HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-06 Ordinance1cck,
Prepared by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE G., RIVERFRONT
CROSSINGS FORM -BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TO ALLOW MINOR
ADJUSTMENTS TO UPPER FLOOR STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE MINIMUM
BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARD.
WHEREAS, the City encourages development and redevelopment in the Riverfront
Crossings District, in part, by allowing higher residential densities, taller block -scale buildings
and lower parking requirements. However, to ensure that new development results in
neighborhoods that are safe, walkable, and that create a high-quality environment for
residential living, there are form -based standards that help break up the mass and scale of
larger, bulkier buildings;
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code requires fagade stepbacks above a
certain building height with the intent of breaking up the vertical mass of taller buildings and
reducing the perceived building height from a pedestrian perspective; and
WHEREAS, the stepback requirement is of particular importance in certain instances, such
as for buildings granted bonus height where the building will be taller than other buildings in the
vicinity, for buildings located on streets where compatibility with the historic or lower -scale
neighborhood context is of particular concern; for buildings located on narrower street rights-of-
way; and in cases where preservation of view corridors is of community importance; and
WHEREAS, if there are unique characteristics of the site that warrant an adjustment or
waiver of the upper floor fagade stepback, alternative design techniques may be effective in
meeting the intent of the stepback standard; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of an upper floor facade stepback, there are a variety of ways to
visually distinguish the upper floor fagade from the lower floors in ways that help break up the
vertical mass of the building; and
WHEREAS, allowing administrative review and approval of requests for reductions or
waivers of the upper floor stepback requirement in cases where it is warranted will streamline
the approval process without compromising building quality and livability, provided an
alternative design is proposed that equally or better meets the intent of the stepback standard;
and
WHEREAS, the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code for the South Downtown Subdistrict
also has a minimum building height of two stories to create a street wall that provides a
comfortable sense of enclosure for pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, allowing administrative review and approval of requests for a waiver of the
minimum height would be appropriate to allow for a second story pedestrian courtyard in a mid -
block location, provided a second story screen wall is constructed that is designed to provide
the intended sense of enclosure for pedestrians at the street level; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed zoning
amendments and recommends approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
follows:
A. Delete 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjustments, paragraph 1 and subparagraph g, and replace
with the following:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
1. The FBC Committee may approve deviations from the building placement and
parking, loading, and service area placement standards set forth in Section 14-
2G-3, Subdistrict Standards. Standards greater or lesser than the ranges
allowed may be approved in the following circumstances, provided the approval
criteria listed below are met:
g. Approval Criteria:
(1) There are unique characteristics of the site or neighboring properties that
lend to alternative design approaches or that make it difficult or infeasible
to meet the requirements; and
(2) The proposed placement of the building, parking, and service areas fit
the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, are
consistent with the intent of the standard being modified and the goals of
the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or Central District
Plan, as applicable, and will not detract from or be injurious to other
property or improvements in the vicinity.
B. Delete 14 -2G -7H, Minor Adjustments, paragraph 5 and subparagraphs a. through e.,
and substitute in lieu thereof the following, and add paragraph 6:
5. The FBC Committee may approve deviations from the facade stepback
requirements set forth in Section 14-2G-3, Subdistrict Standards or building
design standards set forth in Section 14 -2G -7F, provided the following approval
criteria are met:
a. The building includes an alternative design solution that equally or better
meets the intent of the specific standard being modified; and
b. The building is uniquely designed to fit the characteristics of the site and the
surrounding neighborhood, is consistent with the goals of the Downtown &
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or Central District Plan, as applicable, and
will not detract from or be injurious to other property or improvements in the
vicinity; and
c. The building demonstrates excellence in architectural design and use of
durable materials; and
d. There are unique characteristics of the site or neighboring properties that
lend to alternative design approaches, or that make it difficult or infeasible to
meet the requirements; or the proposed building is designed true to a
specific architectural style and adherence to the building design standards
would be impractical or compromise the building's architectural integrity; and
e. For requests for waivers of an upper floor stepback requirement, the building
must include an alternative means of visually breaking up the vertical plane
of the building.
6. In mid -block locations, the FBC Committee may waive the minimum building
height standard to allow for a 2nd story pedestrian courtyard (an area
surrounded by building facades on at least 3 sides), provided a screen wall that
is at least as tall as the second story building fagade is constructed co -planar or
Ordinance No.
Page 3
recessed a maximum of 3' from the street -facing fagade. The screen wall may
either be constructed of high quality building materials that faithfully imitate an
architecturally -finished exterior building fagade with complementary window
openings and articulation, or constructed as a decorative screen wall with a
semi -transparent, open pattern, where the top of the screen wall aligns generally
with the top of the second story. For purposes of regulating signage, the screen
wall will be considered a building wall.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication.
Passed and approved this day of .2017.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITYK
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 11/06/2017
Vote for passage: AYES: Cole, Mims, Taylor, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Botchway, NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
HIM
Prepared by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
Ordinance No.
An ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 4, Use Regulations, and
Article 14-2D, Industrial and Research Zones, to restrict sales of consumer
fireworks to Industrial Zones.
Whereas, recently enacted State legislation (Senate File 489) allows for the sale of first-
class and second-class consumer fireworks in Iowa during certain times of the year; and
Whereas, development standards within the industrial zones mitigate the risks of on-site
sale of such explosive devices; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed zoning
amendments and recommends approval; and
Whereas, restricting the sale of fireworks to the industrial zones is in the best interests of
the safety and general welfare of the community.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
follows:
A. Amend Section 14-4A-7, Other Use Categories, adding a new use category, Consumer
Fireworks Sales, as follows:
E. Consumer Fireworks Sales
1. Characteristics: Sales of first-class and/or second-class consumer fireworks,
as defined by the American Pyrotechnics Association.
2. Examples: seasonal sales outlets
3. Accessory Uses: None.
B. Amend 14-4A-41, Retail Uses, paragraph 4, Exceptions, by adding a new subparagraph
j., as follows:
j. Sales of first-class and/or second-class consumer fireworks is classified as an
"Other Use" as set forth in 14-4A-7.
C. Within section 14-2D-2, Amend Table 2D-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and
Research Zones, by adding the category, "Consumer Fireworks Sales," as a use
category under the "Other Uses" section, and indicating that such use is allowed as a
provisional use (PR) in the 1-1 and 1-2 Zones.
D. Amend 14 -4B -4E, (provisions applicable to) Other Uses, by adding a paragraph 7, as
follows:
7. Consumer Fireworks Sales in the 1-1 and 1-2 Zones: In the 1-1 and 1-2 Zones,
Consumer Fireworks Sales, as defined in this Title, are permitted, subject to the
restrictions and dates of sale set forth in Title 661 Iowa Administrative Code Chapter
265, Consumer Fireworks Sales Licensing and Safety Standards.
E. Amend 14-4D-2, Temporary Uses Allowed, by adding the following paragraph:
Outdoor display and sale of first-class and/or second-class consumer fireworks,
as defined by the American Pyrotechnics Association, according to the
restrictions and dates of sale set forth in Title 661 Iowa Administrative Code
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Chapter 265, Consumer Fireworks Sales Licensing and Safety Standards.
Outdoor display and sales of such fireworks are only allowed in Industrial Zones.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole, or any section, provision, or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication.
Passed and approved this day of 2017.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by: /r"/ rP_,._
City Attorney's Office io/t7ll7
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
First Consideration 11/06/2017
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Taylor,
Botchway, Cole. NAYS: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
Thomas, Throgmorton,
ABSENT: Dickens
that the
(P 0,
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
(REZ17-00014)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance conditionally rezoning 28.03 acres from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP)
zone to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone for 5.35 acres, Low Density
Multifamily (RM -12) zone for 3.3 acres and Rural Residential (RR -1) zone for 19.38 acres for
property located west of Camp Cardinal Road and south of Kennedy Parkway (REZ17-00014)
WHEREAS, the applicant, The Crossings Development, LC, has requested a rezoning of approximately
28.03 acres of property located south of Kennedy Parkway west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, from Interim -
Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone for 5.35
acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for 3.3 acres and Rural Residential (RR -1) zone for 19.38
acres; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area is suitable for "conservation design"
including a variety of residential housing types clustered away from environmentally sensitive areas; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed RM -12 zoning and finds
that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, provided development meets certain conditions, including
general compliance with the concept plan with townhouse -style multi -family dwellings with vehicular access
to garages from a rear lane that is a maximum of 18 feet wide with green space and landscaping between
the rear driveways to reduce impervious surface, improve stormwater drainage, and prevent speeding; and
staff approval of a landscaping plan for the area along the rear drive and for screening the rear garages from
public view in the northwest corner of the development, and development of a usable outdoor space with
features such as an outdoor dining area and lawn for informal recreational use; these conditions being
warranted to improve the aesthetics and livability for this cluster of higher density housing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed RS -12 zoning and RRA
and finds that they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with an appropriate mix of single family and
duplex units clustered away from the sensitive areas, which are proposed as outlots to preserve and protect
these natural areas and provide for management of stormwater run-off,
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in
this area of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of ID -RP to the
designations described in the legal descriptions below:
RS -12:
PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND PART OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND
PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012052 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012053
AS RECORDER IN BOOK 56, PAGE 378 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
RECORDER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 13, CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE AS
RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
RECORDER; THENCE N21°48'05"E 170.86 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE; THENCE N14°30'51"E 68.49 FEET ALONG SAID
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE N86"42'03"E 215.79 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE
SOUTHERLY 16.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 530.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE
EASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S4°11'32"E 16.52 FEET); THENCE N84054'52"E 200.00 FEET ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4, SAID CARDINAL POINTE WEST
- PART ONE; THENCE S16°49'51"E 101.12 FEET; THENCE S25°47'11"E 65.05 FEET; THENCE
S35051'09"E 67.65 FEET; THENCE S38°11'58"E 75.00 FEET; THENCE S37°42'38"E 79.04 FEET;
THENCE S33019'25"E 84.78 FEET; THENCE S27°59'01"E 48.60; THENCE S26056'21"E 53.53 FEET;
THENCE S21030'05"E 86.33 FEET; THENCE S71013'03"W 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
254.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 750.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY
(CHORD BEARS N28°29'27"W 252.95 FEET); THENCE N38°11'58"W 163.23 FEET; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY 79.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 500.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N33°39'00"W 79.32 FEET); THENCE N29006'03"W 53.30 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 63.99 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 350.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N23°51'48"W 63.90 FEET); THENCE S71022'27"W
21.82 FEET; THENCE S74025'54"W 50.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 274.18 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S22004'03"W 237.57 FEET); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 102.07 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 740.00
FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S34°14'53"E 101.98 FEET);
THENCE S38011'58"E 160.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 190.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF
A 510.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS S27°29'18"E 189.57
FEET); THENCE S73°13'22"W 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 34.84 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A 480.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS
N18051'24"W 34.84 FEET); THENCE S69014'02"W 120.00 FEET; THENCE N28°55'22"W 99.33 FEET;
THENCE N38008'39"W 103.46 FEET; THENCE N37°44'02"W 104.59 FEET; THENCE N30°07'41"W
134.60 FEET; THENCE N69°27'55"E 120.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 81.44 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A 180.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N7°34'23"W 80.75
FEET); THENCE N84036'40"W 137.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 5.35 ACRES, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
RM -12:
PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND PART OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND
PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012052 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012053
AS RECORDER IN BOOK 56, PAGE 378 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
RECORDER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4, CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE
AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
RECORDER; THENCE S16049'51"E 101.12 FEET; THENCE S25047'11"E 65.05 FEET; THENCE
S35051'09"E 67.65 FEET; THENCE S38011'58"E 75.00 FEET; THENCE S37042'38"E 79.04 FEET;
THENCE S33019'25"E 84.78 FEET; THENCE S27059'01"E 84.78 FEET; THENCE S22038'37"E 84.78
FEET; THENCE S70°01'35"W 130.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 16.22 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A 780.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S19022'41"E 16.22 FEET); THENCE S71°13'03"W 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 254.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 750.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS N28°29'27"W 252.95 FEET); THENCE N38011'58"W
163.23 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 79.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 500.00 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N33°39'00"W 79.32 FEET); THENCE
N29006'03"W 53.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 63.99 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 350.00
FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N23°51'48"W 63.90 FEET);
THENCE S71022'27"W 21.82 FEET; THENCE S74°25'54"W 50.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY
274.18 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY
(CHORD BEARS S22°04'03"W 237.57 FEET); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 102.07 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A 740.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S34014'53"E 101.98 FEET); THENCE S38°11'58"E 160.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 190.68
Ordinance No.
Page 3
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 510.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD
BEARS S27°29'18"E 189.57 FEET); THENCE N73°13'22"E 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
16.14 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 540.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD
BEARS N17038'00"W 16.14 FEET); THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 29.63 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A
20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N23°56'56"E 26.99
FEET); THENCE N66°23'16"W 151.01 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 32.83 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S66°35'34"E 29.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 9.94 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 720.00 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE. CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD BEARS S19°10'40"E 9.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.30 ACRES, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012052 AS RECORDED IN
BOOK 56, PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER AND PART
OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012053 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 378 IN THE OFFICE OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 13, CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE AS
RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
RECORDER; THENCE S84°36'40"E 137.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 81.44 FEET ALONG THE
ARC OF A 180.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S7°34'23"E 80.75
FEET); THENCE S69°27'55"W 120.00 FEET; THENCE S30°0741"E 132.68 FEET; THENCE
N90000'00"W 424.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART
ONE; THENCE N0°00'00"E 107.13 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE N83°36'43"E
156.77 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE N53°13'37"E 209.13 FEET ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 1.68 ACRES,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
AND
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST
OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND PART OF
AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012052 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4, CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE AS
RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
RECORDER; THENCE NO°18'19"W 55.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID CARDINAL POINTE
WEST - PART ONE; THENCE N9°15'18"E 55.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE
N21010'50"E 132.95 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF AUDITOR'S
PARCEL 2014116 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 59, PAGE 93 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER; THENCE S64026'20"E 461.81 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 193.61 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE ARC OF A
383.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S78°55'14"E 191.55
FEET); THENCE N86°35'51"E 21.34 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 62.86 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF CAMP CARDINAL
BOULEVARD AND THE ARC OF A 40.00 FOOT RADIUS, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD
BEARS S48020'33"E 56.59 FEET); THENCE SOUTHERLY 171.74 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY AND THE ARC OF A 2450.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY
(CHORD BEARS S1°06'49"E 171.70 FEET); THENCE S0053'41"W 227.14 FEET ALONG SAID
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE S89004'32"W 463.31 FEET ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE; THENCE N27°59'01"W 48.59 FEET; THENCE N33019'25"W 84.78 FEET; THENCE
N37042'38"W 79.04 FEET; THENCE N38°11'58"W 75.00 FEET; THENCE N35°51'09"W 67.65 FEET;
THENCE N25°47'11"W 65.05 FEET; THENCE N16°49'51"W 101.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF
Ordinance No.
Page 4
BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 7.71 ACRES, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
AND:
OUTLOT D, CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND
AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
RECORDER. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 9.99 ACRES, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION It. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the properly owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and the associated conditional
zoning agreement and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at
the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
2017.
MAYOR:
Approved by:
ATTEST: ' �/ ✓
CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office /2/r%
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 10/17/2017
Voteforpassage: AYES:Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor,Thomas,
Throgmorton, Botchway. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 11/06/2017
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims,
Botchway, Cole. NAYS:
Date published
Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
None. ABSENT: Dickens
that the
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5240 (REZ17-00014)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City") and The Crossings Development, LC (hereinafter "Owner").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 28.03 acres of property located
west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of Kennedy Parkway; and
Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Interim -
Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone to High ,Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12)
zone for 5.35 acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for 3.3 acres and Rural Residential
(RR -1) zone for 19.38 acres; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions warranted to improve the aesthetics and livability for this cluster of higher density
housing, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for to improve the aesthetics and livability for higher density housing; and
Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. The Crossings Development, L.C. is the legal title holder of the property legally
described as:
PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND PART
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA
CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012052 AS
RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA RECORDER AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012053 AS RECORDER IN
BOOK 56, PAGE 378 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 13,
CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE
OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER; THENCE N21 °48'05"E 170.86
FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE;
THENCE N14030'51"E 68.49 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE
N86042'03"E 215.79 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ppdadoJagt/conditional zoning agreement thecrossingdw
16.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 530.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE
EASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S4°11'32"E 16.52 FEET); THENCE N84°54'52"E 200.00
FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4, SAID
CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE; THENCE S16°49'51"E 101.12 FEET; THENCE
S25047'11"E 65.05 FEET; THENCE S35°51'09"E 67.65 FEET; THENCE S38'1 1'58"E 75.00
FEET; THENCE S37°42'38"E 79.04 FEET; THENCE S33`19'25"E 84.78 FEET; THENCE
S27059'01"E 48.60; THENCE S26°56'21"E 53.53 FEET; THENCE S21030'05"E 86.33
FEET; THENCE S71°13'03"W 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 254.17 FEET
ALONG THE ARC OF A 750.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY
(CHORD BEARS N28°29'27"W 252.95 FEET); THENCE N38°11'58"W 163.23 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 79.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 500.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N33°39'00"W 79.32 FEET);
THENCE N29006'03"W 53.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 63.99 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A 350.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD
BEARS N23051'48"W 63.90 FEET); THENCE S71°22'27"W 21.82 FEET; THENCE
S74025'54"W 50.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 274.18 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S22004'03"W 237.57 FEET); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 102.07 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A 740.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S34014'53"E 101.98 FEET); THENCE S38011'58"E 160.70 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 190.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 510.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS S27°29'18"E 189.57 FEET); THENCE
S73013'22"W 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 34.84 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A 480.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS
N18051'24"W 34.84 FEET); THENCE S69°14'02"W 120.00 FEET; THENCE N28°55'22"W
99.33 FEET; THENCE N38°08'39"W 103.46 FEET; THENCE N37044'02"W 104.59 FEET;
THENCE N30007'41"W 134.60 FEET; THENCE N69°27'55"E 120.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHERLY 81.44 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 180.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N7034'23"W 80.75 FEET); THENCE N84°36'40"W
137.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 5.35 ACRES,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
F_�II7
PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND PART
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA
CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012052 AS
RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA RECORDER AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012053 AS RECORDER IN
BOOK 56, PAGE 378 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4,
CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE
OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER; THENCE S16049'51"E 101.12
FEET; THENCE S25°47'11"E 65.05 FEET; THENCE S35051'09"E 67.65 FEET; THENCE
S3801 1'58"E 75.00 FEET; THENCE S37°42'38"E 79.04 FEET; THENCE S33'1 9'25"E 84.78
FEET; THENCE S27°59'01"E 84.78 FEET; THENCE S22°38'37"E 84.78 FEET; THENCE
S70001'35"W 130.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 16.22 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A 780.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S19022'41"E 16.22 FEET); THENCE S71013'03"W 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 254.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 750.00
ppdadMagVoondilional zoning agreement Meuossingdev
FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS N28°29'27"W
252.95 FEET); THENCE N38011'58"W 163.23 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 79.40
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 500.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N33°39'00"W 79.32 FEET); THENCE N29°06'03"W
53.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 63.99 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 350.00
FOOT• RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N23°51'48"W
63.90 FEET); THENCE S71°22'27"W 21.82 FEET; THENCE S74025'54"W 50.56 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 274.18 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S22°04'03"W 237.57
FEET); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 102.07 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 740.00 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S34°14'53"E 101.98
FEET); THENCE S38011'58"E 160.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 190.68 FEET
ALONG THE ARC OF A 510.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY
(CHORD BEARS S27°29'18"E 189.57 FEET); THENCE N73°13'22"E 30.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 16.14 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 540.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD BEARS N17038'00"W 16.14 FEET); THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY 29.63 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS N23°56'56"E 26.99 FEET); THENCE
N66023'16"W 151.01 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 32.83 FEET ALONG THE ARC
OF A 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S66035'34"E 29.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 9.94 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A
720.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE. CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD BEARS S19°10'40"E
9.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.30 ACRES,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
r.Aws
PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL
NO. 2012052 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO.
2012053 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 56, PAGE 378 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 13, CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE AS
RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA RECORDER; THENCE S84°36'40"E 137.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 81.44
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 180.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY
(CHORD BEARS S7°34'23"E 80.75 FEET); THENCE S69°27'55"W 120.00 FEET; THENCE
S30007'41"E 132.68 FEET; THENCE N90°00'00"W 424.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF SAID CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE; THENCE NO°00'00"E 107.13
FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE N83036'43"E 156.77 FEET ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE N53°13'37"E 209.13 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 1.68 ACRES, SUBJECT
TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
011W
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2012052 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 56,
ppdadm/agt/conditional zoning agreement thecrossingdev
PAGE 379 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4,
CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE
OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER; THENCE NO°18'19"W 55.00
FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE;
THENCE N9015'18"E 55.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE N21°10'50"E 132.95
FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL
2014116 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 59, PAGE 93 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER; THENCE S64°26'20"E 461.81 FEET ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 193.61 FEET ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE ARC OF A 383.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARS S78°55'14"E 191.55 FEET); THENCE N86035'51"E
21.34 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 62.86 FEET
ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF CAMP CARDINAL BOULEVARD AND THE
ARC OF A 40.00 FOOT RADIUS, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARS
S48020'33"E 56.59 FEET); THENCE SOUTHERLY 171.74 FEET ALONG SAID
WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND THE ARC OF A 2450.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD BEARS S1°06'49"E 171.70 FEET); THENCE SO°53'41"W
227.14 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12;
THENCE S89004'32"W 463.31 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE N27°59'01"W
48.59 FEET; THENCE N33019'25"W 84.78 FEET; THENCE N37042'38"W 79.04 FEET;
THENCE N38011'58'VV 75.00 FEET; THENCE N35°51'09"W 67.65 FEET; THENCE
N25047'11"W 65.05 FEET; THENCE N16°49'51"W 101.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 7.71 ACRES, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
AND
OUTLOT D, CARDINAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA AND AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 166 IN THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 9.99 ACRES, SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Clear Creek Master Plan and Camp Cardinal Road
Memorandum of Understanding. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code
§414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on
granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy
public needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that
development of the subject property hereby rezoned RM -12 will conform to all other
requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. Development shall generally comply with the concept plan for the area shown as "Lot
32" on the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan, Cardinal Pointe
West -Part 2 (attached), including townhouse -style multi -family dwellings with vehicular
access to garages from a rear lane that is a maximum of 18 feet wide with green
space and landscaping between the rear driveways to reduce impervious surface and
improve stormwater drainage.
ppdadm/agticonditional zoning agreement thecrossingdev 4
b. Prior to approval of any site plan, Owner shall obtain Staff approval of a landscaping
plan for the area along the rear private drive and for screening the rear garages from
public view along Dubs Drive.
c. Development shall include a usable outdoor space with features such as an outdoor
dining area and lawn for informal recreational use.
4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2017), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable
local, state, and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Owner's expense.
Dated this
City of Iowa City
day of , 20_.
James A. Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office 1011-2117
pidatlMagNmnditional zoning agreement thecro smgdev
The Cr;,Sts Development, L. .
By: l f G
0
City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Jim
Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling, Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
The Crossings Development, LC Acknowledgment:
State of
County of rk11Soy1
This record was acknowledged before me on Wb' &Z ) T�t Z41i(Date)
by Swrr— I(Name(s) of individual(s) as
n,Naq.vv (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of
osM N Ua,wcQmrAj LC. (name of party on behalf of whom record
was executed7.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank) W
My commission expires: S I f iD [2oez
ppdadm/agVeonditional zoning agreement thevossingdev 6
REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREA SITE PLAN FOR
CARDINAL POINTE WEST -PART 2
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
UTILITY AND EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS
NY OL IOW4 QIY.IOWA
Paxz PivumDrt w,
F191491C1'
P R6P..nD.r
sw ..Nmlw¢ oismcv]r
w. are c.0 M6]I:iS)
.:o-.�Nxr.N wemr
wurr teDwo�]osnxD
me
a
m
s m
t
e
unurc lemlo-vrsorosm
Nmiu sufimmu DAn: wm
n. ._
—m
CONTACTPERSON
urcincxurnsu:
USE
m
11
1.r y
�
niur
a'
�~
e
po
cyP°A
\
MRN IFIIND
Nmiu sufimmu DAn: wm
n. ._
Revsrox wn=. Rnw
CONTACTPERSON
urcincxurnsu:
USE
m
11
1.r y
\ �
IOWA
ONEowCALL
_��
Nmiu sufimmu DAn: wm
n. ._
Revsrox wn=. Rnw
CONTACTPERSON
urcincxurnsu:
USE
H.VIANDMIW.PAOIiFf AVMOFA �p2
LOCATION MAP
0. I. -s=
NOTES
n1F PRW.s I]IPRONINMM N=00 IN n16£ DRAMN6 HALE 111NDmam N .ACL[PDUI¢ . TRE tltt of I. ott dOXEERIXc pF9w
WMDMS WAND& ANI) =I
SHEET INDEX
-121
n. ._
APPLICANT
CONTACTPERSON
OWNER
USE
OWNERS ATTORNEY
ZONING
1.r y
\ �
s
-121
po
cyP°A
\
PROJE
1
NOTES
n1F PRW.s I]IPRONINMM N=00 IN n16£ DRAMN6 HALE 111NDmam N .ACL[PDUI¢ . TRE tltt of I. ott dOXEERIXc pF9w
WMDMS WAND& ANI) =I
SHEET INDEX
-121
n. ._
APPLICANT
CONTACTPERSON
OWNER
USE
OWNERS ATTORNEY
ZONING
REZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IRS
-121
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IRM
-121
AREA CALCULATIONS
m r•�� Tdaaa:� ��i�:-: m
e_._... ,m
AN
;
� L G
� , z
----Ll
r>�......... E .1
no I k u a .ns, �oNseac A.
11 F
d„Ar h m_
amaEL, ]3
ruF�mv�rtwv �eAT !
—7 amara ,�: •'�'°
m m m
IOWA
1NLL6 NPLLE EER�IW<. /] PEIONING. PPELICMUIXAL POINTE MST In PAR SNE PlI)1 Gqi PPEIININPPY PLAT
F1 �5�%11
(�G{y SNE LA T a UTNTES
i EXE Utt Lf IOwA tltt, PZ.O
�m v xaxsurcymrnw uwp[p wrt �+I' I Wne,mre,wmsoe. �� JOIW50N COUNTY. OAA ontiE, xo. nv.-.o-}
IS
7
D AD
AN
]wac
°�°
g m.ao�sr g
'oia'Ac fl
40
oaic
x
os A. =
oa:sr
N ,AL
� L G
� , z
----Ll
r>�......... E .1
no I k u a .ns, �oNseac A.
11 F
d„Ar h m_
amaEL, ]3
ruF�mv�rtwv �eAT !
—7 amara ,�: •'�'°
m m m
IOWA
1NLL6 NPLLE EER�IW<. /] PEIONING. PPELICMUIXAL POINTE MST In PAR SNE PlI)1 Gqi PPEIININPPY PLAT
F1 �5�%11
(�G{y SNE LA T a UTNTES
i EXE Utt Lf IOwA tltt, PZ.O
�m v xaxsurcymrnw uwp[p wrt �+I' I Wne,mre,wmsoe. �� JOIW50N COUNTY. OAA ontiE, xo. nv.-.o-}
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY 6c
'�� MEMORANDUM
Date: November 2, 2017
To: Geoff Fruin; City Manager
From: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner
Re: Camp Cardinal Boulevard / Kennedy Parkway Intersection
Introduction: During recent City Council meetings, the issue of pedestrian safety at the Camp
Cardinal Boulevard / Kennedy Parkway intersection has been discussed. These discussions
have been largely driven by the expansion of residential development to the west of Camp
Cardinal Boulevard and concerns about children crossing Camp Cardinal Boulevard (at
Kennedy Parkway) to access Borlaug Elementary School.
History/Background: The intersection in question is under joint jurisdiction with the north half
of the intersection in the City of Coralville and the south half of the intersection in Iowa City. In
anticipation of the future need for children to cross this intersection, staff worked with the City of
Coralville to jointly implement a number of safety improvements.
Discussion of Solutions: Similar to other crosswalks at uncontrolled arterial intersections in
Iowa City, staff installed high -visibility fluorescent green school crosswalk warning signs in
advance of the crosswalk (as well as at the crosswalk itself) for both north and southbound
motorists on Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Staff also installed a marked/painted crosswalk to
further delineate the crossing and make the crossing more conspicuous to motorists. The
intersection also has overhead streetlighting and a wide -sidewalk on the north side of Kennedy
Parkway to provide a more comfortable/safe crossing for pedestrians.
Financial Impact: Costs for improvements were minimal and were primarily for labor and
materials.
Recommendation: As the residential developments to the west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard
near full build -out, staff recommends performing an analysis to determine whether the
intersection warrants further traffic control — such as an all -way stop, signalization, or
construction of a roundabout. Any further traffic control will need to be coordinated with the City
of Coralville. Staff will also approach Coralville to see if a 20 mph school speed zone could be
implemented on Camp Cardinal Boulevard prior to the fall 2018 school year. If implemented,
enforcement of vehicle speeds will be required as the current speed limit is 35 mph.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00014/SUB17-00015
Cardinal Point West Part 2
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Date: September 21, 201
Applicant: The Crossings Development LC
755 Mormon Trek Blvd
Iowa City, IA 52246
319-337-4195
jentler@SouthGateCo.com
Contact: Brian Vogel, P. E.
Hall & Hall Engineers, Inc
1860 Boyson Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233
319-362-9548
brian@halleng.com
Requested Action: Rezone from ID -RP to RS -12 (5.35 acres), RM -12
(3.3 acres), RR -1 (19.38 acres) and approval of a
preliminary plat
Purpose: To allow the development of Cardinal Point West
Part Two, a 28.03 acre 16 -lot residential subdivision
that will include multi -family, duplex, and single
family lots
Location: West of Camp Cardinal Road and South of Kennedy
Parkway
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
28.03 acres
Undeveloped, Interim Development Research Park
(ID -RP)
North: Residential (RS -5)
South: Undeveloped (ID -RP)
East: Residential (OPD -8) and Mercy Clinic (CO -1)
West: Residential (RS -5) and Undeveloped (ID -RP)
Conservation Design — Clear Creak Master Plan
Clear Creek
August 17, 2017
45 Day Limitation Period: October 1, 2017
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, The Crossing Development, LC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of 28.03
acres of land from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) zone to High Density Single -
Family Residential (RS -12) for 5.35 acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) for 3.3 Acres and
Rural Residential (RR -1) for 19.38 acres. The applicant is also requesting approval of the
preliminary plat of Cardinal Point West — Part 2, a residential development with 9 single-family
lots, 6 duplex lots and 1 multifamily lot with 33 dwelling units. The plan also includes three
outlots. Outlots F and G are for open space to be maintained by a homeowners association.
Outlot H is reserved for future development.
The applicant has also submitted a concept plan showing how Preston Lane will continue to the
south to connect to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and the potential for single-family, townhouse
and multi -family development to the south of the current proposal. The area shown on the
concept plan will require additional rezoning and subdivision approvals and is subject to change.
Approval of Cardinal Pointe West — Part 2 does not include approval of the concept plan.
This and the surrounding areas were annexed into the city between 1969 and 1972. Since
1983 the area has been zone Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP) to reflect possible
development of an office park along Highway 218. In May 2002, the City Council signed a
Memorandum of Understanding for the Clear Creak Master Plan including a concept that
envisioned a "conservation -type" development including residential and commercial uses in the
area surrounding Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
Good Neighbor Policy: The application indicates that the applicant plans to follow the Good
Neighbor Policy, but no details have been submitted and no neighborhood meeting has been
held.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: Based on the previous Comprehensive Plan, the area is currently zoned as
Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP). The text of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan,
however, recognized that with the establishment of Oakdale Campus north of Interstate 80, the
possibility of additional development of office and research park type uses in this area may not
be realistic. The Plan also recognized the topographical and infrastructural limitations of the
area, and therefore, supported development with a mix of uses, such as low density residential
and office commercial uses. The Plan also supported clustered development that would result in
pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with minimal disturbance of the sensitive areas. The current
ID -RP zoning allows only agricultural uses by right so a rezoning is necessary to allow
development of this property.
Proposed Zoning: The Rural Residential Zone (RR -1) is intended to provide a rural residential
character for areas in the city that are not projected to have the utilities necessary for urban
development in the foreseeable future or for areas that have sensitive environmental features
that preclude development at urban densities. This is an appropriate designation for Outlots F
and G, which contain steep slopes and woodlands that limit development potential.
The High Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -12) is intended to provide for
development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached housing units at a higher density
than in other single family zones. Because this district represents a relatively high density for
single-family development, dwellings should be in close proximity to City services and facilities,
especially parks, schools and recreational facilities. Special attention should be given to site
design to ensure the development of quality neighborhoods.
The RS -12 zone allows for single family lots with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, and a
minimum lot width of 45 feet. Duplexes are allowed on lots with a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet and lot width of 55 feet. All lots within the proposed subdivision meet the minimum
requirements of the RS -12 zone. Although lots 33 to 41 are sufficient in size for duplexes, the
applicant indicates that they will be reserved for single family dwellings. Lots 42 to 47 are intended
for duplexes.
The purpose of the Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12), which is proposed for
Lot 32, is to provide for the development of high density, single-family housing and low density,
multi -family housing. This zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options in
neighborhoods throughout the city. Careful attention to site and building design is important to
ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. The
applicant is proposing 33 townhouse -style units in 7 buildings containing 4 to 5 dwellings each.
A private rear lane or alley is proposed for vehicular access.
As noted above, the RM -12 Zone calls for attention to site and building design to help produce a
pleasant residential environment. To assure that the entire area along the rear lane between the
dwellings units is not paved, staff recommends that the final site plan include a landscaping plan
with plantings appropriate for the area between the driveways. Staff notes that the proposed 21
foot wide private drive is wider than necessary (standard alley pavement is only 16 feet wide).
The extra width results in excess paving and may invite speeding. Staff recommends that the
private rear lane be a maximum of 18 feet wide. Reduction of paving will help minimize
stormwater runoff and improve the aesthetics of the area.
On the north side of Lot 32, townhouse units back toward Dubs Drive. The applicant has
agreed to screen the west side of the garages with evergreen trees. An area of open space will
be available for use of the residents of the townhouses on lot 32.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located within the Northwest Planning District. IC2030:
The Comprehensive Plan Update identifies this area as suitable for "Conservation Design" and
refers to the Clear Creek Master Plan (a more detailed district plan has not been prepared for
the Northwest District). The Clear Creek Master Plan lays out a general development concept
with possible street layouts, and shows areas for residential, commercial and office
development. In staff's view the requested rezoning and subdivision design conforms with the
conservation design envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. It also conforms with
the housing policy of ensuring a mix of housing types within each neighborhood (page 27) and
the land use policy to guide development as away from environmental sensitive areas, such as
woodlands and steep slopes (page 23).
Subdivision Design: The applicant is proposing a residential development with a mix of RS -12
lots (approximately 10,000 to 25,000 square feet) and one RM -12 lot (approximately 2 acres) for
townhouse -style multifamily buildings. Two outlots containing woodlands and steep slopes will
be set aside for open space to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Outlot
H is reserved for future development. The concept plan shows extension of Dubs Drive and
Preston Lane onto Outlot H where Preston Lane will intersect with Camp Cardinal Boulevard in
a future phase of Cardinal Pointe West.
The subdivision code requires that block lengths range from 300 feet to a maximum of 600 feet.
Longer block lengths may be considered where topographic conditions, water features or
ri
existing development prevent shorter block lengths, although midblock pedestrian connections
may be required. To the west of Preston Lane, blocks will range from approximately 475 feet to
approximately 540 feet in length in conformance with the subdivision regulations. Due to the
presence of steep wooded ravines located on Outlots G and H, no street intersections are
proposed east of Preston Lane. As a result the block length will well exceed 600 feet normally
required by the subdivision code. In staff's view the proposed design helps to minimize the
disturbance of the wooded ravines located on the property and complies with the
Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on conservation design for this area.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property contains steep and critical slopes and
woodlands. The Sensitive Areas Site Plan indicates that approximately 22.5% of the woodlands
will be removed. Approximately 21% of the steep slopes, and 23% of the critical slopes will be
graded. The majority of this grading will occur on lots 42 and 43 and on Outlot F for the purpose
of providing stormwater management and suitable residential lots. The disturbance is less than
35% of the critical slopes and 50% of the woodlands and therefore does not require Planning
and Zoning review.
Traffic implications and pedestrian facilities: Preston Lane will extend from Kennedy
Parkway on the north to Camp Cardinal Boulevard on the south, a distance of approximately
2000 feet with limited intersecting streets. Based on residents request for traffic calming on
similar streets, staff recommends that traffic calming be designed into Preston Lane. To
address this concern the street will be 26 feet wide beginning at the north intersection with Dubs
Drive. At the intersections, neck downs will narrow the pavement to 22 feet. Staff believes this
will help prevent excessive speeds on this residential street.
Neighborhood parkland: A subdivision of this size is required to dedicate 30,056 square feet
of neighborhood open space or pay fees in lieu of. The Parks and Recreation Department has
indicated that fees should be collected in lieu of dedication of land. This requirement will need
to be addressed in the legal papers at time of final plat approval. The open space calculations
include the land area of Outlots F and G. Open space fees for Outlot H will be calculated when
it is developed in the future.
Storm water management: The stormwater management basin located in Outlot D of Cardinal
Pointe West Part 1 has been designed to provide stormwater management for this new phase
of the development. The City Engineer has confirmed that the existing basin is adequate to
serve the stormwater requirements for Part 2.
