupied and Unsecured Structures), and (4) Other Considerations
(Graffiti and Parking). Attachment B summarizes this report and includes the initial
proposed language, public comments, revised staff proposal based on comments and a
possible motion for each item.
Protection of General Public:
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety:
1. Vegetation over 12 inches in ROW – Tall vegetation in the right-of-way may
create visibility issues and sidewalk/roadway accessibility hurdles. The proposed
section does not restrict the type of vegetation planted in the ROW, but limits it to
12 inches in height.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Allowing vegetation located in the City right-of-way to grow in excess of 12
inches in height or to obstruct visibility to vehicle or pedestrian traffic is
prohibited.
This proposal has been one of the most contentious of all. Many of those that
spoke or provided comments appreciate the diversity of vegetation in the ROW.
Some owners have planted native plantings, gardens, and flowers, all knowing that
they may need to be removed for ROW work. Most comments acknowledged that
if the vegetation created a visibility concern it should be addressed. It was clear
the general consensus was to allow plantings in the ROW (at the property owner’s
expense and risk), but to restrict vegetation that creates visibility issues.
Staff supports requiring a buffer between the vegetation and the street or
sidewalk (allowing vehicle access from the curb) and allowing vegetation
that causes visibility concerns to be removed at staff’s discretion instead of
regulating overall height.
3
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Plantings in the right-of-way would be prohibited from exceeding 12 inches
in the area within one foot of the sidewalk or street. Plantings that cause
visibility issues would be subject to removal, regardless of height, at the
City’s discretion. Non-vegetative materials such as trellises or chicken wire
are prohibited in the right-of-way.
2. Vegetation hanging over/into ROW – Historically, staff has required tree
branches to be a minimum of 16 feet above the street (based on the height of Cy-
Ride buses) and 10 feet above a sidewalk/bike path (to accommodate bicyclists).
Staff has also required vegetation to be cut back so that it does not encroach into
the sidewalk/bike path or roadway. However, these standards are not codified,
making it much more difficult to educate property owners.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Vegetation located on private property that hangs over or into public streets
with less than 16 feet of clearance above the public street or vegetation
located on private property that hangs over or into public sidewalks with less
than 10 feet clearance above the sidewalk is prohibited.
Most of the comments in opposition to this section were concerns that the
proposed minimum heights were too tall and that most homeowners would have a
hard time trimming to this height. Comments indicated confusion over who had the
responsibility to trim trees that originate on private property and hang over the
ROW. Currently, that responsiblitiy resides with the property owner of the tree.
Additionally, mutlipe commentors thought the minimum height over a sidewalk
should be reduced to eight feet. The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires
a minimum of 10 feet above the sidewalk for any project receiving federal funding.
Staff recommends adhering to the DOT standard of 10 feet above sidewalks,
including bike paths.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Vegetation located on private property that hangs over or into public streets
with less than 16 feet of clearance above the public street or vegetation
located on private property that hangs over or into public sidewalks with less
than 10 feet of clearance above the sidewalk is prohibited.
4
3. Dangerous trees – To be deemed dangerous, the tree must pose an immediate
threat to the safety of persons or property in the right-of-way.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Trees infected with infectious disease as identif ied by the City Forester or
designee; or any dead, diseased or damaged trees or vegetation which may
harbor serious insect or disease pests or disease injurious to other trees or
vegetation, or any tree in such a state of deterioration that any part of suc h
tree is likely to fall and damage adjacent property or cause injury to persons,
must be removed.
Most of the concerns regarding this proposal were centered around the cost of tree
removal and the burden it may place on low-income households. Clarification of
the proposed language is provided in the alternative below. Staff is not proposing
to regulate trees that do not impact the right-of-way.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Trees in such a state of deterioration, as determined by the City Forester,
that any part of such tree presents an immediate threat to the safety of
persons or property in the right-of-way must be removed.
4. Placing/pushing snow/ice onto public streets – Although Municipal Code
currently prohibits the accumulation of snow and ice on public sidewalks, an issue
that is frequently encountered during snow removal operations is the depositing of
that snow and ice onto the streets after they have been plowed. These
accumulations are susceptible to re-freezing, which can be a hazard to drivers and
makes subsequent snow removal operations more difficult.
16 ft
5
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Depositing ice or snow from private property, sidewalks, or driveways onto
the traveled way of a public street so as to obstruct gutters, or impede the
passage of vehicles upon the street or alley or to create a hazardous
condition therein is prohibited.
The vast majority of comments regarding this proposal were concerns about City
plows blocking driveways with snow or about having little space to put shoveled
snow. The main concern is that snow placed on the street after plows have been
through causes traffic issues and requires the plows to pass through a second
time. Staff recommends adding language that clarifies that this section only
applies after the street has been cleared.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Depositing ice or snow from private property, sidewalks, or driveways onto
the traveled way of a public street after the street has been cleared so as to
obstruct gutters or impede the passage of vehicles upon the street or alley
or to create a hazardous condition therein is prohibited.
5. Depositing mud/gravel/etc. on sidewalks – The current code prohibits owners
from allowing snow to accumulate on public sidewalks due to increased safety
concerns related to slips and falls. Often, similar safety concerns arise when
leaves, grass clippings, mud, or gravel runoff from private property is allowed to
accumulate on public sidewalks. The proposed ordinance would allow these
accumulations to be addressed.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
The depositing or allowing the depositing of any mud, dirt, gravel, or other
debris on any public street, sidewalk, or other public property is prohibited.
There were few concerns regarding the proposed section. Concerns that were
raised were related to the amount of time debris could be on the sidewalk before
becoming a violation and what to do about those properties with gravel driveways
where gravel on the sidewalk may be a regular occurrence.
As a reminder, the current Municipal Code, (Sec. 22.2), already requires snow, ice
and accumulations to be removed from the sidewalk within 10 daylight hours of the
cause of accumulation. The proposed section is just specifying other types of
debris that also need to be removed. These are currently enforced under
“accumulations”. Staff recommends the addition of mud, gravel, grass
6
clippings and leaves to the understanding of what is consider
“accumulations”.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
No owner shall, for a period of ten (10) daylights hours after the cessation of
the storm or cause of accumulation, permit snow, ice, mud, gravel, grass
clippings, leaves or other accumulations to remain on the adjoining and
abutting sidewalks. (this is the current standard in Sec. 22.2(2) of the
Municipal Code – with the addition of mud, gravel, grass clippings, and
leaves)
6. Open holes/excavations for up to 30 days – Open construction sites, wells, etc.
can be a safety hazard. These holes would need to be secured or covered. This
issue excludes fire pits and window wells.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Any manmade excavation, hole, or other depression in the ground in or on
any lot or parcel of land in the city of a depth of more than three feet below
the surrounding grade, other than as part of the active construction of a
building or other structure on the lot which will ultimately close in and
completely cover such excavation, hole or depression is prohibited from
existing for more than 30 days. Upon a finding by the enforcement officer
that the owner of the lot or parcel of land has violated the provisions of thi s
subsection, the lot owner shall be required to fill in any such excavation, hole
or depression and grade the same to a topographic elevation equal to or
level with the surrounding adjacent grade, and seed the site with grass or
similar vegetative ground cover, and take reasonable measures to ensure
the proper germination of the planted vegetation.
Many of the comments received were in support of this concept but needed more
clarification on what an active building project was and wanted the time frame to
be shorter. An active building project would be one for which there is a valid
building permit on file and work is progressing in a typical time frame. Some
comments questioned if the section included egress window wells or fire pits. Staff
recommends eliminating the timeframe and exempting window wells and fire
pits.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Any excavation, hole, or other depression in the ground in or on any lot or
parcel of land in the city of a depth of more than three feet below the
surrounding grade, other than as part of the active construction of a building
7
or other structure on the lot which will ultimately close in and completely
cover such excavation, hole or depression is prohibited from existing. Upon
a finding by the enforcement officer that the owner of the lot or parcel of land
has violated the provisions of this subsection, the lot owner shall be required
to fill in any such excavation, hole or depression and grade the same to a
topographic elevation equal to or level with the surrounding adjacent grade.
