Single Family Conversion Taskforce Six Month Moratorium Recommendation
The Problem Single family zoned areas change character as rentals are added to a neighborhood.
Why Does This Happen? Often single family zoned areas (R 1 & R 2) were never designed or contemplated to have rental properties. The lots were never platted to be rentals and in some subdivisions only specific lots were selected for duplex units. Zoning ordinances in the 1950 s & 1970 s expected R 1 & R 2 districts to be single family or duplex owner occupied districts and R 3 and R 4 to be the zoning districts for rentals. Society and the economics surrounding property ownership changed but the zoning ordinance wasn t changed to respond to an evolving environment (overlay districts were added). Lot sizes especially in older areas were created for limited off street parking with single car garages (66 X 132 ). (At the time most families only owned one car.) Street widths are often narrower (25 27 vs. 31 ) Rentals often bring tenant behaviors to a neighborhood that are different than those of owner occupied families. Absentee property owners often have a different level of property maintenance attention because they do not visit the property daily. Often additional density is added to a neighborhood in the number of adults and in the number of vehicles. Conversions often result in additional conversions as the balance tips from owner occupied to rental in a neighborhood. Neighborhood character changes over time as the number of rentals in a neighborhood grows. Citizen complaints rise as they see their neighborhoods transition. Prospective owner occupied purchasers are often reluctant to purchase, if rentals are present. Rental units in a neighborhood create an unstable environment because tenants lease for short periods of time while owner occupied properties have longer tenure due to the personal investment in the property. Rentals can generate more total daily traffic, simply because of the increased number of cars resulting in safety, noise and speed concerns.
Scope of the Problem Single Family Conversions 2010 3 2011 123 2012 92 2013 86 Up to July 2014 59 and increasing with 5 more that have been paid and not entered into system yet. Total of 368 conversions since Nov. 2010 with 7 months to go in 2014.
Examples of Complaints & Visual Impacts on Neighborhood Character
What Can Cities Do?
Iowa Supreme Court Comments We agree governing bodies have a legitimate interest in promoting and preserving neighborhoods that are conducive to families particularly those with young children. Quiet neighborhoods with a stable population and low traffic are laudable goals. Ames's objectives are therefore valid. City council members are permitted to legislate based on their observations of real life. Based on its experience with students living off campus, the Ames city council made a reasonable policy decision to limit to three the number of unrelated persons who may reside in a single family dwelling in certain areas. It did so because groups of unrelated persons typically have different living styles in comparison to groups of related persons.
For example, although related persons may live together in large numbers, they normally live together in a more permanent status and remain in one place for a longer period of time. In contrast, groups of unrelated persons typically live together as roommates. Such arrangements are relatively short term and normally involve young adults. These persons tend not to establish roots in the community nor do they provide playmates for their neighbors' children. Moreover, large numbers of young adults living together typically attract friends, which create additional noise and traffic. By limiting the number of unrelated persons who may live together, Ames's ordinance furthers the City's goal of creating familyoriented neighborhoods that are safe and quiet for young children. It is also reasonable for the city council to conclude density will be lessened by the ordinance. Therefore, Ames's ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.
Example Solutions Being Considered More aggressive code enforcement Including termination of illegal non conforming uses Incentive program to convert rentals back to owner occupied properties Landlord education program Parking regulation changes Better density controls
Code Enforcement Will not be the solution, it will only serve a one tool Minimum standards are utilized Doesn t address or solve density impacts Doesn t address or solve traffic issues Generally it is reactive in nature Resolution often takes long periods of time Many problems are spontaneous, behavioral and result because of lack of property owner supervision Non conforming uses (legal vs. illegal)
Moratorium On The Conversion Of Single Family Owner Occupied Homes Into Rental Homes Purpose of moratorium: To provide a reasonable period of time for the City to study the impact of single family owner occupied home conversions in R 1 and R 2 zoned areas to rentals. Reasons for moratorium: The conversion of owner occupied single family homes has negatively impacted neighborhood character. In some cases, the majority of the neighborhood has been converted. To ensure that additional neighborhoods do not tip over the edge conversions needed to be halted while solutions are explored to protect the neighborhood character from further decline. To allow time for the Single Family Owner Occupied Home Taskforce to study the problem and recommend solutions to the City Council. Allow the City Council time to study the recommendation provided by the Taskforce. The City Council is formally taking a position that there is a concern that single family neighborhoods are being impacted by conversions and the Council is committed to address the problem in a reasonable amount of time. To limit the number of conversions that would occur during the study period. Limiting the number of conversions reduces the number of properties that could be granted grandfathering status. Limits the number of conversions that would occur while ordinances are being amended (eliminates the rush to beat enactment date of Code amendments to buy and convert property or possibly as an example pave yards to reach grandfather status.) To place prospective buyers on notice that laws may be changed. This is a complex topic and it simply takes time to find the right solutions but at the same time not allow neighborhoods to further decline.