Infrastructure fees: This subdivision is subject to the water main extension fee for $435 per
acre and sanitary sewer tap on fee of $570.98 per acre. Payment towards the cost of
constructing Camp Cardinal Boulevard will also need to be addressed at the time of final plat
approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00014/SUB17-00015 a rezoning of 28.03 acres of land
from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) zone to High Density Single -Family
Residential (RS -12) for 5.35 acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) for 3.3 Acres and Rural
Residential (RR -1) for 19.38 acres, and the preliminary plat of Cardinal Point West — Part 2, a
residential subdivision with 9 single-family lots, 6 duplex lots and 1 multifamily lot with 33
dwelling units, subject to general compliance with the concept for lot 32 with the private drive
being limited to a maximum of 18 feet wide, and staff approval of a landscape plan for lot 32
including provision of usable outdoor space with features such as an outdoor dining area and
lawn for informal recreational use.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Exhibit
3. Preliminary Plat
Approved by:
ppdadminL VrepW=menU
John Yapp, Development Sc(rvices Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
R
4�
CITY OF IOWA Cl
n
An application submitted by The Crossings
Development, LC, to rezone 28.03 acres
of land from Interim Development -Research , "4
Park (ID -RP) zone to High Density Single -Family -�
Residential (RS -12) for 5.35 acres, Low Density
Multifamily (RM -12) for 3.3 acres, and Rural cSry'
esidential (RR -1) for 19.38 acres and for approval t9
the preliminary plat of Cardinal Point West Part 2, -'mss H�Gy
6 -lot subdivision that will include 1 multifamily lot, 1g SqY
PAR' OR ME 'COMMIT CANOWNn01` EE NDRTKILST OU,UMEN ANO POT OF IN SWMMST MARTEN of ME
NaMENI, WMTER cF sEcnCN lz. smv z9 IUOpM, WAKE
z xEST (f M SM PMNpvAL A M01RN. IL.A Cm,
JfAM501r COUNTY. ..A .ND PANT OF AUMTDR'S P 5 RECORDED IN BLOW 55. PAGE 37R Al ME OFFICE
OF ME JOIN SON COUNTY. IOWA FSEENCER AND PART OF AUDITOR ?E PARCEL N0. MI2053 AS RECMOER M BIXX 56. PAGE
379 IN ME OFFICE OF ME .EMxsON COUNTY. OM RECORDER DESCRIBED AS FMLDws:
CpMENCNG AT ME SMMEAST COMER OF LOT E, CARDMAL FORM MIT - PART WE As RECORDED N AGER 6U. PAGE
I99 M ME OFFICE OF ME AMPSCN COUN'Y. IOWA NECCNFR: MIENCE IFF.111 TE 10112 FEET: MENCE S29'A Yl Ii 8 D
X2119'2)'.
A SMOG FOOT
21..18
231.57
. FEET ALONG ME AND OF A 720.00 FOOT RAMS CNN
CMAf CARESTER-1 (DIGITS BEARS S1910 401E 9.94 FEET TO ME POINT OF MGIxNMC.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 350 ACRES, SUBACT M EASEMENT AM RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
PART OF ME NONT REST WAFTER OF ME NpiMEASC WAFTER WO PARI CF ME SOUTHWEST WARIER CF ME
NORTHEAST QUARTER CF SECTOR 12, TDNNSµp 79 NOM RANGE l MST OF ME 5TH MUNICIPAL MORGAN. IOWA MY,
R NSON COUNTY, IOWA AND PART OF WINTER S PARCEL NO 2012052 AS RECORDED IN BIXN 55. PACE 379 M ME
OFFICE OF ME LONN50N COUNTY, IDWA RECORDER AND PART CE AWITORY PARCEL NO. 201$053 AS REMAINDER IN BODY
PACE 378 M ME OFFICE OF ME JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
BEM"INC AT ME SMMERLY UNMER OF LOT IS CANDNAL PtlNIE WEST - PART ME AS RECORDED IN BOON 50. PAG
I AS IN ME OFFICE OF ME 2RMEM CMNTI. IOWA RECORDER; THENCE N214505 -E 17MM MET ALONG ME SMM£RL
LINE OF SAID CAROMAL POINTE WEST - PART ONE: MENCE NI.'30'51'E 89F9 FEET ALONG FICO SMONOW I C WP u
MENCE 1285522-w 99,33 MY, MENCE NMW'M'W ISLAS FEET. MIENDE N3Y//'OYW 104.59 MT. MENDE
N300741- W 13460 FEET: THENCE N6917`55 E IMOO FEET MENCE NpLMERLY 614 RET ALONG MF MC CF A 18000
FOOT RAMS CURVE "CAW EASTERLY (CROWD BEARS NTN 2TW 80.73 FEEM: MENCE NRA DRAO'W 151,15 RET YO
MR '.AT O ..A..
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS EM ACRES SURJECT NO LAMONT ANO RESTRICTIONS O RECORD
PART M ME WERNAP r MARTEN AND PART OF ME NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. YDWSIIP 79 TIMIM. RANGE l
WEST IF ME 5TH PRNCIPAL .EAI CORA CITY. JONNSON COUNTY. IOWA AND PART O AVIT R'S PARCEL NO 20IM12 AS
RECORDED M BRM M. PACE III IN ME OFFICE CF ME .KNNSOI COUNTY. IOWA RECCNOP AND PARI O AUOIGR's PARCEL
0. 2012053 A$ RETORTED M BOCK 56. PAM 371 N ME OFFICE O ME JNNSM COUNTY, AURA RECO DER CEYMBEO AS
FOLLOWS:
DEMAND AT ME sWMERLY COMER O LOT 11 DOORNAIL POINTE MST - PART ORE AS RECORDED M WOOL SO PA(£ 166
IN ME OFFICE O ME AINSW COUNTY. IGWA RECORDER: MCNR NF35'A0'E 13YIS FUT: THENCE MMw
SLY $1.44 FEEY
LONG MEWC OF
A '3D GO FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CMUAE EASTERLY (OIORD BEARS Sl'3A'23'E W 15 FRT): MENQ
46911'55 W 12000 FEET; MENCE S3091'AI-E 132,68 RET: THENCE N9000WW 421EE
12 FT TO MMMEN
E sY UNE OF
SAID CARGO WE PONCE WEST - PART DIE: MEND NOOYCO'E 101.13 FEET ALONG SAID $MMERLY UNG MENCE ROTOR 431
1%,17 FEET ALONG SAM SOUTHERLY L ' TRICE N5313'SYE 208.13 FEET ALONG 5110 SOUTHERLY LINE TO ME PONT O
N
REOMNG
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS IW ACRES INFLECT WE EASEMENTS AND RESORCINS O RECON
=ART OF ME NORTHEAST OIANTER O SECTION It OPINION 19 WENTA RANGE 1 WEST O ME SM MORI VENwAN.
OMA OFF. LC NSMI COUNTY. IOWA AND PART O PURIM I PARCEL N0. 2012052 AS RECORDED IN BOON 56, PAR 379 Al
ME OFFICE O ME JMN50N COUNTY. IOWA RELATION DESCRIBED As 9OLONS:
ExEMNMY xG AT ME EACORNER OF LOT . CARDINAL POINTE WEST PART ME AS RECODED N
OTMASTB¢N 61 PAR 166
IB E SSW FEET ALONG END EAST UNE MENCE X21 IPSOTE 1.1
M ME SOUTHERLY LME OF AUOi(N5 PARCEL 2014115 AS AECCRMEI IN SRR 59. PAM 93 N
-- IAN ME WELLINANG MO ME ARC O A
foot RAOUs caMCA`2$OJMMFSrENLr :WRMARSRSM 2a SJ'F�C9 RFS NEMCC saMEIiLV CJI J�fFEI
SAID WESrERLY NMI M MY AND THE M A II 1-1 n P . - YL '-' ..-
31 FEET ALONG SAID ROHM
E X33'19'35"w 64.16 RET; MEN. N37.42M.W 79.04 FEET: MENCE
67.65 RET; WARNERN25YY11'w 65.05 RET: MEVM N16 -49.51-W 10112 RET
AID PARCEL CMTAMS 1.11 ACAES SUBJECT TO EARENAEM5 AND RESWCMMS OF RC1..
EWL DISCNPTpN - M-1 zO.MO MMOT D.
NhOT O CARDINAL PONE WEST - PART ONE IOWA CITY, AGANStx COMB, IOWA AW Al RECCFAED N BJIX 1, PAR
B6 M ME ORAD OF ME JONSON COUNTY. 1. RECONEA,
AID PARCEL COITARD 9.99 ... SUBJECT TO EASERENis ANO RESTRICTIONS O RECORD.
REZONING EXHIBIT
CARDINAL POINTE WEST -PART 2
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
MC GRESSAM- LOW MRCENr. LC 9
1X3 ROS - LOW DENSITY LC C.A. 4xpA -LOW [EN91, RCYCFNn4
Ev51Nc AND USE _ LOW DENSITY M:spwnu n(C MN.'ND) R -r
nxc RALWL - a_1 IcNUIWLEI
¢MALn1E5
It
Mc^E LOWGINDENSITY Lc I ;¢ - -
LMR rllA NSE -Low ;1-1RE9owML b �.
Exrsnxc zaxlxc - R-1
COM=C) I
SURM[Y 3303X0 I i 8,-
/
Z.2
CR0f914 I I 1 r -
nvP. PAW _ r11E L -C N LLwmxwc Lc '
1 CAST.
R I i i a��g ENsnx4 2OUMNE- c-Prq-I. I/ �-
---
P. RwL[Y PPNUY / I I (CCF.LWIE) '
r-
AGERNA ME
1 I I
r7f.EY (N CF
w 1 /
1 Hyl ME LDA3 j
\ FN51ME IONING -L
R -I I u
_ I I-lx[fAOSaxE \ ICRAL.RLE)
r J 1
PLSSNc DMLNWII. LC / y wSMD EM4 RS -5 \ I 5
I I En5M4 :cmx4 - x4_,
LI 1 GROUNIC F
I i 1 MAGING L.USLceLELawlr. is
rtsuN u
, 1 E.2NM4 - 0.O
j 1 1 PA\OSEEI NO.1 'M__ 11
Q'.
1
rtRd
,4l
1
1
I
1
_�
NDEarv4 ofSELowExr,
\ ENs1N4 LAN. u5E FESgwML'
1I, 11
cxasvxc DExLLNLw� Lc III
�'
OUR. WANANG - p -M ONLNIIFNT L<
osw zaxwc - Mal 9mnx4 mlNc - o-69Rvz
I
FEML LANDIa Hn4 I
c - Io- P
Q
Ey
\ °KP°6m z°MP'G -
, I'
op�xc
GOOD zarwc _ RFI
3
\
I
F o_
\
OIYOCMx[I, iC I
m
:�O�ID .I G -MN
.,,
M NOYND
C.r
yO
1.RC RAPID
�6MEANT.
1
111 II
\IN
\ I
y I
Q
\
1
AN AN ON AN
III I
PANAMA AW
NO
\ I G6WBC SCAN M 9t
\
I I 9.'ISd I'•2W'
�
nF1I
'
m/II/Il
/
NE
\
\ IV
PAM
2W34ewx:
200J/ -I6-2
REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREA SITE PLAN FOR
CARDINAL POINTE WEST -PART 2
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
UTILITY AND EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS
rnv or rowA orc.lown
Ga16 DEpA4�DI npi
y[P.RnOrt
wse�9sR ymumwr
.iNm9w¢ Dw.Rnu9r
w°� cNt pmms9
mo- venal wmc
unutt 1£DQ mmxc
w09N ml
vu /e
—on—
m.n—
a
B m
(]19x]66 -61Y
ryl9rsu-szn
vv
plvYm -su0
(m9raav-su
pie}sso-sro
(ewl-ax-mu
(s v)-aav-nu
unutt 1£44N 6-PNOPosm
-m
mow=
n-
.a
.x yle
r 4,ffi
O
na®
mnusumemu D.. vvro
a•
.a wvmva
Vv
NAll PNO HULPROhCf NVNRFA'. )Z�pj.
.awRew
a
LOCATION MAP
P..".
°,
.I , ° \�
r—
.I
Y-- L � L 7�r �!` �1-� L
2
11 ,
I
\�
\\\ PROJE
\4OCATIO \`
\
1 \
HALL A HALL EE HERS INC
„rte PIANS SCALE CORRECTLY WHEN PLOTTED(
SHEET INDEX
._
APPLIUNT .. �COMACT PERSON
OWNER USE
OWWNNERyS A._70RNEY ZONING
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (RS -12)
eimam�
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (RM -12)
AREA CALCMUONS
REZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS """�"''�I°m1P"0 "^`a°"'ss"`_ I.=
ENTIRE SITE IEGAL DESCRIPTION .®
NOTES
PUNT �W+D
THE PRWD= IMPROYP1MM ix=00 IN DIM DNAW.N15 HAVE B@I
ONE—CALL
Dmwm IN AIXONDANE NM TIC MW OF IOM om MQNI33NNc DESG
s DAIOS uANu.LL AND WDAi
na®
mnusumemu D.. vvro
uwsiDN De]P. wm
.a wvmva
rm NE xuuau:
HALL A HALL EE HERS INC
„rte PIANS SCALE CORRECTLY WHEN PLOTTED(
SHEET INDEX
._
APPLIUNT .. �COMACT PERSON
OWNER USE
OWWNNERyS A._70RNEY ZONING
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (RS -12)
eimam�
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (RM -12)
AREA CALCMUONS
REZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS """�"''�I°m1P"0 "^`a°"'ss"`_ I.=
ENTIRE SITE IEGAL DESCRIPTION .®
IOWA
ONE—CALL
na®
mnusumemu D.. vvro
uwsiDN De]P. wm
rm NE xuuau:
NAll PNO HULPROhCf NVNRFA'. )Z�pj.
HALL A HALL EE HERS INC
„rte PIANS SCALE CORRECTLY WHEN PLOTTED(
SHEET INDEX
._
APPLIUNT .. �COMACT PERSON
OWNER USE
OWWNNERyS A._70RNEY ZONING
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (RS -12)
eimam�
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (RM -12)
AREA CALCMUONS
REZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS """�"''�I°m1P"0 "^`a°"'ss"`_ I.=
ENTIRE SITE IEGAL DESCRIPTION .®
ATOF
O]r Ac as rzswsF Y taaoasr t r...o.......r..d. e .��....e •'" F
TO.$F A r0.�]]�F 'Z 01DPC a ]AC t g9�
��' i /�� ��� nwc.•mm M % \ \ vl .m...�m•.u.�s�vv v.mn..sv MM
PT
OMOTIF
OP
�mX
{jj a
i
_M 91tl At l 9
\``\ rT wee. � v mm.r.•e.oas•nxusm y
=HALF NnLL FxTIxEERs IN[ REZONING PRELMINARY PLAL ANO SEN9TYE AREA 97 PLAN EOR\\\ ^•��v"`^°^fix 4
ra.: a A IOWACAROINALL POINTE MSi - PARi ] PREUMINARY Rpl
.,- . E OTT, .11.. LIM ss urovi a ununcs p2 p F
LW+, zOt®a CffY �^ JCNx50N COLI IOWA
A
Ola A.ITNI
AP
ATOF
O]r Ac as rzswsF Y taaoasr t r...o.......r..d. e .��....e •'" F
TO.$F A r0.�]]�F 'Z 01DPC a ]AC t g9�
��' i /�� ��� nwc.•mm M % \ \ vl .m...�m•.u.�s�vv v.mn..sv MM
PT
OMOTIF
OP
�mX
{jj a
i
_M 91tl At l 9
\``\ rT wee. � v mm.r.•e.oas•nxusm y
=HALF NnLL FxTIxEERs IN[ REZONING PRELMINARY PLAL ANO SEN9TYE AREA 97 PLAN EOR\\\ ^•��v"`^°^fix 4
ra.: a A IOWACAROINALL POINTE MSi - PARi ] PREUMINARY Rpl
.,- . E OTT, .11.. LIM ss urovi a ununcs p2 p F
LW+, zOt®a CffY �^ JCNx50N COLI IOWA
& IlRO, •- al xNM3 wsxxor "° m
0 £d .y �m mwnw xolsoaa.n axlaraa M. '1. anm ua 3. m / l.
ir.e ♦aru wlvae z rata - ls3M .n.d trxmwa .e..
ip3 NV d MIS V3aV ...,M aXY 111, AtlVXIWlpae .`I,. . $as......1. 9llvN tlMO} / ---�
k_• .\�� c +i/40,'.w�gm/.. �t.,t��"�:^k ::01 3/SII}l ' li n.0 �,i ;ai`, `` .i/, l�. `.1 ��ai =, �f� \, lna � tea\\
} ��� e} '1'Iw 1 11 11 VIII a< a 1 1�� g+" 'm-• A 1 1N�d� a � _ _ I I �
N I � 44 ✓ 11 1 1 i I I
t V 1 1 1
11
� 1;,,1 e�uv \ �1, \ .,�/ }lµ 1 1\ R v)` _ I w • t.'k I 11. , °s. \ \ {L �3 ��lyd� \ \ a
bw\ I I
��0
x C ° � 1 _ � 1 : l 1` 1r �l � �'<•�t�.� �i S ��
@ a P 1 \\ $ \11
#'�✓ � 1 i � � w a} i
1' 111 � ^l ♦ � IIII 1 � G R F F V Xt d \ 4 � `.�aep3Y1�- _ 4 _
;; }11i.F � I _ i Ir` � 1 1 •l ae Wa ySId+Y'_ # � = j
If /11kf y
_ e � 4 / P IIII 1 ,��` .mvumaoo..mmmrvmummw.
I p, p�lz � �.;�+,••.mw* _Fcr1 , ' � $ eL l 1 1 1 ,.. �o,..o�.. ...
_' � wy, '1`. S, C � ) tr,� 1 II � A 1 I n...,,. �' 3��V< +• I } ..r.......�.w... b...°...,,,,..e.,..,,e,
- ........
�,- Ip 111 � 'i. �v:,, ., - �'° ; � R SNOLLtlIH�1tl� 3d0'IS �NLLSI%3 QN3�31 H]1VH 53dOlS �NLLSIX3
25 TITSF
AC
211 o.nACF
DzsAc � `F
142 SF \ \�
ow AD \.�!
w,AD
REZONING. PREUUINARY PLAT AND SENSITW AREA SITE PLAN FM
CARDINAL PANTE MST - PART 2
IN TNE OTY OF II Cl .
JdMSON COUNTY. I
ODPLOTG
P4.0 2
s
I
ill
l
I I
Til
IIII
�a
PMTM NARY PLAT
W1O1 i. ODnoT G. AND WROT N
P4.0 2
s
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Waddilove
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ17-00014/SUB17-00015
rezoning of 28.03 acres of land from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) zone to
High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12) for 5.35 acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM -12)
for 3.3 Acres and Rural Residential (RR -1) for 19.38 acres, and the preliminary plat of Cardinal
Point West - Part 2, a residential subdivision with 9 single-family lots, 6 duplex lots and 1
multifamily lot with 33 dwelling units, subject to general compliance with the concept for lot 32
with the private drive being limited to a maximum of 18 feet wide, and staff approval of a
landscape plan for lot 32 including provision of usable outdoor space with features such as an
outdoor dining area and lawn for informal recreational use.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ17-00014/SUB17-00015):
Discussion of an application submitted by The Crossing Development, LC is for a rezoning of
28.03 acres of land from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) zone to High Density
Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone for 5.35 acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone
for 3.3 acres and Rural Residential (RR -1) zone for 19.38 acres and a preliminary plat of
Cardinal Point West - Part 2, a residential subdivision with 9 single-family lots, 6 duplex lots and
1 multifamily lot with 33 dwelling units located west of Camp Cardinal Road and south of
Kennedy Parkway.
Howard presented the staff report by first showing images of the area. This area was annexed
into the City between 1969 and 1972 and has been zoned Interim Development - Research
Park (ID -RP) but subsequent development of the Oakdale Research Park reduced market
demand for office park development. Therefore in May 2002, the City Council signed a
Memorandum of Understanding for the Clear Creak Master Plan including a concept that
envisioned a "conservation -type" development including residential and commercial uses in the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 11
area surrounding Camp Cardinal Boulevard. The City has not yet completed a specific District
Plan for this area so the Master Plan is what they look to for guidance.
The current zoning of the property is ID -RP and various other zoning designations are
proposed. The Rural Residential Zone (RR -1) is intended to provide a rural residential character
for areas in the city that are not projected to have the utilities necessary for urban development
in the foreseeable future or for areas that have sensitive environmental features that preclude
development at urban densities. This is an appropriate designation for Outlets F and G, which
contain steep slopes and woodlands that limit development potential.
The High Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -12) is intended to provide for
development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached housing units at a higher density
than in other single family zones. The RS -12 zone allows for single family lots with a minimum
lot area of 5,000 square feet, and a minimum lot width of 45 feet. Duplexes are allowed on lots
with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet and lot width of 55 feet. All lots within the proposed
subdivision meet the minimum requirements of the RS -12 zone. Although lots 33 to 41 are
sufficient in size for duplexes, the applicant indicates that they will be reserved for single family
dwellings. Lots 42 to 47 are intended for duplexes. The purpose of the Low Density Multi -
Family Residential Zone (RM -12), which is proposed for Lot 32, is to provide for the
development of high density, single-family housing and low density, multi -family housing. In this
case, townhouse -style multi -family buildings are proposed.
Howard pointed out that the RM -12 Zone calls for attention to site and building design to help
produce a pleasant residential environment for multi -family living. To prevent excessive
pavement along the rear lane, improve stormwater drainage and provide some minimal space
for trees or landscaping, staff recommends that the rear lane include plantings between the
driveways. The site plan should include a landscaping plan with plantings appropriate for the
area between the driveways. Staff also notes that the proposed 21 foot wide private drive is
wider than necessary (standard alley pavement is only 16 feet wide). The extra width results in
excess paving and may invite speeding. Staff recommends that the private rear lane be a
maximum of 18 feet wide. Reduction of paving will help minimize stormwater runoff and improve
the aesthetics of the area. Howard showed photos of other similar developments and the
landscaping between driveways. Also on the north side of Lot 32, the garage -side of the
townhouse units would be visible from Dubs Drive. The applicant has agreed to screen the west
side of the garages with evergreen trees and design the area as usable open space available
for the residents of the townhouses on lot 32. Options include seating areas, covered picnic
areas, or small playground area.
With regards to the Comprehensive Plan it is covered by the Clear Creek Master Plan and in
staffs view the requested rezoning and subdivision design conforms to the conservation design
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. It also conforms to the housing policy of
ensuring a mix of housing types within each neighborhood and the land use policy to keep
development away from environmentally sensitive areas, such as woodlands and steep slopes.
Howard pointed out the sensitive areas on the site plan with the steep slopes and noted that
with the exception of grading proposed on two of the lots to facilitate stormwater management
and to create suitable building areas, there will be minimal disturbance of the slopes. The
developer is also preserving a significant amount of the woodlands as well. These disturbances
are below the threshold allowed in the sensitive areas ordinance.
Howard stated noted that outlots G and F will be conservation areas maintained by a
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 11
Homeowner's Association, and outlot H will be reserved for future development. The concept
plan shows extension of Dubs Drive and Preston Lane onto Outlet H where Preston Lane will
intersect with Camp Cardinal Boulevard in a future phase of Cardinal Pointe West. Also due to
the sensitive areas there are no street intersections in area proposed east of Preston Lane and
therefore the block length will exceed the 600 feet maximum in the subdivision code. In staffs
view the proposed design helps to minimize the disturbance of the wooded ravines located on
the property, so the longer blocks are warranted to reduce disturbance of sensitive areas.
However, due to the long blocks staff recommends that traffic calming be designed into Preston
Lane. To address this concern the street will be 26 feet wide beginning at the north intersection
with Dubs Drive. At the intersections, neck downs will narrow the pavement to 22 feet. Staff
believes this will help reduce speeds on this residential street.
Howard noted that the neighborhood open space required for the subdivision is 30,056 square
feet of land dedication or fees paid in lieu. The Parks and Recreation Department has indicated
that fees should be collected in lieu of dedication of land. This requirement will need to be
addressed in the legal papers at time of final plat approval.
The stormwater management basin located in Outlet D of Cardinal Pointe West Part 1 has been
designed to provide stormwater management for this new phase of the development. The City
Engineer has confirmed that the existing basin is adequate to serve the stormwater
requirements for Part 2.
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00014/SUB17-00015 rezoning of 28.03 acres of land
from Interim Development - Research Park (ID-RP) zone to High Density Single -Family
Residential (RS-12) for 5.35 acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) for 3.3 Acres and Rural
Residential (RR-1) for 19.38 acres, and the preliminary plat of Cardinal Point West - Part 2, a
residential subdivision with 9 single -family lots, 6 duplex lots and 1 multifamily lot with 33
dwelling units, subject to general compliance with the concept for lot 32 with the private drive
being limited to a maximum of 18 feet wide, and staff approval of a landscape plan for lot 32
including provision of usable outdoor space with features such as an outdoor dining area and
lawn for informal recreational use.
Theobald asked if there was a sidewalk across the street from this development to connect this
development to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Howard noted this development would go through
connecting sidewalks in Cardinal Point West - Part 1 to access Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
Theobald then asked if there were plans for a cross walk across Camp Cardinal Boulevard from
this whole area. Howard is not aware of specific plans for a cross walk, but something of that
nature would be assessed based on need over time.
Freerks asked about the outlots with the wooded areas and since they will be maintained by the
Homeowners Association if there was any plan for protection that needed to be put in place.
Howard said in the final plat stage in the subdivision papers it will be noted as conservation area
and provisions should be included in the subdividers agreement to preserve that area.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Jerry Waddilove (President and CEO, Southgate Companies) stated they are looking to provide
a residential subdivision to the City with a mix of housing types as it is consistent with their
concept plan when they did Cardinal Point West - Part 1. Regarding the private drive for the
townhomes they felt 21 feet gave homeowners ample space to drive through the alley and
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 11
navigate driveways. To have the alley be 18 feet would be typical to the average driveway and
their thought was to make it a little bit wider so people can get through there. He doesn't agree
with the thought there would be a lot of speeding through the alley, it won't act as a "cut -
through" to anywhere. Waddilove stated regarding the sidewalks it is the plan to connect to the
south side of Kennedy Parkway and there is already a sidewalk on the Coralville side of
Kennedy Parkway. He added they would be in favor of some type of traffic control at the corner
of Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Boulevard especially since there is a school there and
likely will have children crossing.
Hensch asked about the private road and when there is future development to the south would
the private road extend into the future development. Waddilove confirmed it would. Hensch
feels at that time he can see people then using the private alley as direct access to Camp
Cardinal Road and feels there should at least be a traffic calming device installed to slow people
down. Waddilove agreed and noted their preference would be to keep the alley at a wider width
and add in a calming device. Freerks still feels the 18 foot alley is best as children will be riding
bikes in the alleyway, and also it could prevent parking along the alleyway. Signs agreed with
the parking challenge, if there is the extra space and people park along there it will be harder for
others to get through.
Dyer asked how many parking spaces will be in each driveway for the townhomes. Waddilove
said there should be room for 4 vehicles, two in the garage and two in the driveway.
Freerks closed the public hearing
Hensch moved to recommend approval of REZ17-00014/SUB17-00015 rezoning of 28.03
acres of land from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) zone to High Density
Single -Family Residential (RS -12) for 5.35 acres, Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) for 3.3
Acres and Rural Residential (RR -1) for 19.38 acres, and the preliminary plat of Cardinal
Point West - Part 2, a residential subdivision with 9 single-family lots, 6 duplex lots and 1
multifamily lot with 33 dwelling units, subject to general compliance with the concept for
lot 32 with the private drive being limited to a maximum of 18 feet wide, and staff
approval of a landscape plan for lot 32 including provision of usable outdoor space with
features such as an outdoor dining area and lawn for informal recreational use.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Freerks acknowledged it is nice to see a development with mixed uses and is in a nice area.
Signs added that the single family and duplexes will be backing up to the natural areas which
will make it even more attractive to buyers.
Theobald agreed but noted her concern is with the sidewalks and hopes that there really are
sidewalks on both sides otherwise it will be difficult for pedestrian travel. Hektoen said that
usually it is a public improvement requirement that is required before a building permit is
approved. Howard noted however it is along the outlot so the issue will need to be clarified.
Freerks noted that this is something that can be addressed by City Staff at the final plat stage.
Howard confirmed that Subdivision Code requires sidewalks along all lots unless waived, so it
should be addressed in the legal papers and on the final plat.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Deferred to 11/21/17
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565030
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance amending Title 17, entitled 'Building And Housing," Chapter
5, entitled "Housing Code," to establish a rental permit cap and to
strengthen the minimum requirements for rental housing.
Whereas, Iowa City, like many cities around the country, currently regulates occupancy
based upon its definition of "family" and whether the occupants are or are not related by blood,
marriage, adoption or placement by a social service agency; and
Whereas, in April 2017 the State legislature adopted a law (HF 134) amending Iowa
Code Section 414.1 to prohibit municipalities, after January 1, 2018, from adopting or enforcing
any regulation or restriction related to occupancy of residential rental property that is based
upon the existence of familial or nonfamilial relationships between the occupants of such rental
property; and,
Whereas, regulation of occupancy based on familial status has been an important tool to
promote peaceful habitation in residential areas of Iowa City for more than 50 years, particularly
in those neighborhoods impacted by their proximity to the University of Iowa campus and the
pressures of the student rental market; and,
Whereas, since at least the 1960s, maximum occupancy has been based on the number
of unrelated persons and off-street parking; and,
Whereas, over fifteen years ago, the City Council began closely considering issues
related to the livability of neighborhoods, including the impact of the rental housing market in
neighborhoods near the University of Iowa campus; and,
Whereas, on October 23, 2001, the City Council established the Neighborhood Housing
Relations Task Force in Resolution No. 01-353 consisting of representatives of owners, tenants,
and neighborhoods to review nuisance laws and policies "to afford peaceful habitation in
residential areas of Iowa City"; and,
Whereas, on June 27, 2002, the Task Force submitted its "Proposed Initiatives/Report of
Task Force" ("2002 Task Force Report") to the City Council; and,
Whereas, the 2002 Task Force Report begins with summarizing the reasons why the
City Council established the Task Force, which include: "[T]he Neighborhood Council [an ad-
hoc group consisting of representatives of neighborhood associations] also explored the efforts
of other college communities to address the tensions that exist when long-term residents co-
exist with significant, short-term rental populations. For example, the Neighborhood Council
collected information on keg ordinances, couch ordinances, tenant information handbooks, and
efforts to limit over occupancy.'; and,
Whereas, seven of the twenty-six recommended initiatives in the 2002 Task Force
Report were directed at occupancy which resulted in the requirement that landlords and tenants
acknowledge in writing the maximum occupancy of the unit (i.e., the Informational Disclosure
and Acknowledgment Form) and the inclusion of the maximum occupancy on the face of the
online rental permit; and,
Whereas, one recommendation in the 2002 Task Force Report specifically addressed
quality and livability of neighborhoods near the University of Iowa: "Direct City Manager to direct
police to consider increased patrols of neighborhoods experiencing numerous disorderly house
and criminal complaints, including, for example, foot patrols in near -downtown neighborhoods
between 2-3 a.m. This proposal would help to stop problems before they happen."; and,
Whereas, the Southwest District and Central District Plans, adopted in 2002 and 2008,
respectively, as integral components of the City's Comprehensive Plan, set forth goals and
objectives for addressing housing and quality of life issues in central city neighborhoods; and,
Whereas, a goal of the Central District Plan is to continue to monitor and enforce the
Neighborhood Nuisance Ordinance and to identify any additional quality of life issues that
surface so that they can be addressed in a timely fashion through targeted code enforcement,
mediation, education, or additional regulations; and,
Whereas, it is a goal of the Central District Plan to work to achieve a healthy balance of
rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods to promote long-term
investment, affordable housing opportunities, and preservation of historic homes and
neighborhoods; and,
Whereas, it is a goal of the Southwest District Plan to stabilize existing single family
neighborhoods in order to provide the opportunity and encourage households of all types to live
close to the University and downtown Iowa, including singles, families, university students and
elderly populations; and,
Whereas, it is a goal of the Southwest District Plan to balance the unique needs of
university students with the goal of protecting existing housing that is suitable for families,
singles, and older persons; and,
Whereas, in recognition of the fact that over -occupancy of rental units is an issue that
negatively impacts the quality, livability and value of neighborhoods, City Council has imposed
the maximum penalty allowed by state law for a violation of the maximum occupancy
requirements of the City Code; and,
Whereas, the loss of this tool significantly threatens the stability of the City's central city
neighborhoods closest to the University of Iowa and requires careful study of alternative options;
and,
Whereas, an illustration of this threat is that soon after House File 134's enactment the
City received approximately 40 applications for building permits on existing single-family and
duplex rental properties that would result in an increase in the number of bedrooms; and,
Whereas, in previous years the City has received fewer than five such applications per
year; and,
Whereas, on June 13, 2017, the City Council in response to HF 134 established in
Ordinance No. 17-4710 a moratorium on the issuance of new rental permits and building
permits that enlarged rental dwellings in the central area of Iowa City that automatically will
expire on January 1, 2018 to study how to mitigate the impacts of rental housing and increases
in occupancy levels on neighborhood stability, housing affordability, public and tenant safety,
urban congestion, blight, risk to public peace and order, conflicts between rental and owner -
occupied housing, and excessive demands upon public safety, infrastructure and municipal
services; and,
Whereas, since passage of Ordinance No. 17-4710, the City has studied the relationship
between concentrations of rental housing and neighborhood stability, quality, and livability and
how best to address the negative impacts resulting from such concentrations; and,
Whereas, Section 364.17(1) of the Iowa Code authorizes municipalities with a population
of 15,000 or more to adopt one of five model housing codes by ordinance and Section
364.17(7) provides that a municipality's housing code provisions may be more stringent than
those in the model code that it adopts; and,
Whereas, the City of Iowa City adopted the housing quality standards promulgated by
the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development for use in assisted housing programs as its
first housing code in 1980 along with more stringent provisions, and its current housing code
continues to be that model along with additional more stringent provisions to protect the welfare
and enhance the safety of tenants as well as owner -occupants; and,
Whereas, Section 364.17(3) requires a municipality that has a housing code to adopt
enforcement procedures; and,
Whereas, the Iowa Supreme Court has stated: The power to enforce housing codes
relating to health and safety is traditionally among the core responsibilities of municipal
government. Lewis v. Jaeger, 818 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 2012); and,
Whereas, over the years, many single-family homes in the neighborhoods surrounding
the University of Iowa campus have been converted from owner occupied to rental; and,
Whereas, a review of the literature including the 2012 study conducted by Hoisington
Koegler Group Inc. for the City of Winona, Minnesota and the September 2016 City of North
Mankato, Minnesota 'Rental Density Study' reveals the following:
1. Many university towns face the problem of large numbers of single-family housing being
converted to rental housing within single-family neighborhoods.
2. Owner occupied homes are generally better maintained than short term rental homes.
3. Over concentrations of rental housing have negative impacts on surrounding residential
properties and neighborhoods in general, including noise, increased traffic, litter, illegal
parking, inadequate property maintenance, and a general decrease in the quality of life
for permanent residents of the neighborhood. The negative impacts typically fall into
three categories (increased nuisance and property maintenance complaints, increased
City Code violations and police citations, decreased property values) and thus are
physical, economic and social, ultimately contributing to decreases in the quality and
livability of neighborhoods.
4. Empirical studies in college towns with pressures created by the student housing market
similar to those in Iowa City such as Gainesville, Florida (home of the University of
Florida); State College, Pennsylvania (home of Penn State University); College Park,
Maryland (home of the University of Maryland); Cumberland, Maryland; and Chapel Hill,
North Carolina (home of the University of North Carolina) , Winona, MN (home of
Minnesota State Winona) and North Mankato, MN (near Minnesota State Mankato
campus) identify a link between the concentration of rental housing and increases in
nuisance complaints, code violations and police incidents.
5. Because such violations negatively affect neighborhood quality and livability, a
concentration of rental housing results in negative impacts to the quality and livability of
residential neighborhoods.; and,
Whereas, to address the increasing rates of conversions of single-family homes from
owner occupied to rental in neighborhoods proximate to college campuses and the negative
impacts resulting from such concentrations of rental housing, several Minnesota cities have
adopted rental density ordinances that limit the percentage of rentals in prescribed areas; and,
Whereas, the City of Winona, Minnesota, for instance, limits the number of rental
properties to 30% of lots per residential block in all residential zones but one; and,
Whereas, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld a challenge brought by landlords to
the Winona "30% rule" finding, in part, that Winona's ordinance that limited to 30% the number
of lots on a block eligible to obtain a new rental permit was a proper exercise of a city's police
power and did not run afoul of the constitutional tenets of equal protection and due process.