Exceptions: egress window wells, fire pits, or excavations completely
secured by a fence or similar method.
Public Health:
Garbage and Junk Accumulation on Property:
1. Leaving garbage receptacles at the curb for more than 24 hours – The
Rental Code, (Section 13.410.2), currently prohibits leaving garbage receptacles
out for more than 24 hours, but there is no requirement for owner-occupied
properties. Receptacles left at the curb can cause visibility issues and can be
blown over, depositing litter onto neighboring properties.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Garbage or refuse set outdoors in any bag or container other than a trash
disposal container is prohibited. Trash disposal containers must be
constructed of a hard water-tight material. Containers cannot be left at the
curb for more than 24 hours and must be placed behind the front yard or
indoors when not set out for pick-up, unless located in an enclosure shown
on an approved site plan.
Most of the comments on this item were regarding the time frame the receptacles
can be left out. It’s important to clarify that the receptacle would have to be left out
for more than 24 hours, then a citizen would have to report that the receptacle has
been left out. Upon receiving a complaint, an inspection would be conducted over
a 24-hour timeframe to confirm the receptacle has not moved. If it is determined
the receptacle has not moved, staff will contact the property owner, educate them
on the code requirement, and ask for compliance.
Comments in opposition to this proposal were that it was ‘government overreach’
and ‘nitpicky’. The intent of this section was mainly to bring the same standard to
owner-occupied properties as is imposed on rental properties. While tipped over
receptacles can cause litter issues and may obstruct visibility from time-to-time,
the number of occurrences and complaints for this issue are few and far between.
8
Staff supports increasing the time frame that the trash receptacle can remain
at the curb from 24 hours to 48 hours and requiring the receptacle to be
stored inside or behind the front yard. However, in order to be consistent
with the Rental Code, Staff will be requesting a similar change at a later date
for rental units.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
a) Garbage or refuse set outdoors in any bag or container other than a trash
disposal container is prohibited. Trash disposal containers must be
constructed of a hard water-tight material. Containers cannot be left at
the curb for more than 48 hours and must be placed behind the front yard
or indoors when not set out for pick-up, unless located in an enclosure
shown on an approved site plan.
2. Allowing garbage, junk, yard waste to be stored – This is currently prohibited
under the outdoor storage section of the Zoning Code, which defines outdoor
storage as items stored for more than 72 hours. The Initial Proposed Language
Presented on May 25, 2021 Council Meeting: combines garbage and junk into
one section and prohibits outdoor storage for up to 48 hours rather than 72 hours.
Yard waste will be allowed to be stored outdoors for up to seven da ys and may
remain as long as composting is being conducted in accordance with State of Iowa
code.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Allowing refuse, garbage, junk, noxious substances, or hazardous wastes
to be collected or to remain in any place for more than 48 hours is prohibited.
The majority of those in opposition to this section did not approve of the 48 -hour
timeframe. The change from 72 to 48 hours is primarily to help expedite
enforcement. However, staff recommends keeping the timeframe at 72 hours.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Allowing refuse, garbage, junk, noxious substances, or hazardous wastes to
be collected or to remain in any place for more than 72 hours is prohibited.
As proposed, the yard waste standard would not change from what is currently in
the code (allowed to remain for 7 days). Additionally, many comments questioned
the ability to compost. Composting is currently, and will continue to be, allowed
under the proposed code.
9
Existing Municipal Code Language Sec. 10.9:
Yard Waste stored on the exterior of a property in anything other than a
trash disposal container for longer than seven days. Yard waste may be
retained for longer than seven days if composting is being completed.
Composting shall comply with the state regulations contained in Chapter
105 of the Iowa Administrative Code.
(a) Composting piles may include: yard waste including leaves, grass
clippings, straw and hay, sawdust, and finely chopped shredded tree
and shrub prunings; kitchen scraps including fruit and vegetable
trimmings (including rhubarb leaves), coffee grounds, and eggshells;
shredded newspapers; wood ashes (no more than one cup per bushel
of compost).
(b) Composting piles cannot include: human or animal feces; diseased plant
material or weeds that have gone to seed; kitchen scraps that include
animal meat, bones or fat; and all other materials not listed in subsection
(a) above.
Insect Breeding Grounds and Vermin Habitat:
1. Allowing stagnant water to pool – Stagnant water creates a breeding ground
for mosquitos. Stagnant water means standing water that is trapped and does
not circulate. (This excludes: bird baths, koi ponds, landscape water features)
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Allowing to exist any stagnant water standing on any property, including any
open container or material kept in such a condition that water can
accumulate and stagnate therein, creating a breeding ground or habitat for
insects or rodents is prohibited.
Most of the comment card concerns regarding stagnant water had to do with
defining what stagnant water was. The proposed ordinance defines stagnant water
as: Standing water that is trapped and does not circulate.
This definition does not include bird baths or regularly used recreational pools.
Additional concerns were regarding the length of time the water would need to be
stagnant before considered a violation. Staff recommends adding a 48-hour
timeframe to the proposed language. This would allow water to dissipate
10
after heavy rain events and still give staff the ability to enforce on situations
that become nuisances.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Allowing to exist any stagnant water on any property for more than 48 hours,
including any open container or material kept in such a condition that water
can accumulate and stagnate therein, creating a breeding ground or habitat
for insects or rodents is prohibited.
2. Conditions that harbor vermin – These conditions are currently described in
the Junk Vehicle Code, but there are times when conditions such as this may
need enforcement where no junked vehicle is involved.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Allowing to exist conditions which are conducive to the harborage or
breeding of vermin; or allowing to exist infestations of vermin, such as rats,
mice, skunks, snakes, bats, starlings, pigeons, wasps, cockroaches or flies
is prohibited.
Opposition to this proposal was primarily due to uncertainty as to what constituted
vermin. It’s likely that if there were an issue with vermin on a property, there are
also other violations such as garbage or outdoor storage. Staff supports
eliminating the initial proposed language from the May 25, 2021 City Council
Meeting.
Junk Vehicles:
1. Junk Vehicles - Are currently regulated through Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code.
This chapter prohibits vehicles that have been deemed ‘junked vehicles’ from
remaining on a property for more than 48 hours. It also prohibits vehicles that are
not deemed ‘junk vehicles’ from being kept on residential property for more than
15 days and on commercial property for more than one year. Exemptions from the
junked vehicle prohibitions include junked vehicles parked inside enclosed
structures, behind opaque walls at least six feet in height, covered with a tight -
fitting vehicle cover, or upon the premises of an authorized salvage yard.
Most of the other jurisdictions surveyed did not specify a timeframe for how long a
junked vehicle could be stored on a property before a violation occurs. This means
that having a junked vehicle on the property at any time would constitute a
violation. The City of Clive prohibits junked vehicles after they have been on the
11
property for 24 hours; a few other cities prohibit junked vehicles after 48 hours, as
is currently the standard in Ames.
Regarding vehicles that have not been declared junked, only one other jurisdiction,
the City of Norwalk, regulates the amount of time they can be stored on a property.
It appears the Ames Municipal Code and Norwalk Code are identical and prohibit
the storage of operable vehicles on private property for longer than 15 days without
moving.
Existing Language:
“Junked” means any vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer stored for 48 hours within
the corporate limits of Ames, Iowa, whether currently licensed or not, which
because of any one of the following characteristics constitutes a threat to
the public health, welfare, and/or safety;
(a) Any vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer which is rendered inoperable
because of a missing or broken windshield or window glass,
fender, door, bumper, hood, steering wheel, driver’s seat, trunk,
fuel tank, two or more wheels, engine, drive shaft, differential,
battery, generator or alternator or other component of an
electrical system, or any component or structural part;
(b) Any vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer which has become the habitat
of rats, mice, snakes or any other vermin or insects;
(c) Any vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer which contains stored gasoline
or other fuel, paper, cardboard, wood or other combustible
materials, garbage, refuse, solid waste, debris, etc.;
(d) Any vehicle, trailer or semitrailer used for storage purposes or
harborage, cage or dwelling for animals of any kind;
(e) Any other vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer which because of its
defective or obsolete condition in any other way constitutes a
threat to the public health or safety of the citizens of Ames, Iowa;
(f) Any vehicle which contains gasoline or any flammable fuel and is
inoperable.