Legality: Cities are commonly allowed to impose moratoriums during the time period that a problem is being studied. The moratorium must have a purpose and deadline. The Cedar Falls City Council has used moratoriums on several occasions in the past. Most recently in 2005/2006 when select areas were being considered for rezoning and regulations in the College Hill Overlay District were proposed to be altered. Time Period: Six months with a six month extension, if deemed necessary by the City Council to complete analysis of the problem. Hardship provisions: If a property owner cannot sell their single family owner occupied property for a reasonable price or if they must leave the property for a period of time they can request that a rental permit be issued based on a personal hardship. A committee composed of staff members would review the request and issue a temporary rental permit if justified by the circumstances. If a property is denied a rental permit they would have the opportunity to appeal the staff decision to the Landlord Accountability Board. The use of a staff committee is recommended to allow for rapid review and processing.
Next Steps With Example Dates Committee of the Whole approves adopting a moratorium an directs the City Attorney to draft a formal resolution (August 4). City Council adopts a resolution describing the moratorium purpose and time period on August 18 (August 19, 2014 February 19, 2015) The Single Family Taskforce and Planning & Zoning Commission are notified of the deadlines present in the moratorium so that they can complete their work in a timely manner (August 20 and 21) Research is conducted and recommendations are made by the Taskforce & Planning and Zoning (August December 2014) The City Council determines which recommendations should be given formal consideration and those concepts are developed into ordinance format (January & February 2015) The draft ordinances have public hearings held at P&Z and the City Council (March 2015) P&Z recommends approval or denial (April May 2015) City Council takes final votes (3 readings) on ordinance amendments (May June 2015)
Questions
The Iowa Supreme Court wrote the following: In the context of zoning, legitimate government interests include promoting the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community. Iowa Code 414.1 (2003). Here, Ames articulated several bases for the zoning ordinance: promot[ing] a sense of community, sanctity of the family, quiet and peaceful neighborhoods, low population, limited congestion of motor vehicles and controlled transiency. In Belle Terre, the Supreme Court found similar interests valid: The police power is not confined to the elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people. Belle Terre, 416 U.S. at 9, 94 S.Ct. at 1541, 39 L.Ed.2d at 804. We agree governing bodies have a legitimate interest in promoting and preserving neighborhoods that are conducive to families particularly those with young children. See Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1938, 52 L.Ed.2d 531, 540 (1977) (noting the Supreme Court's prior decisions established the Federal Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition ); Callender v. Skiles, 591 N.W.2d 182, 191 (Iowa 1999) (acknowledging promoting the sanctity and stability of the family is a legitimate government interest). Quiet neighborhoods with a stable population and low traffic are laudable goals. Ames's objectives are therefore valid.
This requires more than imagining extreme examples of groups of people who do or do not offend the goals of the zoning ordinance. Sure, the ordinance would allow the Beverly Hillbillies 4 to live in a single family zone while prohibiting four judges from doing so. However, neither hypothetical is typical of reality. City council members are permitted to legislate based on their observations of real life. In the present case, we find the relationship between the ordinance and the City's goals is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Quite candidly, Ames states [i]t cannot be ignored that Ames is a university campus city and, therefore, experiences typical secondary effects of mass student congestion. Based on its experience with students living off campus, the Ames city council made a reasonable policy decision to limit to three the number of unrelated persons who may reside in a single family dwelling in certain areas. It did so because groups of unrelated persons typically have different living styles in comparison to groups of related persons. See Dinan v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 220 Conn. 61, 595 A.2d 864, 870 (1991) (noting a group of college students is less likely to become involved in the neighborhood and community in comparison to a typical family because of its short term living arrangement). For example, although related persons may live together in large numbers, they normally live together in a more permanent status and remain in one place for a longer period of time. In contrast, groups of unrelated persons typically live together as roommates. Such arrangements are relatively short term and normally involve young adults. These persons tend not to establish roots in the community nor do they provide playmates for their neighbors' children. Moreover, large numbers of young adults living together typically attract friends, which create additional noise and traffic. By limiting the number of unrelated persons who may live together, Ames's ordinance furthers the City's goal of creating family oriented neighborhoods that are safe and quiet for young children. It is also reasonable for the city council to conclude density will be lessened by the ordinance. Therefore, Ames's ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.