Dean v. City of Winona, 843 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014); and,
Whereas, the fall 2016 student enrollment at the University of Iowa was 32,011
(undergraduate, graduate, and professional) with the University of Iowa providing housing for
7,942 students by means of dormitories, fraternities/sororities, University owned units, and
University leased units; and,
Whereas, in the fall of 2016, the University of Iowa provided housing for approximately
25% of the students, which meant approximately 24,000 students needed to secure non -
University providing housing during the 2016-2017 academic year; and,
Whereas, the fall 2017 student enrollment at the University of Iowa is 33,564
(undergraduate, graduate, and professional); and,
Whereas, although the University of Iowa opened a new dormitory (Catlett Hall) in the
fall of 2017, it also leased fewer units on the private market such that it still provides only
approximately 28% of the housing for University of Iowa students, which means that
approximately 24,000 students needed to secure non -University provided housing in August
2017; and,
Whereas, the City has mapped the location of police calls for service for loud parties,
noise complaints, and fireworks during the time period from January 1, 2013 through September
9, 2016 and nuisance complaints submitted through ICGovExpress from April 19, 2013 to March
30, 2017; and,
Whereas, from this mapping of nuisance and noise complaints, a "heat map" was
created that illustrates the relative concentrations of nuisance and noise complaints across the
City; and,
Whereas, this heat map shows that there is a higher concentration of nuisance and
noise complaints in the central City neighborhoods close to the University of Iowa campus;
Whereas, this data is consistent with the findings from other university communities that
have studied these neighborhood stabilization issues; and,
Whereas, the City has established 29 open space districts ("districts") to ensure smaller,
specified geographic areas have adequate usable open space, parks, and recreational facilities
to serve residents within a neighborhood; and,
Whereas, the boundaries of these districts follow logical neighborhood edges, such as
busy streets, railway lines, a river, creeks, and other natural barriers; and,
Whereas, it is reasonable to measure other important aspects of neighborhood health
and stability using these already established neighborhood boundaries; and,
Whereas, the City has mapped each district showing the percentage of single-family and
duplex units with a rental permit as of July 2017; and,
Whereas, a comparison of the heat map of nuisance and noise complaints and the map
showing the relative concentration of single-family and duplex rentals by neighborhood districts
indicates that there is a correlation between the districts with the highest concentration of single-
family and duplex rental units and the neighborhood districts with a widespread concentration of
nuisance complaints and calls for service for loud parties, noise complaints, and fireworks; and,
Whereas, based on the literature review, including the empirical studies in other cities,
and the findings of the City's mapping, the City Council concludes that the concentration of
rental housing in areas impacted by the housing market created by the University of Iowa
results in increased levels of nuisance and police complaints; that these violations are indicators
of increased nuisances and decreased property maintenance levels that negatively affect
neighborhood quality, livability and stability; and, that therefore, the concentration of rental
housing in areas impacted by the University leads to decreased neighborhood quality, livability
and stability; and,
Whereas, six districts close to the University with the highest nuisance and noise
complaints are also those with the highest percentage of single-family and duplex rental units,
with the highest being 82.7% and the lowest being 54.2%; and,
Whereas, beyond these districts closest to the University there are districts with rental
percentages of single-family and duplex units as high as approximately 30% that are not
showing the similar high levels of nuisance and noise complaints and thus can be characterized
as healthy and stable; and,
Whereas, if the six districts with the largest concentration of single-family and duplex
rental units are prohibited from increasing the number of rental permits for single-family and
duplex units, it is reasonable to assume that real estate investors, current Iowa City rental
property owners, parents of University students, and others will look to neighborhoods in
adjacent districts to purchase single-family homes and duplexes to convert from owner -
occupied housing into rental housing to serve the housing market created by the University of
Iowa, and that the negative impacts demonstrated in the districts closest to the University will
spread to the next ring of districts that are reasonably capable of serving the student rental
market ("Impact Area"); and,
Whereas, in light of the above findings, the Council determines that there is a tipping
point in the Rental Impact Area somewhere between a concentration of 31 % of single-family
and duplex rental units and a concentration of 54% single-family and duplex rental units where
nuisance and noise complaints reach a level that compromises the health and stability of the
subject neighborhood districts, and accordingly, it is reasonable to place the cap on rental
permits in districts to prevent the concentration of single-family and duplex rental units from
exceeding 40%; and,
Whereas, to ensure a minimum amount of the dwelling unit is being used as common
space, to prevent property owners from using dining rooms, living rooms, and other areas as
bedrooms that would lead to overcrowding and little shared living space within the home, and to
mitigate the negative impacts of single-family houses being over occupied and used as de facto
rooming houses, no more than 35% of the habitable area of a dwelling should be bedrooms;
and,
Whereas, to discourage existing rental units, particularly single-family and duplex
rentals, from being chopped up to increase the number of bedrooms, while reducing the overall
quality of the living space within the home, and to ensure a more livable bedroom standard for
future rentals, the minimum bedroom size for new rental units and for new bedrooms in existing
rental units should be 100 square feet; and,
Whereas, because single-family houses and duplexes are not designed for high rental
occupancy, interconnected smoke alarms should be required for new rental units with four or
more bedrooms and for existing rentals that add bedrooms; and,
Whereas, to prevent duplex units from functioning as one large house, to increase life
safety, and to increase privacy, duplex units should be permanently separated; and,
Whereas, as requested by the University of Iowa Student Government, all units should
have a deadbolt lock for safety purposes; and,
Whereas, because the number of unrelated persons living in single-family homes will
likely increase with no limit on the number of occupants based on familial relationship and
because single-family houses and duplexes are not designed for high rental occupancy, owner
occupied properties with more than one renter should be required to have a rental permit to
improve safety and to ensure housing code requirements are met in higher occupancy rental
properties; and,
Whereas, to address property owners and tenants who repeatedly fail to abide by the
City's nuisance code, noise -related code provisions, and other provisions that impact the safety,
peacefulness, public order, and stability of neighborhoods, the rental permit sanction provisions
should be strengthened; and,
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 3,
entitled, "Definitions," is amended by deleting the definition of "family" and adding new
definitions of "accessory dwelling unit," "bedroom/sleeping room," and "shared living space" as
follows:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A temporary dwelling unit that is accessory to an owner -
occupied single-family dwelling or duplex.
BEDROOM/SLEEPING ROOM: A habitable room within a dwelling used or intended to be used
for sleeping. Minimum size requirements for bedrooms are set forth in sections 17-5-17 and 17-
5-18 of this Chapter.
SHARED LIVING SPACE: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms, not
including bedrooms, located within a Household Living Use, as defined in Title 14 of this Code.
2. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 3,
entitled, "Definitions," is amended by deleting the definitions of "habitable room," "rental permit,"
"roomer," "rooming house," "rooming unit," and "to let" and substituting in lieu thereof the
following definitions:
HABITABLE ROOM: A room or enclosed floor space within a dwelling having a minimum of
seventy (70) square feet of total floor area with not less than seven feet (7') in any horizontal
dimension, used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes,
excluding bathrooms, toilet rooms, pantries, laundries, foyers, communicating corridors, closets,
storage spaces, stairways and recreation rooms in basements (see definition of Recreation
Room In Basement). Notwithstanding the foregoing, bedrooms must meet the dimensional
requirements as set forth in sections 17-5-17 and 17-5-18 of this Code.
RENTAL PERMIT: A document, issued periodically, which grants the owner or operator the
option of letting a dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or Type III dwelling unit for rental
purposes and showing that the dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or Type III dwelling unit for
which it is issued was in compliance with the applicable provisions of this chapter at the time of
issuance.
ROOMER: An occupant of a rooming unit who is not an owner occupant
ROOMING HOUSE: Any dwelling containing two (2) or more rooming units or type III dwelling
units, in which space is let by the owner or operator to four (4) or more roomers. Occupants of
units specifically designated as type III dwelling units within a rooming house shall be included
in the roomer count. Any dwelling with a combination of dwelling units, rooming units, and Type
III dwelling units is considered a nonconforming rooming house. A rooming house is classified
as an Independent Group Living Use in Title 14 of this Code.
ROOMING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a
Group Living Use, as defined in Title 14 of this Code, and forming a single private unit with
facilities which are used or intended to be used by a roomer or roomers for living and sleeping,
but not cooking.
TO LET: The granting, either in writing or orally, by the owner or operator to another the right to
possess a dwelling, a dwelling unit, a rooming unit, or a Type III dwelling unit.
3. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 16,
entitled, "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit" is amended by deleting
Subsection A in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following Subsection A:
A. Certificate And Permit Required For Rental Property: It shall be a violation of this code
for any person to let to another any dwelling, dwelling unit, duplex, multiple dwelling,
rooming unit, Type III dwelling unit, or rooming house, except the owner occupant who lets
to no more than one tenant, unless:
1. The owner or operator holds a valid certificate of structure compliance, issued by the
City, applicable to those portions of the specific structure used for residential rental
purposes.
2. The owner or operator holds a valid rental permit, issued by the City in the name of
the owner or operator, applicable to those portions of the specific structure used for
residential rental purposes.
4. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 16,
entitled, "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit" is amended by deleting
Subsection C, paragraph 4 in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following Subsection
C, paragraph 4:
4. Expiration Of Permit; Extensions: Rental permits shall be valid through the expiration
date contained thereon. However, extensions shall be granted to cover any time period
between the stated expiration date and the period of time permitted by the inspector to
remedy any violations cited subsequent to a maintenance inspection, provided a rental
application is on file with fees paid, up to a maximum of 12 months.
5. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 16,
entitled, "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit" is amended adding the
following new Subsection C, paragraphs 5c and 8d:
5c. Effective July 1, 2018, the twelve (12) month period of time in Subsection 17-5-
16C5b shall be twenty-four (24) months.
8d. Effective July 1, 2018, the twelve (12) month period of time in Subsections 17-5-
16C8a, b, and c shall be twenty-four (24) months.
6. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 16,
entitled, "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit" is amended adding the
following new Subsection C, paragraph 13:
13. The City may issue a temporary rental permit for a maximum of twenty-four (24)
months if the owner is an individual: (a) (1) who has been occupying the dwelling; (2)
who intends to return to the dwelling; and (3) whose absence is due to a sabbatical, an
extended vacation, spending winter months in a warmer climate, military service, a
volunteer commitment, employment, or substantially similar reason; or (b) who occupied
the dwelling at the time of death and the owner's heir(s) occupies or intends to occupy
the dwelling.
7. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 16,
entitled, "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit" is amended adding the
following new Subsection E, entitled "Rental Permit Cap" and inserting Figure 17-1, Rental
Impact Area Map, attached and incorporated herein:
E. Rental Permit Cap
1. Definitions:
Rental Impact Area means the geographic area delineated as such on the Rental
Impact Area Map in Figure 17-1. Where the boundaries of said area are along
streets, they shall be construed to be along the center lines of said streets.
Rental Permit District means the geographic districts labelled and delineated on the
Rental Impact Area Map in Figure 17-1. Where the boundaries of said districts are
along streets, they shall be construed to be along the center lines of said streets.
2. Within the Rental Impact Area, the City shall not issue a rental permit for any single-
family dwelling or duplex in a Rental Permit District where the percentage of single-
family dwellings and duplex units that have rental permits exceeds 40% of the total
number of single-family and duplex units within said rental permit district, except as
provided herein. This limit shall be known as the rental permit cap.
3. Exceptions to the rental permit cap:
a. Dwelling with a rental permit on the effective date of this section.
b. Dwelling with a rental permit that expired after December 13, 2015 if a renewed
rental permit is issued before July 1, 2018.
c. Existing legally nonconforming single-family dwellings and duplex units located
within a zoning district where single-family dwellings and duplex units are not an
allowed use.
d. Accessory dwelling units.
e. Owner -occupied duplexes, where the owner occupies one unit and leases out the
second unit.
f. Approved bed and breakfast homestays and inns.
g. Dwelling with a temporary rental permit.
h. Group Household as defined in Title 14 of this Code.
7
i. A new single-family dwelling or duplex if a building permit was issued before June
13, 2017.
j. An existing single-family dwelling or duplex if a building permit was issued after
December 13, 2015 and before June 13, 2017.
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Board of Appeals does not
have the authority to grant an exception, variance, or any other relief to the rental
permit cap.
8. Title 17, entitled 'Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 17,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Dwellings," is amended by deleting Subsection K,
paragraphs 1 and 2, and substituting in lieu thereof the following Subsection K, paragraph 1 (no
paragraph 2):
K. Minimum Space, Use And Location Requirements:
1. Floor Area Per Occupant:
a. Every dwelling unit shall contain at least one hundred twenty (120) square feet of
habitable floor space for the first occupant thereof and at least one hundred (100)
additional square feet of habitable floor space for every additional occupant
thereof.
b. The floor area of that part of a room where the ceiling height is less than five feet
(S) shall not be considered when computing the total floor area of the room.
9. Title 17, entitled 'Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing," is amended by renumbering
Subsection D as paragraph 1 and adding the following new Subsection D, paragraph 2:
D2. Newly constructed dwellings with four (4) or more bedrooms shall have
interconnected smoke alarms (hardwired or wireless). Existing dwellings that add one
(1) or more bedrooms shall have interconnected smoke alarms (hardwired or wireless).
10. Title 17, entitled 'Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing," is amended by adding the
following new Subsections L, M, N, O, P, and Q:
L. Bedrooms cannot exceed 35 percent (35%) of the habitable floor area of a single-family
dwelling or duplex unit. This dimensional requirement is subject to administrative review.
M. Bedrooms shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of total floor area.
The floor area of that bedroom where the ceiling height is less than five feet (6) shall not
be considered when computing the total floor area of the bedroom. These dimensional
requirements are subject to administrative review. Any lawful bedroom/sleeping room
greater than or equal to seventy (70) square feet in existence prior to January 1, 2018
may continue to be used as a bedroom/sleeping room. However, if and when it is
brought into compliance with the current minimum dimensional requirements, it may not
be converted back to a substandard size.
N. Within Household Living Uses, as defined in Title 14 of this Code, a minimum of 100
square feet of shared living space shall be provided for every bedroom within the
dwelling unit. By way of illustration, for a two-bedroom single-family dwelling, there must
be at least 200 square feet of shared living space within the dwelling. This dimensional
requirement is subject to administrative review.
O. The two (2) dwelling units of a duplex must be physically and permanently separated,
and the separation must be continually maintained. By way of illustration, a duplex shall
not have a door separating the two dwelling units.
P. Every dwelling unit and rooming unit shall have a deadbolt lock that can be operated
from inside and locked from the outside. "Deadbolt" means a locking mechanism where
the bolt cannot be moved to an open position except by rotating the locked cylinder.
Q. In an administrative review, the Director or designee may grant a minor adjustment to
the dimensional requirement if in conformance with the purposes of this chapter. Minor
adjustments shall be noted in the property file maintained by the Neighborhood and
Development Services Department.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2018.
Passed and approved this
Mayor
City Clerk
day of
2017.
Appr ve
City Attorney's Office
AVE MELROSE AVE
ROHRETRO
'ms's
Figure 17-1. Rental Impact Area Map
� q
t City Park r" Hickory Hill
1 °
�. North Side
J
HWYB ROCHESTERAV
a MARKET ST
y JEFFERSON ST -
IlAWK?NS OR
w bWAM
-� AVE
o�
° .
�irr
F
m
—�
O
x
N
Mrs W
m
�
� q
t City Park r" Hickory Hill
1 °
�. North Side
J
HWYB ROCHESTERAV
a MARKET ST
y JEFFERSON ST -
IlAWK?NS OR
w bWAM
-� AVE
...
° .
—�
College Green
`♦oyE°'
SU
NGTON STN City High
1 MELR EAVE
P
,
r
m -
g
E 1
Riverfront
Crossings
Bowery r
Melrose / Brookland /
East
Longfellow .;
Emerald Roosevelt
0,
-
Nf T
°
Om
NT
m
N
RKWOOD AVE
Miller /
y N'
~ N
a
Orchard
r Mark Twain
Riverfront
NWY6 '
Crossings
Willow Creek
West
NWy a
N
rR "MON
at I'D
ro , ,1
i �J IAbR
dS:SM�VO I MON7REKBLb
Legend
QRental Impact Area
Q Rental Permit Districts
Iowa City City Limits
�r CITY OF IOWA CIT `71-0�6-17
COUNCIL ACTION REPOI
November 6, 2017
Ordinance amending Title 17, entitled 'Building And Housing," Chapter 5,
entitled "Housing Code," to establish a rental permit cap and to
strengthen the minimum requirements for rental housing.
Prepared By: Stan Laverman, Senior Housing Inspector
Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Tracy Hightshoe, Interim Director NDS
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Karen Howard, City Planner
Fiscal Impact: No Impact
Recommendations:. Staff: Approval
Commission: NA
Attachments: Ordinance; Map; North Mankato and Winona studies
Executive Summary:
This ordinance establishes a rental permit cap in certain neighborhoods and strengthens the
minimum requirements for rental housing. The City, like many cities around the country,
currently regulates occupancy based upon its definition of "family." In April the state legislature
adopted a law to prohibit municipalities, after Jan. 1, 2018, from enforcing any regulation that
limits occupancy of rental property based upon the existence of familial relationships. This
legislation has required an examination of whether changes should be made to the City Code
to mitigate the impacts of increased occupancy levels in rental housing on neighborhood
stability and housing affordability. In turn, this examination brought focus to other ways in which
the quality and livability of neighborhoods impacted by the rental housing market can be
improved for both long term and short-term residents.
Background / Analysis:
As detailed in the "whereas" clauses of the ordinance, the City has been considering and
addressing issues related to the quality and livability of neighborhoods for many years, including
the impact of the rental housing market in neighborhoods near the University of Iowa and the
conversion of single family housing to rental housing in these neighborhoods. These problems
are not unique to Iowa City, and are shared by many other University towns. A review of the
literature reveals the negative impacts of concentrations of short term rental housing on
residential housing and neighborhoods in general, including noise, increased traffic, litter, illegal
parking, inadequate property maintenance, and a general decrease in the quality of life for the
residents of the neighborhood. For those interested in additional information attached are the
2012 study conducted by Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. for the City of Winona, Minnesota and
the September 2016 City of North Mankato, Minnesota Rental Density Study.
'r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
,^^7� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
To examine nuisance effects locally, staff created a "heat map' that illustrates the relative
concentrations across the city of nuisance and noise complaints (police calls for service for loud
parties, noise complaints, and fireworks from 1/1113 to 9/9/16 and nuisance complaints, such as
snow, junk, and weeds, from 4/19/13 to 3/30/17)!4his heat map shows that there is a higher and
more widespread concentration of nuisance and noise complaints in central city neighborhoods
close to the University campus.
On this map we have also delineated a Rental Impact Area, which is a geographically defined
part of the city that is most influenced by housing market pressures related to the University of
Iowa. The map also delineates smaller Rental Permit Districts, which are based on the City's
neighborhood open space districts, the boundaries of which follow logical neighborhood edges.
The current percentage of single family and duplex units with a rental permit is indicated within
each of these rental permit districts.
Based on the literature review, including the empirical studies in other cities, and the findings of
the City's mapping, City staff concludes that the concentration of rental housing in areas impacted
by the housing market created by the University of Iowa results in increased levels of nuisance
and police complaints; that these violations are indicators of increased nuisances and decreased
property maintenance levels that negatively affect neighborhood quality, livability and stability;
and, that therefore, the concentration of rental housing in areas impacted by the University leads
to decreased neighborhood quality, livability and stability.
In light of these findings, City staff recommends a number of changes to the provisions of the
City's Housing Code, as explained below.
Establishes a cap on single family and duplex rentals: The ordinance establishes a cap on
single family and duplex rental units within the Rental Impact Area delineated in Figure 17-1. This
ordinance prohibits the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplexes in Rental
Impact Districts, also delineated on Figure 17-1, where the concentration of single-family and
duplex units with rental permits exceed 40%. Presently, there are 6 rental permit districts that
exceed 40%: Brookland/Roosevelt, Riverfront Crossings West, Riverfront Crossings East,
Bowery, College Green and North Side. There are certain exceptions to the cap, such as
duplexes where one side is owner -occupied, approved bed and breakfast homestays and inns,
and accessory dwelling units.
Creates a temporary rental permit: Under limited circumstances, the City may issue a
temporary rental permit for no more than two years if the owner has been occupying the dwelling,
intends to return to the dwelling, and whose absence is due to a sabbatical, military service,
employment, or a substantially similar reason.
X CITY OF IOWA CITY
�-� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
Establishes a maximum percentage of bedroom space within a dwelling unit: To ensure a
minimum amount of the dwelling unit is being used as shared living space, to prevent property
owners from using dining rooms, living rooms, and other areas as bedrooms that would lead to
overcrowding and little shared living space, and to help prevent single family houses from being
over occupied and used as de facto rooming houses, no more than 35% of the habitable area of
a dwelling will be allowed to be bedrooms, and a minimum amount of shared living space is
required in each dwelling unit.
Establishes a minimum bedroom size for rental units: To discourage existing rental units,
particularly single family and duplex rentals, from being chopped up to increase the number of
bedrooms, while reducing the overall quality of the living space within the home, and to ensure a
more livable bedroom standard for future rentals, the minimum bedroom size for new rental units
and for new bedrooms in existing rental units will be 100 square feet.
Requires interconnected smoke alarms: Interconnected smoke alarms are required for new
rental units with four or more bedrooms and for existing rentals that add bedrooms.
Requires duplex separation: To prevent duplex units from functioning as one large house, to
increase life safety, and to increase privacy, duplex units will be permanently separated.
Requires a deadbolt lock: As requested by the University of Iowa Student Government, all rental
units will have a deadbolt lock for safety purposes. "Deadbolt" means a locking mechanism where
the bolt cannot be moved to an open position except by rotating the locked cylinder.
Requires a rental permit for owner -occupied dwellings with more than one tenant: Because
single family houses and duplexes are not designed for high rental occupancy, owner occupied
properties with more than one renter will be required to have a rental permit to improve safety and
to ensure housing code requirements are met in higher occupancy rental properties.
Enhances rental permit sanctions: To address property owners and tenants who repeatedly
fail to abide by the City's nuisance code, noise -related code provisions, and other provisions that
impact the safety, peacefulness, public order, and stability of neighborhoods, the rental permit
sanction provisions will be strengthened by increasing the timeframe the City reviews to count
incidences from 12 months to 24 months.
Spacing requirement not recommended: Staff considered recommending a minimum spacing
requirement between rental properties. However, both the Council and the Housing and
Community Development Commission (HCDC), at their October 30, 2017 meeting, expressed
concern about the effect it may have on affordable housing. HCDC did not support the minimum
spacing requirement between single family/duplex rental units as such a requirement would
impose another layer of restriction on where affordable rental units could be located. The
Affordable Housing Location Model, adopted by City Council, currently limits where the City will
financially support additional rental opportunities for families. Due to these concerns, staff is not
'-` ' CITY OF IOWA CITY
;r� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
recommending a spacing requirement at this time. The minutes of the October 30, 2017 HCDC
meeting will be available in the next Information Packet.
Percentage of Single Family and Duplex Units that have a Rental Permit and Number of Nuisances and Noise Complaints
Each rental area is
labeled with the
percentage of
single-family and
duplex units that
have a rental permit
Data Sources:
Iowa City police cans,
1/1/2013-9/9/2016
Complaints through ICGovExpress,
4/19/2013-3/30/2017
Nuisance complaints include:
-Couches stored outside
-No rental permit
-On street parking violation
-Parking on unapproved surfaces
-Snow removal
-Tall grass and weeds
-Vehicle street storage
Noise Complaints Include:
-Loud parties
-Fireworks
-General noise complaints
Legend
Q Rental Impact Area.ii i N 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
-oJ
t Mile.
-, Iowa City City Limits } . VS.. wa
Q Rental Permit Districts CITYIOWA CITY s
Number of Complaints Author: Sylvia Bochner
Maximum: 226 Department: Neighborhood and Development Services
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Iowa South
Minimum: 1 This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation
only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other
purposes.
- -
15.2
i
- 19.9
1
26
..�`.�
21.5
30.8
1.3
r
0.9 - `
ISOIsi1 .r
-
own was
.w■
.r•. -
6.8
3.4
P �� .�
- LI X65.9
'- 16.9.
_-
- 15.9
_iiia 82.7 '
64.21 65.1m
30.7 -
12.6
0.6 .
17 r
68
28.1
- -
27.9:
�,.
..
14.7
.r
21.5
fiA
21
fill
•.�"
19.4
i r i•-+.��
_L4
.. ice`
�• ��
L
se;
13.3
-
I
1
,
:1
Each rental area is
labeled with the
percentage of
single-family and
duplex units that
have a rental permit
Data Sources:
Iowa City police cans,
1/1/2013-9/9/2016
Complaints through ICGovExpress,
4/19/2013-3/30/2017
Nuisance complaints include:
-Couches stored outside
-No rental permit
-On street parking violation
-Parking on unapproved surfaces
-Snow removal
-Tall grass and weeds
-Vehicle street storage
Noise Complaints Include:
-Loud parties
-Fireworks
-General noise complaints
Legend
Q Rental Impact Area.ii i N 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
-oJ
t Mile.
-, Iowa City City Limits } . VS.. wa
Q Rental Permit Districts CITYIOWA CITY s
Number of Complaints Author: Sylvia Bochner
Maximum: 226 Department: Neighborhood and Development Services
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Iowa South
Minimum: 1 This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation
only. This information is not warranted for accuracy or other
purposes.
Contents
2.2.2 City of North Mankato Comprehensive Plan.........................................................................................................6
Section 3: Studies Conclude Issues Exist When Rentals are Concentrated in Single -Family Neighborhoods ....................8
3.1 Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability are Affected..........................................................................................8
3.2 Negative Impacts Associated with Rental Concentrations in Single -Family Neighborhoods.......................................9
3.3 Decreased Property Values...........................................................................................................................................9
SECTION 4: Peer Cities Review Offer Best Practices for Rental Density Ordinance Revision...........................................10
4.1 Peer cities....................................................................................................................................................................10
Section 5: Legal Framework Enabling Rental Restrictions..................................................................................................11
5.1 Constitutional Validity: Case Study - Dean v. The City of Winona..............................................................................12
Section 6: North Mankato Trends in Neighborhood Conversion to Rental Property........................................................14
6.1 Zoning Districts Affected by Regulation......................................................................................................................14
6.2 Rental Licensing Status...............................................................................................................................................15
6.3 Trends in Rental Licenses............................................................................................................................................16
6.4 Police Calls and Associated Crime Distribution...........................................................................................................19
6.5 Rental Strikes..............................................................................................................................................................21
6.6 Nuisances and complaints in single-family residential neighborhoods..............................................................22
Section 7: Seeking a Right Mance of Owner- and Renter -Occupied Homes.......................................................................... 24
7.1 Addressing Potential Concerns Raised by Citizens.....................................................................................................25
Section 8: Findings and Conclusion......................................................................................................................................26
Section 9: Policy Recommendations....................................................................................................................................27
Appendices............................................................................................................................................................................ 29
A. Minnesota Association of City Attorneys Educational Conference (2014) — Conference Agenda...................................30
B. City of North Mankato Documents...................................................................................................................................31
B.1— Draft Rental Density Ordinance..............................................................................................................................32
B.2 —Moratorium Resolution..........................................................................................................................................33
B.3 — City Code Section § 151.11 Conduct on Licensed Premises...................................................................................34
11 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
C. Peer City Survey Responses..........................................................................................................................................35
D. Legal Framework — Dean vs. City of Winona, MN............................................................................................................36
D.1-843 N.W.2d 249 (2014) — Ethan DEAN, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF WINONA, Respondent. — No. A13-1028 —
Court of Appeals of Minnesota — February 24, 2014......................................................................................................37
D.2 —868 N.W.2d 1 (2015) — Ethan DEAN, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF WINONA, Respondent. — No. A13-1028—
Supreme Court of Minnesota —February 24, 2014.........................................................................................................38
E. North Mankato Police Department's 2015 Year End Report........................................................................................39
E. 1 North Mankato Police Department: Distribution of Police Calls.............................................................................40
21 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Executive Summary
This document explores the effects of rental properties within the community and recommends policy resolutions to
address the increasing conversion of single-family, owner -occupied, residential homes to renter -occupied homes in R -A,
R-1, R1 -S and R-2 residential zoning districts in the City of North Mankato.
The City undertook this study to gain an understanding of the issues associated with the increasing conversions of single
family homes to rentals in the community and to appropriately address those issues with a strong, informed rental
density ordinance that will prevent the deterioration of neighborhood quality of life.
Rental restrictions have come to the forefront of municipal planning efforts in Minnesota as cities realize increased rates
of conversion of single-family homes to rentals. Several studies have documented potential adverse effects associated
with concentrations of rental properties and cities have found resolve with the establishment of ordinances regulating
the number of rental licenses that can be issued on a given block. Research shows that rental concentrations are linked
to increases in nuisances, City Code violations, and calls to the Police Department and data findings in North Mankato
give merit to those claims.
The key findings of this study are outlined below:
• Annual rental license issuance is trending upward on average of 4.3% per year in North Mankato and, if left
unregulated, will allow for the addition of roughly 70 new licenses in the next 5 -year period.
• Rental density regulation is rooted in the North Mankato Comprehensive Plan which contains a policy to "create a
policy that permits a limited number of rental units in a specified area to minimize turnover of owner -occupied
single-family homes to rental units within established neighborhoods."
• The literature review demonstrates a relationship between homeownership and neighborhood stability suggesting
that homeowners have more at stake with their properties and spend more time and resources on maintaining
them. In doing so, property values are maintained and social conditions may improve.
• Four Minnesota cities, including Mankato, West St. Paul, Northfield, and Winona have established successful rental
density ordinances.
• Research supports and data findings suggest that a clear problem exists with unregulated rental concentrations in
urban environments. In North Mankato, data collection and analysis has revealed that the issues exist in the City.
• Lower North Mankato is almost fully developed and stands to be altered by increased rental license issuance
without intervention. At 16% renter occupancy, Lower North currently exceeds the level determined by the City as a
benchmark for neighborhood stability (10% per block). Without offsetting factors such as new development, Lower
North could see the addition of 50 new licenses in a 5 -year period raising the percentage to nearly 19%.
• North Mankato data suggests that increased crime, nuisances and complaints are linked to concentrations of rental
properties in the community. Renter -occupied homes represent approximately 8% of the housing stock in relevant
zoning districts as well as 22% of all police call occurrences.
• In Lower North, renter -occupied homes represent 16% of properties and are responsible for 31% of all police calls.
• City wide, there is one police call to every 4.15 owner -occupied homes and one to every 1.51 renter -occupied
homes. In Upper North, there is one occurrence to every 5.55 owner -occupied homes and one to every 3.22 renter -
occupied home. Finally, in Lower North, there is one to every 2.86 owner -occupied homes and one to every 1.28
renter -occupied homes.
• Rental strikes highlight areas of repeat offenders in the City and those areas are connected to the densest areas of
rental concentrations in the community.
31 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Policy Recommendations from this study are outlined below:
Policy 1: The City should pursue the establishment of §151.18 Rental Density Ordinance (Appendix 8.1).
A rental density ordinance limiting rental license issuance to 10% per block in the community will increase the
potential for successful achievement of neighborhood stability in North Mankato. This ordinance may consider the
differences within Upper and Lower North Mankato and address them separately with different limitations for each.
Policy 2: The City should pursue the establishment of § 151.19 Temporary Rental Licenses (Appendix 8.1).
Other communities have suggested that the establishment of a temporary rental license ordinance alleviates some
unforeseen circumstances that may occur in relation to homeowners who are unable to sell properties but cannot
afford the property or do not reside there.
Policy 3: The City should adopt increased parking requirements for rental properties (Appendix 8.1).
As illegal parking is an issue associated with rental concentrations, the City should pursue increased parking
requirements that will assist with controlling offenders at rental properties.
Policy 4: The City should increase efforts for documenting grass, weed, and nuisance complaints.
The City should set up a spreadsheet database to enhance documentation and better monitor grass, weed, and
nuisance complaints to increase understanding of the adverse effects of these complaints on the community.
41 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Section 1: Purpose and Intent
1.1 Study Purpose
The purpose of this document is to document and recommend policy actions to address the increasing conversion of
single-family and two-family, owner -occupied, residential homes to renter -occupied homes in R -A, R-1, R -1S, and R-
2 residential zoning districts in the City of North Mankato. These trends were identified in a presentation to the City
Council on September 2015. While the City values providing opportunities for renters, research shows that
concentrations of rental properties may lead to undesirable conditions posing a threat to neighborhood quality of
life. These conditions include increased nuisance complaints, City Code violations, and calls to the Police
Department (Appendix E) that impact the public welfare of citizens who both own and rent homes. Data collected in
North Mankato demonstrate a connection between concentrations of renter -occupied homes and increased
incidents of these actions.
1.2 Study Intent
This study provides background information, supporting data, and policy recommendations that work toward a
shared community vision as identified in the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan aimed at
maintaining quality of life in the City of North Mankato and its neighborhoods. In this context, the City approaches
rental regulation in a nondiscriminatory manner, appropriately considering the rights of property owners, renters,
and their neighbors similarly. Regulations such as this are naturally conflictual because of the effect such regulations
have on individuals and property rights. With these values in mind this report recommends additional regulation
based on peer reviewed empirical research, data collection and analysis specific to North Mankato and input from
other Cities in Minnesota who have enacted similar regulations.
This study illustrates the role of rental restrictions in maintaining quality of life standards, provides scenarios of
other cities and strategies they are using to control undesirable effects of rental concentrations, provides a
description of the constitutional validity of a rental density ordinance, provides supporting recommendations from
the North Mankato Comprehensive Plan and other policy documents, contains various data analyses that describe
the implications of rental restrictions in communities, and provides policy recommendations for implementation of a
rental density ordinance. The information described in the study supports the adoption of revisions to Chapter 151,
Section 18 of the City Code by the North Mankato City Council.
51 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Section 2: Background
2.1 North Mankato Rental Licensing Moratorium
On September 21", 2015, the North Mankato City Council issued a one year
moratorium on the granting of new rental licenses throughout the City in
response to an upward trend of issued licenses that predicted densities of
rentals in Lower North would exceed maximum densities set in other
communities in Minnesota.
Local government action to regulate rental density has recently come to
the forefront of planning in Minnesota as cities implement rental density
caps to restrict the percentage of single-family residential conversions to
rental properties to protect neighborhood quality of life. Cities such as
Winona, Northfield, Mankato, and West St. Paul have all established similar
ordinances (Table 1). While Winona, Mankato, and Northfield acted to
regulate rentals in response to the concentration of students living off campus, West St. Paul acted in response to an
increasing amount of foreclosed properties.
Limits allowable rental lots on a block to 30%
Limits 25% of lots on a block to be eligible to obtain rental licenses
Limits 20% of all lots on a block able to receive rental licenses
Limits 10% of lots on a block to receive rental licenses
Table 1. Minnesota communities regulating rental density through city ordinance.
2.2 Policy Background
2.2.1 2015 Strategic Plan
The 2015 North Mankato Strategic Plan was
developed as framework for a shared community
vision of what the community wants to be and
direction on how to get there.
A major goal of the North Mankato Strategic Plan is
"Growing & Vibrant Residential Districts" in the
community. By achieving the balance between owner -
occupied and renter -occupied residential homes, the
City will be closer to achieving and maintaining this
goa I.
2.2.2 City of North Mankato Comprehensive Plan
2.2.2.1 A Vision for North Mankato
The City of North Mankato strives to protect and
enhance the quality of life for residents as the City
grows. Through the Comprehensive Planning
Process, the City has identified a vision (Figure 1)
that "gives the community a stated goal of what
their future will be and is paramount in managing
f
Adaptability. The ability to adjust means and
methods to resolve changing situations
Excellence. Going above and beyond
expectations
Responsibility. Taking ownership and being
accountable for performance
Integrity. Being honest impartial and aligning
actions with principles
Leadership: Achieving a common goal by
motivating others
Figure 1. A Vision for North Mankato. (Source: North
Mankato Comprehensive Plan, 2014)
61 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
the growth and development within the community." The vision statement for the community
captures the overarching, "Big Picture," aspirations of the City.
The proposed rental density ordinance will assist in achieving this vision for the community.
2.2.2.2 Comprehensive Plan – Chapter 4: Housing
According to Chapter 4 from the North Mankato Comprehensive Plan, "The City is open to creatively
seeking opportunities to meet our housing needs and responsibly providing our share of affordable
housing. Housing in North Mankato continues to be a strength in attracting young families to the
area."
The City recognizes that areas like Lower North have high concentrations of rental properties. The
majority of Lower North is also recognized as an ideal location for starter homes for young families,
located in neighborhoods that have been well maintained and contribute to community character. As
evidenced by the Comprehensive Plan, the City would like to preserve this neighborhood quality of
life and continue to provide ideal housing options for starter families as well as additional members
of the local workforce that will meet the workforce needs of the region in the future given the
projected deficit of 2,800 workers by 2025. The following goal and policies were included in Chapter
4: Housing to guide housing to this end:
1. Goal—Provide attractive and desirable residential properties
o Policy 2.1.2: Monitor "at risk" or "blighted" properties or areas and connect property
owners to housing improvement programs, loans and assistance opportunities for
rehabilitation.
o Policy 2.1.5: Consider a policy that permits a limited number of rental units in a specified
area to minimize turnover of owner -occupied single-family homes to rental units within
established neighborhoods.
This document and the proposed ordinance revision it recommends provides an implementation plan
for these policies. As the Comprehensive Plan serves as the guiding document for the achievement of
the shared vision for the community, adherence to the goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the
plan is vital to that achievement.
71 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Section 3: Studies Conclude Issues Exist When Rentals are Concentrated in Single -
Family Neighborhoods
Studies give merit to the claim of adverse effects associated with increased concentrations of rental properties in
neighborhoods. Adverse effects identified in the literature from a concentrated conversion of single-family homes to
rentals include declining neighborhood stability, increased nuisances, property maintenance complaints, police calls, and
declining property values. A discussion of this literature is presented in this section.
3.1 Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability are
Affected
An article entitled "Homeownership and Neighborhood
Stability"' gives merit to conventional thinking that increased
homeownership leads to greater neighborhood stability. Authors
focused research efforts on a conceptual model (Figure 3)
outlining the effects of homeownership rates on various
indicators of neighborhood stability and found support for that
model within existing literature.
At least four aspects of neighborhoods might be stabilized by
homeownership (Figure 2). These include:
At least four aspects of neighborhoods might be
stabilized by homeownership:
• Length of tenure of the current residents
• Property values
• Physical condition of properties
• Social conditions in the neighborhood, such
as school dropout or crime rates
Figure 2. Four Aspects of Neighborhoods Stabilized by
Homeownership (Source: Rohe & Stewart, 1996).
1. Length of tenure of the current residents
2. Propertyvalues
3. Physical condition of properties
4. Social conditions in the neighborhood, such as school dropout or crime rates
Determinants
of
homeownership ,
Homeownership
interests
• Economic
interests
• Use interests
• Participation
in community
organizations
• Social
interaction
• Sense of
community
Residential
satisfaction
Figure 3. Conceptual Model: Effect of Homeownership on Neighborhood Stability. (Rohe & Stewart, 1996)
'William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing Policy Debate
(Volume 7. Issue 11. 1996: 48.
81 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Actions of other
residents and
outsiders, e.g.,
credit flaws,
Neighborhood
media
stability
portrayals,
. Length of
public policies
tenure
' Property
values
• Pmp xty
. Physics]
maintenance
Neighborhood
conditions
• Demands on
conditions
. Steal
city services
conditions
Residential
satisfaction
Figure 3. Conceptual Model: Effect of Homeownership on Neighborhood Stability. (Rohe & Stewart, 1996)
'William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing Policy Debate
(Volume 7. Issue 11. 1996: 48.
81 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Rohe and Stewart advance a model that provides evidence of a link between homeownership and neighborhood
stability. Those opting for homeownership differ from those opting to rent in a number of social characteristics.
Homeowners are more likely stable defined in terms of length of residence and property maintenance. Homeowners
possess both economic and use interests in their properties which leads to increased support for increased property
maintenance standards. These interests also lead to greater social interaction within, and psychological identification
with, the neighborhood as a whole. With this, homeowners may be more likely to join area organizations that protect
neighborhood interests. Research also suggests that "homeowners are more likely than landlords to undertake repairs
and spend more on them." It is these interests homeowners have in their property that fosters a vested interest in the
quality of the neighborhood as a whole.'
The article further suggests that homeownership can be an indicator of a family's status and offers great control over
one's living environment. These represent important social and psychological benefits that are closely guarded by
individuals. The deterioration of surrounding homes within neighborhoods can affect their property and may be
interpreted as threats to their status and security?
Rohe & Stewart also developed a property value model and found this to suggest that changes in the homeownership
rate have a positive association with property value changes; suggesting that even modest increases in homeownership
rates may increase neighborhood property values over time.' Increases in nuisance and property maintenance
complaints, City code violations and police calls associated with rental concentrations are discussed in the following
sections.