It is hereby declared that the storage of any junked vehicles, trailers, or
semitrailers on private property within the corporate limits of Ames, Iowa,
for 48 hours, is unlawful, unless exempt by Section 30.9 of this chapter, and
constitutes a threat to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens thereof,
and is declared to be a nuisance.
Exemptions:
1. Vehicles, trailers or semitrailers stored within a garage or other
enclosed structure or which are kept concealed and enclosed behind
12
an opaque wall at least six feet in height, or completely covered by a
tight fitting opaque cloth vehicle cover or tight fitting cloth tarpaulin;
2. Vehicles, trailers, or semitrailers stored upon the premises of a duly
authorized salvage yard or junk yard and meeting the requirement of
the Ames Municipal Code.
In as much as it is found that the storage of motor vehicles, which are not
deemed to be junked, out of doors can detract from the beneficial use and
enjoyment of neighboring properties, certain special regulations are
established as follows:
1. No person shall keep, store or display one or more motor vehicles
out of doors on property zoned for residential use, or permit the
parking out of doors of a motor vehicle on residentially zoned
property under their ownership, possession or control for more than
fifteen (15) days without movement and use of said vehicle as an
operating motor vehicle.
2. No person shall store or display one or more motor vehicles out of
doors on property zoned for commercial use, or permit the parking
out of doors of a motor vehicle on commercially zoned property
under their ownership, possession or control for more than one year
without movement and use of said vehicle as an operating motor
vehicle.
3. The provision of subsection (2) notwithstanding the keeping,
parking or storage, out of doors, of any wrecked or demolished
motor vehicle, or motor vehicle stripped for parts, at the same
commercially zoned site for more than one hundred eighty days is
prohibited.
4. The following shall be exempt from the regulations of this section:
a. Vehicles kept in a garage or other enclosed structure or which
are kept concealed and enclosed behind an opaque wall at
least six feet in height, or completely covered by a tight fitting
opaque cloth vehicle cover or tight fitting cloth tarpaulin.
b. Vehicles kept in commercial automobile salvage yards
lawfully established and existing prior to January 1, 1982.
c. A “motor home”, pickup truck with camper top, converted bus
or van, or similar recreational vehicle, which is currently
licensed for operation on the public highways.
d. A motor vehicle currently licensed for operation on the public
highways and lawfully parked off the streets while the owner
or other person in lawful possession and control thereof, if a
13
resident of this city, is out of the city for more than fifteen (15)
days but not more than one hundred eighty days.
e. Vehicles which are immobilized pursuant to an immobilization
order of the District Court.
The proposed language was intended to keep the same regulations as the existing,
but in a condensed format. Many of the comments in opposition to regulating
junked vehicles were regarding the definition of junked vehicle (this was not
published with the survey, so respondents did not know how the code defined a
junked vehicle).
Staff maintains that the existing definition of junked vehicle adequately
addresses inoperable vehicles or those in major disrepair. Staff
recommends that the 48-hour timeframe be retained as it is no change from
the current ordinance and is enforceable. Increasing the timeframe makes it
harder to prove the junked vehicle has not moved for enforcement purposes.
Most of the comments regarding the requirement to move an operable vehicle on
private property every 15 days were against the restriction. Many felt that operable
vehicles should not be regulated at all or that the timeframe should be increased.
Staff currently has difficulties enforcing the 15-day requirement, so
lengthening it would not be recommended. Instead, staff recommends
removing this regulation and enforcing only on junked vehicles.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Remove the following language from Chapter 30, Sec. 30.10.
(1) No person shall keep, store or display one or more motor vehicles
out of doors on property zoned for residential use, or permit the
parking out of doors of a motor vehicle on residentially zoned
property under their ownership, possession or control for more than
fifteen (15) days without movement and use of said vehicle as an
operating motor vehicle.
(4)(d) A motor vehicle currently licensed for operation on the public
highways and lawfully parked off the streets while the owner or other
person in lawful possession and control thereof, if a resident of this
city, is out of the city for more than fiftee n (15) days but not more
than one hundred eighty days.
14
Protection of Property From Damage and/or Decay
Vegetation:
1. Dense growth of vegetation – Dense vegetation may cause issues with
ingress/egress from a structure, can be a fire hazard, and may provide
concealment for criminals.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Dense growth of all vines, brush or other vegetation, including dead bushes,
and dead woody plants, or other overgrown or unkempt bushes or other
growth is prohibited.
Those with concerns on this proposal were primarily concerned with the ambiguity
regarding the word ‘dense’. Staff supports adding language that specifically
addresses the ability to egress and ingress a structure instead of addressing
vegetation.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Vines, brush or other vegetation, including dead bushes, dead woody plants,
overgrown or unkempt bushes that restrict egress from or ingress to the
inside of a structure is prohibited.
Structural Integrity:
1. Exterior structural requirements (siding, roofing, decks) – Inadequate
coverings (roofing, siding, paint, etc.) allow rain, snow, and vermin to enter. These
conditions can cause rapid deterioration of a structure. Currently, there are no
standards for structural maintenance until the structure is in such d isrepair that it
can be deemed dangerous. The ability to facilitate the abatement of these issues
early increases the life of the structure, minimizes the overall impact to the home,
and maintains property values for adjacent properties.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
All structures, including detached accessory structures, on any commercial,
residential, agricultural or industrial property shall be free from significant
structural defects. The term "free from significant structural defect" means:
(a) The roof and roofing material are of such a nature and condition that
they do not permit water, snow or ice to penetrate the structure. Roofing
materials shall be in good condition and made up of consistent materials
and consistent coloration throughout the roof area.
15
(b) Drainage gutters and downspouts, if present, are securely attached to
the structure and in proper functioning order.
(c) All exterior trim and exterior exposed surfaces, including siding
materials, must be sound, in good condition and securely a ttached to
the structure.
(d) Exterior walls must be free of holes and made of a consistent material,
such that patches or repairs consisting of dissimilar materials or colors
compared to the prevailing surface material of the exterior walls are not
present.
(e) The foundation of the structure is sound, capable of supporting the
structure and not deteriorated to the point that failure is judged to be
inevitable, but not necessarily imminent. The foundation shall be plumb
and free from cracks, breaks and holes to prevent the entry of animals.
(f) Windows and doors, including outer screen or storm windows and doors,
must be intact, containing no holes, squarely hung with properly
operating latches or locks to be securely closed, and where the windows
have intact glass or normal window material that allows the entry of light
with no holes in said window surface areas. No plastic wrap material or
tarps shall be used to substitute for doorways or windows.
(g) All exterior components serving doors and windows, including, but no t
limited to, steps, porches, ramps, landings, handrails, and guardrails
must be of a secure and safe design, be made of standard building
materials and be intact, with no protruding or loose boards or surface
materials causing a hazard.
(h) Exterior wall surfaces are properly painted and/or maintained with
appropriate exterior wall materials, including wood, vinyl, steel or metal
siding materials, stucco or exterior insulation finish system (EIFS)
materials, brick or similar masonry materials, that are in all cases intact,
not in a condition of deterioration, are of uniform coloration and are not
patched with dissimilar materials. Plastic wrap material shall not be
considered an acceptable siding material. No flaking or chipped paint
or outer loose material dominates or detracts from the exterior
appearance of the structure.
(i) All fencing, including gates, shall be maintained in good condition, free
from damage, breaks, holes or missing structural members. All fencing
shall be of consistent materials and coloration.
(j) All exterior wires which are hanging or unsecured on the exterior of the
structure must be fastened to the structure in order to avoid life safety
issues.
Many of the comments on this item were regarding a homeowner’s ability to make
needed repairs and the vagueness of the proposal. Staff maintains that the
16
proposed language above adequately defines significant structural defects,
addressing many of the citizen’s concerns, and staff is not recommending
any alternatives at this time.
Unoccupied & Unsecured Structures:
1. Vacant, unsecured structures – These structures allow people to enter the
structure (squatters), and dangerous conditions have resulted (e.g., fires) in
some instances. A shed or garage on the same property as one’s home is not
considered to be vacant.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Unoccupied buildings or unoccupied portions of buildings which are
unsecured are prohibited.