3.2 Negative Impacts Associated with Rental
Concentrations in Single -Family Neighborhoods
The Hoisington Koegler Group (HKGI) was solicited by the City of
Winona in 2012 to conduct a literature review relating to rental
housing concentrations and associated negative impacts on
neighborhood quality and livability. This review found several
studies containing empirical analyses linking higher
concentrations of rental houses to negative impacts on
surrounding neighborhoods. Findings concluded that over -
concentrations of rental houses in single-family residential
neighborhoods have the following negative impacts on
Negative Impacts Associated with Rental
Concentrations:
• Noise
• Increased Traffic
• Litter
• Illegal Parking
• Inadequate Property Maintenance
• General Decrease in Quality of Life for
Permanent Residents of the Neighborhood
Figure 4. Negative Impacts Associated with Rental
surrounding residential properties and neighborhoods: noise, Concentrations (Source: HKGI Memorandum to Winona City
increased traffic, litter, illegal parking, inadequate property Council, Planning Commission, and City staff).
maintenance, and a general decrease in quality of life for
permanent residents of the neighborhood (Figure 4).
Nuisance complaints, code violations, and crime incidents are key indicators of a neighborhood's livability and residents'
satisfaction with their neighborhood. The literature supports claims of increased occurrences of these in areas of rental
concentrations. Likewise, data collected in the City of North Mankato provides evidence of this locally and is further
explored in section four of this report.
3.3 Decreased Property Values
HKGI identified several studies through their research (Wang, et al; Rohe and Stewart; Janmaat, Pindell) containing
empirical analyses linking higher concentrations of rentals to decreases in property values of nearby homes. One study
'William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing Policy Debate
(Volume 7. Issue 11. 1996.
91 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
in particular, "The Impact of Rental Properties on the Value of Single -Family Residences,"' concluded that "an inverse
relationship exists between the value of a house and the presence of rental properties in the study area." Data used in
this study included over 23,000 single-family residences and over 1,100 home sales in San Antonio, Texas. The other
studies researched by HKGI supported these findings (Rohe and Stewart'; Janmaat', Pindell6). A Memorandum from
HKGI to the Winona City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff outlining these findings was presented at the
Minnesota Association of City Attorneys Educational Conference in February of 2014. The Conference Agenda can be
seen in Appendix A. No such analysis was conducted assessing the impact of property values in single-family
neighborhoods with a high concentration of rentals in North Mankato as part of this review.
SECTION 4: Peer Cities Review Offer Best Practices for Rental Density Ordinance
Revision
4.1 Peer cities
Several Cities are considered comparable to North Mankato in population size, area, and existing amenities. When
considering policy changes, the City observes these cities for insight on their efforts towards similar initiatives; observing
the successes and challenges they may have encountered. These cities include:
• Albert Lea
• Belle Plaine
• Brainerd
• Faribault
• Hutchinson
• Jordan
• New Ulm
• Northfield
• Owatonna
• Red Wing
• Shakopee
• St. Peter
• West St. Paul
• Winona
These cities were contacted to gain an understanding of the effects of rentals on others and how they deal with issues.
The following questions were sent to comparable cities:
1. If your City has considered a rental density ordinance, will you tell us why?
2. Has your City seen property values decrease in those neighborhoods where single-family conversion to rentals has
increased?
3. Has your community experienced increases in police calls, nuisances and complaints in those neighborhoods
associated with rental concentrations?
4. Can you provide information as to how your community monitors single-family conversion to rental properties?
5. If you have statistical information illustrating the single-family rental housing stock would you be willing to share?
6. Does your City have specific ordinances that regulate single-family rentals for the protection of neighborhood
quality of life?
Several of the cities that responded don't view increases in rental properties/concentrations as an issue in their
community. Most have a type of rental ordinance in place such as a rental registration program or a rental inspection
program but nothing that limits the amount of rental licenses that can be issued. However, several of the communities
have also experienced increased police calls, nuisances and absentee/problem landlords among renter -occupied units.
'Ko Wang, Terry V. Grissom, James R. Webb and Lewis Spellman, "The Impact of Rental Properties on the
Value of Single -Family Residences," Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 30, Issue 2 (1991)
'William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing Policy Debate
(Volume 7, Issue 1), 1996.
'John Janmaat, `The Curse of Student Housing: Evidence from Wolfville, Nova Scotia," 2010.
6Ngai Pindell, "Home Sweet Home? The Efficacy of Rental Restrictions to Promote Neighborhood Stability,"
Scholarly Works (Paper 57), 2009.
101 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Qualitatively, these responses confirm the findings of the literature associated with the consequences of a higher
concentration of rentals in single-family neighborhoods.
Two communities that have established rental density ordinances, Northfield and West St. Paul, responded to questions
regarding the success of their respective ordinances in the community. The City of Northfield stressed that there may be
a perceived benefit provided by the ordinance but that the most measurable improvement related to improving
neighborhood quality of life can be attributed to the City's Rental Licensing and Inspection Program as a whole.
Northfield limits rentals to 20% of homes per block. City Staff mentioned that foreclosures increased following the
recession as owners could not convert the property to rental; a problem in which temporary licensing has provided a
solution.
West St. Paul found success since the implementation of their ordinance in 2006. The City limits rental licenses to 10%
per block in order to keep diversity in housing stock in the community by allowing some rentals while maintaining a well-
established owner -occupied presence. The City applies a tiered fee system to renter -occupied homes that receive police
calls and nuisances. As a result, rentals with the more valid police calls and complaints on a property, pay more for their
licenses renewal. Provisional licenses are assigned to those who pose excessive problems and licenses are revoked if
issues persist. The City has adopted the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) as the guiding document for all
rental inspections, they have implemented mandatory Phase I: Management/Owner Training and have changed the
licensing term to a rolling calendar. Overall, the City is very happy with the outcome of the rental density regulation in
the community. Staff suggests that property values have been stabilized and rental numbers are controlled. West St.
Paul is a City of approximately 20,000 residents and the factors leading to the establishment of their successful
ordinance fall in line with the desires of North Mankato. Cities like West St. Paul will serve as a model for North Mankato
to follow to ensure the appropriate measures are taken to establish an appropriate ordinance. Comments received from
Peer Cities can be reviewed in Appendix C.
Section 5: Legal Framework Enabling Rental Restrictions
Restrictions on the issuance of rental licenses in a municipality brings several constitutional issues into question
regarding equal protection, procedural due process, and substantive due process rights under the Minnesota
Constitution. Additionally, Appellants questioned the level of zoning power provided cities under Minn. Stat. § 42.357,
Minnesota's zoning enabling statute, to regulate housing in a municipality. Recent proceedings involving property
owners and the City of Winona, Minnesota have given new light to the constitutional validity of a municipality's efforts
to control the quantity of rentals in the City.
As discussed before, a common reaction of many individuals when discussing regulating rental density in a municipality
is that regulations such as this violate property rights of individuals. However, if a municipality has more to gain
regarding the general welfare of its citizens, the Minnesota Constitution (according to the Court of Appeals of
Minnesota) upholds this as a valid use of police power (Figure 5) that is not in violation of property rights.
111 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
5.1 Constitutional Validity: Case Study - Dean v. The City of Winona
In 2005, the City of Winona enacted an ordinance restricting
rental units on a given block to 30 -percent in certain zoning
districts. This was prompted by increased parking demands in
the neighborhood and concerns of rental concentrations
leading to neighborhood blight. Ethan Dean, among others,
sued the City after a request for a rental license was rejected.
POLICE POWER
"...the power to impose such restrictions
upon private rights as are necessary for the
general welfare." _
The group alleged the Winona City Council exceeded Figure 5. Definition of Police Power (Source: Dean v. City of
legislative authority with the 30% rental license per block rule Winona, 843 NW 2d 249 — Minn. Court of Appeals 2014).
claiming the ordinance was unconstitutional. The Minnesota Court of Appeals easily concluded against this,
finding that the public's interest in regulating rental housing was sufficient to justify municipality's police power
delegated by the State of Minnesota to regulate property.
Dean and others also raised claims that equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process
rights had been violated by the imposition of the ordinance. In the case of equal protection, "A party may raise
an equal protection challenge to a statute based on the statute's express terms, that is, a 'facial' challenge, or
based on the statute's application, that is, an 'as -applied' challenge." State v. Richmond. 730 N.W.2d 62.71
(Minn.App.2007) "A facial challenge to a statute on equal protection grounds asserts that at least two classes are
created by the statute, that the classes are treated differently under the statute and that the treatment cannot
be justified." In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Minn.1980). Within this context, an equal -protection
challenge requires an initial showing that "similarly situated persons have been treated differently." Based on
this information, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota rejected equal protection challenges concluding the rule to
be facially neutral and that no similarly situated groups were treated differently; the rule was not applied in an
arbitrary manner, and in any event would not have resulted in "invidious" discrimination even if similarly
situated persons were treated differently.'
Substantive due process rights require that "only that a statute not be arbitrary or capricious; the statute must
provide a reasonable means to a permissible objective. Stat v. Behl. 564 N.W.2d 560, 567 (Minn. 1997).3 The
Court of Appeals of Minnesota found that substantive due process rights weren't violated because the
ordinance promoted a valid public purpose of controlling rental density; was enacted after considerable
deliberation and analysis, didn't unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously interfere with private interests, and
was rationally related to the purpose served.'
Appellants also contended that the 30% rule violates their "procedural due process right by unconstitutionally
delegating legislative power to a property owner's neighbors." Arguments that the rule delegated legislative
power to the neighboring property owner's was also rejected finding that neighbors don't vote on how the rule
is applied nor do they make decisions regarding its application.'
This case became moot while on appeal to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The appellants were found to "no
longer have an interest in the outcome of the litigation" as the properties in which rental licenses were being
sought for were sold. Appellants attempted to raise claims that this issue was of statewide significance and
should be ruled on in anticipation of future events to others. Supreme Court Justices found no support for this
determination and suggested that these claims would not be pursued. In light of this, the Supreme Court
declined to reach the merits of the appellants' claims and dismissed the appeal.'
'Dean v. City of Winona, 843 NW 2d 249 — Minn. Court of Appeals 2014
'Dean v. City of Winona, 868 NW 2d 1—Supreme Court of Minnesota 2015
121 Page
MMii
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
The facts and rulings for the case of Dean v. The City of Winona can be seen in Appendix D. The breakdown of
each Court's ruling (the Court of Appeals of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme Court) are located there.
131 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Section 6: North Mankato Trends in Neighborhood Conversion to Rental Property
6.1 Zoning Districts Affected by Regulation
The residential properties being considered for further regulation in this study are those family dwellings
containing 1-4 rental units located in the following residential zoning districts within the City of North
Mankato (Figure 6):
1. R -A: Residential Agricultural District
2. R-1: One -Family Dwelling District
3. R1 -S: One -Family Dwelling, Small Lot District
4. R-2: One- and Two -Family Dwelling District
Figure 6. North Mankato Residential Zoning Districts Subject to Rental Density Regulation: R -A, R-1, Rl-S, R-2
141 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used for data analysis utilizing parcel data acquired through the City
of North Mankato and the Nicollet County Assessor's Office. Only properties within those effected residential
districts were taken into consideration.
Table 3 provides an assessment of properties containing one- and two-family dwellings in R -A, R-1, R1 -S, and R-2
zoning districts in the City. The total number of properties within those districts increased steadily over the 5 -
year period between 2010 and 2014, adding 19 homes per year on average. In 2014, there were 3,757
#Owner -Occupied
Homes
3363
3380
3412
3440
3444
#Renter -Occupied
Homes
307
309
309
313
313
%Owner -Occupied
Homes
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
%Renter -Occupied
Homes
8%
8%
8%
8%_
8%
#of Residences Bui I t
8
19
32
32
4
# Built Owner -Occupied
Homes
8
ll
32
28
4
Table 3. Assessment of Properties in R -A, R-1, Rl-S, and R-2 Zoning Districts from
2010-2014 in North Mankato. (Source: City of North Mankato, Nicollet County
Assessor)
properties within the designated districts. Properties that were vacant, contained more than 4 rental units, or
were built in 2015 or later were removed from the analysis to ensure data integrity. The ratio of owner -occupied
homes to renter -occupied homes in 2014 was approximately 34:3 with rental properties representing
approximately 8% of properties in the residential districts.
In the City of North Mankato, there is a clear distinction between what is known as Lower North Mankato and
Upper North Mankato. Lower North consists of the southeastern portion of the City at the bottom of a large
bluff and containing the Central Business District, City Hall, and various residential neighborhoods, parks, and
schools and some highway commercial and industrial. The opportunity to develop within this area is extremely
limited as it contains the oldest housing stock in the City and is at full capacity. Upper North Mankato, on the
other hand, represents a much larger area extending northwest at the top of the bluff and contains highway
commercial, regional softball and soccer complexes, most of the industrial uses in the City, and some residential.
Upper North contains most of the developable land in the City.
Along with the physical separation of Lower North Mankato and Upper North Mankato comes other distinctions
as well. Trends in rental licensing, the proportion of renter -occupied single-family to owner -occupied single-
family homes, and police calls and associated crime distribution all present differences that distinguish the two
geographic areas. Data analysis considered both areas separately when accounting for these factors and based
recommendations accordingly. Section 3.1.2 outlines the distribution of properties in Upper and Lower North.
6.2 Rental Licensing Status
There are 4,166 total residential parcels in the City of North Mankato with 654 total rental licenses. The City has
1,576 total rental units representing almost 15% of total residential properties. As described in Section 6.1, the
analysis in this study only takes into account those family dwellings containing 1-4 rental units within the R -A,
R-1, R1 -S, and R-2 residential zoning districts. Within those zones, there are 391 total rental licenses (2016)
among 3,757 parcels (Table 3). Renter -occupied properties represent approximately 8% of the total within those
zoning districts throughout the City. However, there is a distinction between Upper and Lower North when
151 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
observing how these numbers are distributed for each. Figure 10
illustrates the distribution of rentals between Upper and Lower
North Mankato.
Though Upper North contains a much larger area, there are only
104 total rental licenses present among the 2,312 parcels. This is
a much lower distribution than that of Lower North which is
subject to smaller lots and older housing stock. Renter -occupied
homes represent just under 4% of homes within relevant zoning
districts in Upper North. See Table 5 for more information
regarding rental licenses and properties in Upper North.
Lower North contains 287 total licenses (more than double that
of Upper North) among 1,445 parcels (only 63% of Upper North
parcels). Renter -occupied homes represent 16% of the housing
stock within relevant zoning districts which is significantly
greater than the level that the City desires. Table 6 shows this
distribution.
These numbers identify a clear distinction between Upper and
Lower North Mankato. Lower North has a greater rental
concentrations of rentals in single-family neighborhoods. The
immediate need for limitations on rental license issuance is clear
Total M Licenses
Total M Parcels
Properties Containing More than One License
Total Owner -Occupied Parcels
Total Renter -Occupied Parcels
% Rental
Table 4. Rental License Distribution in R -A, R-1, R-15,
and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts. (Source: City of
North Mankato).
Total # L
Total tt
Properties Containing More than One
Total Owner -Occupied
Total Renter -Occupied
Table 5. Rental License Distribution in R -A, R-1, Rl-5,
and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts in Upper North
Mankato (Source: City of North Mankato).
Total tt L
Total tt
Properties Containing More than One
Total Owner -Occupied
Total Renter -Occupied
in Lower North. However, a closer look at the trends in rental 1 Yu nernai
Table 6. Rental License Distribution in R -A, R-1, Rl-5,
licensing reveal increases in the issuance of licenses in Upper and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts in Lower North
and Lower North that could lead to high percentages in the Mankato (Source: City of North Mankato).
future
6.3 Trends in Rental Licenses
The conversation of single-family homes to rental properties is trending upward and projections show that these
trends will continue. Keeping in mind the purpose of this study is to find the appropriate balance for
owner/renter-occupied single-family homes, upward trends in license issuance should be observed carefully for
decision making purposes. If left unchanged, upward trends in rental licenses will lead to increased
concentrations in renter -occupied properties.
Figures 7 —9 show trends in rental licensing and an average annual growth rate for each. Overall, the amount of
licenses is increasing annually at 4.2% representing an approximate increase of 14 licenses per year. If this trend
persists, there will be 70 new licenses in the next five years raising the
161 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
s28
Sli
aa3
avx
aea
653
437
420
333
405
38] ]89
47 ]GO
xa
301 313 Average Annual Growth Rate.
Gig 249 2S3 26
��������'''''VVV VVVVVVV��VVVVVVVV���''I�VVVVVVVVVVVV' 4.2%
213 219
Figure 7. Trends in Rental License Issuance — City Wide (Source: City of North Mankato).
Figure S. Trends in Rental License Issuance — Upper North (Source: City of North Mankato).
Figure 9. Trends in Rental License Issuance — Lower North (Source: City of North Mankato).
171 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
percentage of renter -occupied homes from 8% to nearly 10%. Within a 10 year period, these numbers will rise
to a potential 150 new licenses raising the percentage to nearly 12% within the City.
Though Upper North has a smaller percentage of rental properties overall (approximately 4% for Upper North vs.
16% for Lower North), license issuance is increasing at a faster rate (4.8%) than Lower North (4.0%) annually.
This growth is something that staff recommends be addressed in the ordinance revision to maintain a
serviceable balance of renter -occupied homes in Upper North. With the current 4.8% average annual growth
rate, Upper North adds on approximately 4.3 rental licenses per year, but the development of 19 new homes
per year in the specified zoning districts offsets the proportion of renter -occupied homes in Upper North so
rental concentrations have not approached levels like those exhibited in Lower North.
- Renter -Occupied Single Family Homes
R -A, R-1, R9 -S, and R-2 Zoning Districts
i�Yo]�T Upper North Mankato
Lower North Mankato
It 1.
♦_.- r�rrl
' r
`a
WK
It
• CTT. - Ylt� j', -Il"
too -
J
Figure 10. Distribution of Rental Properties in Upper and Lower North Mankato (Source: City of North Mankato, Nicollet County Assessor).
181 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Rates of increases in Lower North present a different scenario that
raises concerns. With existing trends, Lower North will acquire
approximately 10 more licenses per year, leading to approximately 50
new licenses in five years. Though some properties contain more than
one license, it is more likely that this will mean the conversion of 50
more homes to renter -occupied and will raise the amount of renter -
occupied to approximately 280 properties or 19.4% from 16%.
Trends from 2010-2014 show that once a rental license is obtained,
renter -occupied properties seldom convert back to owner -occupied.
With the unlikelihood of properties converting back to owner -
occupied and no new construction to add more housing stock, the
threat of rental properties overtaking Lower North is real and the
application of the rental density ordinance is a necessary measure to
maintain neighborhood stability.
6.4 Police Calls and Associated Crime Distribution
Police call data was collected for the years 2010 through 2014 to
remain consistent with property data. Through GIS analysis, only calls
occurring at properties contained in the relevant zoning districts were
used to determine police call significance. Police calls at renter -
occupied homes were compared to those at
owner -occupied homes and a ratio of
occurrences to properties was developed to
show the impacts of increased police activity
with rental properties (See Tables 11-14
for more information on ratios).
Tables 7 - 9 provide comparison of the
number of properties in the residential
zones susceptible to the rental density
regulation. The number of homes in these
districts has increased slowly but steadily
over the past five years with percentages of
police calls to owner- and renter -occupied
homes growing similarly. While upward
trends in police calls in the City are steady,
what is more significant is that renter -
occupied homes represent approximately 8%
of the housing stock in these zones while
also representing 21% of police calls in the
districts City wide. Of even more significance
is that Lower North renter -occupied homes
are responsible for approximately 31% of
total police calls within relevant residential
zoning districts. This represents a much
higher occurrence of police calls to rentals in
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Figure 11. Renter -Occupied Home in Lower
North Mankato. The stairs leading to the front
entryway are broken and do not have a railing,
paint is in poor condition, front window to
home is in disrepair, and lawn is in poor
condition among other things.
Table 7. Percentages of Owner- and Renter -Occupied Homes and Associated
Police Call Percentages in North Mankato. (Source: City of North Mankato,
Nicollet County Assessor).
Table 8. Percentages of Owner- and Renter -Occupied Homes and Associated
Police Call Percentages in Upper North Mankato. (Source: City of North
Mankato, Nicollet County Assessor).
•
Will
1442
1444
1445
1445
1443.4
%Owner -Occupied Homes
Total#of Properties
2229
2247
2277
2308
2312
%Owner -Occupied
Homes
97%
96%
97%
96%
96%
%Renter -Occupied
Homes
3%
4%
3%
4%.4%
27%
%PC at Owner -Occupied
Homes
94%li
95%
96%
93%.
93%
%PC at Renter -Occupied
Homes
6%
5%
4%
7%
7%
Table 8. Percentages of Owner- and Renter -Occupied Homes and Associated
Police Call Percentages in Upper North Mankato. (Source: City of North
Mankato, Nicollet County Assessor).
•
Total#of Prop erti es
1442
1444
1445
1445
1443.4
%Owner -Occupied Homes
84%
84%
84%
84%
84%
%Renter -Occupied Homes
16%
16%
16%
16%
16%
%PCat Owner -Occupied Homes
67%
73%
72%I
70%
69%
%PC at Re nter-Occu pied Homes
33%
27%
28%x,
30%
31%
Table 9. Percentages of Owner- and Renter -Occupied Homes and Associated
Police Call Percentages in Lower North Mankato. (Source: City of North
Mankato, Nicollet County Assessor).
191Page
Ratio of Police Calls tol
1:4.15 1:5.55 1:2.86
Renter -Occupied Homesl 1: 1.51 1: 3.22 1: 1.28
Table 11. Ratio of Police Calls to Owner -Occupied
and Renter -occupied properties in North Mankato
(Source: City of North Mankato).
Lower North than in Upper North which has only 7% of police
calls occurring at renter -occupied properties. This further
reinforces the need to regulate and monitor Lower North
properties using a different approach to ensure these
numbers do not increase.
Police call data in this study illustrates perhaps the most
compelling evidence of the effects of rental concentrations on
neighborhood quality of life. Police call categories considered
in the analysis include personal crime, property crime,
juvenile offenses, traffic related crimes, neighborhood
support, and other crimes.
A breakdown of data categories and associated actions can be
seen in Table 10 and the distribution of occurrences City
Wide, in Upper North, and in Lower North can be seen in
Figure 12. Further detail on police calls can be seen in the
North Mankato Police Department's 2015 Year End Report in
Appendix E.
Not all police calls are associated with crime. Some are for
assistance, funeral escorts and information. However, these
represent a small portion of calls (See Appendix E for more
detail). A deeper review of the distribution of types of police
calls can be seen in Figure 12 which addresses these
occurrences as they happen City Wide as well as in Upper and
Lower North Mankato.
Figure 12 suggests that percentages of call occurrences are similar among
Upper and Lower North, although, the amount of occurrences is significantly
higher in Lower North in every category. How does this relate to levels of
rental property concentrations? Ratios were developed, as discussed
previously, to show a call occurrence per property relationship Table 11.
Figure 12. Distribution of Police Call Types in R -A, R-1, Rl-S, and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts; City Wide (left), Upper North (middle), and Lower
North (right) Mankato. (Source: City of North Mankato).
201 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Homicide
Alcohol
Terrori sti c Threats
Runaways
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Curfew
Robbery
Tobacco
Assault
All Other Reports
Domestic Assault
Harassment
Harassing Communications
Accident Reports on Public Property
Child/Vulnerable Adult Protection
Accident Reports on Private Property
Domestic Disturbance
Bicycle Accidents (No MotorVehicle)
Disorderly Conduct
Driving Underthe Influence
All Other Reports
Parking Violations
Violation Road & Driving Complaints
Residential Burglaries
Non-Residential Burglaries
Medicals
Theftfrom Building
Animal Control
Theftfrom Vehicle
Public Assists
Motor Vehide Theft
Suspicious Activity
Motor Vehide Tampering
Assist Other Law Enforcement Agencies
Financial Theft
Gun Purchase Permits Applications
Shoplifting
Information Only
Property Damage
Civil Complaints
Arson/Negligent Fires
Alarm Calls
Trespassing
Welfare Checks
All Other Reports
Residence Checks
Funeral Escorts
Reports
Narcotics
Underage Consumption
rer
Weapons
Liquor Violations
AlIOther Reports
Table 10. North Mankato Police Call Categories. (Source: North
Mankato Police Department 2015 Year End Report).
Ratio of Police Calls tol
1:4.15 1:5.55 1:2.86
Renter -Occupied Homesl 1: 1.51 1: 3.22 1: 1.28
Table 11. Ratio of Police Calls to Owner -Occupied
and Renter -occupied properties in North Mankato
(Source: City of North Mankato).
Lower North than in Upper North which has only 7% of police
calls occurring at renter -occupied properties. This further
reinforces the need to regulate and monitor Lower North
properties using a different approach to ensure these
numbers do not increase.
Police call data in this study illustrates perhaps the most
compelling evidence of the effects of rental concentrations on
neighborhood quality of life. Police call categories considered
in the analysis include personal crime, property crime,
juvenile offenses, traffic related crimes, neighborhood
support, and other crimes.
A breakdown of data categories and associated actions can be
seen in Table 10 and the distribution of occurrences City
Wide, in Upper North, and in Lower North can be seen in
Figure 12. Further detail on police calls can be seen in the
North Mankato Police Department's 2015 Year End Report in
Appendix E.
Not all police calls are associated with crime. Some are for
assistance, funeral escorts and information. However, these
represent a small portion of calls (See Appendix E for more
detail). A deeper review of the distribution of types of police
calls can be seen in Figure 12 which addresses these
occurrences as they happen City Wide as well as in Upper and
Lower North Mankato.
Figure 12 suggests that percentages of call occurrences are similar among
Upper and Lower North, although, the amount of occurrences is significantly
higher in Lower North in every category. How does this relate to levels of
rental property concentrations? Ratios were developed, as discussed
previously, to show a call occurrence per property relationship Table 11.
Figure 12. Distribution of Police Call Types in R -A, R-1, Rl-S, and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts; City Wide (left), Upper North (middle), and Lower
North (right) Mankato. (Source: City of North Mankato).
201 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
In Tables 14-15, the "Ratio of PC" rows represent the number of homes impacted by one call. For example, in
Upper North in 2014, there was one police call per every 5.94 owner -occupied home and 1 police call per every
2.77 renter -occupied homes. This ratio provides evidence that rental properties in North Mankato, specifically in
R -A, R-1, R1-5, and R-2 zoning districts, exhibit higher occurrences of crime. City wide, the data suggests that
there is one occurrence for every 4.15 owner -occupied properties and one occurrence per ever 1.66 renter -
occupied properties.
Upper and Lower North exhibit
different ratios but succeed in
maintaining higher occurrences of
police calls to renter -occupied
homes. Upper North exhibits one
occurrence for every 5.55 owner -
occupied homes and one
occurrence for every 3.22 renter -
occupied homes. Lower North
exhibits one occurrence per every
2.86 owner -occupied and one per
every 1.28 renter -occupied.
This evidence supporting
increased police calls to renter -
occupied homes is an important
factor in neighborhood quality of
life and the determination of
regulating rental density in the
City. It is clear that increased rental
concentrations will lead to
deterioration of neighborhoods if
left unchecked and unregulated.
6.5 Rental Strikes
Rental Strikes are regulated under
City Code Section § 151.11
Conduct on Licensed Premises
(Appendix B). Rental Strikes are
Table 12. Police Calls to Properties City Wide (Source: City of North Mankato).
Table 13. Police Calls to Properties in Upper North (Source: City of North Mankato).
issued in response to occurrences of crimes and disturbances. If an occupant receives three strikes against them
within 12 months after any two previous instances for which notices were sent, the license for the rental unit
may be denied, revoked, suspended, or be subject to another penalty imposed by City Council.
'Sage Policy Group, "There is a Rational Basis for Rent Stabilization in College Park, Maryland," April 2005.
10Terance J. Rephann, "Rental Housing and Crime: The Role of Property Ownership and Management, `The Annals
of Regional Science (43), 2009.
11Duncan Associates, "Analysis of Issues Regarding Student Housing Near the University of Florida," April 2002.
12State College Burrough Staff, "Sustainable Neighborhoods in State College Borough," June 8, 2009.
211 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Total# of Police Calls IPC)
945
1088
982
1086
1059
1032
PC at Owner -Occupied Homes
738
900
801
857
827
824.6
PC at Renter -Occupied Homes
207
188
181
229
232
207.4
%PCatOwner-Occupied Homes
78%
83%
82%
79%
78%
80%
%PC at Renter -Occupied Homes
22%
17%
18%
21%
22%
20%
#PC per Owner-Occupi ed Homes
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
#PC per Renter-Occupi ed Homes
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
Ratio of PC to Owner -Occupied Homes*
4.6
1.5
3.8
1.6
4.3
1.7
4.0
1.4
4.2
1.3
11.5
Ratio of PCtoRerrter-Occupied Homes*
Table 12. Police Calls to Properties City Wide (Source: City of North Mankato).
Table 13. Police Calls to Properties in Upper North (Source: City of North Mankato).
issued in response to occurrences of crimes and disturbances. If an occupant receives three strikes against them
within 12 months after any two previous instances for which notices were sent, the license for the rental unit
may be denied, revoked, suspended, or be subject to another penalty imposed by City Council.
'Sage Policy Group, "There is a Rational Basis for Rent Stabilization in College Park, Maryland," April 2005.
10Terance J. Rephann, "Rental Housing and Crime: The Role of Property Ownership and Management, `The Annals
of Regional Science (43), 2009.
11Duncan Associates, "Analysis of Issues Regarding Student Housing Near the University of Florida," April 2002.
12State College Burrough Staff, "Sustainable Neighborhoods in State College Borough," June 8, 2009.
211 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
The City logs rental strikes specific to properties to monitor compliance. Figure 13 illustrates the areas of high
occurrences of rental strikes in relationship to rental license concentrations within the City. This confirms North
Mankato's experience with findings of the literature reviewed that suggests rental concentrations can lead to
increases in nuisance complaints, City Code violations and crime incidents (Sage Policy Group', Rephannlo
Duncan Associates", State College Borough1z). Many of the clusters represent repeat offenders and high
concentrations of offenders. This provides further evidence of the correlation between rental concentrations
and decreases to neighborhood stability. Specifically, this reinforces that the problems are greater in respect to
Lower North Mankato lending to suggestions that a different approach be taken within that area.
Figure 13. Clusters of Rental Strikes in Relation to Areas of High Concentrations of Rental Licenses (Source: City of North Mankato).
6.6 Nuisances and complaints in single-family residential neighborhoods
Over a five-year period, from 2011 to 2015, there were 77 nuisance violations reported to the City of North
Mankato that required action from City Staff. Rental properties represent 8% of properties in relevant zoning
districts in the City and over 10% of these were calls to rental properties in response to violations of City Code
consisting of (but not limited to) improper storage of materials; illegal parking of vehicles, trailers, boats, etc.;
lack of maintenance to buildings, fences, etc.; and storage of unlicensed or inoperable vehicles.
221 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
City Staff have expressed these numbers
represent only events on record. In
previous years, staff has not recorded
nuisances. Instead, the City is in
frequent, direct phone contact with
landlords and property management
companies to resolve nuisance violations Table 15. City of North Mankato Nuisance Violations on Record: 2011 — 2015.
and complaints. Staff suggests increases (Source: City of North Mankato).
in numbers outlined in Table 15 would occur if all events were recorded. Discussion of these events, though not
recorded, gives further indication of adverse impacts of rental properties within North Mankato neighborhoods.
Another adverse effect was analyzed considering the number of complaints for lack of grass and weed
maintenance on properties (Table 16). Again, not all occurrences of grass and weed complaints are recorded
unless they persist. The City's policy is to mow the property and charge the owner for the mowing in the event
that requests for compliance are ignored.
Data supports claims of renter -occupied
properties contributing to a higher
percentage of nuisances and complaints
in North Mankato. Renter -occupied
homes represent 15% of properties sited
for poor grass and weed maintenance.
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
2015
24
22
2
8%
2014
7
5
2
29%
2013
19
19
0
0%
2012
12
10
2
17%
2011
15
13
2
13%
Totalsi
77
69
8
10%
companies to resolve nuisance violations Table 15. City of North Mankato Nuisance Violations on Record: 2011 — 2015.
and complaints. Staff suggests increases (Source: City of North Mankato).
in numbers outlined in Table 15 would occur if all events were recorded. Discussion of these events, though not
recorded, gives further indication of adverse impacts of rental properties within North Mankato neighborhoods.
Another adverse effect was analyzed considering the number of complaints for lack of grass and weed
maintenance on properties (Table 16). Again, not all occurrences of grass and weed complaints are recorded
unless they persist. The City's policy is to mow the property and charge the owner for the mowing in the event
that requests for compliance are ignored.
Data supports claims of renter -occupied
properties contributing to a higher
percentage of nuisances and complaints
in North Mankato. Renter -occupied
homes represent 15% of properties sited
for poor grass and weed maintenance.
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Table 16. City of North Mankato Grass and Weed Complaints on Record: 2011-
2015. (Source: City of North Mankato)
231 Page
2015
51
45
6
12%
2014
50
41
9
18%
2013
26
22
4
15%
2012
51
42
9
18%
2011
21
19
2
10%
Totals
199
169
30
15%
Table 16. City of North Mankato Grass and Weed Complaints on Record: 2011-
2015. (Source: City of North Mankato)
231 Page
Section 7: Seeking a Right Balance of Owner -and Renter -Occupied Homes
A healthy mix of owner- and renter -occupied units is important for a community and many communities strive to
maintain 65 - 70% of their housing units owner -occupied." The North Mankato Comprehensive Plan identifies
conditions in 2012 utilizing 2008 to 2012 estimates from the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau
(Table 17). 2012 data suggests roughly 4,012, or 73.1%, of housing units in North Mankato were owner -occupied,
generally meeting the 65 - 70% goal and giving greater cause to seek a policy that ensures this stability continues. More
Housing Tenure by Type - 2012
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Owner
Percent
Owner
Owner
Renter
Percent
Renter
Renter
Units per
Occupied
Owner
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Occupied
Structure
Units
Occupied
County
State
Units
Occupied
County
State
Single -Family
Detached
3,350
83.5%
85.5%
85.0%
143
9.7%
19.0%
20.0%
Single -Family
Attached
298
7.4%
5.3%1
7.7%1
148
10.0%1
12.1%
7.9%
2-4 Unit Multi -
Family
87
2.2%
1.4%
1.2%
332
22.4%
20.5%
12.8%
5+ Unit Multi -
Family
37
0.9%
0.6%
2.6%
796
53.8%
45.4%
57.5%
Mobile Home
240
6.0%
7.2%
3.5%
60
4.1%
3.0%
1.8%
Total Units
4,012
100%
1009/
100%1
1,479
100%
100%
100%
Table 17. North Mankato Comprehensive Plan: Housing Tenure by Type (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012
American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates.
Housing Tenure by Type -2014
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Owner
Percent
Owner
Owner
Renter
Percent
Renter
Renter
Units per
Occupied
Owner
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Occupied
Structure
Units
Occupied
County
State
Units
Occupied
County
State
Single -Family
Detached
3433
84.40/.
88.0°/
85.1%
179
11.01/8
19.9°/
20.7°/
Single -Family
Attached
260
6.4%
4.9%
7.7%
167
10.3%
10.4%
8.3%
2-4 Unit Multi -
Family
130
3.2%
1.5%
1.2%
349
21.5%
20.0°/
12.60/.
5+ Unit Multi -
Family
16
0.4%
0.3%
2.6%
824
50.80/.
45.0%
56.7%
Mobile Home
228
5.6%
5.2%
3.5%
102
6.3%
4.7%
1.6%
Total Units
4,068
100%1W/.
100'/
1,623
100%
100%
100%
Table 18. Housing Tenure by Type (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 -Year
Estimates.
recently, 2010 to 2014 American Community Survey 5 -Year estimates suggest the City has increased its housing stock by
approximately 56 owner -occupied and 144 renter -occupied units. This identifies an almost 10% increase in renter -
occupied units in the community in comparison to a 1.3% increase in owner -occupied units (Table 18). During the two-
year period between 2012 and 2014, the City issued 27 new rental licenses within the R -A, R-1, R1 -S, and R-2 zoning
districts alone issuing approximately 14 new licenses per year in these districts, as mentioned previously in Section 6.3.
241 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
While conversion of some owner -occupied homes to rental housing is necessary to accommodate market forces and
provide housing choices, too much turnover within established neighborhoods can result in the adverse impacts
described in Section 3. For these reasons and to prevent the effects of the potential problems discussed in Section 3, the
North Mankato Comprehensive Plan recommends a policy that permits a limited number of rental units within a
specified area be adopted.
7.1 Addressing Potential Concerns Raised by Citizens
The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure rental regulation allows a management balance among the mix of
owner- and renter -occupied homes that will allow continued increase of rental opportunities while not forcing
permanent residents out of neighborhoods as a result of rental concentrations. The draft rental density
ordinance can be seen in Appendix B.
Though literature suggests that rental concentrations lead to increases in adverse effects, it should not be
overlooked that many neighborhoods dominated by rental properties are stable and attractive places to live.
Not everyone is capable of owning a home and others may not desire homeownership for a variety of reasons.
Researchers caution against the perception that increased owner -occupied properties in a neighborhood will
remedy all neighborhood problems. Factors contribute to neighborhood issues and, likewise, some owner -
occupied properties are also responsible for increases in nuisance complaints and police call incidence. In
regulating rental license issuance, the City desires to maintain and support what they feel to be a healthy mix of
existing property tenure while considering the aforementioned factors.l"
16William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing Policy Debate
(Volume 7, Issue 1), 1996.
251 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Section 8: Findings and Conclusion
The findings of this study support the City's decision to establish a moratorium on the issuance of rental licenses and to
pursue the adoption of revisions to Chapter 151, Section 18 of the City Code by the North Mankato City Council. Annual
licenses issued are trending upward and police calls, rental strikes, and nuisance violations are greater among rentals
than owner -occupied housing. Further, the ability of a municipality to regulate rental density is engrained in the police
powers delegated to that community through the State Constitution which is defined as: "...the power to impose such
restrictions upon private rights as are necessary for the general welfare."
The key findings of this study are outlined below:
The rental density ordinance is rooted in the North Mankato Comprehensive Plan which contains a goal in Chapter 4 —
Housing to "Provide attractive and desirable residential properties' with policy 2.1.5 to "Consider a policy that permits a
limited number of rental units in a specified area to minimize turnover of owner -occupied single-family homes to rental
units within established neighborhoods."
The literature review demonstrates that there are relationships between homeownership and neighborhood stability.
Homeowners have more at stake with their properties and, in turn, take better care maintaining them. In doing so,
property values are maintained and may increase and social conditions may be improved as another result. Along with
the maintenance of property values comes maintenance of property tax revenues collected by the City benefitting all in
the community.
Other Minnesota cities have adopted similar ordinances for various reasons and have found success. Cities like
Northfield and West St. Paul have found that the combination of the rental density ordinance along with a rental
licensing and inspection program has led to improvements in their communities. Furthermore, the four cities identified,
established their ordinances many years ago and continue to maintain them. This shows that they are indeed working in
the community.
Research supports and data findings suggest that a clear problem exists with unregulated rental concentrations in urban
environments. In North Mankato, data collection and analysis has revealed that the issues exist in the City.
Rental license issuance is trending upward on average of 4.3% per year City Wide with no signs of slowing down in the
future. At this rate, the City would see increases the number of renter -occupied properties amounting to roughly 70 new
rental licenses in the next 5 -year period.
Upper North Mankato is positioned to better absorb additional rental licenses (currently exhibiting only 104 rental
licenses; 4% rental properties) than Lower North as the rate of new development and currently low numbers of renter -
occupancy assist to offset any effects. However, Upper North Mankato licenses are increasing at faster rate (4.8%) than
Lower North (4.2%) annually and this growth may spur the need for enhanced monitoring in the future to maintain the
desired balance of renter -occupied homes in Upper North.
Almost fully developed, Lower North stands to be altered by increased rental licenses without regulation. At 16% renter -
occupancy, Lower North currently exceeds the level determined by the City as a benchmark for neighborhood stability
(10% per block). If rental licensing trends continue in Lower North, the current rate of growth could add 50 new licenses
in a 5 -year period, raising that percentage to over 19%. That figure will only increase as offsetting factors of new
development and low numbers of renter -occupied properties are not applicable to the area.
North Mankato data also suggests that increased crime, nuisances and complaints are linked to concentrations of rental
properties in the community. Renter -occupied homes represent 8% of the housing stock in R -A, R-1, R1 -S, and R-2
zoning districts throughout the community as well as 22% of all police call occurrences. In Lower North, renter -occupied
261 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
homes represent 16% of properties and are responsible for 31% of all police calls. When compared to Upper north
(renter -occupied homes representing 3.6% and responsible for 7.2% of police calls), the disparity between the two areas
increases and it becomes clear that there is a real issue surrounding detrimental effects of rental concentrations
community wide, but more so in Lower North Mankato.
The ratios developed to show the relationship between the occurrence of police calls to owner -occupied and renter -
occupied housing units helps to reinforce these findings. City wide, there is one police call to every 4.15 owner -occupied
homes and one police call to every 1.51 renter -occupied homes. In Upper North, this relationship is one police call to
every 5.55 owner -occupied homes and one to every 3.22 renter -occupied home. Finally, in Lower North, there is one
police call to every 2.86 owner -occupied homes and one to every 1.28 renter -occupied homes.
Rental strikes highlight areas of repeat offenders in the City and those areas are connected to the densest areas of rental
concentrations in the community. This provides yet another measure of the effects of rentals on the community as well.
These findings give merit to the literature that suggests there are adverse effects associated with rental property
concentrations and provide further evidence of the presence of those effects in North Mankato. In light of these
findings, efforts to establish an ordinance in the community that will limit the issuance of rental licensing to protect
neighborhood stability seem to be warranted and should be pursued by the City of North Mankato.
Section 9: Policy Recommendations
In response to growing trends of residential conversion to rental, staff recommend the City Council consider
amendments to the rental licensing ordinance to limit home rentals to 10% per block within R -A, R-1, R -1S, and R-2
residential zoning districts. The City believes this regulation will balance two goals of the Governing Body: First, it will
continue achieve accessibility for all people of all incomes to reside in North Mankato because rental licenses will
continue to be available. Second, it will apply a ceiling on the total amount of property that may be converted to rentals
in the R -A, R -A, R -1S, and R-2 zoning districts so that increased cost of service associated with these properties does not
accelerate at a faster rate than resources available to service the properties. Third, the increase in conversion of single
and two family homes to rentals is especially active in Lower North Mankato. For several years the City and Community
has invested in neighborhood and regional projects with the goal of maintaining the attractiveness of Lower North
Mankato as a neighborhood for families and seniors of all ethnicities and income levels. The return on this investment
may be more difficult to obtain as homes occupied by families and seniors increasingly become converted to rentals.
Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations are provided for the City of North Mankato for the
establishment of a strong rental property licensing and Inspection Program:
Policy 1: The City should pursue the establishment of §151.18 Rental Density Ordinance.
A rental density ordinance limiting rental license issuance to 10% per block in the community will increase the
potential for successful achievement of neighborhood stability in North Mankato. This ordinance may consider the
differences within Upper and Lower North Mankato and address them separately with different limitations for each.
Policy 2: The City should pursue the establishment of § 151.19 Temporary Rental Licenses.
Other communities have suggested that the establishment of a temporary rental license ordinance alleviates some
unforeseen circumstances that may occur in relation to homeowners who are unable to sell properties but cannot
afford the property or do not reside there.
271 Page
MMli
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Policy 3: The City should adopt increased parking requirements for rental properties.
As illegal parking is an issue associated with rental concentrations, the City should pursue increased parking
requirements that will assist with controlling offenders at rental properties.
Policy 4: The City should increase efforts for documenting grass, weed, and nuisance complaints.
The City should set up a spreadsheet database to enhance documentation and better monitor grass, weed, and
nuisance complaints to increase understanding of the adverse effects of these complaints on the community.
281 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
Appendices
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
291 Page
A. Minnesota Association of City Attorneys Educational Conference (2014) —
Conference Agenda
301 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
_ Minnesota Association of City Attorneys
Educational Conference
February 7-8, 2014 Sheraton, Bloomington a
Conference Agenda
Saturday. February 8, 2014
Moderator for the Day: Michael Couri, President, Minnesota Association of City Attorneys
8:00 Ara Check-in and Refreshments Grand Ballroom Foyer
8:30 Ethical Issues Faced by Governmental Attorneys — What, me worried? Grand Ballroom
+ Organization as client
+ Representing multiple clients
+ Client contact issues
Craig Klausing, Senior Assistant Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
9:30 Regulation of e -Cigarettes and Synthetic Drugs Grand Ballroom
+ Prohibition on use, sale, etc.
+ Are e -cigarettes bannable?
+ Duluth example
Gunnar Johnson, City Attorney, City of Duluth
Nathan LaCoursiere, Assistant City Attorney, City of Duluth
Justin Templin, Attorney, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A.
Eileen Wells, City Attorney, City of Mankato
10:30 Refreshment Break Grand Ballroom Foyer
10:45 Short Shots Grand Ballroom
Participating Moderator., TerryAdkins, City Attorney, City of Rochester
+ "And you thought the 6o -day rule only applied to zoning matters"
Erik Nilsson, Assistant City Attorney, City of Minneapolis
+ "Sittin' On the Dock of the Bay (of delinquent water and sewer bills)"
Jeanette Behr, Research Manager, League of Minnesota Cities
+ "Campgrounds to rental housing: Are there no limits?"
George Hoff, Attorney, Hoff, Barry and Kozar, P.A.
+ "You Got A Warrant?"
Bridget McCauley Nason, Attorney, Le Vander, Gillen & Miller, P.A.
+ "Tim's favorites from the listserv"
Timothy Kuntz, Attorney, LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A.
12:00 NOON Wrap-up and Questions/Comments Grand Ballroom Foyer
12:15 PM Adjournment
Mark your calendars now for the Legislative Update ...
Thursday, June 12, 2014 — Minneapolis Marriott Northwest, Brooklyn Park
GTS EDUCATIONAL EVENTS — KNOWLEDGE To ACTION
A0000k GTS Educational Events is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping those who provide
services to Minnesota citizens and communities meet current needs for knowledge and
educational events skills and prepare for the changes to come. Since 1976 we have been collaborating with
policymakers, staff, appointed officials from all levels of government and all types of
nonprofit agencies — and their collaborators in associations, business, higher education
and community groups.
ANCIENT CAMPGROUNDS/RENTAL HOUSING — LRWTS
By George C. Hoff and Shelley M. Ryan
Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A.
775 Prairie Center Drive, Suite 160
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
(952)941-9220
I. CAN THE DENSITY OF RENTAL HOUSING IN TRADITIONAL SINGLE
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BE CONTROLLED?
A. Increasing interest by some communities in slowing the conversion of single family
homes to rental
1. Stability
2. Improve quality of life for families
3. Lessened nuisance complaints caused by concentration
4. Improved property maintenance
B. Methods of control
1. Condition of rental license
2. Zoning control
C. Dean, et al. v. City of Winona Third District Court File No. 85 -CV -11-2329;
currently pending before the Minnesota Court of Appeals as No. A13-10281
1. Brought by the Institute for Justice in the name of three parties who, at least
initially, did not have rental licenses based on the rental limitation
2. City has wrestled with the problems caused by rental concentration since at least
2005; record before the City demonstrated various impacts by police and other
calls, including nuisance
3. When the case was initiated, the rental provision was in the zoning code; it was
then moved to the licensing code
4. Study done by Hoisington Koegler Group showing the effect of concentration of
rental housing based on a national literature review and local data. Conclusion
was that the concentration of rental "results in a negative impact to the quality and
livability of residential neighborhoods"2
5. Study used as findings to support the adoption of rental limitation in the licensing
ordinance (however, the wording and impact were identical to that when in the
zoning ordinance)
6. Sued under the Minnesota Constitution only, with several theories:
a. Ultra Vires
1) Zoning ordinance in disguise
2) Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, City is limited to regulating "use." This
ordinance controls the occupant, not use of residential property
Several years ago, the City of Mankato rental limitation ordinance was challenged. The case was dismissed in its
entirety, including the rental challenge (on some of the same theories as presented in Dean). Plaintiff lacked
standing to challenge the rental ordinance because the building was hazardous and could not be rented. Mankato v.
DiJ 2011 WL 589613 (Feb. 22, 2011).
: The Study is attached.
b. Procedural Due Process — the City unlawfully delegated its licensing authority
to residents
c. Equal Protection — fist come first serve issuance of licenses results in some
getting licenses, others not, even though all are similarly situated
d. Substantive Due Process — regulation is arbitrary and capricious
7. Defenses and District Court3
a. Ultra Vires
1) Plaintiff argued that the City's only authority emanates from zoning and
Minn. Stat. § 462.357, which does not allow the regulation of a class of
occupant — i.e. rental as opposed to owner -occupied
2) City argued that the use controlled is the "commercial use" of the
premises, not the occupant, therefore within its zoning authority
3) Alternatively, if it does not fall within authority given for zoning, it is a
general police power regulation analyzed as to whether the object is a
matter of promoting public welfare and whether the regulation is
reasonably related to that end
4) District Court dismissed claim finding a valid zoning ordinance, and even
if not, authorized under broad police power
b. Equal Protection
1) Plaintiff argued under State v. Russell that the state constitution imposes a
3 part test — distinctions drawn must be genuine and not "fanciful;" class
must be relevant to purpose and there must be an "evident connection"
between the class and the remedy; and purpose must be one state can
legitimately seek to achieve
2) City argued that similar situated persons are not treated differently and
even so, the ordinance satisfies the Russell test
3) District Court agreed with both of the City's arguments and dismissed the
claim
c. Substantive Due Process
1) Plaintiff conceded promoting livability is a legitimate object of
government, argued the density control was not sufficiently related to a
legitimate goal. They offered an affidavit which challenged the
methodology for the first time in court (they were invited to the city
council meetings at which the regulation and study were adopted)
2) City argued that if the ordinance satisfies the heightened state equal
protection test, then substantive due process is satisfied; disagreement over
which expert to follow does not constitute a basis to find that no
"substantial relationship" between goal and regulation can be found
3) District Court agreed with the City and dismissed the claim
d. Procedural Due Process
1) Plaintiff argued that by limiting the number of licenses and providing a
first come first serve standard for issuance, a neighbor who chooses to
apply gives the neighbor legislative control over who subsequently gets a
license, and as such is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority
' District Court Decision is attached.
2
2) City argued that the fust come fust serve standard is neutral and not a
delegation; there must be some limitation; and any due process issues
relate to the City action in the adoption of the regulation (no such
challenge was made)
3) District Court agreed with the City and dismissed the claim
8. Court of Appeals
a• Argued on December 12, 2013. Decision by March 12, 2014.
b. Active panel
1) Focused primarily on two issues and seemed to agree with the City
a. If not authorized under zoning, proper police power regulation
b. If neutral classification in legislation, uneven results of uniform
application cannot give rise to equal protection claim
H. WAPITI V. ELK RIVER, 840 N.W.2D 43 (MINN. 2103)4
A. Campground in the City of Elk River operating in some form back to the 1970's
when in a township
B. Annexed into the City in early 1980's
C. Voluntarily applied for a CUP to allow continued operation as a campground; CUP
issued in 1984
D. CUP became non -conforming in 1988, but campground continued to operate
E. Fire destroyed central store/bar and sanitary building in 1999
F. Because use was non -conforming, City allowed the building to be rebuilt with a ten
year IUP, which expired in 2010
G. City imposed conditions on a new IUP, which were not met by the Campground, and
the IUP expired
H. City revoked the CUP following a hearing for violating permit conditions, including
the allowance of permanent residents
I. Plaintiff sued on the theory that once the CUP became non -conforming, it could not
be revoked; the termination provisions of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 must be used (i.e.
abandonment, etc.); and that they retained their alleged non -conforming use rights
predating 1984
J. Before both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, Plaintiff conceded that its
nonconforming use rights emanated from the 1984 CUP; consequently, there was no
need for discovery or litigation as to the claimed pre -1984 nonconforming use rights
K. District Court, with no rationale, ruled against the City
L. Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the CUP continued; the City had the authority
to revoke the permit under Minn. Stat. § 462.3595; and that revocation was proper
based on the record before the City. Because the CUP was no longer in existence, the
accessory building could no longer be used
M. Despite express concessions by Plaintiff in both the District Court and the Court of
Appeals as to the basis of its nonconforming use rights and lack of discovery or
litigation of those issues (i.e. Plaintiff had the burden of establishing the claimed
rights), the Supreme Court reached the issue of whether pre -CUP nonconforming use
'Copy of Court of Appeals' Decision and Supreme Court Opinion attached.
N.
A
rights remained after a CUP is applied for an accepted. The Court held that absent a
clear waiver of the claimed pre-existing nonconforming use rights, the right continues
to exist. While not a holding in the case, the Court highlighted Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
subd. Ie(b) allowing cities to impose "reasonable regulations" on nonconformities
The Court held that the City could require the IUP for the building under the language
of the City Code in effect in 2000 and that a new IUP must be issued before the
building can be used
Practical application of the case:
1. If there is a nonconforming use that converts to a CUP, obtain an express waiver
from the property owner and any other interested parties of any claimed
nonconforming use rights
2. Because the Court found no waiver, it did not reach the Court of Appeals'
determination that a nonconforming CUP can be revoked, and that portion of the
case is arguably good law
4
Creating Places that Enrich People's Lives
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Winona City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff
From: Mark Koegler and Jeff Miller (HKGi)
Date: February 21, 2012
Re: Winorfa Rental Housing Restriction Ordinance—Literature Review & Data Analysis Findings
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGI) has conducted a literature review relating to rental housing
concentration and Its negative impacts on neighborhood quality and livability. This literature review
included rental housing's relationship with Increased nuisance complaints, Increased police Incidents,
decreased property maintenance levels, decreased homeownership levels, and decreased property values.
Although there is a substantial amount of literature that addresses rental housing issues, much of the
literature does not contain empirical analysis. Through our literature review, we were able to identify
empirical studies of five cities that have faced rental housing Issues that are relevant to Winona. Based
upon our findings from the literature review, HKGI then compiled and analyzed detailed data related to
Winona's rental housing concentration levels and its relationship to nuisance and police violations. Based
on our findings from the literature review and city -level empirical studies that nuisance and police
violations are key indicators of neighborhood quality and livability, we focused our data analysis on the
relationships between concentrated rental housing and nuisance/pollce violations In Winona. This memo
summarizes our literature review and data analysis findings.
I. Literature Reviewed
1. Craig Raborn, "Coping With Colleges: How Communities Address the Problems of Students Living
Off -Campus," Zoning News (May 2002).
2. Duncan Associates, "Analysis of Issues Regarding Student Housing Near the University of Florida,"
April 2002.
3. Jack S. Frierson ;'How Are Local Governments Responding to Student Rental Problems in University
Towns In the United States, Canada, and England?" Georgia Journal of International and
Comparative Law (Winter 2005).
4. John Janmaat, "The Curse of Student Housing: Evidence from Wolfvllle, Nova Scotia," 2010,
5. Ko Wang, Terry V. Grissom, James R. Webb and Lewis Spellman, `The Impact of Rental Properties
on the Value of Single-Famlly Residences," Journal of Urban Economics, 1991.
6. Mayors Commission on Housing & Home Ownership, "Promotion of Home Ownership in the City of
Binghamton: A Report of the Mayor's Commission on Housing and Home Ownership," 2008.
7. Ngai Pindell, "Home Sweet Home? The Efficacy of Rental Restrictions to Promote Neighborhood
Stability," Scholarly Works (Paper 57), 2009.
8. Terance J. Rephann, "Rental Housing and Crime: The Role of Property Ownership and
Management," The Annals of Regional Science (43), 2009.
9. Sage Policy Group, "There Is a Rational Basis for Rent Stabilization in College Park, Maryland," April
2005.
Page 1 of 10
10. Sage Policy Group, "There Remains a Rational Basis for Rent Stabilization in College Park,
Maryland," August 2009.
11. State College Borough Staff, "Sustainable Neighborhoods in State College Borough," June B, 2009.
12. West Urbana Neighborhood Association, "What Other College Communities Have Dane: Examples
of Regulatory Actions to Preserve the Single -Family Residential Character of a Campus
Neighborhood," January 2005,
13. William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing
Policy Debate (Volume 7, Issue 1), 1996.
14. Farley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merlon Township, 1994.
15. Lantos v. Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township, 1993.
II. Issues with Concentration/ Density of Rental Housing In Single -Family Neighborhoods
Regulating the concentration or density of rental housing In single-family residential neighborhoods is a
particular Issue that the City of Winona Is addressing with Its 30% limit of rental housing properties per
block. Specifically, the City's low and medium density residential zoning districts allow rental units as a
permitted use but limit the number of residentially -zoned lots on any block that can obtain rental housing
certification to a maximum of 30%. According to City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, the Parking
Task Force concluded that housing density, property maintenance, off-street parking and deteriorating
residential community character were major problems "resulting from the extensive number of homes
which have been converted to rental purposes"' in some areas of the community. Based on this finding, the
task force proposed to establish a limitation on the number of rental houses that could be concentrated
within each black within all residential zoning districts, with the exception of the R-3 zoning district.
The literature review supports the City's concerns with an over -concentration of rental houses In single-
family residential neighborhoods. Many university towns face the problem of large numbers of single-
family houses being converted to rental houses in single-family residential neighborhoods, thereby,
creating a high concentration of student rental houses within single-family residential neighborhoods. The
literature reviewed supports the argument that over -concentrations of rental houses have negative Impacts
on surrounding residential properties and neighborhoods in general, Including noise, Increased traffic,
litter, Illegal parking, Inadequate property maintenance, and a general decrease in the quality of life for
permanent residents of the neighborhood.2The Impacts typically fall into three primary categories:
• Increased nuisance and property maintenance complaints,
• Increased City Code violations and police citations,
• decreased property values.
Thus, the Impacts are physical, economic and social, ultimately contributing to decreases in the quality and
livability of neighborhoods.
' City of Winona Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, October 24,2005: 5.
' Jack S. Frierson, "How Are Local Governments Responding to Student Rental Problems In UniversityTowns In the
United States, Canada, and England?" Georgialaurnal of International and Comparative taw (Winter 2005):1.
Page 2 of 10
In general, the studies found that rental residential properties, particularly, rental single-family houses, are
generally maintained at a lower level than owner -occupied houses. Property maintenance issues often
include building repairs, yard care, and snow removal. The "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability"
article cites several studies that show "that homeowners are more likely than landlords to undertake
repairs and that they spend more on them."' This same article also asserts that owner -occupied housing
units are generally maintained at a higher level because homeowners, unlike landlords and renters, possess
both an economic and use Interest in their homes. "The Impact of Rental Properties on the Value of Single -
Family Residences" article cites several studies that have empirically demonstrated this situation.
Inadequate property maintenance issues often result in increased levels of nuisance complaints and City
Code violations, as well as decreases In property values of nearby housing.
Several studies (Wang, et al; Rohe & Stewart, Janmaat, Pindell) contain empirical analyses that linked
higher concentrations of rental houses to decreases in nearby property values. The most direct study of
those reviewed relating to Impacts on property values was "rhe Impact of Rental Properties on the Value of
Single -Family Residences" study, which concluded that "an inverse relationship exists between the value of
a house and the presence of rental properties in the study area.."" This study analyzed data from 23,119
single-family residences and 1,162 single-family sales In San Antonio (TX). Another study found that "after
controlling for housing stock characteristics, household characteristics, and MSA -level economic factors, a
5 -percentage -point change [increase] in the homeownership rate of a tract would be associated with about
a $4,000 Increase in mean single-family property value over a 10 -year period of time."s A subsequent
Impact of decreased property values is the decrease in property tax revenues for the City, County and other
taxing jurisdictions.
Several studies (Sage Policy Group, Rephann, Duncan Associates, State College Borough) contain empirical
analyses that link the concentration of rental houses to increases in nuisance complaints, City Code
violations, and crime incidents. Nuisances typically Include yard care (e.g. weed control, grass cutting),
snow removal, refuse, Illegal parking, noise, disorderly conduct, liquor and over -occupancy. Section III of
this memo describes the empirical analyses linking the concentration of rental houses with nuisance
complaints and City Code violations In five cities. Nuisance complaints, code violations and crime incidents
are key indicators of a neighborhood's livability and residents' satisfaction with their neighborhood. The
literature reviewed Indicates Increased incidences of nuisances, code violations and crimes In renter -
occupied houses versus owner -occupied houses. A subsequent impact of Increased complaints, violations
and crime Incidents Is the additional costs incurred by a city to observe, address and process them.
3 William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing Policy Debate
(Volume 7, Issue 1), 1996:48.
Ko Wang, Terry V. Grissom, James R. Webb and Lewis Spellman, "ihe Impact of Rental Properties on the Value of
Single -Family Residences," Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 30, Issue 2 (1991): 164.
'William M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewart, "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability," Housing Policy Debate
(Volume 7, Issue 1), 1996:71-72.
Page 3 of 10
Empirical Studies of Rental Housing Impacts on Community Livability in Five Cities
Through the literature review, we were able to Identify empirical studies In five cities that show a
correlation between the concentration of rental housing and negative impacts on community livability. The
five cities are Gainesville (FL), State College (PA), College Park (MD), Cumberland (MD), and Chapel Hill (NC).
Speciflcalfy, these five empirical studies identify a link between the concentration of rental housing and
Increases In nuisance complaints, code violations and police incidents.
Gainesville. FL
In 2002, the City of Gainesville conducted an analysis of student housing issues in the neighborhoods
around the University of Florida, which were Identified as the study's University of Florida (UF) Context
Area. The City's Comprehensive Plan specifically contains a policy calling for such a study in its Future Land
Use chapter. Policy 5,1.7 states that 'The City shall prepare a study of the impacts of rentals on single-
family neighborhoods and shall Implement additional programs as necessary and appropriate to stabilize
and enhance these neighborhoods.i' Based on Census data for the Census tracts that make up the OF
Context Area, the study estimated that approximately 75% of the residences In this area are used as rental
housing. Using code and noise complaint data from the City's Code Enforcement Division, the study
tabulated and compared the number of complaints from the OF Context Area with the overall city.
Although the OF Context Area represents 23% of the households In the city, the study found that
approximately 51% of the noise complaints came from this area, 46% of the over -occupancy complaints,
50% of the "vision triangle" (obstructed views at Intersection corners) complaints, 43% of the sign
violations, and 37% of the minor housing code vlolations 7
State College, PA
In 1994 and 2007, the Borough of State College compiled "Violations by Housing Type" reports. The housing
types Include apartments, duplexes, fraternities, single-family houses, rental houses, rooming houses and
townhouses. This analysis showed that rental single-family houses had the highest average number of
nuisance violations per unit, followed by duplexes and fraternities." The top four violations for rental
single-family houses were snow, refuse, weeds and noise. The record does not show any evidence that the
maximum of three unrelated persons rule, which was enacted In 1979, reduced the number of conversions
of owner -occupied single-family houses to student rental houses. In 1997, State College Borough
established a minimum spacing ordinance between student rental houses. The record suggests that the
minimum distance between student rental single-family homes has resulted In a decrease in conversion of
owner -occupied homes to rental homes.'
College Park, MD
In 2005, the City of College Park conducted a rental housing study that looked at declining homeownership,
an increasing trend in conversions of owner-occupled single-family housing being to rental housing, and the
6 Duncan Associates, "Analysis of Issues Regarding Student Housing Near the University of Florida," April 2002: 1.
r Ibid: 24.
Staff of State College Borough, "Sustainable Neighborhoods in State College Borough," June 8, 2009: 7.
'lbid:8-9,
Page 4 of 10
concentration of city Code violations occurring In rental single-family housing. In 2004, the study calculated
that the average number of first notice code violations per residential rental unit was 0.78 compared to
0.21 first notice code violations for owner -occupied residential units, which equates to 3.7 times more
violations for rental housing"o. In 2008, there were 0.92 violations per rental housing unit compared to 0.38
for owner -occupied housing unit." This study found an increasing trend in conversions of owner-occupled
single-family homes to rental housing and a corresponding higher rate of City Code violations In rental
single-family housing. in addition to the negative impact on neighborhood quality and livability, this
significant higher level of nuisance violations also results In additional costs for the City to process code
violations, Including observation, recording, communicating and rectifying them.
Cumberland. MD
This paper analyzes the links between residential rental properties and crime incidents in the City of
Cumberland, MD, which has a population of approximately 21,000 residents. Using police Incident report
data forprivately owned rental properties, the type (disturbances, assaults and drug activity) and frequency
of crime incidents were analyzed. The study selected these crimes because "they are frequently found In a
residential setting and are considered important measures or indicators of neighborhood quality of life.""
This study found that Increases in crime were linked to residential rental properties, In particular rental
properties where the landlord does not live on-site, properties that are part of larger rental property
holdings, properties that use Section 8 vouchers, and properties In neighborhoods with a lower percentage
of owner-occupled houses.
Chanel Hill, NC
Chapel Hill's 2000 Comprehensive Plan "Is organized around twelve major themes, each growing out of the
community values that have been identified and which, taken together, form a strategy for Chapel Hill's
future."' One of these major themes is to conserve and protect existing neighborhoods. The
Comprehensive Plan contains an entire chapter devoted to community character, Including goals, strategies
and actions to conserve and protect the character of the community's neighborhoods. "The central purpose
of the strategies and actions contained In the Comprehensive Plan Is to manage growth and change so that
Chapel Hill will continue to have a special community character and quality of life in the future.i14
One of these strategies is to address the neighborhood Impacts of the conversion of owner -occupied
housing to rental housing, including nuisance complaints. The City has identified community indicators that
are monitored annually as a means for tracking progress of the implementation of its Comprehensive Plan
strategies. For the rental housing strategy, the corresponding community Indicator is the percentage of
loud noise complaints that occur In neighborhoods that touch and circle the downtown and central
campus, which have been designated Residential Conservation Areas In the City's Land Use Plan. In 2004,
33% of loud noise complaints occurred In these neighborhoods, which have concentrations of residential
30 Sage Policy Group, "There Is a Rational Basis for RentStabillzation In College Park, Maryland," April 2005: 17.
"Sage PolicyGraup,'There Remains a Rational Basis for RentStabllization in College Park, Maryland," April 2009:11.
"" Terance 1. Rephann, "Renta I Housing and Crime: The Role of Property Ownership and Management," The Annals of
Regional Science (43), 2009:2.
"' Town of Chapel Hill (NC), "Planning for Chapel Hill's Future: The Comprehensive Plan," May 8, 2000:1.
"' Ibld:11.
Page 5 of 10
rental housing.35 Since these neighborhoods represent approximately 20% of the total housing units within
Chapel Hill, they are responsible for a disproportionate share of the loud noise complaints in the
community. The City of Chapel Hill clearly links and monitors rental housing nuisance Incidents with
neighborhood character and quality of life.
IV. Minnesota Examples of Cities with Rental Housing Concentration Regulations
At the state level, In addition to Wlnona's rental housing concentration ordinance, we are aware of three
other Minnesota cities that have established ordinances to address the Issue of concentrated rental
housing— Northfield, Mankato and West St. Paul. While Winona's ordinance established a maximum of 30%
rental housing properties per residential block, the other titles' maximums are all lower including 25%, 20%
and 10%. These three ordinances were all established after Winona's ordinance was In place — Northfield
(2007), Mankato (2008) and West St. Paul (2012).
• Northfield, MN: Located in Businesses Ordinance (not Zoning Ordinance), Rental Housing (Chapter
14, Article III). Limits the percentage of houses on a single block that can be granted rental housing
licenses to 20% in low density neighborhoods (R-1 and R-2 zoning districts).
• Mankato, MN: Located in Business Regulations & Licensing Ordinance (not Zoning Ordinance),
Dwelling Unit Rental (Section 5.42, Subdivision20), Limits the number of lots on any block that are
eligible to obtain a rental license or to be licensed as a rental property to 25%.
• West St. Paul, MN: Located In Building, Housing & Construction Regulations Ordinance (not Zoning
Ordinance), Rental Dwellings (Section 435). Limits single-family rental properties to 10% per block
In an RI zoning district.
is Town of Chapel Hill (NC), "2004 Chapel Hill Data Book," July 2004: S-8.
Page 6 of 10
V. Analysis of Winona Nuisance and Police Violations Data
In order to compare Winona's rental housing situation with the findings from other cities' empirical studies
related to rental housing concentration Issues, which are described In Section III, an analysis was conducted
of Winona's nuisance and police violations data. Since the Cites "30% Rule" zoning ordinance was adopted
at the end of 2005, this data analysis covers the time period of 2006-2011 for nuisance complaints. Police
citation data was analyzed for the 2009-2010 time period. The Intent of this analysis is to calculate and
compare violations data for rental housing vs. owner -occupied housing within non -multifamily residential
areas, as well as concentrated rental residential blocks (blocks currently over the 30% maximum) vs. all
other residential blacks.
This analysis of nuisance and police violations was limited to properties within the City's residential zoning
districts, except for R-3, since the "30% Rule" Is only applicable to these zoning districts. Properties in the
following zoning districts are exempt from the "30% Rule B-1, B-2, B-3, R-3, M-1, and M-2, Within the
applicable residential zoning districts, there are currently 7,383 properties. Some of these residential
properties have not been developed with a residential building yet, therefore, the more relevant total
residential properties number that we used is 6,557 developed residential properties, not Including R-3
properties. In 2011, 1,161 properties had rental housing certification, which means rental housing certified
properties represented 17.7% of the non -multifamily residential properties within Winona.
In 2011, there were a significant numberof blocks that exceeded the maximum level of 30% rental housing.
These blocks contain 1,528 residential properties, including both rental and owner -occupied housing, and
represent 23.3% of the non -multifamily residential properties within Winona. 676 of the 1,528 properties
on the "over 30%" blacks had rental housing certification, which translates to an average of 44.2% rental
housing properties on the "over 30%" blocks. Although many blocks exceed the maximum level of 30%
rental housing, many blocks do not. Within the city's area of traditional square blocks, approximately 700
additional rental housing certifications are permitted on blocks that currently have less than 30% rental
housing. Within the entire city, approximately 1,400 additional rental housing certifications could be
permitted. In other words, less than half of the possible rental housing certifications are currently being
used since 1,171 rental housing certifications currently exist compared to the possibility of an additional
1,400 that could be permitted.
The first type of analysis looks at nuisance complaints for the time period of 2006-2011 for all properties
within residential zoning districts, except R-3. The types of nuisance complaints included the following:
uncontrolled weeds, grass/lawn maintenance, garbage, junk, vehicles, vehicles parked In yard, furniture in
yard, snow/ice, no building permit, building deterioration, fence deterioration, and other. Table 1 below
summarizes total number of residential property complaints, number & percentage of rental property
complaints, and number & percentage of non -rental property complaints. The major finding is that rental
housing properties, which represent just 17.7% of all non -multifamily residential properties within Winona,
were responsible for 51% of the residential nuisance complaints from 2006-2011.
Page 7 of 10
Table 1: Nuisance Complaints— Rental Residential Properties vs. Non -Rental Properties (2006-2011)
Year
Total Number
of Residential
Property
Complaints
Number of
Rental Property
Complaints
%Associated
w/ Rental
Properties
Numberof
Non -Rental
Property
Complaints
%Associated
w/ Non -Rental
Properties
2011
345
133
39%
212
61%
2010
414
194
47%
220
53%
2009
492
249
51%
243
49%
2008
413
232
56%
181
44%
2007
416
255
61%
161
39%
2006
236
108
46%
128
54%
2006-2011
2,316
1,171
51%
1,145
49%
(Vote: Rental housing properties represent 17.7% of all non-mutty'amily residential properties In win on a, not including
residential properties in the following exempted zoning districts—B-1, B-2, B-3, R-3, M-1 and M-2.
The second type of analysis looks at nuisance complaints for the time period of 2006-2011 comparing
blacks with over 30% rental housing to blocks with less than 30% rental housing. Table 2 below summarizes
total number of residential property complaints, number & percentage of complaints associated with
blocks having over 30% rental housing, and number & percentage of complaints associated with blocks
having less than 30% rental housing. The major finding Is that blocks with over 30% rental housing, which
represent just 23.3% of all non -multifamily residential properties within Winona, were responsible for 47%
of the residential nuisance complaints from 2006.2011.
Table 2: Nuisance Complaints— Concentrated Rental Blocks vs. Other Residential Blocks (2006.2011)
Year
Total Numberof
Residential
Property
complaints
F Numberof
Complaints In
Blocks OVER
30% Rental
Housing
%Assoclated w/
Blocks OVER
3096Rental
Housing
Number of
Complaints In
Blacks LESS
THAN30%
Rental Housin_a
%Associated w/
Blocks LESS
THAN 3036
Rental Housing
2011
345
131
38%
214
62%
2010
414
187
45%
227
55%
2009
492
233
47%
259
53%
2008
413
203
49%
210
51%
2007
416
228
55%
18g
45%
2006
236
102
43%
134
57%
2006-2011
2,316
1,084
47%
1,232
53%
ivore: piocxs wlm over 3u% rentoi nousing represent 23.396 of oil non-multifamBy residentlol properties in Winona, not
including residential properties in the following exempted zoning districts —B-1, B-2, B-3, R-3, M-1 and M-2.
Page 8 of 10
The third type of analysis delves deeper into nuisance complaints for the time period of 2006-2011 to
compare rental/non-rental properties on "over 30% rental blocks" with rental/non-rental properties on
"less than 30% rental blocks". Table 3 below summarizes this data. The analysis In the upper half of Table 3
shows that rental housing properties on concentrated rental blocks had an average number of nuisance
complaints per property of 1.16 vs. 0.80 for rental housing properties on non -concentrated rental blocks.
This difference translates to a 45% higher rate of nuisance complaints for rental housing properties that are
located on concentrated rental blocks. Another way to look at it is that rental housing properties located on
concentrated rental blocks, which represent 10% of all residential properties, are responsible for 34% of
residential nuisance complaints. Furthermore, the analysis in the lower half of Table 3 shows that non -
rental housing properties on concentrated rental blocks had an average number of nuisance complaints per
property of 0.35 vs. 0.19 for non -rental housing properties on non -concentrated rental blocks. Thus, the
concentration of rental housing creates a spillover effect on non -rental housing to Increase Its rate of
average nuisance complaints per property more than 80%.
Table 3: Nuisance Complaints --Rental/Non-Rental Properties & Concentrated Rental Blocks (2006-2011)
Type ofProperties
Total
Number of
Average
%of Total
96 of
Number of
Nuisance
Number of
Residential
Nuisance
Properties
Complaints
Nuisance
Properties
Complaints
2006-2011
Complaints
per Property
Rental Housing Properties
676
783
1.16
10%
34%
on Over 30% Rental Blocks
Rental Housing Properties
485
388
0.80
8%
17%
on Less Than 30% Rental
Blocks
say k.
itl'
<•--fillfirs
L'E-:
Non Rental Housing
852
301
0.35
13%
13%
Properties on Over 30%
Rental Blocks
Non -Rental Housing
4,544
844
(mg
69%
36%
Properties on Less Than
30% Rental Blocks _
Total
6,557
2,316
0.35
100%
100%
The fourth type of analysis looks at police citations for the 2009-2010 time period. The types of police
citations analyzed included primarily loud party, minor consumption, social host ordinance, public
urination, criminal damage to property, and theft/burglary. Table 4 below compares the number of police
citations associated with rental/non-rental properties on "over 30% rental blocks" with rental/non-rental
properties on "less than 30% rental blocks". The analysis In the upper half of Table 4 shows that rental
housing properties on concentrated rental blocks had an average number of police citations per property of
0.0533 vs. 0.0206 for rental housing properties on non -concentrated rental blocks. This difference
translates to a 160% higher rate of police citations for rental housing properties that are located on
concentrated rental blocks. Another way to look at it is that rental housing properties located on
Page 9 of 10
concentrated rental blocks, which represent 10% of all residential properties, are responsible for 55% of
residential nuisance complaints.
Table 4: Police Citations —Comparison of Rental Properties & Blocks (2009-2010)
7ypeof—Properties
Total
Number of
Average
%of Total
%of Police
Number of
Police
Number of
Residential
Citations
Properties
Citations
Police
Properties
2009.2010
Citations per
Property
Rental Properties on
676
36
0.0533
l0%
55%
Over 30% Rental Blocks
Rental Properties on
495
10
0.0206
B%
15%
Less Than 30% Rental
Blocks
211111=1111111H. =
Non -Rental Properties
852
3
0.0035
13%
4%
on Over 3096 Rental
Blocks
Non -Rental Properties
4,544
17
0.0037
69%
26%
on Less Than 30% Rental
Blocks
Total
6,557
66
.0100
100%
100%
Note: The police citations data for 1009-1010 above does not include nine (9) of the citations because no address was
Indicated on these citations for the actual location of the crime incident.
VI. Conclusion
Our literature review of rental housing concentration and its effects, including the empirical studies of five
cities, supports the conclusion that the concentration of rental housing results In negative impacts to the
quality and livability of residential neighborhoods. In addition, our compilation and analysis of the
relationship between Winona's rental housing concentration and nuisance complalnts/police violations
data parallels the findings of the literature review. In particular, we find that concentrated rental housing In
Winona has resulted In a much higher rate of nuisance complaints and police violations in concentrated
rental housing blocks, Impacting both rental and non -rental residential properties. Thus, based upon the
literature review, Including the empirical studies of five cities relevant to Winona's rental housing Issues,
and the detailed analysis of Winona data, we conclude that the concentration of rental housing In Winona
results In Increased levels of nuisance and police violations In those neighborhoods. As these violations are
Indicators of increased nuisances and decreased property maintenance levels that negatively affect
neighborhood quality and livability, we also conclude that the concentration of rental housing leads to
decreased neighborhood quality and livability.