The majority of the comments regarding this proposal stated that clarification was
needed to understand the type of structures the restrictions would be imposed on.
Many concerns were raised about having to lock sheds on residential properties.
The intent of the section is to help keep vacant properties secure. Sh eds located
on properties that have an occupied primary structure would not fall into this
category. Staff recommends adding language that clarifies how this section
applies to accessory structures.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Unoccupied buildings or unoccupied portions of buildings which are
unsecured are prohibited. Accessory structures on properties where the
primary structure is occupied are not considered unoccupied buildings.
Other Considerations:
Graffiti:
1. Graffiti removal – Rapid graffiti remediation is essential in reducing the amount
of graffiti. The proposed ordinance will prohibit graffiti from being left on any
property for more than 48 hours. Graffiti removal is currently addressed in the
Rental Code but is often found on commercial properties that are not
rentals, leaving staff with no enforcement ability. For purposes of this issue,
graffiti is paintings or markings made without the consent and direction of the
property owner.
17
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
All real property defaced by graffiti vandalism, which is visible to the public
view and has not been removed within 48 hours of notification by the
enforcement officer is prohibited.
Comments regarding the proposed graffiti language were mainly focused at
defining graffiti. Some respondents felt that 48 hours was too short of a timeline to
have graffiti removed because it can be an extensive process. Staff recommends
adding the following definition of graffiti and extending the timeframe to 7
days.
Any marking, inscription, drawing, picture, letter, number, symbol or other
defacement or other written communication, etched, scratched, or made
with spray paint, paint, ink, chalk, dye, or similar substance, or in any
manner, on any public or private property, including, but not limited to,
streets, sidewalks, buildings, walls, bridges, fences, or other structures
which was made without the consent and under the direction of the owner
of such property.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
All real property defaced by graffiti vandalism, which is visible to the public
view and has not been removed within 7 days of notification by the
enforcement officer is prohibited.
Vehicle Storage:
1. Recreational vehicle parking - Is currently allowed up to 72 hours when parked
behind the front yard setback on an approved surface and not used for
habitation.
Existing Language:
Manufactured homes, mobile homes, travel trailers, or recreational vehicles
shall not be parked, stored, or occupied on any property which is not part of
an approved manufactured home park, or the permanent installed site of a
manufactured home. However, the parking of one (1) unoccupied travel
trailer or recreational vehicle, boat, or boat trailer is per mitted behind the
front yard setback of the lot in any district, provided the travel trailer or
recreational vehicle, boat, or boat trailer is not used for living quarters or
business purposes.
In addition to the above code language regarding the parking of recreational
vehicles, development standards in the Zoning Code prohibit the storage of
vehicles for more than 72 hours. In summary, existing code would allow
18
recreational vehicles to be parked behind the front of the house on an approved
surface for up to 72 hours without moving.
In an effort to consolidate code section into one chapter, staff will no longer
be utilizing the development standards within the Zoning Code for
enforcement purposes. Therefore, the proposed ordinance would allow the
parking of recreational vehicles behind the front of the house for any period
of time as long as the vehicle is not being used for habitation or business
purposes and it is parked on an approved surface. Staff recommends adding
trailers to the list of permitted items as they are currently not regulated.
Possible Alternative based on Feedback from June 15, 2021 Workshop:
Travel trailers, recreational vehicles, boats, and boat trailers parked in the
front yard are prohibited. Parking of travel trailers, recreational vehicles,
boats, and boat trailers are permitted behind the front yard so long as they
are not being used for habitation or business purposes and they are parked
on an approved parking surface.
Grass Height:
1. Turf grasses exceeding 12 inches on private property – Currently, registered
rental properties are required to keep their turf grasses under 12 inches per the
Rental Code (Sec. 13.406.9). There is no equivalent standard for other property
types, which makes it possible that two properties right next to each other would
be held to different standards. By calling out turf grasses specifically, owners that
would like to have taller native vegetation are still able to do so.
Initial Proposed Language from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting:
Allowing turf grasses to exceed 12 inches in height is prohibited.
Opposition to this proposal was primarily the result of owners wanting to have
native vegetation on their property. The ordinance, as proposed, only restricts the
height of turf grasses and does not address other vegetation including native
species, flowers, bushes, trees, gardens, etc.. Staff recommends a 12 inch
maximum height for turf grasses.
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS:
One of the most common comments in the comment cards and during public input was
that the proposed ordinance would have a disproportionate impact among property
19
owners with low incomes, disabilities, or mental health issues. Many of those that spoke
thought that the City should have some program to help those in need. Staff reviewed a
handful of other jurisdictions with similar ordinances to determine how these cases are
handled.
Current Ordinance:
The Ames Municipal Code currently has a provision in the Dangerous Building Section of
Chapter 5 that addresses abatement for low-income and elderly persons:
Sec. 5.414. Cost of Abatement; Low Income, Elderly Persons.
1.) Policy. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this code, the cost of abating a
dangerous building may be waived for low income and elderly persons, if upon
application it appears to the Building Official that the conditions set forth in
subsection (2) are met.
2.) Eligibility. To be eligible for waiver of abatement costs a pers on must be
classified as “low income”, defined as having household income of not more
than 50% of the Story County median income.
3.) Other eligibility requirements. Additionally, all persons wishing to qualify for
waiver or nuisance abatement costs must:
a. Furnish proof of the income requirements as set forth above in the
manner and form designated by the Building Official; and
b. Must own, or be in the process of purchasing the property from which
the nuisance is abated; and
c. The property from which the nuisance is abated must be their primary
residence.
6.) Amount. The Building Official shall have the authority to waive up to $1,000
per calendar year, for any one parcel of real property or any one person.
Requests for waiver in excess of that granted by the Building Official shall be
subject to approval of the City Council.
Other Local Options:
The Story County Housing Trust offers an owner-occupied repair program with
reimbursement up to $8,000. Repairs of major building systems (roof, foundation,
electrical, etc.), repairs that will delay or prevent major replacement, or repairs that have
been delayed addressing other priority concerns.
20
The Volunteer Center of Story County (now closed) used to operate ‘Ames Repair and
Care’, a program that matched homeowner needs with volunteers to complete specific
tasks related to the property (mowing, painting, debris removal, etc.). There has been
recent success with the ‘Repair Café’ where citizens can bring household items to
volunteers with the knowledge to repair such items. ‘Rummage Rampage’ has also had
success benefiting local non-profits through volunteerism (there are 80 organizations
registered this year). Staff suggests establishing a program similar to ‘Ames Repair and
Care’ that utilizes the time and talent of our citizens to benefit the community and help
those in need.
Other Jurisdictions:
Staff surveyed several other jurisdictions that have similar maintenance ordinances and
found that many have financing programs for homeowners under the area median income
within their jurisdiction. The City of Iowa City offers $10,000 to $40,000, 20-year loans, at
2.75% for home improvements. Another program they have offers zero interest loans.
The City of Cedar Falls offers grants up to $20,000 for rehabilitation projects to meet local
codes and up to $10,000 for general repairs.
The Des Moines metro area has a Metro Home Improvement Program and includes the
cities of Ankeny, Altoona, Bondurant, Grimes, Polk City, Urbandale, West Des Moines,
Windsor Heights and Dallas County. This program offers a 5-year forgivable loan for up
to $12,500 for home improvements. Applicants must have a n income less than 80% of
the area median income for Polk County, their property must be assessed at under
$200,000 and the property must be their primary residence.
APPEAL PROCESS:
Because the code sections currently utilized are scattered throughout the Municipal
Code, the appeal processes vary. Currently, three different Boards have jurisdiction over
the types of violations the proposed ordinance addresses: Property Maintenance
Appeals Board, Building Board of Appeals, and Zoning Board of Adjustment.