Page 10 of 10
FH.ED �
STATE OF MINNESOTA GI T€1 -6 -1 -bo -8 �Unr DISTRICT COURT
PoNOMA, MN 55987
COUNTY OF WINONA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No.: 85 -CV -11-2329
Ethan Dean, Holly Richard,
Ted Dzierzbicki, and Lauren Dzierzbicld,
VS.
City of Winona, a municipality,
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ORDER
AND JUDGMENT
This case was heard by District Judge Jeffrey D. Thompson on January 23, 2013, on
cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs (hereafter "Homeowners' were represented by
Anthony B. Sanders and Katelynn K. McBride, 527 Marquette Ave., Ste. 1600, Minneapolis,
MN 55402. Defendant (hereafter "the City") was represented by George C. Hoff, 160 Flagship
Corporate Center, 775 Prairie Center Dr, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. All parties assert that there
are no genuine issues of material fact and that this matter is appropriately decided as a matter of
law. The Court allowed the City additional time to respond to Homeowners' affidavits and took
this matter under advisement on January 31, 2013.
Upon the pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, and filed discovery, the Court having considered
the arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, fording no genuine
issues of material fact,
It Is Ordered That:
The City's motion to strike the Second Affidavit of David Phillips is DENIED.
2. Homeowners' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
3. The City's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
4. The following Memorandum is herein incorporated by reference.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
DATED:
BY THE COURT:
pso
jg&T'r"midgen
st ct utJ
JUDGMENT
I hereby certify that the foregoing Order constitutes the Judgment of the Court.
DATED:. _ Al2A 1_-7, ,YY6
QZLUa---�L )
Statement of Undisputed Facts
SALLY A. CUMISKEY
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
4-411 tyC eru.
MEMORANDUM
Winona City Rental Property Code § 33A.03(i) provides in relevant part: "In R -R, R -S,
R-1, R-1.5 and R-2 districts of the city, no more than 30 percent (rounded up) of the lots on any
block shall be eligible to obtain certification as a rental property, including homes in which
roomers and/or boarders are taken in by a resident family." There is an exemption for
grandfathered -in lots and for certain zoning districts. There is also a temporary rental license
available to a homeowner who is actively trying to sell his or her house for one year. This rule
("the 30% Rule") was adopted in 2005 in Chapter 43 of the city code, which deals with zoning.
The 30% Rule was moved to the "Housing Rental Property" chapter in 2012, after this matter
had commenced. There were some changes to the wording of the rule, but none relevant to this
dispute,
History of the 30% Rule
In 2003, the Winona City Council requested that the Planning Commission consider the
effectiveness of the City's off-street parking regulations, particularly regarding rental properties
and most significantly around the Winona State University ("WSU") campus. Members of the
Commission noted that the number of residential properties being converted from single-family
to rental usage was increasing and that the parking demands for owner -occupied dwelling units is
often different than rental dwellings. Suggested solutions to this growing problem included
changing the definition of "family" as it pertains to single-family occupancy and limiting the
number of rental properties per block in residential areas.
In December of 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution that put a moratorium on the
certification of "new" rental housing units for a six-month period. During the moratorium, the
Planning Commission initiated discussions and developed a tentative list of proposed code
modifications pertaining to rental housing density and off-street parking issues. The
Commission then held a series of public input meetings with rental landlords, homeowners, and
others. In April of 2005, Mayor Jerry Miller, in conjunction with the Commission discussions,
initiated a series of town meetings designed to deal with "density, parking, and aesthetic issues
within the `area' of the university." The meetings were attended by landlords, homeowners,
students, and others. Following the last meeting, in late May of 2005, the Mayor created a core
study group to identify issues and possible solutions pertaining to university neighborhoods to
forward to the Commission. The moratorium was extended another 6 months until December of
2005 to allow the study group and the Commission to complete their review, planning, and
implementation.
A Parking Advisory Task Force was also formed in 2005 to consider these same issues
and consider the Planning Commission's proposals. The Task Force noted that 39% of the
City's dwelling units were rental, but 52% of the complaints received by the Community
Development Department relate to rental occupancies. Due to this, it was suggested that the
number of rentals in the City be restricted, perhaps on a "per block" basis. Concerning the
Commission's proposals, the Task Force agreed that the definition of "family" should be
modified so that only 3 unrelated persons can live in a single dwelling unit; it agreed that the
number of roomers a resident family can keep be reduced from 4 to 2; and the Task Force agreed
that the number of required off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit be increased from 1.5 to
2. In August of 2005, the Task Force began discussing the idea of restricting the number of
rental units per block. Because rental housing units comprised approximately 39% of the total
housing units in the City at the time, it was suggested that the number of rental units be restricted
to 30% of the total properties on any given block.
At the August 2005 Task Force meeting, Committee Member Don Leaf emphasized that
the ratio of rental properties to total properties represents community "character" and that such a
restriction could protect inner city neighborhoods from heavy concentration of rental housing.
After some debate, the Task Force adopted a motion to forward the 30% Rule to the Planning
Commission for consideration, though it was discussed again at the September 1, 2005 meetings.
There it was noted that the 30% Rule could prevent out-of-town people from purchasing
residential property within the City and that it could hinder current residents' ability to sell their
property. These issues were noted and acknowledged, and the Task Force decided that it was in
favor of the 30% Rule and would seek studies and findings on the effect of rental housing on the
area.
On October 1, 2005, the Planning Comndssion discussed the 30% Rule. The
Commission noted that the Parking Task Force believes that landlords and students often do not
have any interest in how their properties appear and the effect they have on the community.
Therefore, the Task Force believes that neighborhoods heavily populated with student rentals
tend to become run-down and unattractive and a 30% per -block restriction on rental housing is
appropriate. Some city staff were concerned that the rule might not be legal, but the City
Attorney indicated that if the City Council finds that such a restriction will promote the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City's residents, it would be legal. It was also
noted that some exceptions should be allowed for, such as a professor leaving the area for a year
or two, for which a one-year exception or "special case clause" could be established. In an
October 24, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission noted that according to County data, in
2004, the Department of Community Development found that of the 99 addresses that had two or
more calls for service that police responded to for noise and party complaints, 95 were rental
units. The Commission also noted that 52% of the zoning violations that resulted in written
violations during 2004 were for rental units while 39% of the City's housing units are rental.
After further discussion, a public hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2005 on the issue. At
the public hearing, the Commission voted 6 to 3 to recommend the 30% Rule to the City
Council.
The City Council held a public meeting on November 21, 2005. A the meeting, the City
Council discussed and adopted some of the other recommendations of the Task Force and the
Planning Commission, as well as opening a public hearing on the 30% Rule. Several members
of the community spoke for and against the proposed rule. Most of the negative comments
revolved around concerns that property values would suffer; most of the positive comments
revolved around protecting neighborhoods and preventing areas from becoming completely
dominated by rental units. The 30% Rule was passed at the November 21, 2005 meeting and
adopted on December 5, 2005.
The 30% Rule was again raised at a February 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
The City Planner noted that since the rule was enacted, 142 dwelling units had been certified for
rental and that they were dispersed throughout the City rather than concentrated. There was
some disagreement among the Commission members as to whether the Rule was "working."
The City Planner also noted that the City Council was in the process of creating a new task force
to examine the 30% Rule. This task force was created by the City Council in March of 2009
with the goal of focusing on potential ways for residents to rent their homes on blocks over 30%
in extraordinary circumstances and potential ways to encourage the conversion of rental
properties into owner occupied structures. The task force conducted a study of a particular area
around the WSU campus and determined that 48% of the 775 dwelling units were certified as
rental and that if the 30% Rule was lifted, that number would increase to 67%. Ultimately, in
February of 2010, the task force recommended that the City retain the 30% Rule. It was noted
that "[a]lthough the general consensus of the Task Force was that the Rule has, since adoption,
had the intended affect [sic] of dispersing rental patterns away from core university
neighborhoods, not all were supportive of the method." The Program Development Director for
the Department of Community Development characterized the 30% Rule as having "preserved
affordable housing and reduced conversions as intended"
In February of 2012, a few months after Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this matter, the
Planning Commission met to discuss moving the 30% Rule from Chapter 43 to Chapter 33A,
The stated purpose of moving the Rule is that "other cities have included similar provisions in
their housing codes ---not in their zoning codes" and "the move is also recommended because the
City's charter grants additional legal authority for ordinances such as the 30% rule." A
memorandum was also prepared by the consulting firm Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
("HKG") in conjunction with this issue. In general, the memorandum supported the idea that
there is a correlation between rental properties, particularly rentals to single family dwellings,
and increased behaviors that lead to a decline in neighborhood livability. Specific to Winona,
the HKG memorandum stated:
We conclude that the concentration of rental housing in Winona results in increased
levels of nuisance and police violations in those neighborhoods. As these violations are
indicators of increased nuisance and decreased property maintenance levels that
negatively affect neighborhood quality and livability, we also conclude that the
concentration of rental housing leads to a decreased neighborhood quality and livability.
The 30% Rule was moved to Chapter 33A, where it is currently placed, in March of 2012.
Homeowners' Situations
Homeowners Dean and Richard each own a residential property in the City of Winona
and the Dzierzbickis, a married couple, jointly own a residential property. Dean purchased a
house near WSU in 2006 with the intention of residing there with his girlfriend and her family.
By 2009, however, that relationship had ended and Dean was preparing for another tour in Iraq
with the US Department of Justice. Because the market at the time made selling the house
undesirable, Dean hoped to rent it out, but the 30% Rule prevented him from obtaining a rental
license. Dean has been able to obtain temporary rental licenses and has been renting the home
since 2010, but asserts that attempts to sell the properly are often hindered when the potential
buyer learns that a long-term rental license is not available. Dean's property also does not
comply with the City's off-street parking requirements, but he has been allowed to provide a
second parking space by leasing an adjacent space while attempting to sell the house.
Ted and Lauren Dzierbicki live in Illinois. They purchased a house near W SU in 2007,
when their daughter was attending school, and made significant improvements to the property.
They planned to have their daughter live in the house and rent it out to other students. The
house, however, is on a block in which more than 30% of the houses have rental licenses, so this
plan could not come to fruition. Their daughter lived there until she graduated in May of 2010.
Other students lived in the house paying only utilities and not rent until the fall of 2010, when
the City determined that arrangement was also a violation. The house has been empty since May
of 2010 and on the market since December of 2009. The Dzierbickis assert that the value of the
property is significantly lower than it would be if a rental license were possible.
Richard purchased a house in December of 2006 while she was working at St. Mary's
University in Winona. In 2009, she accepted an offer from the University of South Dakota to
pursue a Ph.D. and put her house tip for sale. After receiving no offers, she decided to rent.
When Richard inquired about getting a rental license, she was informed that she was on a block
in which more than 30% of the properties had a rental license, so her house was ineligible. She
entered rent -with -option -to -buy with a potential purchaser, but in February of 2010, the City
discovered this arrangement and ordered the renter out. Richard obtained a temporary license in
April of 2010 and has had it renewed. The house went unrented for March and April. She also
believes the inability to obtain a long -tern rental license hindered her attempts to sell. After this
lawsuit was filed, however, Richard discovered that another rental license on her block had
lapsed and that she was eligible for a standard rental license. She obtained a license and has
been renting her home since.
Legal Analysis and Conclusion
. IIere, both parties have moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is
appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; Offerdahl v.
Univ, of Minn. Hasps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn. 1988). The evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fabio v. Dellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758,
761 (Minn. 1993). "A moving party is entitled to summary judgment when there are no facts in
the record giving rise to a genuine issue for trial as to the existence of an essential element of the
nonmoving party's case." Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 533 N.W.2d 845, 847
(Minn. 1995).
Standing
The City argues that Homeowners Dean and Richard's claims should be dismissed for
lack standing. "Standing is the requirement that a party has a sufficient stake in a justiciable
controversy to seek relief from a court." State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d
490, 493 (Mimi. 1996) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 (1972)). A plaintiff
has standing if the plaintiff has suffered some "injury -in -fact." Id
The City argues that Dean lacks standing because his property does not have a second
off-street parking space, thus, even without the 30% Rule, he would still be ineligible for a
standard rental license. This argument fails. Dean may, as he has been doing while obtaining
temporary rental licenses, lease an off-street parking space from someone else. Dean or a
subsequent purchaser of his property could make a permanent or long-term arrangement for a
J
second space or possibly add another space to the property. Thus, there remains an issue of fact
as to whether the 30% Rule has negatively affected the value of Dean's property and/or
prevented him from selling it.
The City argues that Richard lacks standing because she was ultimately able to get a
standard rental license when her block dropped below 30%, making her claims moot, This
argument also fails. There is evidence that the 30% Rule caused Richard to lose at least two
months of rental income. If Homeowners prevail and the 30% Rule is deemed unlawful, Richard
will have a valid claim to at least the nominal damages requested in her prayer for relief. The
Homeowners have standing in this matter.
In the interests of simplicity, the Court will refer to "Homeowners" hereafter as though
they are each ineligible to obtain a standard rental license because of the 30% Rule.
Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process
"We presume statutes to be constitutional and exercise the power to declare a statute
unconstitutional with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary." ILHC of Eagan,
LLC v. County of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412, 421 (Minn. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The party challenging an ordinance or statute's constitutionality bears the burden of
establishing that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Greene v. Comm'r of
Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, 755 N.W.2d 713, 724-25 (Minn. 2008) (citing Gluba ex rel.
Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry, 735 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 2007)). The Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no state will "deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The
Minnesota Constitution also guarantees that "[njo member of this state shall be disenfranchised
or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of
10
the land or the judgment of his peers." Minn, Const. art, 1, § 2. Minnesota courts have observed
that "[b]oth clauses have been analyzed under the same principles and begin with the mandate
that all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike, but only invidious discrimination is
deemed constitutionally offensive." Kotton v. County of Anoka, 645 N.W.2d 403, 411 (Minn.
2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Courts apply strict scrutiny to a legislatively -created classification that involves a suspect
classification or a fundamental right. Greene, 755 N.W.2d at 725 (citing Bituminous Cas. Corp.
v. Swanson, 341 N.W.2d. 285,289 (Minn.1983)). If strict scrutiny applies, the classification must
be "narrowly tailored and reasonably necessary to further a compelling governmental interest."
Hennepin County v. Perry, 561 N.W.2d 889, 897 n. 7 (Minn. 1997). If a constitutional challenge
does not involve either a suspect classification or a fundamental right, courts are to review the
challenge using a rational -basis standard. Gluba, 735 N.W.2d at 719. The parties agree that a
rational -basis standard is appropriate in this case.
Under the federal constitution, the same rational -basis standard of review applies to due
process and equal protection challenges to a statute or ordinance:
The examining court must merely inquire whether (1) the act serves to promote a public
purpose, (2) it is an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference with a private
interest, and (3) the means chosen bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to
be served.
Grussing v. Kvam Implement Co., 478 N.W.2d 200, 202 (Minn. App. 199I). In applying that
test, a court need not agree with the legislative body's determination, rather "those challenging
the legislative judgment must convince the court that the legislative facts on which the
classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the
governmental decision -maker" and "they cannot prevail so long as it is evident from all the
considerations presented to [the legislative body], and those of which we may take judicial
11
notice, that the question is at least debatable," Id. (citing Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery
Co., 449 U.S. 456,464 (1981)).
Minnesota courts, however, apply a less deferential rational -basis review for challenges
to a statute or ordinance under the Minnesota Constitution's equal protection clause. The
Minnesota rational -basis test provides:
(1) The distinctions which separate those included within the classification from those
excluded must not be manifestly arbitrary or fanciful but must be genuine and substantial,
thereby providing a natural and reasonable basis to justify legislation adapted to peculiar
conditions and needs; (2) the classification must be genuine or relevant to the purpose of
the law; that is there must be an evident connection between the distinctive needs peculiar
to the class and the prescribed remedy; and (3) the purpose of the statute must be one that
the state can legitimately attempt to achieve.
Studor, Ina v. State, 781 N.W.2d 403, 408 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20,
2010). "The distinction between the two tests is that under the Minnesota test we have been
unwilling to hypothesize a rational basis to justify a classification, as the more deferential federal
standard requires ... Instead, there must be a reasonable connection between the actual, as
opposed to the theoretical, effect of the classification and the statutory goals." Id. Thus, to
determine if the 30% Rule violates the federal or state equal protection or substantive due
process clauses, the Court need only analyze Plaintiffs' claim under the Minnesota equal
protection standard. If the 30% Rule does not pass the Minnesota rational -basis test, it is
unlawful and the Court need go no further; if it does pass the less deferential Minnesota rational -
basis test, it also passes the rational -basis test used to analyze federal equal protection claims, as
well as state and federal substantive due process claims. See Id. at 410 (" V]f legislation does not
violate equal protection, it does not violate substantive due process.") (quoting Everything
Etched; Inc. v. Shakopee Towing, Inc., 634 N.W.2d 450, 453 (Minn. App.2001), review denied
(Minn. Dec. 11, 2001)).
12
Before getting to the rational -basis test, "the threshold question is whether the claimant
is treated differently from others who are similarly situated, because the equal protection clause
does not require the state to treat differently situated people the same." Odunlade V. City of
Minneapolis, 823 N.W.2d 638, 647 (Minn. 2012). The "Equal Protection Clause does not forbid
classifications, it simply keeps governmental decision -makers from treating differently persons
who are in all relevant aspects alike." State Y. Johnson, 813 N. W.2d 1, 12 (Minn. 2012) (quoting
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992)). On its face, the 30% Rule treats all of those to
whom it applies --private, residential property owners in low density residential zones—equally.
Homeowners argue that they are similarly situated to all residential property owners in low
density residential zones, but are treated differently because some can get rental licenses (or have
licenses and may add another renter) and they cannot. The City argues that owners on blocks
with less than 30% rental are not similarly situated to those on blocks over 30% as it pertains to a
rental -density regulation. Homeowners counter that the City's argument that people are not
similarly situated because they are separated by the distinction created by the challenged
legislation begs the question.
Homeowners slightly mischaracterize this argument. By creating the 30% Rule, the City
set the line of demarcation at 30%, but the difference in the composition of city blocks exist with
or without a legislatively defined trait. As noted above, the City is allowed to classify, but it may
not treat "differently persons who are in ail relevant aspects alike." The relative number of rental
licenses on a property's block is relevant to whether or not that property should be issued a rental
license. Thus, someone on a block with less than 30% rental and someone on a block with more
than 30% rental are not alike in that relevant aspect. Fellow property owners on over 30%
blocks that have rental licenses are similarly situated except that they were either grandfathered
13
in by having a rental license before 2005 or got a rental license before their block got up to 30%.
In each case, that property owner obtained a rental license before the Rule was enacted or while
his or her block had less than 30% rental. Those property owners are also not similarly situated.
Moreover, Homeowners cannot meet their burden of showing that the 30% Rule fails the
Minnesota tational-basis test. ' Homeowners do not contest that the purposes of the Rule are
legitimate; they argue it cannot meet the first two requirements of the Minnesota rational -basis
test.
The distinctions are genuine and substantial. The City's purposes in enacting the 30%
Rule include avoiding further concentration of rental properties and conversions from owner -
occupied homes into rental properties. The goals are to serve the ultimate purpose of preserving
the "character" of neighborhoods, maintaining affordable single-family housing, limiting
deterioration of housing conditions, reducing on -street parking, and maintaining neighborhood
"livability," which includes minimizing nuisance complaints and anti -social behavior.
Limiting the number of rental licenses per block is not an arbitrary or fanciful means of
achieving these goals. Homeowners argue the "first-come, first -serve" nature of the Rule
renders it inherently arbitrary, but that is just a symptom of genuine and substantial distinctions.
There is a genuine distinction between someone on a block with over 30% rental and someone
on a block with below 30% rental. When the person on the block below 30% applies for and
receives a license, it could push that block to over 30%. This change in block composition may
prevent an otherwise qualified renter from obtaining a license, but it is not arbitrary that the
"fust -comer" got the license. That person applied for a rental license on a block with less than
30% rental, so issuing that license conforms with the City's purpose of dispersing rentals to
blocks at less than 30%. Regarding the actual number settled upon, which Homeowners
14
acknowledge is not a basis for their challenge, "numbers chosen as legal limitations are often
arbitrary: e.g., speed limits, building ordinances, statutes of limitation ... [t]he necessity of
selecting some number arbitrarily does not render an ordinance itself arbitrary." Holt v. City of
Sauk Rapids, 559 N.W.2d 444,446 (Mimr. App. 1997).
The classification is also genuine and relevant to the purposes of the Rule. There is
evidence to suggest that the 30% Rule has dispersed rentals throughout the City and there is no
real question that it has slowed the conversion of owner -occupied homes to rentals; Homeowners
inability to convert their single-family homes to rental housing caused them to bring this lawsuit.
It is reasonable for the City to conclude that the 30% Rule will ultimately have a positive effect
on the character and livability of neighborhoods, particularly those around the WSU campus,
Homeowners offer alternative suggestions toward livability and anti -social behavior and
assert that the Rule is overbroad in some respects while under -inclusive in others. They note that
allowing already -licensed propeities to add rental units can increase population density and
burden on -street parking as much as licensing another property for rental; they argue that when
more rigorously analyzed, the crime statistics in higher rental areas are not significantly
different; and they argue that nuisance complaints, anti -social behavior, and housing
deterioration could be more directly addressed by more strict enforcement of law, rules, and
codes related to those specific issues. These may be legitimate critiques of the City Council's
thought process and may weaken some of the Council's conclusions in adopting the 30% Rule,
but .they do not meet Homeowners substantial burden of establishing that the 30% Rule's
classification is not genuine or relevant to the purpose of the Rule. Even if the Rule does not go
as far as Homeowners suggest it could to reduce population density and on -street parking, it does
curb rental -property density by preventing entire properties, such as those of the Homeowners,
15
from becoming full-time rentals. While there may be other ways to accomplish these goals, the
City can articulate genuine reasons for maintaining a percentage of owner -occupied homes (or
year-to-year rentals that are actively being sold) in an area can be expected to better discourage
deterioration and preserve the character of the neighborhood. Homeowners may have created a
fact issue on whether the 30% Rule is narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest,
but that is not the applicable standard here.
Homeowners have not met their burden•of showing that the 30% Rule is in violation of
the Minnesota constitution's equal protection clause, nor have they raised a genuine issue of fact
on that question. Consequently, Homeowners also cannot show that the 30% Rule violates the
federal equal protection clause or the state and federal substantive due process clauses.
Equal Protection—As Applied
Homeowners' equal protection claims, as applied to them, are not substantially different
than their facial equal protection claims addressed above. Essentially, Homeowners cannot get a
rental license (or were delayed in getting it), but some lots on the same block with a rental
license may expand to add additional rental units and lots on adjacent blocks that have less than
30% rental, sometimes just across a street, may obtain a rental license. As noted above,
Homeowners are not similarly situated to property owners who already have a rental. license or
owners of properties on blocks with less than 30% rental. Even if they are considered similarly
situated for these purposes, Homeowners cannot show that the 30% Rule lacks a rational basis
for treating them differently for the same reasons articulated above.
Procedural Due Process
Homeowners argue that their state and federal procedural due process rights are infringed
upon by the 30% Rule because it unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the other
16
property owners on their blocks. The argument is that fellow property owners have the power to
prevent Homeowners from being able to rent by obtaining their own license, whether or not they
intend to rent. Thus, the argument goes, the 30% of property owners that have obtained a
standard rental license are given the authority to decide if any of the non -licensed properties on
the block have any possibility of getting a rental license.
This argument relies on somewhat strained logic. The City has determined that to
promote the public welfare, rental licenses should be a limited per block. As noted above, this is
a reasonable determination. Because rental licenses are limited per block, as with anything
limited to a finite amount, some people will necessarily have a rental license and others will not.
It is a leap to view those who have obtained or retained licenses as operating in a legislative
capacity simply by keeping their licenses. The incongruity of this view can be seen by the fact
that on a block at or near 30°/q it would only take one "vote" to allow a new renter, and the
"voter," who votes by not renewing his or her license, has no input on which property may get
the available license. This process is not analogous to 30% of the block being able to vote on
how a neighbor uses his or her property, as Homeowners claim.
Regardless, even if one does view the 30% limit as providing that the rental license
holders on a block must "consent" to a new rental license, Homeowners' claim fails.
Homeowners rely heavily on State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 97 N. W.2d 273 (1959).
There, the court held that a statute with a "consent" provision allowing a city to rezone property
only after written consent of owners of two-thirds of the property within 100 feet of the property
was invalid in the case where a property owner's right to use his property for commercial
purposes was taken away upon application of his neighbors to rezone it to residential. If one
were to view the 30% Rule as a "consent provision," it is more analogous to the one upheld in
17
Leighton v. City of Minneapolis, 16 F. Supp. 101 (17. Minn. 1936) and distinguished by the
Foster court. There, the plaintiff was prevented from having her property rezoned from
"multiple dwelling" to 'commercial" because she could not obtain the required written consent
of two-thirds of those within 100 feet of the property.
The Leighton court noted that the property would likely double in value if it were zoned
commercial, but that the statute did not violate the plaintiff's substantive due process rights. Id.
at 102, 106. The court distinguished the facts in Leighton from violations of the due process
clause in which similar statutes and ordinances were not enacted with the express purpose of
furthering the public health, safety, morals or the general welfare. Id. at 104-05. The purposes
of the 30% Rule include curbing nuisance complaints and property deterioration and preserving
neighborhood character. These purposes fall under the general umbrella of "the public health,
safety, morals or the general welfare" The Foster court distinguished itself from Leighton
because, while Leighton involved someone being unable to have her rights regarding use of the
property expanded, Foster involved restricting a property's use to less than what was legal when
it was purchased. Foster, 97 N. W.2d at 276 ("a purchaser of real property is entitled to place
some reliance upon zoning ordinances which have classified the property being purchased.").
Here, Homeowners purchased homes without rental licenses on blocks with 30% or
higher rental concentration after the 30% Rule was in place. Thus, each Homeowner would
only need the. "consent" of a neighbor to expand the legal uses of his or her property beyond
what was available when the property was purchased, Homeowners purchased homes without
rental licenses or the eligibility to obtain one. The 30% Rule, for reasons related to the general
welfare of the City, is complete in and of itself and not dependent upon the vote or act of anyone.
At most, the Rule provides for the removal or modification of its prohibition by the act of those
18
with rental licenses. See Leighton, 16 F.Supp. at 104. Even if the 30% Rule is somewhat
awkwardly fit into the "consent provision" analysis, it does not violate Homeowners' right to
procedural due process.
Ultra Vires
Homeowners also argue that the 30% Rule is invalid because it exceeds the scope of the
City's authority. They argue that the Rule is an exercise of the City's zoning power under Minn.
Stat. § 462,357, but it is unlawful because it does not regulate the `arse" of the property, it
regulates who uses the property. The City argues that the 30% Rule was enacted under the
City's broad police powers, not its zoning authority or, in the alternative, the 30% Rule is a valid
zoning regulation.
Ordinances are presumed to be valid, and are not to be set aside by the courts unless their
invalidity is clear. Bolen v. Glass, 755 N.W,2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2008). Minn. Stat. § 462.357
provides in part:
For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a
municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's surface, in the air space above the
surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width,. . , the density and
distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry,
residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade,
industry, residence, recreation, ... The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind
of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout such district.
Homeowners argue that a rental regulation concerns who owns and occupies property, not the
"use" of the property. If the 30% Rule regulates the "use" of property, it is authorized by Minn.
Stat. § 462.357 and within the City's authority, provided its purpose is promoting the public
health, safety, morals, and general welfare. As noted above, the 30% Rule's purposes qualify as
promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
19
Both parties appear to agree that Minnesota courts have not directly ruled on the issue of
whether rental regulations concern "use" or "occupancy." Homeowners cite to a number of
cases from other jurisdictions to show that residential rental restrictions relate to occupancy and
not to "use." The City cites to other foreign cases in which rental restrictions are allowed under
zoning authority. Homeowners characterize this as a "very minority rule." Without an
applicable "rule" on this question, the Court must look at the specific ordinance challenged here
and make its own determination.
Again, Homeowners strain logic to fit the 30% Rule into a categorization that serves their
purposes. The 30% Rule is not about occupancy or who occupies a property, it is about how the
property is used for residence. The Rule does not address who can rent a house, who can buy a
house, or even who can live in a house, provided that person is not paying rent to the owner. The
issue addressed by the 301/6 Rule is whether or not a home is being rented, it is completely silent
on who lives there as long as that person is not renting. This particular rental regulation is more
reasonably viewed as regulating the "use" of property than the "occupancy" of it.
Homeowners contend the Rule still runs afoul of Minn. Stat. § 462.357's requirement
that the regulations be uniform because it allows some to rent and prohibits others from renting.
The 30% Rule applies uniformly, If one is on a block with less than 30% rental, he or she is
eligible for a rental license; if one is on a block with more than 30% rental, he or she is not
eligible for a standard rental license. When there is a legitimate distinction, the fact that one
person is eligible and another is ineligible does not mean the regulation is not uniform. As noted
above, there is such a distinction in this case.
Further, if the 30% Rule falls under the City's broad police powers, it is valid. For a
home rule charter city, such as Winona, "[a] city exercises police power within its jurisdiction to
20
practically the same extent as the state itself. This power is not confined to the narrow limits of
precedents based on conditions of a past era. Rather, it is a power which changes to meet
changing conditions, which call for revised regulations to promote the health, safety, morals, or
general welfare of the public." City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 16 N.W,2d 779, 783 (Minn. 1944). "It
is well established that an exercise of the `police power' will be upheld where it has for its object
the public health, safety, morality, or welfare, and where it is reasonably related to the attainment
of those objectives." State ex rel Gopher Sales Co, v. City of Austin, 75 N.W.2d 780, 783
(Minn. 1956). Because the Court has already noted that it considers the 30% Rule a "use"
restriction, the zoning analysis and the "police powers" analysis are quite similar. The 30% Rule
is a restriction put in place to advance the general welfare, to put it broadly. Whether the 30%
Rule is considered a zoning ordinance or a "police powers" ordinance, it is valid.
Conclusion
In a prior order in this matter, this Court quoted Chief Justice John Roberts in a recent
opinion: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is
entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders." Arall Fed'n oflndep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Cl. 2566,
2576 (2012). A year earlier, Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson quoted Chief
Justice John Marshall:
The question, whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the constitution, is at all times
a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the
affirmative, in a doubtful case. The [C]ourt, when impelled by duty to render such a
judgment, would be unworthy of its station, could it be unmindful of the solemn
obligations which that station imposes. But it is not on slight implication and vague
conjecture that the legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its
acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the constitution and the law
should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility
with each other.
21
Limmer v. Swanson, 806 N.W.2d 838,841 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Fletcher V. Peck, 10 U.S. 87,
128, 3 L.Ed, 162 (1810)). The same considerations apply to this Court's review of an ordinance
passed by the City's elected leaders. Homeowners must overcome a substantial burden to have
the Court hold that an ordinance passed by the City Council is illegal or invalid.
There is no indication that the 30% Rule was enacted or conceived as an insidious means
of keeping certain constitutionally protected classes of people out of certain neighborhoods or
any other improper purpose. It is a good -faith attempt to address real problems. Homeowners
articulate several ideas that they argue would better address the issues the 30% Rule is designed
to address and note many reasons the Rule may not eliminate all of the ills the City hopes it will
eliminate. The Court's role in this case is not to decide if the 30% Rule is a good idea, that
decision belongs to the City Council. Some of the issues raised by Homeowners were also raised_
in the meetings and hearings in which the 30% Rule was considered. The City's elected leaders
decided those issues did not outweigh the potential benefits of the 30% Rule. If Homeowners or
some other interested party articulates the same ideas, issues, concerns, studies, and opinions
regarding the 30% Rule to the City Council at some future meeting, perhaps with newly elected
members, they may convince enough council members that the Rule does not serve the City
well. That is the proper venue for arguing whether the 30% embodies sound policies.
The Court's role is to decide if Homeowners can meet their burden of showing that the
30% Rule is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Not only have Homeowners not shown they
are entitled to summary judgment, they have not raised any genuine issues of material fact on the
legality of the Rule. Separation -of -powers principles require that the ordinance be presumed
constitutional and valid. Homeowners' attacks on the legality of the Rule are largely based on
somewhat clever characterizations of the Rule and/or foreign case-law. These attacks are not
22
enough to overcome the presumption of legality and have this Court set aside the conclusions
reached by the City's elected representatives.
For the above reasons, Homeowners' motion for summary judgment must be denied and
the City's motion for summary judgment must be granted.
23
B. City of North Mankato Documents
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
311 Page
B.1— Draft Rental Density Ordinance
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
321 Page
§151.18 RENTAL DENSITY
(A) In R -A, R-1, R -IS and R-2 zoning districts, no more than 10% of the single-
family lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental license, unless a temporary
license is granted by the City Council as provided herein. Table 1 indicates how many
single-family lots per block are able to be licensed as a rental property based on the
number of lots that exist in a block.
Table 1
Lots/Block
Rental Units Allowed
1-14
1
15-24
2
25-34
3
35-44
4
45-54
5
55-64
6
65-74
7
75-84
8
85-94
9
(B) The following guidelines shall apply to determine eligible blocks and lots.
(1) For the purposes of this subchapter, a BLOCK shall be defined as an area of
land enclosed within the perimeter of streets, watercourses, public parks, municipally
owned lots and city boundaries.
(2) This subchapter shall apply to legally conforming lots of record and legally
nonconforming lots of record. For the purposes of this subchapter, lots of record may
also be referred to as PROPERTIES, PROPERTY or LOTS.
(3) If a block contains more than one type of zoning district, only R -A, R-1, R -IS
and R-2 zoning district lots shall be included in the calculation of the total number of
lots per block.
(4) Legal nonconforming rental property shall be allowed to continue as long as
the legal nonconforming use complies with § 151.13 and 156.052 of the Zoning Code.
(5) Commercial or industrial uses located in an R -A, R-1, R -IS and R-2 zoning
districts shall not be included in the calculation of the total number of lots per block.
(6) Properties that are exempt pursuant to § 151.18 (A)shall not be included in the
calculation of the total number of lots per block.
(C) If the number of rental properties meets or exceeds the permitted number of
rental properties per defined block on the effective date of this subchapter, no
additional rental licenses shall be approved for the block, unless a temporary license is
granted by the City Council as provided herein. Existing rental licenses may be renewed;
however, should a rental license not be renewed, or if the rental license is revoked or
lapses, the rental license shall not be reinstated unless it is in conformance with this
subchapter and other applicable sections of the city code.
(D) Exceptions
(1) Parcels zoned CBD, R-3, R-4, OR -1, B-1, B-2, B-3, M-1, M-2, 14, TUD, P-1
(2) Single-family homes or duplexes in which the owner resides within a portion of
the building are exempt unless an unrelated person resides within the owner's
dwelling unit. If the building is a duplex, only that portion of the building in
which the owner resides alone or with related persons is exempt. The other
portion of the duplex requires a rental license.
(3) Rental licenses for State Licensed residences shall be exempt from this
subdivision. If the property is no longer licensed by the State of Minnesota, a
new rental license application shall be submitted and reviewed for compliance
with this subdivision and other applicable City and Building Code sections.
(E) Properties eligible to receive a rental license in R -A, R-1, R -IS, and R-2 zoning
districts will be determined as follows:
(1) Any property zoned R -A, R-1, R -IS, RS, and R-2 is eligible to receive a rental
license until the number of single-family and two-family dwellings issued rental licenses
exceeds 10% of all the single-family and two-family dwellings in the City of North
Mankato.
(2) This Subdivision shall apply to legally conforming properties of record and legally
nonconforming properties of record, as defined in Chapter 156, in existence at that time
of the effective date of this ordinance or approved by new subdivision of unplatted and
undeveloped property after the effective date of this ordinance.
(F) For the purposes of this Subdivision, the following shall apply:
(1) Properties licensed for rental purposes on the effective date of this ordinance shall be
included in the calculation of the number of permitted rental properties.
(2) Existing rental licenses may be renewed or transferred per Subdivision 151.07,
151.08 and 151.09.
§ 151.19 TEMPORARY RENTAL LICENSES.
(A) A temporary rental license may be granted by the City for unlicensed properties to an
owner of a property for a period not to exceed (12) months for the following
circumstance(s):
(1) The property is listed for sale and the owner and the owner's family are not residing
at the property.
(2) The owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property and the occupants
are providing a caretaking function for the property.
(3) The City Administrator or his designee is granted authority to extend the temporary
rental license for two consecutive six (6) month periods as long as the home is actively
marketed for sale.
(4) Twelve (12) months from the date of issuance, a temporary rental license shall expire
and is not subject for renewal unless granted an extension by the City Administrator or
his designee as outlined in chapter 151, section 19, subsection 3.
§ 151.20 GRANTING RENTAL LICENSES.
(A) Granting of additional rental licenses in R -A, R-1, R -IS, and R-2 shall be subject to
the following:
(1) On or by March 1st of each year, the City Administrator or his designee shall
determine the number of rental licenses available in R -A, R-1, R- IS, and R-2 zoning
districts based on the number of single-family and two-family dwellings that have not
renewed or transferred a rental license and the number of newly constructed single-family
and two-family dwellings in the city.
(2) A waiting list for property owners seeking to obtain a rental license will be
maintained by the City Administrator or his designee. All individuals on the waiting list
will be notified by official mail of the process of bidding on newly available rental
licenses.
(3) Licenses will be issued for one year periods to property owners prioritized on the
waiting list. After purchased, licenses may be renewed at the standard renewal rate.
§ 151.21 RENTAL PROPERTY PARKING REQUIREMENTS
A minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces are required to accommodate all rental
dwelling units containing one (1) or two (2) bedrooms. Each successive bedroom requires
the addition of one (1) off-street parking space. The location of any off-street parking
area shall be hard surfaced and meet all applicable setbacks.
§ 151.99 PENALTY.
(A) Any violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject to all penalties
provided for such violations.
(B) It is a misdemeanor for any person to prevent, delay, or provide false information to
any city official, or his or her representative, while they are engaged in the performance
of their duties as set forth in this chapter.
(C) In addition to bringing criminal charges for violation of this chapter, the city may
seek a civil injunction against any licensee or occupant who violate any terms of this
chapter.
(D) All applicants must include in any lease (written or oral) a copy of this chapter and
must further advise all tenants that a violation of this code by the applicant (landlord) or
any occupant of the premises could result in termination or revocation of the rental
license and immediate eviction of all tenants.