It is important that any person affected by enforcement action under the new ordinance
has the ability to appeal the violation determination the same as they would under the
current code. It is equally important that the appeal process be acce ssible and easy to
follow for the appellant. For this reason, the new ordinance proposes the creation of
a separate board to hear appeals of this Chapter. The proposed appeal process
mimics that of the Property Maintenance Appeal Board and the Building Boa rd of
21
Appeals. The make-up of the Board includes neighborhood representatives from each
ward, much like the City Council, and will meet monthly.
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS:
There were many concerns during the workshop and in the survey responses about the
enforcement process. The current enforcement process offers many opportunities for
compliance before a citation is issued. For example, an outdoor storage case would go
through the following process:
1. Inspection to verify a violation exists
2. Initial notice to property owner regarding the violation with a compliance date
(usually 7-10 days)
3. Re-inspection to determine if property is in compliance
4. If not in compliance, a second violation notice will be issued to the property
owner with a compliance date (7-10 days)
5. Re-inspection to determine if property is in compliance
6. If not in compliance, a final notice sent by certified mail with a compliance date
(7-10 days)
7. Re-inspection to determine if property is in compliance
8. If property is not in compliance, staff must take photos for four consecutive
days to show that the item has not moved in that time.
9. If still not compliant on day 4 a citation will be issued (or other form of
enforcement)
This process is extremely lengthy and could take up to 6-8 weeks. Council should
remember that staff follows a philosophy of compliance through education. Citations are
not typically used as ‘punishment’. Rather, they are issued so that staff can get a court
order to be allowed on the property and abate the violation.
Unfortunately, even after staff completes the nine steps highlighted above, the citation
process that follows could take up to an additional 3-4 months. Once a citation is
forwarded to the Legal Department, it is reviewed by an attorney and then sent by
certified mail. The postal service has two weeks to attempt service (there have been
instances when the citation has been unable to be served). Once served, a court date is
set for the defendant to plead guilty or not guilty. If they enter a plea of not guilty, a court
date is set, which is roughly 30 days out. Meanwhile, the violation continues to exist, and
enforcement is put on hold. It is only when the court finds the defendant guilty that the
City can then request permission from the court to enter the property, abate the violation,
22
and assess the abatement costs back to the owner. However, it’s always possible the
court denies the request leaving staff with no tools for compliance.
Because the citation process is lengthy and costly and not always effective; staff
has included the addition of an abatement tool in the proposed ordinance. With
this abatement tool, City staff may enter the property to address the nuisance, then
bill costs back to the owner. If the owner fails to pay the costs, the City Council
may approve assessing those costs to the owner’s property. This mechanism is
similar to the existing process for sidewalk snow and ice removal enforcement,
where timeliness is important. It is not a requirement that abatement be utilized,
and it does not prohibit a citation from being issued. Research of other
jurisdictions shows that many ordinances allow for abatement as an enforcement
tool instead of relying on a citation.
NEXT STEPS:
The “Possible Alternatives” outlined in this report take into consideration the feedback
received on each topic and are incorporated into a draft ordinance that includes customer
driven alternatives. While still very preliminary, the draft ordinance allows the public an
opportunity to see the proposals in context and incorporates definitions. This should
eliminate some of the concerns about sections being vague and provide them more
substance to comment on.
Staff would recommend the following process:
1.) Council should utilize Attachment B, to make a motion on each of the following
categorized topics:
a. Vegetation over 12 inches in ROW
b. Vegetation hanging over/into ROW
c. Dangerous trees
d. Placing/pushing snow/ice onto public streets
e. Depositing mud/gravel/etc. on sidewalks
f. Open holes/excavations for up to 30 days
g. Leaving garbage receptacles at the curb for more than 24 hours
h. Allowing garbage, junk, yard waste to be stored
i. Allowing stagnant water to pool
j. Conditions that harbor vermin
k. Junk Vehicles
23
l. Dense growth of vegetation
m. Exterior structural requirements
n. Vacant, unsecured structures
o. Graffiti
p. Recreational vehicle parking
q. Turf grasses exceeding 12 inches on private property
2.) Direct Staff to bring back a draft ordinance with Council’s revisions on the June
27 City Council Meeting for public input and final council discussion.
3.) Direct Staff to place a proposed ordinance that incorporates the preferred
alternatives on the July 11 City Council Meeting for approval on first reading.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The tools in the proposed ordinance will have a major benefit when it comes to
enforcement of nuisance issues. However, staff understands that some of the new
regulations may be contentious to property owners. It will be important to balance the
freedoms of property ownership with the freedom to enjoy one’s property.
Staff recognizes the significance of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to
maximize the number of customer feedback opportunities by utilizing multiple press
releases, hosting a dedicated Property Maintenance Code webpage, conducting a
communitywide survey, multiple City Council Meetings, and hosting two workshops. The
proposed ordinance is based on customer driven feedback and over a decade of
experiences from the City’s Community Codes Liaison working with customer and their
concerns with the current codes and lack thereof.
Attachment A
1
Summary of Proposed Revisions
1. Vegetation in ROW
Initial Staff Proposal: 12” maximum vegetation height in ROW
Public Comments: Want the ability to plant a variety of species.
Supportive of prohibiting vegetation causing visibility issues. Not
supportive of 12” maximum.
Revised Staff Proposal: 12” maximum within 1’ of sidewalk or street. No
other maximum height. Vegetation can be removed if causing a visibility
issue.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits plantings in the ROW from
exceeding 12” within 1’ of the street and sidewalk and allows staff to
require any vegetation creating a visibility issue to be removed.
2. Vegetation Encroaching into ROW
Initial Staff Proposal: Vegetation hanging over streets must have a 16’
clearance and vegetation hanging over sidewalks and bike paths must
have a 10’ clearance.
Public Comments: Confusion over who maintained these areas. Height
over sidewalk should be 8’ so that homeowners can reach it.
Revised Staff Proposal: Same as initial as 10’ is DOT standard.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the initial proposed language that requires a 16’ clearance over
public streets and a 10’ clearance over sidewalks and bike paths.
3. Dangerous Trees
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits dangerous trees that could fall and
damage adjacent property or people.
Public Comments: Tree removal is expensive.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits dangerous trees that pose an
immediate threat to people or property in the ROW.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits dangerous trees that pose
a threat to the ROW.
Attachment A
2
4. Placing Snow/Ice Onto Public Streets
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits snow and ice from being pushed onto the
public street.
Public Comments: The City blocks driveways. Little space for shoveled
snow.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits snow and ice from being pushed onto
the public street after the street has been cleared.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits snow and ice from being
pushed onto the public street once the street has been cleared.
5. Depositing Mud/Gravel/Etc. on Sidewalks
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits depositing mud, dirt, gravel and other
debris on sidewalk.
Public Comments: Specify amount of time debris can remain.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits snow ice, mud, gravel, grass clippings,
leaves, etc. to remain for more than daylight 10 hours after the cause of
the accumulation.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits accumulations of snow
ice, mud, gravel, grass clippings, leaves, etc. from remaining on a sidewalk
for more than 10 hours after the cause of the accumulation.
6. Open Holes/Excavations
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits open holes from continuing for more than
30 days.
Public Comments: Define active building project. Shorter timeframe.
Does it include egress window wells or fire pits.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits holes from existing for any period of
time and exempts egress window wells, fire pits, active building permits,
etc.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits holes from existing and
clarifying exceptions.
Attachment A
3
7. Leaving Garbage Receptacles at the Curb
Initial Staff Proposal: Garbage containers cannot be left at the curb for
more than 24 hours and must be placed behind the front yard or indoors
when not at the curb.
Public Comments: 24 hours is not long enough.
Revised Staff Proposal: Garbage containers cannot be left at the curb
for more than 48 hours and must be placed behind the front yard or
indoors when not at the curb.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits containers from being left
at the curb for more than 48 hours and requires them to be stored behind
the front of the house or indoors.
8. Allowing Garbage, Junk and Yard Waste to be Stored
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits refuse, garbage, junk, etc. from being
stored for more than 48 hours.
Public Comments: 48 hours is too short. Keep at 72 hours.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits refuse, garbage, junk, etc. from being
stored for more than 72 hours.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits refuse, garbage, junk from
being stored for more than 72 hours.
9. Allowing Stagnant Water to Pool
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits stagnant water from pooling on a
property.