(Ord. 234, passed 12-1-2003; Am. Ord. 264, passed 11-21-2005)
B.2 — Moratorium Resolution
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
331 Page
RESOLUTION NO. 76-15
RESOLUTION ORDERING A MORATORIUM
ON THE GRANTING OF NEW RENTAL LICENSES
WITHIN THE CITY OF NORTH MANKATO, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, The City of North Mankato is conducting a study relating to limiting the
number of rental housing licenses within areas zoned RA, RI S, R or R2; and
WHEREAS, it will take approximately six to nine months to complete such study; and
WHEREAS, The City of North Mankato wishes to complete the study prior to issuing any
new rental licenses in the above zoned areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORTH MANKATO, MINNESOTA, as follows:
1. The City of North Mankato hereby adopts a Moratorium on accepting applications for
rental housing licenses in areas zoned RA, RIS, RI or R2 for a period of twelve (12)
months unless earlier ended by action of the City Council.
2. The Moratorium includes single family dwellings in R3 and R4 districts.
3. The City Administrator, in consultation with the City Attorney, is allowed to waive the
Moratorium for up to three licenses that may have been contemplated in a sale initiated by
signing a purchase agreement prior to the date of this action.
Adopted by the City Council this 2151 day of Septem
City 04efk /
B.3 — City Code Section § 151.11 Conduct on Licensed Premises
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
341 Page
R § 151.11 CONDUCT ON LICENSED PREMISES.
(A) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to take appropriate action following conduct
by occupant(s) or guest of the occupant(s) which is in violation of any of the following:
(1) Anytime, day or night, that the premises are involved in any of the following:
(a) Unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt beverages.
(b) Furnishing intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt beverages by persons under the
age of 21 years.
(c) Consumption of intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt beverages by persons
under the age of 21 years.
(d) Vice crimes.
(e) Sale or use of illegal drugs by any person on the premises.
(f) Storage of unlicensed or inoperable vehicles, trailers, boats, RVs and campers.
(g) Allowing grass or weeds to exceed 6 inches in height.
(h) Failure to remove ice or snow on adjacent sidewalks within 48 hours after snow or ice
has ceased to fall.
(i) Parking of any vehicles in front yard areas, except permitted driveways.
0) Failure to pay monthly utility bill by the due date.
(2) Anytime, day or night, that the premises are involved in a manner affecting the
neighborhood and a citation, arrest or letter of transmittal is made for any of the following:
(a) Disorderly conduct.
(b) Disturbing the peace.
(c) Obstructing an officer.
(d) Assault (including domestic assault).
(e) Criminal damage to property.
(f) Vice crimes.
(3) Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for any of the following:
(a) Where the police respond initially and describe the activity as "loud and intrusive" or
in any manner affecting the tranquility of the neighborhood (such as, excessive littering, public
urination, and the like) and persons involved refusing to comply with police directive to curtail
the behavior within 10 minutes.
(b) Where the police respond a second time and describe the activity as "loud and
intrusive" or in any manner affecting the tranquility of the neighborhood (such as, excessive
littering, public urination, and the like) on both occasions.
(c) Where the police respond on 3 separate dates and describe the activity as "loud and
intrusive" or in any manner affecting the tranquility of the neighborhood (such as, excessive
littering, public urination, and the like).
(4) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. for any 1 or more of the following:
(a) Where police describe the noise level outside of the confines of the dwelling unit as
"loud and intrusive." This description should give some indication of the distance that the noises
are heard.
(b) Where people are using profanity that can be heard outside the confines of the
dwelling unit.
(c) Where music, either from the confines of the dwelling unit, the yard area of the
dwelling unit or any parking area defined for the dwelling unit, can be heard from the street,
alley or neighboring yards.
(d) Where a gathering is going on either in and/or out of the dwelling unit in a manner that
involves any of the following:
1. Disruption of the neighbors, such as, revving of cars, squealing of tires, loud
shouting, and the like.
2. Littering.
3. Inappropriate behavior, such as, urinating in yards, persons passed out, and the like.
4. Damaging of property: and where after investigation the officer(s) can show that the
inappropriate activity was directly related to the licensed premises. Proof may include, but is not
limited to, direct observation by officers, admissions by persons present or testimony/statements
by complainants and witnesses.
(e) Where officers are unable to personally verify the existence of any of the criteria listed
in 1. through 4. above, but complainants/witnesses are willing to testify to 1 or more of those
facts at a criminal or civil proceeding.
(B) The Chief of Police or his or her designee shall be responsible for enforcement and
administration of this section.
(C) Upon determination by the Chief of Police that a licensed premises was involved in a
violation of division (A) of this section, the Chief of Police shall notify the licensee by fust class
mail of the violation and direct the licensee to take steps to prevent further violations. A copy of
said notice shall be sent by fust class mail to the occupant in violation of division (A) of this
section.
(D) Upon a second violation within 12 months of division (A) of this section involving a
guest or an occupant of a licensed premises, the notice provided under division (C) of this
section shall require the licensee to submit a written report of the action taken to prevent further
violations on the premises. This written report shall be submitted to the Police Chief within 5
days of request of the report and shall detail all actions taken by the licensee in response to all
notices regarding violations to division (A) of this section within the preceding 12 months. If the
licensee fails to comply with the requirements of the subsection, the rental dwelling license for
the individual licensed premises may be denied, revoked, suspended, or such other penalty
imposed by the City Council. An action to deny, revoke, suspend or renew a license under this
section shall be initiated by the City Council at the request of the Police Chief.
(E) If a third or subsequent violation of division (A) of this section involving a guest of or an
occupant of a licensed premises occurs within 12 months after any 2 previous instances for
which notices were sent to the licensee regarding the same licensed premises, the rental dwelling
license for the individual rental unit may be denied, revoked, suspended, or such other penalty
not imposed by the City Council. An action to deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose any
other penalty under this section shall be initiated by the City Council at the request of the Police
Chief.
(F) No adverse license action shall be imposed if the violation to division (A) of this section
occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedings (unlawful detainer) or within 30 days of
notice given by the licensee to an occupant to vacate the premises, where the violation was
related to conduct by that occupant, other occupants, or the occupant's guests. Eviction
proceedings shall not be a bar to adverse license action, however, unless they are diligently
pursued by the licensee. Further, an action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license based
upon violations of this section may be postponed or discontinued at any time if it appears that the
licensee has taken appropriate measures which will prevent further violations to division (A) of
this section.
(G) A determination that the licensed premises has been used in violation of division (A) of
this section shall be made by the Council upon substantial evidence to support such
a determination. It shall not be necessary that criminal charges be brought to support a
determination of violation to division (A) of this section, nor shall the facts of dismissal or
acquittal of criminal charges operate as a bar to adverse license action under this section.
(Ord. 234, passed 12-1-2003; Am. Ord. 264, passed 11-21-2005; Am. Ord. 8, 4th series, passed
1-16-2007; Am. Ord. 17, 4th series, passed 1-17-2008; Am. Ord. 21, 4th series, passed 1-20-
2009)
C. Peer City Survey Responses
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
351 Page
c
c
Q C
E 'O
inO
C
O
U
Q
c
YbnYbn
C
U)
za
E
o
yi C
N d
E
C o
zao
UC
U
C
C
cc
v
O C LL
Y O
Y .E
hp V J
E=
Y Y
o C
zaza
E
o
C
O
Y
b
(D
c
Y C
C 'p
z0
U)
U
'p�-
O
Y
C
z
c
o
c
Ybn
C
za
O
E a
o w
,n
U
U
-p O
O
C o
DN
c
z
fb
C
fb
O
fb
C
fb
C
�
y,,
VI
T
VI
LL
VI
T
VI
T
Y
C
v
C
E
C
EC
E
C
E
C
O
O
w
(D
O
N
rb
V
O
w
N
O
w
(D
C
-p
U
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
w
Y
O
.N
O
N
ro
O
.N
O
in O
E
O
O
p`
O
(D
z
E
>
O -p
'ZI
>
-0
C
C
C0
C
)
O
O
0
C
a+
O
0
O
C
0
v
0
O
T
c
T
U
N
C
T
C
T
C
C
E
u '�
E
O
E
U
.in
E
in
J
O
3
w
c Y
O
O
T
in
+•
w
c
Y
w
c
Y
C
O
O mw
O
Y
_
Y
Y
O
ro
O
ro
Y
�
�
bn
M >,
bn
C
p_
p_
M
bn
M
>,
bn
M
>,
O_
Y
C
C
C
(DO
O
(D
C
C
C
C
Y
C
"
v E
"
C
a
a
z
"
v
E
v
E
°
C
Y
C
C
U
U
U)
U)
Y
Y
Y
N
U
N
fb
O
t
Y h0
t
C
C
C
N
N
t
Y
W
�''
L
Y
bn
w
=
rb in
Q
T
N
o
ro
in
ro
E
E
b
°
E
O
E
O
O
EO
O
OEo-
—�
O
O
p
E
O
N
ts
O
U
m
O
O
t
O
w
iO
Cin
O
O
O
E
O
O
s
bn
)
O
'6
6
c v
b0
m
C
v
E
C
v
v
v
bn
N b
b0
.0
O
0
O
t
b0
N
W
O
bn
N
by
O
0
E
y
(D
0C
U
C
C
U t
C
C
U
�
c
c U
c
uf0i
v
c
c
s
c
c
U
3
c
c
U
o
O
E°
0
�°
°
�°
U
O
N
bn
T
—
rb
rb
rb
c
U
'°
-a
E
>
Y
>
fO
Y
N
>
N
Y
v
>
N
Y
c
,v
Y
—
C
Y
U
C
a
°-
C
Y
—
C
Y
—
C
b4
C
f0
U v
v
v
a
E
U
o
f0
U
v
.0
'U
N
U
v
C
v
s
—_
a
N
a
U
ro
O_
Y
u
N
N
N
o
a
W
a
N
C_
in
rb
U o
O
U
O
U
U
p
E
C
O
Y
C
o
o
Y
Y
N
o
C
O
Y
C
J
>.
C
O
Y
y
Y
°
Q
O
O
C
O-
O
.0
Q
O
C
N
."
i^
C
Q
O
C>
N
C
Q
O
v
o
f
'E
v
v
v
-p
by
E
v
v
E
v
Y
O
v v
0
rib
N
V
u
v
c
O
v
v
v
o
c
s
0
41
(D
E
uvi
rb
�^ >
uvi
rb
>
T
O
uvi
rb
'^
>
'p
Y
uvi
in
>
O
bn
p
W
Y
U)
C
aT+
U)
(1
C
Y
O
Y
U
Y
U)
C
—
.�
'3
y
Y
U)
C
�'
O
C
J
O
'^
U
O
V
O
y
O
'p
O
�^
U
U
U
c
U
Y
U
C
N
'6
?_'
v
U
3
N
'6
�_'
N
0
N
E
Jw
0
.0
'o
-o
.0
c
',.,
ate+
Y
E
v
v
E
v
v
v
E
;;
0
v
E
v
v
E
U
o
v
v
v
v
v
v
o
0
v
v
v
°
C
v
v
v
U
v
U
U ,�
v
U
�
,�
U
bq
v
U
U
,�
w=
3
o
v
U
U
,�
v=
N
N
v N
U)
U)
0o
NNU)
NNU)
Cin)
b0
-6
Y
OQN
'Y6
-6UU))
EN
C
m
NCU)
"
.>UU)
—CQ�C
W
c
a
0
c
a
0
>
OxOx
E'pO
x
N
x
Y
°0
N
E
O
-
Q
p-
bn
tpOQ
O
O N
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
�'C
CN
C
O
Y'bNC0
>
>
c
c
c
c
>
>
c
°
>
T
m
b
O
O
b
O
W
C
w
w
m
m
O
•C=0
:c_0
O=d'
.
0
d'dd'n:
=
0
J
C
N
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U
C
C
O
N
6
T
=
C
ELr-
N
C
N
o
c
Y
v
3
`O
m
m
O
m
V
J
0
v
Z
Z
C
O
Y
y
N
Y
N
z
E
p`n
O
a
C
O
Y
y
N
Y
N
z
E
p`n
O
a
N
U
C
C
O
T
N
o
Y
Q
�
_Q
t
Y
f0
UO
VI
Y
yt/
O
0
N
Y
hn
Q
p
f0
Y
n
O
C
O
L
CO
C
C
b
C
C
O
>
p
y
V
in
O
C
c
O
>
Y
>
C
J
J
hn
3
v
v
v
hn
.�
0
C
vv
O
yLj
Y
VI
f0
U_
bD
t
bD
hn
C
m
>,
N
-6
C
O
O
Q
a)
L
aL+
N
a)
Y
w
O
O
hn
Y
VI
C
(D
V
f0
L'
Q
-O
U
C
C
Up
C
C
C>
>
c
c
)
O
ac
L
~v3
v
v
M
0
v
a
O
c-
o
Y0
O
Q
E
C�vC
-O
O
)
aE)
sX
E
o
°
c
,O
L(D
o
v
hn
Q
0
O
Ea
OEE
O
N
C
O
V
Y)
\
O
E
U
O
a)
-6
3
C
C
L
C
a)
C
m
OY
a)
—
Y
U
C
a)
hn
m
C
a)
`/
J
N
in
U
C
_6
N
m
V
E
0
a)
M
E
Q
C_
O
.�
-6
T
C
hn
C
N
N
a)
a)
c
C
U
L
'Q
E
C_
y
'^
Y
C
Y
a)
O
hn
m
C
O
a)
C
U
m
C
N
Y
m
a)
V
C
m
C
UO
Q
C
-Q
.0
N_
v
m
c_
v
c
3
m
m
z
m
c
O
C
in
a)
�/
D
-Q
v
O
-p
>
Y
E
J
`p
L
O
V
0
O
.'_^
j
m
hn
O
T
p
O
—
E
cm.)
a)
hn
0
=O
�E
Y
Q
C
O
_
bD
N
C
Y
v
d
a)
p
'6ma)
a)
c -
)
U
cO
NLLNa)
Q
L
O
Nhn
c-
C
CQ
O
)
hn
C
m
'6
a)U
C
m
>
C
E
>OO
o
O
)
L
m_Q
Y
Y
-Q�
Y
Y
y
J
Y
y^
O
Q
a)
E
OT
N
V
N
N
y
C
LU
O
0-.—
O
C
E-
L
O
T
m
a
U
O=
C
O
a
O
c
N
m
av+
E
C
°
a)
v
Q
U
C
U
U
'�
0
3
c
c
'�
.0-
-a
U
a)
�)
H
U
-0
C
T
'Q
C
U
n
w
a)
C
m
O—
O"
C
C
a)
a)
O
O
v
O
a)
hn
C
.B
am+
m
'yi
m
y
E
m
E
C
D
a)
E
0
.'^
(D
O
m
C
Y
a)
Y
Y
y 0
0'
w
o
C
c
m
m
m
0
0
0 '"
'"
a,
-6
m
Q Y
Y
y
a)
in
a)
N
N
a)
in
in
E
a)
C\
a)
`/
J
O
C
C
--
.0
a,
a)
-Q
hn
2
O
-O
._
v
v
N
o
3
U�
Y
c_
c
o
o
v C
C
bD
E
Y
Y
V
E
Q
a)
m°
a)
Y
c
am+
C
C
Q
Q
'C
U
J
J
L
C
U
O
C
E
.0
O m
C
m
C
E
E
.0
C
C
Q
O
X
X
J
Q
in
C_
O
`�
'C
.�
am+
O.
Q
a)
Q
a)
N
_
'�,
'O a)
a)
c
°
Y
E
E
C
O
Q
Q
T
C
Y
Y
d
C N
L
T
..
N .E
.E
E
E
L
a)
m
Q
m
O
O a)
O
a)
m
m
O
bn
.�—_
in
m
Y
a)
Y
Q
V
Q
Q W
W
Q
V
C—
C
C
C
Y
Y
a)
L
—
L
0
U
C_
m
m
C
Y
a)
L=
bD
Y
C
>>
`/
a)
C
in
Y
C>
a)
y y
a)
T
\
a)
Y
L
a)
C
J
C
O
U
a)
a)
a)
C
O
V1
O
C �"�
m
.0 N
M
.0 V
Ln
l0
U
N
O
m
U>
m
m
O
m
N
m
__
O
C
w
`
N
C
Q
O
Y>
aT+
O
Z
2
2 .0
=
0=
d'
=
V V
Z
Q
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
C
N
C
N
Q
a)
Y
N
3
a
v
D. Legal Framework — Dean vs. City of Winona, MN
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
361 Page
D.1-843 N.W.2d 249 (2014) — Ethan DEAN, et al., Appellants, v. CIN OF WINONA, Respondent. — No.
A13-1028 — Court of Appeals of Minnesota — February 24, 2014
371 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
STATE OF NUNNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A13-1028
Ethan Dean, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
City of Winona,
Respondent.
Filed February 24, 2014
Affirmed
Larkin, Judge
Winona County District Court
File No. 85 -CV -11-2329
Lee U. McGrath, Anthony Sanders, Katelynn McBride, Institute for Justice, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellants)
George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota
(for respondent)
Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae
League of Minnesota Cities)
Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Daniel E. Frank, (pro hac vice), Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Washington, D.C.
(for amicus curiae The Minnesota Free Market Institute at Center of the American
Experiment)
Jarod M. Bona, Ann A. Parmley, Alvin Johnson Jr., DLA Piper LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota Vacation Rental Association)
Teresa J. Nelson, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota)
Judge.
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Larkin,
Cydwrr_16aULi
1. A municipality may use its police power to limit the number of lots on a block that
are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property.
2. An ordinance that establishes a neutral, numerical limit on the number of lots on a
block that are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property does not violate
equal protection or due process under the Minnesota Constitution.
OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Appellants, owners of residential properties in respondent municipality, challenge
the summary judgment upholding respondent's ordinance that limits, to 30%, the number
of lots on a block that are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property. Because
respondent's adoption of the ordinance was an authorized exercise of its police power
and because appellants have not met their burden to show that the ordinance is
unconstitutional, we affirm.
FACTS
This case stems from respondent City of Winona's adoption of an ordinance that
limits, in certain districts of the city, the number of lots on a block that are eligible to
obtain certification as a rental property. In 2003, respondent's city council requested that
its planning commission consider the effectiveness of respondent's off-street parking
regulations, particularly regarding rental properties, and most significantly around the
2
Winona State University campus. Members of the planning commission noted that an
increasing number of residential properties were being converted from single-family
usage to rental usage, which resulted in increased parking demands. One of the
suggested solutions to the problem was limiting the number of rental properties per block
in residential areas.
In December 2004, respondent's city council issued a six-month moratorium on
the certification of new rental housing. During the moratorium, the planning commission
initiated discussions and developed a list of proposed code modifications pertaining to
rental housing density and off-street parking issues. Later, the planning commission held
a series of public -input meetings with landlords, homeowners, and others. In April 2005,
in conjunction with the planning -commission discussions, respondent's mayor initiated a
series of town meetings designed to address "density, parking, and aesthetic issues within
the `area' of the university." Landlords, homeowners, students, and others attended the
meetings. After the last meeting, the mayor created a core study group to identify issues
and possible solutions pertaining to university neighborhoods for the planning
commission's consideration. The council extended the moratorium for an additional six
months to allow the study group and planning commission to complete their work.
A Parking Advisory Task Force was also formed in 2005 to consider the same
issues and the planning commission's proposals. The task force noted that at that time,
rental -housing units comprised about 39% of respondent's total housing units, but 52% of
the complaints received by the Community Development Department (CDD) related to
rental properties. In August of 2005, the task force began discussing the idea of
3
restricting the number of rental properties per block. Because rental housing units
comprised approximately 39% of the total housing units, it was suggested that the
number of rental units be restricted to 30% of the total properties on any given block.
The task force adopted a motion to forward a "30% rule" to the planning commission for
its consideration. The task force acknowledged that such a rule could prevent out-of-
town individuals from purchasing residential property in Winona and that it could hinder
the ability of current residents to sell their properties. Nonetheless, the task force favored
the 30% rule and decided to seek studies and findings on the effect of rental housing on
the area.
The planning commission discussed the 30% rule at two meetings in October
2005. It noted that the task force believed that neighborhoods heavily populated with
student rental housing tend to become run-down and unattractive. The planning
commission noted that according to county data from 2004, the CDD found that 95 of the
99 addresses that had two or more calls for police service based on noise and party -
related complaints were rental properties. The planning commission also noted that 52%
of the zoning violations that resulted in written violations during 2004 were for rental
properties. After holding a public hearing on the issue, the planning commission voted
six to three to recommend the 30% rule to respondent's city council.
The city council held a public meeting regarding the rule in November 2005.
Several members of the community spoke for and against the rule. Opponents voiced
concern that property values would suffer
11
Proponents voiced a desire to protect
neighborhoods and prevent areas from becoming dominated by rental units. The city
council passed the 30% rule at the meeting and adopted the rule on December 5.
In February 2009, the planning commission once again considered the 30% rule.
The city planner noted that 142 residential properties had been certified for rental since
the rule was enacted and that those units were dispersed throughout Winona rather than
concentrated. But planning -commission members disagreed regarding whether or not the
rule was working.
In March, the city council created a new task force to examine the 30% rule. Its
goal was to consider ways for residents to rent their homes in extraordinary
circumstances despite the 30% cap, as well as ways to encourage the conversion of rental
properties into owner -occupied properties. In February 2010, the task force
recommended that respondent retain the 30% rule. The task force noted that "[a]lthough
the general consensus of the Task Force was that the Rule has, since adoption, had the
intended [effect] of dispersing rental patterns away from core university neighborhoods,
not all were supportive of the method." The CDD's program development director
described the 30% rule as having "preserved affordable housing and reduced conversions
as intended."
In October 2011, appellants Ethan Dean, et al., filed the underlying lawsuit.
Appellants, collectively, were the owners of three houses purchased after adoption of the
30% rule. Appellant Ethan Dean purchased his house in 2006, planning to live in it. In
2009, Dean was preparing for a military tour in Iraq and wanted to rent the house out. He
could not obtain rental certification because of the 30% rule. At the time of the
E
summary -judgment proceeding in district court, Dean had obtained temporary
certification and had been renting his house out since 2010.
Appellant Holly Richard also purchased her house in 2006. In 2009, she accepted
a job in another state. She tried to sell her house, but after receiving no offers, she
decided to rent it out. She was unable to obtain rental certification because of the 30%
rule. Richard entered into a rent -with -the -option -to -buy agreement with a tenant. In
February 2010, respondent discovered the rental arrangement and ordered the tenant to
vacate the property. At the time of the summary -judgment proceeding, Richard had been
renting her house out since April 2010. She first obtained temporary certification. Later,
she obtained standard rental certification after the license of another property on her
block lapsed.'
Appellants Ted and Lauren Dzierzbicki, Illinois residents at the time of the
summary -judgment proceeding, purchased a house in Winona in 2007, where their
daughter attended college. They made improvements to the house, intending that their
daughter would live in it and rent space in the house to other students. The Dzierzbickis
could not obtain rental certification because of the 30% rule. Their house has been empty
since the spring of 2010, when their daughter graduated.
Appellants' lawsuit challenges the 30% rule as an ultra vires act exceeding
respondent's zoning powers and as unconstitutional under the Minnesota Constitution.
Appellants seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages.
' Appellants Dean and Richard remain in this lawsuit with claims for nominal damages.
Respondent moved to dismiss them from the suit for lack of standing. That motion was
denied, and the denial is not challenged on appeal.
6
In February 2012, the planning commission received the report of a consulting
firm, the Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKG), which had been retained to review the
literature on the impact of rental -housing concentration on neighborhood quality and
liveability. The HKG report considered five other cities in addition to Winona and
concluded that "the concentration of rental housing in Winona results in increased levels
of nuisance and police violations in those neighborhoods" and that "the concentration of
rental housing leads to a decreased neighborhood quality and liveability."
Also in February 2012, the planning commission discussed moving the 30% rule
from chapter 43, the zoning chapter of respondent's code, to chapter 33A, the rental -
housing chapter, partly because respondent's charter provided additional legal authority
for the 30% rule and partly because other cities codified similar provisions in housing
codes instead of in zoning codes. The 30% rule was moved to its present location in
respondent's rental -housing code in March 2012.
In 2012, all parties moved for summary judgment. They agreed that there were no
genuine issues of material fact and that the matter would be appropriately decided as a
matter of law. After a January 2013 hearing, the district court denied appellants' motion
and granted summary judgment to respondent.
ISSUES
I_ Is the 30% rule an ultra vires act that exceeds the powers delegated to respondent
by the Minnesota legislature?
II_ Have appellants shown that the 30% rule is unconstitutional?
7
ANALYSIS
The case comes before us on appeal of the district court's award of summary
judgment. The standard of review in an appeal from summary judgment is de novo.
Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLC, 801 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Minn. 2011).
The ordinance giving rise to the underlying dispute provides in relevant part:
33A.03 — RENTAL HOUSING LICENSE
(i) Limitation of rental housing in low density
neighborhoods. In [certain] districts of the city, no more than
30 percent (rounded up) of the lots on any block shall be
eligible to obtain certification as a rental property, including
homes in which roomers and/or boarders are taken in by a
resident family.... When determining the number of eligible
properties on a block, the number shall be the lowest number
that results in 30 percent or more of the residential lots being
rental.
Winona, Minn., City Code ch. 33A.03(i) (2013).
There is an exception for rental properties that were certified when the 30% rule
was adopted, but such properties are counted among the 30% of allowable rental
properties for purposes of determining whether new properties may be certified. Id. The
ordinance also allows for temporary certification under limited circumstances. Id.
Appellants argue that the 30% rule is an ultra vires act that exceeds the powers
delegated to respondent by the Minnesota legislature. Appellants also argue that the 30%
rule violates their rights, under the Minnesota Constitution, to equal protection,
substantive due process, and procedural due process. We address each argument in tum.
I.
Appellants argue that respondent "lacks the power to enact the 30 percent rule."
Respondent counters that the 30% rule is a valid exercise of its broad police power under
the "all powers" grant in the City of Winona Charter.
Respondent, a home rule charter city, has by virtue of its charter "all powers,
rights, privileges and immunities granted to it by this Charter and by the constitution and
laws of the State of Minnesota and all powers existing in a municipal corporation at
common law." Winona, Minn., City Charter ch. 1.02 (1983). "[A home rule charter city]
may provide . . . for the regulation of all local municipal functions as fully as the
legislature might have done before home rule charters for cities were authorized by
constitutional amendment in 1896." Minn. Stat. § 410.07 (2012). " [I]n matters of
municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the
legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld." Bolen v.
Glass, 755 N.W.2d. 1, 4-5 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
Generally, police power "refers to the power of the state and its political
subdivisions to impose such restraints upon private rights as are necessary for the general
welfare. This government power is essential and difficult to limit, as it includes all
matters of public welfare." In re 1994 and 1995 Shoreline Improvement Contractor
Licenses of Landview Landscaping, Inc., 546 N.W.2d 747, 750 (Minn. App. 1996)
(quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1996).
The concept of police power has a long history in Minnesota. "The term `police
power' ... means simply the power to impose such restrictions upon private rights as are
9
practically necessary for the general welfare of all." State ex rel. Beek v. Wagener, 77
Minn. 483, 494, 80 N.W. 633, 635 (1899).
[I]n the exercise of its police powers a state is not confined to
matters relating strictly to the public health, morals, and
peace, but, as has been said, there may be interference
whenever the public interests demand it; and in this particular
a large discretion is necessarily vested in the legislature, to
determine not only what the interests of the public require,
but what measures are necessary for the protection of such
interests. If, then, any business becomes of such a character
as to be sufficiently affected with public interest, there may
be a legislative interference and regulation of it in order to
secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state,
provided the measures adopted do not conflict with
constitutional provisions, and have some relation to, and
some tendency to accomplish, the desired end.
Id. at 495, 80 N.W. at 635 (citation omitted).
The breadth of police power is equally well established. "The development of the
law relating to the proper exercise of the police power of the state clearly demonstrates
that it is very broad and comprehensive, and is exercised to promote the general welfare
of the state . . . . And the limit of this power cannot and never will be accurately
defined.. . ." Id., see also City of St. Paul v. Dalsin, 245 Minn. 325, 329, 71 N.W.2d
855, 858 (1955) ("Judicial concepts of what is a sufficient public interest to invoke the
police power, and of whether a certain remedy is reasonably appropriate to accomplish its
purpose without going beyond the reasonable demands of the occasion so as to be
arbitrary, are not static but are geared to society's changing conditions and views.").
We easily conclude that the public has a sufficient interest in rental housing to
justify a municipality's use of police power as a means of regulating such housing. See
10
City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1, 13-14 n.7 (Minn. 2008)
(recognizing that there are "many permissible areas" for "municipal regulation of rental
housing"). In fact, the landlord -tenant relationship is currently subject to extensive
government regulation. See Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.001-.471 (2012) (governing landlord -
tenant relationships). In this case, the record establishes that respondent determined that
the conversion of owner -occupied homes to rental properties and the concentration of
such properties in some neighborhoods began to have a negative impact on the quality
and liveability of those neighborhoods. That occurrence implicated the public interest
and welfare. Because "there may be interference whenever the public interests demand
it," respondent was authorized to address the circumstances through its police power so
long as, "the measures adopted [did] not conflict with constitutional provisions, and [had]
some relation to, and some tendency to accomplish, the desired end." Wagener, 77 Minn.
at 495, 80 N.W. at 635.
Appellants do not persuasively dispute respondent's authority to regulate rental
housing within its borders through its police power. Instead, appellants contend that the
ordinance was an exercise of respondent's statutory zoning power and not an exercise of
its police power. Appellants further contend that the ordinance was not a valid exercise
of zoning authority. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 (2012) (setting forth municipal
zoning authority). Because we conclude that respondent's adoption of the ordinance was
an exercise of its police power, it is not necessary to determine whether it was also an
exercise of its zoning authority. We therefore do not address appellants' zoning
arguments.
11
In sum, respondent's adoption of the 30% rule was an authorized exercise of
police power, subject to constitutional limitations. See Wagener, 77 Minn. at 495, 80
N.W. at 635. Because the validity of respondent's exercise of police power is determined
under the analysis applicable to appellants' constitutional claims, we turn our attention to
those claims.
II.
Appellants argue that the 30% rule "conflict[s] with constitutional provisions." Id.
Specifically, they argue that it violates their rights to equal protection, substantive due
process, and procedural due process under the Minnesota Constitution. See Minn. Const.
art. I, §§ 2 ("No member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the
rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the
judgment of his peers."), 7 (stating that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law). Appellants state that their constitutional claims
"are both facial and as applied."
"The constitutionality of an ordinance is a question of law[,] which this court
reviews de novo." Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 625 N.W.2d 165, 171
(Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted). A municipal ordinance is presumed to be
constitutional, and the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional is on the party
challenging it. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis, 766 N.W.2d 683, 688
(Minn. 2009); see also Bodin v. City of St. Paul, 305 Minn. 555, 558, 227 N.W.2d 794,
797 (1975) ("A successful challenge to ... legislation [allegedly resulting in unequal
treatment of persons similarly situated] requires proof of unconstitutionality beyond a
12
reasonable doubt. The burden to overcome this stringent presumption is upon the party
alleging the unconstitutionality of the provision at issue." (footnote omitted)). "If the
reasonableness of an ordinance is debatable, the courts will not interfere with the
legislative discretion." Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, 559 N.W.2d 444, 445 (Minn. App.
1997) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 24, 1997).
A. Equal Protection
"A party may raise an equal protection challenge to a statute based on the statute's
express terms, that is, a `facial' challenge, or based on the statute's application, that is, an
`as -applied' challenge." State v. Richmond, 730 N.W.2d 62, 71 (Minn. App. 2007),
review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007). `By definition, a facial challenge to a statute on
equal protection grounds asserts that at least two classes are created by the statute, that
the classes are treated differently under the statute, and that the difference in treatment
cannot be justified." In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Minn. 1980). A facially
neutral statute can violate equal protection if it is applied in a way that creates an
impermissible classification or discriminates in practice. See State v. Frazier, 649
N.W.2d 828, 833-34 (Minn. 2002) (explaining that to prevail on an equal -protection
challenge where the challenged statute did not, on its face, classify on the basis of race,
the challenger had to "demonstrate that the statute create[d] a racial classification in
practice"); McCannel, 301 N.W.2d at 916 (stating that "the equal protection clause
provides protection against arbitrary discrimination resulting from the express terms of a
statute as well as from a statute's improper execution"); State v. Stewart, 529 N.W.2d
493, 497 (Minn. App. 1995) (holding that an ordinance violated due process and equal
13
protection rights based on the city's arbitrary application and enforcement of the
ordinance).
An equal -protection challenge requires an initial showing that "similarly situated
persons have been treated differently." State v. Cox, 798 N.W.2d 517, 521 (Minn. 2011)
(quotation omitted). In determining whether two groups are similarly situated, the focus
is on "whether they are alike in all relevant respects." Id. at 522. Appellate courts
"routinely reject equal -protection claims when a party cannot establish that he or she is
similarly situated to those whom they contend are being treated differently." Schatz v.
Interface Care Or., 811 N.W.2d 643, 656 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
The 30% rule is unlike laws that expressly identified groups that were to be treated
differently and therefore violated equal protection under the Minnesota Constitution. See
State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886, 887, 889 (Minn. 1991) (holding that Minn. Stat.
§ 152.023, subd. 2 (1990), violated equal protection because it imposed disparate
treatment on two similarly situated groups: possessors of three or more grams of crack
cocaine were guilty of a third-degree offense and possessors of less than ten grams of
cocaine powder were guilty of a fifth -degree offense); see also Weir v. ACCRA Care,
Inc., 828 N.W.2d 470, 476 (Minn. App. 2013) (holding that Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd.
20(20) (2012), violated equal protection because it provided that immediate -family -
member caregivers were not covered under the unemployment statutes but non -
immediate -family -member caregivers were covered); Healthstar Home Health, Inc. v.
Jesson, 827 N.W.2d 444, 447, 449, 453 (Minn. App. 2012) (holding that a pay cut
imposed on relative caregivers but not on caregivers who were not related to their
14
patients violated equal protection because both groups were "required to comply with the
same statutes, rules and regulations" and therefore were similarly situated).
The 30% rule does not set forth any facial classification providing a basis for
disparate treatment, and it does not describe any particular group of property owners for
whom certification is or is not available. The ordinance is facially neutral and applies
equally to all property owners in the regulated districts. The ordinance sets a 30% cap,
but it does not define or predetermine which lots will be certified. That determination is
made based on the changing facts and circumstances on each block, and not based on the
ordinance or the characteristics of lot owners. The fact that the number of lots that may
be certified might be less than the number of property owners who desire certification is
not a class -based distinction between two groups of property owners. Because the 30%
rule does not provide that certification will be available to one particular group of
property owners instead of to another, appellants fail to meet the threshold requirement of
a facial equal -protection challenge by showing that the 30% rule treats similarly situated
groups differently. See Cox, 798 N.W.2d at 521.
Appellants also fail to present evidence of discrimination resulting from arbitrary
application of the 30% rule. Appellants have not shown that respondent has done
anything other than apply the mathematical formula on a first-come, first-served basis.
Appellants' real complaint is about the effect of an otherwise neutral ordinance on their
particular circumstances, which does not give rise to an equal -protection claim. See John
Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 497 N.W.2d 250, 254 (Minn. 1993)
(stating that "any difference of effect" that is the result of the unique circumstances of
15
those affected by legislation does not give rise to an equal -protection claim). Appellants
complain that the 30% rule unevenly affects owners who want to rent their properties.
But any uneven effects are the result of the order in which property owners attempted to
have their lots certified as rental properties and not the result of discriminatory treatment
stemming from respondent's application of the ordinance. "The possibility that a law
may actually fail to operate with equality is not enough to invalidate it." Id. (quotation
omitted). Thus, appellants' as -applied equal -protection challenge is also unavailing.
Lastly, even if appellants did show that the 30% rule resulted in different treatment
of similarly situated property owners, they would also have to show that the treatment
was not merely different: only "invidious discrimination is deemed constitutionally
offensive." Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass'n, Inc., 615 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn.
2000) (quotation omitted). Limiting the number of lots on a block that are eligible to
obtain certification as a rental property does not rise to the level of invidious
discrimination.
In sum, the 30% rule establishes a neutral, numerical limit on the number of lots
that are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property and applies uniformly
throughout the affected districts on a first-come, first-served basis. Because appellants
did not make the necessary threshold showing that the 30% rule treats them differently
than other similarly situated individuals, their equal -protection claim fails as a matter of
law.
16
B. Substantive Due Process
Appellants assert that the 30% rule violates their right to rent their property,
asserting that such a right is "guaranteed by the substantive component of the Due
Process Clause of Article I, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution." Appellants
acknowledge that no published Minnesota case has "addressed the specific contours of
how the clause protects that right." For the purpose of our analysis we assume, without
deciding, that the right to rent is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Minnesota
Constitution.
Unless a fundamental right is at stake, judicial scrutiny is not exacting and
substantive due process requires only that the statute not be arbitrary or capricious; the
statute must provide a reasonable means to a permissible objective. State v. Behl, 564
N.W.2d 560, 567 (Minn. 1997). Appellants do not argue that a fundamental right is at
stake, so the rational -basis standard applies. See Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711, 717
(Minn. 1999) (stating that "even if a fundamental right is not implicated, in order to pass
constitutional muster [a] registration statute must still meet the rational basis standard of
review"). The rational -basis standard requires that: (1) "the act serve to promote a public
purpose," (2) the act "not be an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious interference" with a
private interest, and (3) "the means chosen bear a rational relation to the public purpose
sought to be served." Contos v. Herbst, 278 N.W.2d 732, 741 (Minn. 1979). For the
reasons that follow. we conclude that the rational -basis standard is met.
First, the 30% rule serves to promote a public purpose. The purpose of the
ordinance is to control the number of owner -occupied homes that are converted to rental
17
properties and to avoid heavy concentrations of such converted properties. As we
concluded in section I of this opinion, that purpose serves the public interest.
Second, the ordinance is not an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious interference
with private interests. The 30% cape was adopted after a long, deliberate information -
gathering process that considered public input, data, and expert review, including the
HKG memorandum. Appellants attempted to refute the HKG memorandum by arguing
that it was based on the number of rental properties and that it should have been based on
the number of rental units. But respondent's concern was not the number of renters in an
area; it was the number of properties that went from being owner -occupied to rental
properties. Appellants' adverse expert provided data based only on the density of rental
units, not the density of rental properties, which is not relevant to the 30% rule or to the
purpose for which it was enacted.3
Third, the 30% rule bears a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be
served. There is an evident connection between the imposition of a numerical cap on the
number of lots that may convert from owner -occupied properties to rental properties and
2 Appellants do not argue that respondent should have used some percentage other than
30%. They argue that not having certification available for every residential property
violates equal protection. We therefore do not address the propriety of the 30% cap as
opposed to some other percentage. See Holt, 559 N.W.2d at 445 ("If the reasonableness
of an ordinance is debatable, the courts will not interfere with the legislative discretion."