Public Comments: Define stagnant water. Length of time before deemed
stagnant.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits stagnant water from existing for more
than 48 hours.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits stagnant water from
remaining on a property for more than 48 hours.
Attachment A
4
10. Conditions that Harbor Vermin
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits conditions that harbor vermin.
Public Comments: Define vermin.
Revised Staff Proposal: Eliminate this section.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to not include the vermin section in the
ordinance being presented on June 27th.
11. Junk Vehicles
Initial Staff Proposal: Currently junked vehicles are prohibited from
remaining on a property longer than 48 hours and operable vehicles are
prohibited from remaining for more than 15 days.
Public Comments: Define junked vehicle. Operable vehicles should not
be regulated.
Revised Staff Proposal: Eliminates the 15 day prohibition on operable
vehicles.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to remove the 15 day prohibition on storage of
operable vehicles from the ordinance being presented on June 27th.
12. Dense Growth of Vegetation
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits dense growth of vegetation.
Public Comments: Dense is ambiguous.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits vegetation that restricts ingress or
egress of a structure and removes ‘dense’.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits vegetations that impede
ingress or egress.
13. Exterior Structural Requirements
Initial Staff Proposal: Requires structures to be free from significant
structural defect.
Public Comments: Vague. What about those that cannot afford this.
Revised Staff Proposal: Requires structures to be free from significant
structural defect.
Attachment A
5
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the initial proposed language.
14. Vacant, Unsecured Structures
Initial Staff Proposal: Prohibits unoccupied buildings from being
unsecured.
Public Comments: Clarification on sheds.
Revised Staff Proposal: Prohibits unoccupied buildings from being
unsecured. Exempts accessory structures on properties with the primary
structure is occupied.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits unoccupied buildings from
being unsecured and allows accessory structures to remain unsecured if
the primary structure is occupied.
15. Graffiti
Initial Staff Proposal: Graffiti is required to be removed within 48 hours of
notification by the enforcement officer.
Public Comments: Define graffiti. 48 hours isn’t enough time.
Revised Staff Proposal: Requires graffiti to be removed within 7 days of
notification by the enforcement officer.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that prohibits graffiti from remaining for
longer than 7 days after notification.
16. Recreational Vehicle Parking
Initial Staff Proposal: Existing ordinance allows one RV to be parked
behind the front yard as long as it’s not used for habitation.
Public Comments: None.
Revised Staff Proposal: Staff added ‘trailer’ to the existing list. RVs
would not have a time limit on storage behind the front yard as long as
they are on an approved surface and not used for habitation.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the alternative language that allows RVs and trailers to be parked
behind the front yard as long as they are on an approved surface and not
used for habitation.
Attachment A
6
17. Turf Grass on Private Property
Initial Staff Proposal: Turf grasses over 12” in height are prohibited.
Public Comment: Allow native vegetation.
Revised Staff Proposal: Same as initial. Only restricts turf grasses.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th the initial proposed language that prohibits turf grasses from
exceeding 12” in height.
18. Appeal Process
Initial Staff Proposal: Creation of an additional appeal board to hear
appeals of the ordinance.
Public Comment: Mixed comments – some in favor, others saw it as
bigger government.
Revised Staff Proposal: Staff recommends the addition of an appeal
board comprised of neighborhoods representatives to ensure citizens
have a voice.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th a process establishing an appeal board and procedures.
19. Abatement Tool
Initial Staff Proposal: Creation of an abatement tool that would allow staff
to abate nuisances in a timely manner without going through the lengthy
court process.
Public Comment: Many comments against abatement because of cost
and bigger government.
Revised Staff Proposal: Staff recommends creating the abatement tool
as an alternative to issuing a citation. It is not required to be used but
would give staff additional options when a quicker response is needed.
Possible Motion: Direct staff to add to the ordinance being presented on
June 27th an abatement tool that would authorize staff the choice to abate
nuisances when not resolved through education and established
enforcement procedures.
1
Staff Report
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
June 20, 2023
BACKGROUND:
City Councils from across the country have been searching for a solution to the challenge
of creating “affordable housing” in their communities. With the recent increases in
construction costs, supply chain issues, labor shortage, and rising interest rates; this
affordable housing issue have become more acute. Local government is not typically a
provider or owner of housing directly. However, through application of zoning, creation of
development standards, and the use of incentives; cities have attempted to influence
housing production for prioritized low income households. Many communities have
approached the need for expanded low income housing choices as a critical issue to their
community for both social equity as well as economic development reasons. Each
community has different resources and constraints which requires local planning to
address housing issues.
The City Council adopted a Council Goal in 2022 of Valuing Diverse Housing
Options with a task directed to staff for recommendations regarding a Low and
Moderate Income Housing Strategy. The focus of the task is:
1) What standardized incentives to offer,
2) Address code impediments, and
3) Acquisition of land or existing housing.
It must be emphasized, therefore, that the purpose of this report and the Council
discussion on June 20th is to focus of increasing the number of residential units
available for our low and moderate income citizens. The discussion regarding
increasing the number of residential units for other income groups, for workforce
housing to the high-end homes, will occur at a later time.
The purpose of this task is to address issues that may go beyond the annual
programming of our federal entitlement funds of Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) and HOME. These programs require a five-year consolidated plan with
a housing assessment and annual program budgeting that are not addressed in this
report. Information about our federally assisted housing programs is on the City’s Housing
Division website. Note that new five year Consolidated Plan is scheduled to be completed
in 2024.
HOUSING INVENTORY
The most recent census data is from the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS). The
ACS provides multiple census products for statistics with varying degrees of margin of
error between a 1-yr snapshot and a 5-yr averaging survey. Data from the ACS includes
2
population, age, race and importantly to this study, housing, and income characteristics.
The Census also provides information based upon two types of living arrangements, a
household and a family.
A “Household” within the census data is defined as an individual or group of people living
together within a dwelling, regardless of their relationship. A family is defined as a two or
more related people living together within a dwelling. A family is a subset of households.
People living in group quarters, such as a dormitory, are not considered a household and
are excluded from housing data, but included in general population in formation.
According to the American Community Survey 2021 1 -yr data, there are approximately
25,901 occupied housing units out of a total of 27,594 housing units. There are 9,329
family households and 16,572 non-family households. Statistics based upon households
and families are considerably different with families typically having higher incomes due
to the general age of families, additional people within a family, potentially multiple
incomes, and little influence of full-time student demographics. The median household
income is $64,569 (independent of size) and the median family income is $105,822,
while the non-family household is $35,673 for the Ames MSA. Average incomes are
much higher than median incomes. Nationally, median household income is $69,717 and
family income is $85,806. Based upon ACS data, Ames household income has increased
by about 41% over the past ten years and family income by about 45%.
The City does not directly own or operate any housing. The existing income restricted
units in Ames are participants in state and federal housing programs, such as Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Income restricted units are a mix of workforce and senior
housing units, with a mix of “project based” directly subsidized units and rent subsidized
units through other programs. There is an estimated 501 income restricted units within
the City distributed across six projects. This is 501 units out of a total of census estimate
of 14,763 rental housing units within the City.
INCOME LEVELS:
Although we are not focused on federal housing programs, the City of Ames relies upon
federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definitions of low and modera te income
households related to Area Median Income (AMI) of Ames. Generally, household incomes
are categorized as Extremely Low Income at 30% of AMI, Very Low Income at 50% of
AMI, Low Income below 60% of AMI, and Moderate Income below 80% of AMI.
HUD 2023 Income Limits for HOME
1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person
30% $ 22,350 $ 25,550 $ 28,750 $ 31,900 $ 34,500 $ 37,050
50% $ 37,250 $ 42,600 $ 47,900 $ 53,200 $ 57,500 $ 61,750
60% $ 44,700 $ 51,120 $ 57,480 $ 63,840 $ 69,000 $ 74,100
80% $ 59,600 $ 68,100 $ 76,600 $ 85,100 $ 91,950 $ 98,750
3
The calculated income levels are supplied by HUD and are what are the required income
limits for our federal programs. Note, these figures may differ from census data that is
based upon households from census related surveys and there can be variation bet ween
census data of the City of Ames only vs. the Ames MSA which is larger area equal to
Story County.
Typically, incomes at 80% or greater than AMI are able to “attain housing” within market
conditions without extraordinary household expense or difficulties related to income.
Attain housing means either rental or ownership housing. Household incomes greater
than 80% are not addressed by federal housing programs, except for potentially home
buyer assistance in some circumstances.
Households earning less than 30% of AMI typically require substantial assistance for
housing expenses with federal programs of support, including the Section 8 voucher
rental assistance program. The Central Iowa Regional Housing Authority (CIRHA) is the
administer of the Section 8 Voucher program with approximately 1,000 vouchers in their
program to serve six counties. However, there are not adequate vouchers available to
meet the quantity need for these income levels. Within the City of Ames, there are
currently 309 vouchers, which is a substantial increase from 2021 levels. There remains
a constraint on using vouchers in Ames as most landlords will not accept Section 8
vouchers. State law preempts a City from requiring landlords to accept vouchers.
Affordability of housing is most commonly evaluated as a percentage of income
used for housing costs as 30% of household income. In some situations, metrics that
attempt to account for reduced transportation costs when households have easy access
to public transportation or lower vehicle ownership rates will consider a combined ratio of
housing plus transportation costs at 45% of income. For this report we are focused on
the traditional metric of 30%. The ACS provides information about housing costs as a
percentage of income, often referred to as housing cost burden, for both rental and
ownership households. Although some households may make a choice to spend a higher
percentage discretionarily income on housing to realize other benefits of housing choice
and location, when it is not discretionary, and a disproportionate amount of income is
used for housing it can cause insecurity related to other household needs.
Fundamentally, this is the public policy issue related to affordable and quality
housing. Housing overall is not just a social issue, but also an economic driver of
the community in order to support employment opportunities that benefit the
overall general welfare of the community. The intersection of these issues are why
the City’s Comprehensive Plan devotes specific polices to these issues and does
not just think of housing as a land use development issue.
Housing burden statistics (>30% of income) are substantially different between rental
housing and ownership housing. For rental households this is estimated at 51% of
households and for ownership households at 28%. The age range of the household also
has a significant impact on housing burden calculations. Within Ames, the student
demographic (viewed as temporary housing condition seeking a higher education)
4
distorts both poverty and housing burden calculations. Relying on age based or
family-based statistics minimizes some of the influence of student demographic
on housing issues focuses on workforce and non-transient households.
The priority focus of this report is then for the low- and moderate-income
households as the area most likely to be impacted by local actions. The general
focus for affordability programs at the local level is between 30 -60% AMI for rental
households and 50%-80% AMI for home ownership.
HOUSING TARGETS:
Ames Plan 2040 includes a Neighborhood, Housing, and Sub-area Element that uses
2017 census data as a snapshot of housing needs for the City correlated to our growth
projection of 15,000 people through 2040. This snapshot assessment does not address
unmet existing demand.
Plan 2040 identified 2020-2030 annual housing production target of 295 units, with an
overall average of 317 units through 2040 related to the 1.5 % growth used for planning
purposes. Actual population growth is often well below the 1.5% assumption. The unit
projections are divided between ownership and rental housing. The City currently has
approximately 60% rental households and 40% ownership households. Plan 2040
identifies a target of 55% of ownership housing and 45% rental housing for new
construction. However, this should be understood as target number of units produced
rather than division of the actual units built in year. Ownership can be either detached or
attached housing. A significant multi-family component is needed as well to meet general
housing needs, but not at the same proportions as the current make up of housing stock
due to no planned substantial increases in enrollment at ISU.
5
Household income categories are also described within this Housing Element snapshot
and support policies of action related to affordable housing correlated to types of housing
produced and to consider incentives for priority types of affordable housing. The
Affordable Housing Strategy is an implementation step of the Plan 2040 Housing
Policies. Typically, due to construction costs, addressing low and moderate
income housing is divided between creation of affordable rental housing compared
to ownership opportunities. The greatest need measured by attainability and
availability is directed to rental housing. A secondary need is for ownership
housing affordable to low and moderate incomes due to the substantial lift needed
to attain this goal for an individual family.
CODE IMPEDIMENTS:
One common strategy to support affordable housing is to consider the impact or
regulations on the production of housing, specifically unique obstacles related to low
income housing. Building and Zoning Codes are designed to manage development of
housing in safe and desirable manner that is compatible with the community. Developers
incorporate development costs and construction costs into their project pro forma and
build projects when the rent or sales price provides an expected level of profit over costs.
Low income housing has a different model where the revenue side of the equation is
capped to meet a targeted level, i.e. income restrictions. However, most communities
have taken a strategic approach to Zoning and Building Code changes to not dilute the
quality of housing and to ensure it is of the same equitable quality as other housing in a
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Residential Building Permits 2009 -2022
SF MF Total
163 Unit SF Target
295 Total Unit Target
6
neighborhood. In fact, many subsidy programs will require higher quality elements
with affordable housing to ensure there is a high quality living environment.
Staff believes the most common code impediments related to the construction of
new housing include:
1. Parking Requirements
2. Lot sizes/density limits
3. Limits on apartment building size within medium density areas (no limit in high density
zoning districts)
4. Architectural design requirements
Additionally, staff believes the lack of available zoned land for housing is as
significant of an impediment as any of the above specific regulations on the cost
or production of affordable housing.
Staff has identified these constraints based upon development project review with Home
Allies, Bridge, and LIHTC developers, as well as national commentary on affordable
housing constraints.
OPTIONS:
Option .1 - Evaluate parking reductions
Of the four issues listed above, parking is a uniquely positioned issue related to low -
income households. Statistically car ownership rates are lower for lowe r income
households regardless of the costs of housing. This is most pronounced for household
likely earning less than 50% of AMI. Parking regulations in Ames are based upon
bedroom counts per apartment, which are predominantly occupied by student households
with multiple cars. Additionally, ideal locations for affordable housing are centrally located
transit accessible and walkable neighborhoods that are not as vehicle dependent . This
means projects within the core of the City are likely to need even less parking than
for low-income housing projects in periphery areas of the City.
Parking is applied universally regardless of income levels of an apartment development.
This approach has been the basic policy of the City to ensure that regardless of long-term
occupancy of the units that parking would be adequate to meet needs and not i mpact the
surroundings. This approach allows for versatility of use of a property over time, but
it does hamper initial construction of low-income housing. A standard surface
parking lot has a per space cost of construction of $4,000 to $5,000, which does not
account for potential loss of developable land for parking spaces.
The PUD ordinance allows for Council to approve as few as 1.5 parking spaces per unit
vs. the standards requirement of 1 per bedroom. The key question is really if projects
that are not part of a PUD Overlay could take advantage of the parking reduction
7
for sites less than 2 acres or if it could be approved for any residentially zoned site
even if it is not in a PUD Overlay.
Council could direct staff to proceed with parking code changes related to
affordable housing development subject to land use and affordability restrictions.
Staff’s experience is that these restrictions are for upwards of 30 years. After 30 years
the property may become a market-based project, if that occurs no additional parking
would be provided.
If City Council is interested in additional parking reductions, Council would need
to direct staff under this option on whether to consider it a by-right allowance for
all zoning districts or if it a discretionary process as defined with the PUD Overlay.
Option #2 - Lot Size and Density Limits
Lot size can be viewed as cost component of a home or in relation to allowed density of
a project. Commonly for single family development a rule of thumb is a lot is approximately
20% of the cost of a home and that the house itself will be 3 to 4 times the cost of the lot.
Therefore, a smaller lot could have marginal change in the overall cost of a home if a
large home is still constructed, or if smaller homes are built on smaller lots it could have
much greater reduction of cost related to a lot.
Fortunately, in Ames there is a strong land use ethic for efficient and smart growth and,
therefore, there currently exists reasonably high maximum density allowances as a result.
Upper density limits are rarely an issue for a project as they be in other cities. However,
Minimum lot size regardless of overall density could be a constraint for smaller houses
that may or may not have lower prices. This issue if fundamentally related to ownership
or single-family building types. This issues was discussed two years ago the time of
adoption of the PUD ordinance. The decision at that time was that = the City wanted to
see an overall plan before approving smaller lots and to require higher architectural
design requirements within a PUD to address negative impacts to aesthetics.
City Council could direct staff to propose minimum lot size changes . In isolation of
design requirements and an overall plan review, staff has some general reservations
about eliminating minimum lot sizes, even though lot size itself is not an important issue
to staff.
Option #3 - Limits on Building Sizes
The building size limit is blunt standard that limits efficiency to address overall massing
and height of structures outside of actual design guidelines and architectural standards.
Currently, this standard has not been a constrain to affordable housing as it only applies
in medium density areas and does not apply in high density areas. However, if we strive
for a mix of affordable housing in our growth areas with FS -RM zoning, this standard
could impact a future project.
8
Council could direct staff to propose eliminating this building size standard in
certain zoning districts and determine if any replacement standards would be more
appropriate.
Option #4 - Evaluate Architectural Design Requirements
City Council could direct staff to evaluate in greater detail specific zoning regulations and
related development costs compared to design quality and then consider additional text
amendments. Staff does have general reservations about substantial changes to
design standards or impacts to future infill design requirements that could make
project less accepted within neighborhoods. Having acceptance of projects, even
with higher costs, is more desirable in staff’s eyes than having projects not be accepted.
Option #5 - Identify Other Code Impediments
Can the City Council identify other development issues for review by staff?
INCENTIVES:
Affordable housing is most commonly developed with the assistance of federal or state
funding programs. However, at times there can still be a financial gap for the viability of
a project and the City may receive a request assistance. The two most recent instances
are the Baker Subdivision 9% LIHTC project where we are providing land for free and use
of federal HOME program dollars and the other project was a request from the Annex
Group for a property tax abatement in support of their development site Hayden’s
Preserve along 190th Street a 4% LIHTC project. The Annex Group project did not
proceed and was one of the initial reasons to pursue a housing strategy related to
incentives.
Staff believes there two main components of the incentive discussion.
1. Types of Funding, and how much funding
2. Prerequisites for funding.
Some of the financial incentives that have been offered to developers by other cities to
entice them to build multi-family or single-family homes have included:
1. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for infrastructure construction
2. TIF as a developer rebate for building a project
3. Property Tax Abatement (full or partial)
4. Waiver of fees
5. Low or no cost land donation
6. Development grants/Housing Trust Fund
7. Homebuyer down payment assistance
8. Low interest or forgivable loans
9. Federal CDBG and HOME funds
9
Tax abatement can lower operating costs helping a property owner carry their loan
payments and other expenses. Tax Increment Financing can be used as a rebate to a
developer for their investment in a project or to fund public infrastructure that lowers costs
of development. Using TIF to fund public infrastructure requires a setaside of
approximately 45% of the TIF proceeds to be used for affordable housing and is counted
against a city’s debt limit, while TIF rebates don’t have these same issues. Fee waivers
for building permits or connection districts would only come at the time of actual
development and result in a city foregoing revenue which lowers the initial costs of
development.
Direct grants to a developer will require a funding source which may be difficult under the
current restrictions placed upon cities in Iowa for generating additional revenues. Further
exploration will be needed to identify the appropriate funding sources.
It should be noted that each of these incentives have different value and order of
magnitude, meaning there are variable cost to the city and benefit to a developer,
home buyer, or operator of affordable housing.
PREREQUISITES:
Staff believes that if the City provides financial assistance, the city’s priorities should also
be addressed within a development. Provided below are multiple interests that could
guide use of local incentives:
1. Affordability levels at or below 50% of AMI
2. Affordability restrictions of at least 30 years
3. Participation with another agency for oversight, such as Iowa Finance Authority
4. Operational Support or Initial Capital Support
5. Cost per unit produced
6. Types of units for workforce and family, minimum of 10-15% family units
7. Acceptance of Section 8 Vouchers, set aside for Section 8 voucher holders
8. Project based Section 8 Units committed by CIRHA
9. Location Preferences
o Availability of services
o Transit access for very low-income households
o Housing choice and dispersal throughout the city
Staff believes Location Preference is an important issue on this list that is not financially
based. As described earlier, development in the core of the City is often beneficial for
support of residents of low and moderate income housing and likely the best solution if
available. The difficulty in staff’s view arises from two concerns. The first is availability of
land and if it is available the higher cost for acquisition and development which likely then
requires a greater financial incentive.
10
Secondly, diversity of housing choice would support providing affordable housing in
multiple areas of the City as we grow, this includes the to the north, south, east, and west,
but in many cases there are limited services available at this time and site are likely more
vehicle dependent. It is possible that some types of housing will only be eligible for other
program money within the core areas of the City, known as Qualified Census Tracts.
However, development of LIHTC with 4% tax credits is not competitive and could be
accomplished within any area of the City. The question is not if an affordable project
should be developed on the periphery of the City, it is if we would use financial incentives
to support it.
City Council would need to provide guidance on priorities for issues from the above
list so that staff will be able to formulate guidelines that can be communicated to
future developers. Staff believes the greatest needs at are at the lower end of the
household income ranges and we should require that included deeper levels of
affordability than minimum requirements of LIHTC and expect that Section 8 Voucher
holders would be able to use a voucher in these projects.
PROPERTY ACQUISITION:
One specific action that could be identified within the housing strategy is a property
acquisition plan. This acquisition plan will help guide long-term thinking for acquisition,
development strategies of larger projects, and potential dispersal of affordable housing.
There has been a 20-year gap between the City’s west Ames Bentwood affordable
housing subdivision and the Baker Subdivision project. A more intentional program
about either buying land within new development for a future project or to buy
individual lots within new or existing subdivisions will allow the City to take
advantage of opportunities as they arise.
Subdivision Development
As a landowner, the City will be able to solicit opportunities for partner developers
and pursue local low income housing subdivision development on a more regular
basis. In a land market as tight as Ames, it may be necessary for the City to land bank
sites to eventually realize greater production of housing.
Individual Lot Development
An alternative to larger site acquisition could be lot acquisition in both existing and
newly developed subdivisions. Typically, our lot acquisitions in existing areas are to
remove blight and, if possible, make them available as affordable housing. The same
strategy and likely costs could be applied to buying an individual lot for a house builder,
such as Habitat for Humanity. Staff believes this strategy allows for small steps
toward housing availability, dispersal of housing throughout the city, and is one of
the few means of providing for ownership housing options.
As is the case with funding for incentives to the developers highlighted previously,
a financial mechanism for this subdivision/single lot acquisition strategy would
11
need to be defined which, hopefully, could provide a means to recoup the
investment for reuse over time.
STAFF COMMENTS:
In summary, Staff supports the following next steps:
1) Developing a Low and Moderate Income Housing Strategy that includes the
individual development incentives that that the City Council identifies for possible
support.
-The use of TIF for public infrastructure or tax abatement would be the most
appropriate incentive mechanisms. These mechanisms allow the City to offer an
incentive without having to budget for them on an annual basis.
-Depending on which incentive the Council chooses to pursue, further study will
be needed to determine viable funding sources.
- A maximum duration for the incentive or a percentage cap on the assistance
should be included in the incentive policy to ensure that projects are financially
viable and efficient in their development plan.
2) Developing a Low and Moderate Income Housing Strategy that includes a property
acquisition strategy that will promote development of multi-family and/or single-family
housing.
3) Developing a Low and Moderate Income Housing Strategy that includes a multi-year
financing plan with one pot of money to accomplish the first two items listed above.
4) In addition to the Council’s recent action to reduce required parking in a PUD, reduce
parking requirements in other zoning districts for future low and moderate income
housing projects.
5) Developing incentive criteria that provide for greater incentives for projects within the
Core of the city recognizing inherent value of the location and higher development
costs, but also supports diversity of housing choice in expanding areas of the City, but
with a lower incentive.
It should be noted that with the initial implementation of the com ponents included within
this strategy, it is unlikely that additional staff would be needed for this activity. If the
City takes on a more significant role developing property, administering affordability
requirements, or monitoring compliance; over time additional staff support could be
need.