(quotation omitted)).
3 In any event, the decision regarding whether certification is granted to properties or to
individual rental units belongs to respondent's city council, not to this court. See Holt,
559 N.W.2d at 445 (If the reasonableness of an ordinance is debatable, the courts will
not interfere with the legislative discretion." (quotation omitted)). For the same reason,
we do not address appellants' arguments that the 30% rule is not an effective means of
improving parking or controlling student behavior. These issues are not within our scope
of review. See id.
the desire to control the number and concentrations of such converted properties. It is
undisputed that the 30% rule has limited the number and location of converted properties,
as it was intended to do.
In arguing their substantive -due -process claim, appellants primarily rely on two
cases from other jurisdictions: Gangemi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Fairfield, 763 A.2d
1011, 1017-18 (Conn. 200 1) (invalidating a no -rental condition that applied to only one
property and therefore served no purpose and unfairly restricted the owners' ability to
sell) and Kirsch Holding Co. v. Borough of Manasquan, 281 A.2d 513, 519-20 (N.J.
1971) (invalidating ordinance prohibiting rental of seaside properties to groups of
unrelated adults). Those cases are not binding on this court. See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas
Co., 344 N.W.2d 856, 861 (Minn. 1984) (noting that opinions of courts of other states
may be persuasive but are not binding on Minnesota courts). Moreover, Gangemi is
distinguishable because the 30% rule applies to all properties in the district, not to only
one. Kirsch Holding is distinguishable because the 30% rule is not a restriction on who
rents properties but on how many properties can be rented.
The only Minnesota case that appellants cite, City of St. Paul v. Dalsin, is also
distinguishable. In Dalsin, the supreme court held that
[t]he requirement that a roofer must qualify himself in warm
air heating and ventilation has no reasonable relation to any
justifiable regulation of the roofing trade. Since the
ordinance embraces unnecessary, unreasonable, and
oppressive requirements as a prerequisite to a license to
install sheet metal flashings as an incidental part of the
process of laying a roof, it must be held unconstitutional
insofar as applies to the roofing trade.
19
245 Minn. at 330, 71 N.W.2d at 859. Unlike the requirement in Dalsin, the 30% cap on
the number of lots that are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property has a
reasonable relation to respondent's justifiable regulation of rental housing.
In sum, the ordinance provides a reasonable means to a permissible objective and
appellants have not met their burden to show that the ordinance violates their substantive
right to due process under the Minnesota Constitution.
C. Procedural Due Process
Lastly, we consider appellants' procedural -due -process claim. Appellants contend
that the 30% rule violates their "procedural due process right by unconstitutionally
delegating legislative power to a property owner's neighbors." They argue that
" [1]egislatures cannot delegate their power to a group of citizens," and that "[t]his rule of
law is over 100 years old and guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution." They assert
that the 30% rule unconstitutionally transforms city blocks "into mini -republics,
delegating the power to ban additional licenses to the [license -holding] property owners
on each block."
Appellants primarily rely on State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 255 Minn.
249, 97 N.W.2d 273 (1959). Foster involved a piece of land that was originally zoned as
commercial. 255 Minn. at 250, 97 N.W.2d at 274. The property was rezoned as
residential after satisfaction of a statutory requirement that the owners of two-thirds of
the properties "within 100 feet of the real estate affected" give their written consent. Id.
When the owners of the property applied for a permit to construct an office building on
the property, their request was denied based on the new zoning classification. Id., 97
20
N.W.2d at 273-74. Foster held that the statutory requirement of consent of the owners of
two-thirds of the properties "within 100 feet of the real estate affected" was "an unlawful
delegation of power to impose restrictions on real property" and noted that "[w]him or
caprice may [have been] the sole motivating factor" in the rezoning decision that
"divested [the] property of all substantial value without compensation to [the
purchasers]." Id. at 252, 254, 97 N.W.2d at 275-76.
In holding that the ordinance violated due process under the federal constitution,
the supreme court explained:
We are of the opinion that the consent clause of
§ 462.18, as a prerequisite to the exercise of the city council's
legislative authority to amend the comprehensive zoning
ordinance, constitutes an unlawful delegation of power to
impose restrictions on real property, and renders this
provision of the statute invalid. It is well settled that a
municipal corporation may not condition restricted uses of
property upon the consent of private individuals such as the
owners of adjoining property; and that it is an unreasonable
exercise of police power to rest control of property uses in the
hands of the owners of other property.
Id. at 252-53, 97 N.W.2d at 275.
Foster is readily distinguishable. Under the 30% rule, the owners of certified
rental properties do not determine which other lots may be certified. The certified -
property owners' views regarding whether a particular lot should be certified as a rental
property are irrelevant; they can neither grant certification by consenting to it nor prevent
certification by denying consent. Thus, respondent's limit on the number of lots on a
block that are eligible to obtain rental certification is not a delegation of legislative
power.
21
In sum, appellants have not shown that the 30% rule violates their right to
procedural due process. Although we reject appellants' assertion that "the actions of
[their] neighbors have denied them the right to rent," we in no way mean to diminish the
impact of the 30% rule on appellants' ability to use their properties as they would like,
and we are sympathetic to their circumstances. But appellants' dissatisfaction with the
local majority's adoption of an ordinance limiting their ability to rent their residential
properties is not a basis for the judiciary to strike down the ordinance as unconstitutional.
DECISION
Respondent was authorized, under its broad police power, to adopt an ordinance
limiting by percentage the number of lots on a block that are eligible to obtain
certification as a rental property. Because the ordinance does not discriminate against
any class of property owners, either on its face or in its application, and there is a rational
basis for the ordinance, the ordinance does not violate equal protection or substantive due
process. And because the ordinance does not delegate legislative power to other property
owners, it does not violate procedural due process. We therefore affirm the district
court's award of summary judgment to respondent.
Affirmed.
22
D.2 — 868 N.W.2d 1(2015) — Ethan DEAN, et al., Appellants, v. CIN OF WINONA, Respondent. — No. A13-
1028—Supreme Court of Minnesota — February 24, 2014
381 Page
CITY OF NORTH MANKHTO
868 N.W.2d 1 (2015)
Ethan DEAN, et al., Appellants,
V.
CITY OF WINONA, Respondent.
No. A13-1028.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
August 5, 2015.
2'2, Anthony B. Sanders, Lee U. McGrath, Institute for Justice, Minneapolis, MN; and Diana
K. Simpson, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, for appellants.
George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, MN, for
respondent.
Teresa Nelson, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of
Minnesota.
Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis, MN; and Daniel E. Frank,
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae The Cato Institute and
The Minnesota Free Market Institute at the Center of the American Experiment.
Eileen M. Wells, City Attorney, Linda Boucher Hilligoss, Assistant City
Attorney, 22Mankato, MN, for amicus curiae City of Mankato.
Terry L. Adkins, City Attorney, Rochester Minnesota, for amicus curiae City of Rochester.
Samuel J. Clark, City Attorney, Gerald T. Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney, Saint Paul,
MN, for amicus curiae City of Saint Paul.
Susan L. Naughton, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.
Bradley J. Boyd, Sarah B. Bennett, Christopher P. Renz, Thomsen & Nybeck, P.A.,
Bloomington, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Realtors.
Jarod M. Bona, Bona Law P.C., La Jolla, California; and Aaron R. Gott, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Vacation Rental Association.
OPINION
WRIGHT, Justice.
Appellants Ethan Dean, Holly Richard, and Ted and Lauren Dzierzbicki brought this action,
challenging a rental ordinance enacted by respondent City of Winona (the City). The
ordinance, referred to as the "30 -percent rule," limits the number of lots on a block in certain
areas of the City that are eligible for certification as rental properties. Appellants assert that
the 30 -percent rule is a zoning law that exceeds the City's power authorized by Minn.Stat. §
462.357 (2014).
Appellants also contend that the 30 -percent rule violates their rights to equal protection and
substantive due process guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution. On cross-motions for
summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the City. The court of
appeals affirmed, concluding that the adoption of the ordinance was a valid exercise of the
City's police power and that appellants did not meet their burden of establishing that the
ordinance is unconstitutional. After we granted appellants' petition for review, the City
moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the case had become moot while on
appeal. We conclude that the challenge to the ordinance does not present a justiciable
controversy because appellants no longer have an interest in the outcome of the litigation.
We, therefore, decline to reach the merits of appellants' claims and dismiss the appeal.
At the heart of this dispute is the City's policy limiting the number of rental licenses available
to homeowners in Winona. The City requires its homeowners to obtain rental licenses
before they are permitted to rent their properties to tenants. In 2005, the City enacted the
30 -percent rule, currently codified as Winona, Minn., Code § 33A.03 (2014), to regulate the
density of rental properties in certain residential zones. The purpose of the rule, when
enacted, was to decrease conversions from owner -occupied properties to rental properties,
which, the City reasoned, would decrease crime and nuisance complaints and improve the
quality of life in Winona. In residential zones subject to the 30 -percent rule, homeowners
generally may not obtain rental licenses for their properties if more than 30 percent of the
lots on that block already are licensed as rental properties. For example, on a 12 -property
block subject to the rule, only four lots may be licensed as rental properties.m
4'4 Appellants sued the City in 2011 after each sought and was denied a standard rental
license. Appellant Holly Richard purchased a house in Winona in December 2006. When
she attempted to obtain a rental license in 2009, the City erroneously told her that no
licenses were available for her block. After Richard filed the lawsuit, the City issued a
standard rental license to her. Appellant Ethan Dean bought a house near Winona State
University in 2006. He rented his house without a license after his job required him to work
in Iraq in 2009. The City granted Dean a temporary, nontransferable rental license in 2010,
but declined to issue a standard rental license. In November 2012, after failing to sell the
home, Dean transferred it to Wells Fargo Bank by warranty deed to avoid foreclosure.
Appellants Ted and Lauren Dzierzbicki purchased a house in 2007 near the university for
their daughter and student renters to live in while attending college. After the Dzierzbickis
learned that they could not rent the home as planned because of the 30 -percent rule, they
put the house on the market in December 2009.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in January 2013. In their cross-
motion, appellants sought a declaratory judgment that the 30 -percent rule violates their
equal -protection, procedural -due -process, and substantive -due -process rights under the
Minnesota Constitution. Appellants also alleged that the ordinance exceeds the City's
zoning power under Minn.Stat. § 462.357, Minnesota's zoning enabling statute. See
id. (describing a municipality's authority for zoning and the limitations of that authority).
Specifically, appellants claimed that the ordinance is unlawful under section 462.357
because it impermissibly regulates the ownership or occupancy of property, rather than the
use of property. Appellants sought injunctive relief and nominal damages. The district court
granted the City's motion for summary judgment in April 2013, concluding that the 30 -
percent rule is not unconstitutional and that the City had authority to enact it. The court of
appeals affirmed. Dean v. City of Winona, 843 N.W.2d 249, 263 (Minn.App.2014).
The Dzierzbickis sold their house in March 2014, one month after the court of appeals
issued its decision. At that time, the Dzierzbickis were the only appellants still seeking a
rental license from the City. Appellants filed a petition for review, which we granted in May
2014. After we granted appellants' petition for review, the City moved to dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
We first consider the City's motion to dismiss. The City argues that dismissal is warranted
because the case is not justiciable and nominal damages cannot be recovered under the
Minnesota Constitution.
Justiciability is an issue of law, which we review de novo. McCaughtry v. City of Red
Wing, 808 N.W.2d 331, 337 (Minn.20111. In the context presented here, the jurisdictional
question is one of mootness. See In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826
(Minn. 1989) (observing that when we are unable to grant relief, the issue raised is deemed
moot). The mootness doctrine is not a mechanical rule that is automatically invoked
whenever the underlying dispute between the parties is settled or otherwise resolved. State
v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573, 576 (Minn. 1984). Rather, it is a "flexible discretionary
doctrine." Id. Mootness has been described as "'the doctrine of standing set in a time frame:
The requisite personal interest that must exist 5=5 at the commencement of the litigation
(standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness)."' Friends of the Earth. Inc. v.
Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC). Inc.. 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610
2( 000) (citation omitted). An appeal should be dismissed as moot when a decision on the
merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible. In re
Minnegasco, 565 N.W.2d 706, 710 (Minn. 1997).
Appellants acknowledge that they do not have a current interest in the litigation beyond their
claim for nominal damages under the Minnesota Constitution and that their claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief are moot. Nonetheless, they argue that we should apply two
discretionary exceptions to our mootness doctrine. First, appellants maintain that the issues
raised are capable of repetition, yet likely to evade review. See Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d
815, 821 (Minn.2005). Second, appellants contend that this case is "functionally justiciable"
and of "statewide significance." See Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 576. The City counters that neither
exception applies. We address each argument in turn.
A.
We begin by considering the exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are capable
of repetition, yet evade review. This two-pronged exception applies to issues that are likely
to reoccur, but also would continue to evade judicial review. Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at 821.
These circumstances exist when there is a reasonable expectation that a complaining party
would be subjected to the same action again and the duration of the challenged action is
too short to be fully litigated before it ceases or expires. Id.
This case does not meet the "evading -review" prong of the exception because the City's
enforcement of the ordinance is ongoing. The constitutionality of the 30 -percent rule is not
an issue that, by its character, is "too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or
expiration." Id. (citation omitted); see State v. Brooks, 604 N.W.2d 345, 348
(Minn.2000) (noting that future defendants might have "no remedy" if the case were not
decided because "[m]ost pretrial bail issues are, by definition, short-lived"). Traditionally,
cases that have been found to evade review involve disputes of an inherently limited
duration, such as prior restraints on speech, see Neb. Press Assn v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539,
546-47, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) (holding that a judge's order limiting the
press's reports about a trial would escape judicial scrutiny because such orders would
always expire before appellate review), and short-term mental-health confinement
orders, see In re Blilie, 494 N.W.2d 877, 879-81 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that the issue of
whether plaintiffs treatment by neuroleptic medication upon her guardian's consent was
constitutional was capable of repetition yet evaded review because, although plaintiff had
been discharged from state custody, she could again be subjected to 90 days of treatment
with the medication if her guardian admitted her to a treatment center); State ex rel. Doe v.
Madonna, 295 N.W.2d 356, 361 (Minn. 1980) (reviewing the constitutionality of three -day -
hold orders for mentally ill appellants who were no longer subject to confinement at the time
of their challenge).
The time frame of this case makes clear that a challenge to the 30 -percent rule is not, by
definition, "short-lived." Brooks, 604 N.W.2d at 348. The last of the property owners seeking
a rental license here sold their property after the court of appeals' opinion was issued and
shortly before we granted appellants' petition for further review. Appellants' case had been
initiated three years earlier, a duration 6`6 that typically would provide ample time for judicial
review. In fact, if appellants had pleaded additional claims or joined plaintiffs while their
case was pending before the district court, this case may have reached us before becoming
moot. Because there is nothing about this case that is of inherently limited duration, this
dispute is not capable of repetition, yet evading review.
:J
We have the discretion to consider a case that is technically moot when the case is
"functionally justiciable" and presents an important question of "statewide significance that
should be decided immediately." Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 576. "A case is functionally justiciable
if the record contains the raw material (including effective presentation of both sides of the
issues raised) traditionally associated with effective judicial [decision-making]." Id. Although
the record here is well-developed, this case does not present an urgent question of
statewide significance.
We apply this exception narrowly. In Rud, for example, the issue was whether defendants
accused of sexual abuse of children should be allowed to call child witnesses and victims at
a hearing on a motion to dismiss criminal charges. Id. at 575. The court of appeals held that
defendants had a limited right to call the children as witnesses, depending on several
factors. Id. at 577. After we granted the State's petition for further review, the State
dismissed the charges. Id. at 576. We proceeded with the case, however, because "a
failure to decide [the issues when presented] could have a continuing adverse impact in
other criminal trials." Id. Had we not decided the substantive issue in Rud immediately, the
court of appeals' holding, which was erroneous in light of our decision in State v.
Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 239 N.W.2d 892 (1976), could have resulted in the broad use of
probable cause hearings as "'a substitute for disclosure and discovery."' Rud, 359 N.W.2d
at 578 (quotingFlorence. 306 Minn. at 450. 239 N.W.2d at 898).
Other instances in which we have found cases to be functionally justiciable also involved
matters of statewide significance. In Jasper v. Commissionerof Public Safety, for example,
we concluded that the proper approval by the Commissioner of Public Safety of a breath -
testing instrument for suspected impaired drivers was an issue of statewide significance
because the model was "the only breath -testing instrument currently in use in this state and
there [had] been substantial litigation in the district courts as to whether the instrument was
properly approved." 642 N.W.2d 435, 439 (Minn.2002); see also Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at
823 (reaching the merits on a challenge to election procedures in Minneapolis because the
procedures were similar to those used in other Minnesota cities, impacting almost 14
percent of the state's population). Similarly in Brooks, the issue of cash -only bail orders
reached our court a second time within one year after we dismissed State v. Arens, 586
N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 1998), as moot. See 604 N.W.2d at 348. We reached the merits
in Brooksbecause the failure to do so posed the risk of creating "a class of defendants with
constitutional claims but no remedy." Id.
Most recently, in In re Guardianship of Tschumy, we addressed whether a court-appointed
guardian may consent to removing a ward from life support, even though the issue was
technically moot because the ward's life-support systems had been disconnected as
authorized by a district court order. 853 N.W.2d 728, 741 (Minn.2014) (plurality opinion). We
reached the merits in part because the central issue, whether 7'7 a guardian needs prior
court approval to consent to the removal of life-sustaining treatment, implicated the
State's parens patriae power "to protect 'infants and other persons lacking the physical and
mental capacity to protect themselves,"' id. at 740 (quoting In re Pratt, 219 Minn. 414, 422,
18 N.W.2d 147, 152 (1945)), and because more than 12,000 Minnesotans were wards
under State supervision and a decision was needed to "clarify for the guardians and their
wards the scope of the guardians' authority to make one of life's most fundamental
decisions," id.
This case does not present the urgency or significance that underpinned Jasper,
Rud, and Tschumy. The decision of the court of appeals does not affect the efficiency and
validity of criminal proceedings across the state, for example, nor do the issues presented
involve a special area of law or vital "issues of life and natural death."Tschumy, 853 N.W.2d
at 740 (plurality opinion). Moreover, there is no inherent limitation on the time available for
appeal as there was for cash -only bail orders inBrooks, 604 N.W.2d at 348. In sum, this
case does not present an issue that must "be decided immediately." Rud, 359 N.W.2d at
576.
The right to rent one's property is an important property interest. But this case does not
present the urgency and broad impact that were present in cases determined to be
functionally justiciable and of statewide significance that required an immediate decision.
Other municipalities impose rental limitations. However, they do not operate in an identical
fashion.0 When, as here, the issues presented are limited to the homeowners of one
municipality, the case does not present the urgency and impact that were present in other
cases that we have found functionally justiciable and of statewide significance. Accordingly,
we decline to apply this limited exception here.
Appellants also maintain that this case is not moot because they seek nominal damages
based on an implied cause of action under the Remedies Clause of the Minnesota
ConstitutionlQJ See Minn. Const. art. I, § 8. Under this theory, appellants contend that the
Remedies Clause provides an independent cause of action for constitutional
violations.L41 Arguing that they seek 8`8 nominal damages under this cause of action,
appellants contend that this case remains a live controversy.
However, appellants raised their "implied cause of action" theory for the first time only after
their appeal had reached our court. Appellants referenced the Remedies Clause in their
second amended complaint as a jurisdictional basis for declaratory and injunctive relief, but
they never advanced a claim or an argument for nominal damages at the district court
founded on the Remedies Clause. Appellants' jurisdictional allegations tied only their claims
for declaratory and injunctive relief to the Remedies Clause. "It is well established that
where a plaintiff litigates his case on one theory only, he is precluded from asserting new
theories on appeal." John W. Thomas Co. v. Carlson-LaVine. Inc.. 291 Minn. 29, 33, 189
N.W.2d 197, 200 (1971). In particular, the appellants did not plead a cause of action for
nominal damages under the Remedies Clause in their complaint. The Minnesota Rules of
Civil Procedure require that a civil complaint "contain a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01. A complaint should
put a "defendant on notice of the claims against him." Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475,
481 (Minn.2006). Here, appellants pleaded constitutional claims of equal protection,
substantive due process, and procedural due process, and made a statutory claim that the
City exceeded its zoning authority. While appellants' prayer for relief included a generalized
request for "nominal damages of $1.00 for violations of their constitutional rights," that
request, untethered to a specific claim or constitutional provision, was not enough to
implicate the Remedies Clause. In other words, it did not put respondents on notice of the
cause of action for nominal damages under the Remedies Clause, which appellants now
present to our court.
Only on June 26, 2014, in response to respondent's motion to dismiss on mootness
grounds before our court, did appellants advance the argument that their request for
nominal damages presented an implied cause of action under the Remedies Clause of the
Minnesota Constitution. That argument came too late. Amendments to pleadings, which
"range from a simple clarification to a whole new theory of the case," Nw. Nat'l Bank of
Minneapolis v. Shuster, 388 N.W.2d 370, 372 (Minn. 1986),generally must occur before the
action has been placed on the trial calendar, unless the amending party is given leave to
amend by the district court or the adverse party,see Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 (stating that a
party may amend a pleading by leave of court, and amendments should be freely granted
when justice so requires); see also Shuster, 388 N.W.2d at 372 ("[F]airness demands
recognition of the right to respond and to raise any defense to the newly pleaded material
without seeking the court's permission.").
Therefore, we decline to consider appellants' Remedies Clause theory at this juncture. We
do not reach constitutional claims unless required to do so. SeeBravton v. Pawlenty. 781
N.W.2d 357. 363 (Minn.2010). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the alleged
harm to appellants' interests has ceased. There is no live case or controversy regarding
the 9`9 claims that appellants actually pleaded in their complaint. In short, this case is moot.
We will not consider issues of constitutional interpretation in a case that we have no power
to decide.
IV.
In conclusion, appellants' claims are moot. Because no exception to our mootness doctrine
applies, we grant the City's motion to dismiss.
Appeal dismissed.
Concurring, ANDERSON and STRAS, JJ.
Concurring, LILLEHAUG, J.
ANDERSON, Justice (concurring).
I concur in the result.
STRAS, Justice (concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice Anderson.
LILLEHAUG, Justice (concurring).
I agree that the case must be dismissed as moot. I join Parts I and II and the result of the
opinion of the court, departing only from the analysis in Part III.
Part III is premised on the majority's understanding that appellants now seek nominal
damages based on an implied cause of action under the Remedies Clause. Based on this
understanding, and because the Remedies Clause was not pleaded as a cause of action,
the majority avoids the question of whether the prayer for nominal damages saves the case
from mootness.
As I understand appellants' position, they do not allege, and have never alleged, that
their injury orwrong—their cause of action—is based on the Remedies Clause. Instead, I
understand appellants to seek nominal damages as a remedy for alleged injury or wrong to
their Minnesota constitutional rights of equal protection, substantive due process, and
procedural due process.
Analytically, then, we cannot avoid appellants' argument that, even if their three
constitutional claims otherwise have been mooted—making equitable and declaratory relief
unavailable—the case lives on because they prayed for "nominal damages of
$1.00."LL Their novel theory is that the Remedies Clause requires the availability of a
nominal damages remedy. I disagree.
Appellants have not drawn to our attention any Remedies Clause precedent that
resuscitates an otherwise moot case, and I am aware of none. And I see nothing in the
Remedies Clause as commanding (at least in the absence of implementing legislation) that
the judicial remedy of purely nominal damages be available against a municipality.
This is not a situation where appellants had no remedy whatsoever. Equitable and
declaratory relief, which appellants sought in their prayer for relief, were available. Such
relief became unavailable because of appellants' own strategic litigation choices. At no point
did appellants seek to amend their complaint to add plaintiffs with live claims. Nor did
appellants seek expedited relief. Minnesota procedure provides for temporary remedies
such as restraining orders and injunctions, see Minn. R. Civ. P. 65, and declaratory relief,
which, "liberally construed and administered" under Minn.Stat. § 555.12 (2014), may be
secured by "speedy hearing," Minn. R. Civ. P. 57.
10'10 Nor did appellants invoke Minnesota's constitutional and statutory remedies for the
municipal taking, destruction, or damage of private property. See Minn. Const., art. I, § 13
("Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just
compensation therefor, first paid or secured."); Minn. Stat. ch. 117 (2014) (governing
eminent domain); Weqner v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 479 N.W.2d 38, 42
(Minn. 1991) ("Once a 'taking' is found, compensation is required by operation of law"). Nor
did appellants seek compensation for actual damages; rather, they sued only the
municipality. See Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 231-33, 14 N.W.2d
400, 408-09 (1944) (damages awarded against individual defendants for eviction in violation
of Minnesota Constitution, but, "in the absence of statute," township had no liability for
damages). Nor did appellants plead any federal constitutional claim, whether under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) or otherwise. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-67, 98 S.Ct.
1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (nominal damages available under section 1983).
As Part III notes, we do not reach the merits of constitutional claims unless we are required
to do so. See Brayton v. Pawlenty. 781 N.W.2d 357. 363 (Minn. 2010). In the circumstances
of this case, the Remedies Clause does not require that we reach the merits.
f11 An exception exists for blocks in which more than 30 percent of the properties were licensed as rental properties
before the rule took effect in 2005. Winona, Minn., Code § 33A.03(i)(i). Homeowners who had rental licenses before
the 30 -percent rule was enacted may continue to renew those licenses, even if the percentage of rental property on
their blocks is above 30 percent. Id.
[21 At least three other municipalities have enacted similar percentage -based rental ordinances with varying
limitations on rental property. See, e.g., Mankato, Minn., Code § 5.42, subd. 20 (2014) (requiring additional
procedures for new owners of an already licensed property to maintain a rental license and imposing a 25 -percent
rental cap), Northfield, Minn., Code § 14-97 (2015) (requiring additional procedures for a new owner of an already
licensed property to obtain a new license and imposing a 20 -percent rental cap), W. Saint Paul, Minn., Code, §
435.05, subd. 11 (2014) (disallowing the transfer of licenses to new owners and imposing a 10 -percent rental cap).
Additionally, the circumstances under which these ordinances were enacted vary and, when challenged, require
independent consideration by a district court.
[31 The text of the Remedies Clause provides:
Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person,
property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and
without delay, conformable to the laws.
Minn. Const. art. I, § 8.
L41 In two section headings of their response to the City's motion to dismiss, appellants explicitly state that they seek a
private cause of action under the Remedies Clause. Appellants also argue that "the Minnesota Constitution, through
its Remedies Clause, provides a cause of action for constitutional torts by which [appellants] are entitled to nominal
damages," and state that the "Remedies Clause protects rights ... by providing an independent basis for seeking
relief, i.e., a private cause of action." Clearly, appellants are requesting that we recognize a private cause of action
under the Remedies Clause. Contrary to the concurrence's characterization, this is not merely our "understanding" of
appellants' position—rather, it is the express argument that appellants make multiple times in their response to the
City's motion to dismiss.
f 11 Nominal damages are "[a] trifling sum awarded when a legal injury is suffered but there is no substantial loss or
injury to be compensated." Black's Law Dictionary473 (10th ed.2014).
E. North Mankato Police Department's 2015 Year End Report
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
391 Page
North Mankato Police Department
2015 Year End Report
Table of Contents
General Information......................................................... 2
Statistics at a Glance.........................................................3
Personal Crime Statistics................................................4
Property Crime Statistics..............................................5-6
Other Crime Statistics...................................................... 7
Juvenile Status Statistics ................................................. 7
Traffic Related Statistics ........................................... 540
Neighborhood Support Statistics ............................1143
North Mankato Police Reserves...................................14
-1-
General Information
North Mankato Police Department
1001 Belgrade Avenue
P.O. Box 2055
North Mankato, MN 56002-2055
Emergency Number: 911
Non -Emergency Dispatch Number: (507) 931-1570
Office Number: (507) 625-4141
Email: nmpd@nmpd.ora
Tip Information Email: tips@nmpd.ora
The City of North Mankato Code of Ordinances Access: http://www.amlegal.conVnorthmankato mn/
Court Records Access: http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx.
2015 Police Reports
■ Property
■ Personal
❑ Traffic
■ Other Crimes
■ Juvenile Offenses
0 Neighborhood Support
ip
2015 Statisfies at a Glance
-s
Personal Crimes
2015
2014
2013
Homicide (includes attempts)
0
0
0
Terroristic Threats
S
16
12
Criminal Sexual Conduct
11
14
8
Robbery
1
3
2
Assault
17
31
40
Domestic Assault
38
48
41
Harassment
17
35
27
Harassing Communications
35
48
36
ChildNulnerable Adult
Protection
197
239
247
Domestic Disturbance
92
82
80
Disorderly Conduct
31
32
17
All other reports
40
41
31
Total Personal Crime Reports
470
589
541
Property Crimes
2015
2014
2013
Residential Burglaries
22
28
42
Non -Residential Burglaries
13
16
23
Theft from Building
53
43
54
Theft from Vehicle
45
66
53
Motor Vehicle Theft
6
14
15
Motor Vehicle Tampering
12
19
7
Financial Theft
40
47
28
Shoplifting
2
7
4
Property Damage
86
86
97
Arson / Negligent Fires
8
3
5
Trespassing
24
12
11
All other reports
71
103
81
Total Property Crime Reports
382
444
420
Other Crimes
2015
2014
2013
Narcotics
43
33
34
Underage Consumption
6
3
9
Weapons
11
7
8
Liquor Violations
7
8
2
All other reports
48
41
25
Total Other Crime Reports
115
92
78
Juvenile Offenses
2015
2014
2013
Alcohol
4
3
1
Runaways
28
15
16
Curfew
9
4
1
Tobacco
3
1
0
All Other reports
2
5
3
Total Juvenile Offense Reports
46
28
21
Traffic Related
2015
2014
2013
Accident Reports on Public Property
173
167
138
Accident Reports on Private Property
47
53
58
Bicycle Accidents (No Motor Vehicle)
3
4
1
Driving Under the Influence
48
36
25
Parking Violations
SS
37
28
Violation Road & Driving Complaints
158
53
59
Total Traffic Related Reports
517
350
309
Neighborhood Support
2015
2014
2013
Medicals
401
382
383
Animal Control
220
153
155
Public Assists
186
93
97
Suspicious Activity
177
66
121
Assist Other Law Enforcement Agencies
281
105
123
Gun Purchase Permits Applications
151
123
168
Information Only
75
42
45
Civil Complaints
129
86
86
Alarm Calls
119
89
81
Welfare Checks
100
78
58
Residence Checks
102
45
54
Funeral Escorts
12
16
23
All other reports
482
347
342
Total Neighborhood Support Reports
2,435
1,625
1,736
The North Mankato Police Department takes all reports
very seriously and diligently investigates each report.
TOTAL REPORTS 4,600 3,128 3,105
-3-
Personal Crime Statistics
Type of Complaint
2015
2014
2013
Homicide
0
0
0
Attempted Homicide
0
0
0
Robbery
1
3
2
Criminal Sexual Conduct
11
14
8
Terroristic Threats
8
16
12
Assault
16
30
37
Assault/Domestic Assault with a Deadly Weapon
3
3
6
Domestic Assault
36
46
38
Bomb Threat
0
1
0
Child Protection
183
221
231
Vulnerable Adult Protection
14
18
16
Domestic Disturbance
92
82
80
Obscenity
2
4
1
Indecent Exposure
0
3
3
Peeping Tom
1
2
0
Kidnapping/Abduction/False Imprisonment
0
1
0
Disorderly Conduct
31
32
17
Harassment
17
35
27
Harassing Communications
35
48
36
Violation Court Order / Order for Protection
20
30
27
TOTAL PERSONAL CRIME CALLS:
470
589
541
"The title obscenity replaces the title of pornography from the 2014 and 2013 year-end reports.
-4-
Pro-Derty Crime Statistics
Type of Complaint
2015
2014
2013
Arson / Negligent Fires
8
3
5
Burglary Residence
22
28
42
Burglary Non -residence
13
16
23
Financial Theft
Fraud/Identity Theft
16
9
8
Forgery/Counterfeiting
4
12
1
Theft by Check
1
0
1
Credit Card Fraud
18
25
16
Fraud/NSF Checks
1
1
2
Property Damage
Business Damage
4
8
6
Private Damage
65
71
83
Public Damage
17
7
8
Property Theft
Theft of Motor Vehicle
6
14
15
Theft of ATV/MC/Moped
1
1
1
Theft of Trailers/Snowmobile/Boat
0
1
1
Tamper with Motor Vehicle
12
19
7
Theft from Building
53
43
54
Theft from Yard
19
21
21
Theft from Motor Vehicle
45
66
53
Theft from Boat
1
5
2
Theft from Coin Machine
0
3
0
Theft of Self -Serve Gas
9
20
16
Shoplifting
2
7
4
Bicycle Theft
16
23
31
Theft of Mail
1
1
0
Theft of Services
6
4
3
Theft by Swindle/Scam
17
21
5
Possession of Stolen Property
1
4
1
Trespassing/Prowlers
24
12
11
TOTAL PROPERTY CRIME CALLS:
382
444
420
-5-
The North Mankato Police Department had 6 vehicles stolen in 2015. After investigation, two vehicles still
remain missing; one was unlocked with the keys inside and one was stolen during a test drive. Four vehicles
were recovered. One vehicle was parked on private property and towed by the property owner, one was stolen
by a family member, two were recovered in another jurisdiction.
The Police Department encourages residents to keep valuables out of sight
and secure their homes, garages, and motor vehicles at all times.
Any suspicious activity should be reported immediately by calling 24% 26%
9-1-1 or the non -emergency dispatch number (507) 931-1570. Z�_�
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Theft/Burglary Report Comparison
Home Burglaries Theft from Vehicles Vehicle Thefts
■ Locked ■ Unlocked ❑ Unknown (No Forced Entry)
50%
-6-
Other Crime Statistics
Type of Complaint
2015
2014
2013
Fleeing Police
3
7
2
False Information to Police
3
4
3
Illegal Kennel
0
0
1
Impersonating a Police Officer
0
0
1
Narcotics
43
33
34
Obstructing Legal Process
0
3
1
Public Nuisance
26
16
11
Underage Consumption of Alcohol (18 — 21 years)
6
3
9
Liquor Hours of Sale
5
4
2
Liquor Furnishing to Minors
0
1
0
Liquor Possession
2
3
0
Littering
10
8
3
Fireworks Discharge/Possession
6
3
3
Weapons Violations
11
7
8
TOTAL OTHER CRIME CALLS:
115
92
78
Juvenile Status Statistics
plaint
Type:Consumption
2015
2014
2013
Curfews
9
4
1
Incorrignile
1
3
3
Runaw
28
15
16
Truanc
1
2
0
Underaion of Alcohol (Under 18)
4
3
1Underao
Possession/Use
3
1
0TOTAILE
STATUS OFFENSES:
46
28
21
-7-
Traffic Related Statistics
raffic Related Statistics
2015
2014
2013hicle
Accident Reports
220
220
196
ng on Public Property
173
167
138
ing on Private Property
47
53
58
ccidents (No Motor Vehicle Involvement)
E
3
4
1
hile Under the Influence
48
36
25
s Road &Driving Complaints
158
53
59
iolations/Complaints
88
37
28
TRAFFIC RELATED CALLS:
517
350
309
- 8 -
3u
Motor Vehicle Accident Iniury/Fatality Breakdown
25
20
15
10
5
0
curring on7'u1)1-1c—f—r-6j—)e--r7
7-
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
JUN JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV DEC
■ Fatality
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
❑Serious Injury
0
1
0
0 0
0 0
1
1
0
1
0
■Injury
4
4
0
3 1
2 3
0
1
0
4
3
■No Injury
14
23
4
9 12
2 12
10
15
9
17
17
- 8 -
ff
Motor Vehicle Accidents ]173ing an Under the Influence Driverstriane
Motor Vehicle Accidents Breakdown
(Ocurring on Public Property)
JifV DEC
r❑Property Damage (Under $1,000) ■Property Damage (Over $1,000)
-9-
_ -qq
Traffic
Citations
Violation
2015
2014
2013
Careless/Exhibition/Reckless Driving
12
11
4
Child Restraint
1
1
0
Driver's License Violation
32
19
23
Driving After Revocation/Cancellation/Suspension of License 91
42
38
Driving While Intoxicated
63
49
31
Equipment Violation
1
8
1
Failure to Yield Right of Way
6
12
13
Fail to Use Due Care
14
12
5
Improper Registration
17
26
8
Leaving the Scene of Accident
5
6
2
No Insurance/No Proof of Insurance
99
52
62
Open Bottle/Allow Open Bottle
5
4
2
Parking Tickets
74
90
47
Seatbelt
81
93
121
Speeding
98
108
90
Semaphore/Stop Sign Violation
33
24
21
All Other Violations
3
4
16
Total: 635
561
484
M
rhood Support Statistics
Type of Complaint
2015
2014
2013
911 Verifications
65
11
20
Alarm Calls
119
89
81
Animal Control
Animal Complaints
209
144
140
Animal Bites
11
9
15
Assist Other Law Enforcement Agencies
281
105
123
Civil Complaints
129
86
86
Fire Calls
67
54
43
Found Property
67
69
60
Funeral Escorts
12
16
23
Gun Purchase Permits Applications
151
123
168
Information Only
75
42
45
Lost Property
33
12
10
Medicals
Sick Cared For
287
252
267
Home Accidents
50
72
60
Occupational Accidents
4
3
7
Public Accidents
6
8
3
Intoxicated Individuals
54
47
46
Mentally Ill Persons
26
28
22
Missing Persons
14
8
7
Neighborhood Problems
12
15
25
Noise Complaints
70
72
48
Open Door/Window
19
5
4
Public Assists
Motorist Assist
52
14
16
Public Education
24
16
18
All Other Public Assists
109
63
63
Residence Checks/Extra Patrol Requests
102
45
54
Predatory Offender Notification/Total Predatory Offenders
23
22/16
23/34
Solicitors/Scam Complaints
23
2
2
Sudden Death
14
15
13
Suicides
1
1
1
Suicides Attempts
16
12
11
Suicide Threats
33
27
42
Suspicious Activity
177
66
121
Welfare Checks
100
78
58
TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT CALLS:
2,435
1,625
1,736
-**The speed trailer was retired in 2014. Speed trailer reports from the 2013 year-end reports have been added to the all other public assist category.
The North Mankato Police Department prides itself in providing superior law enforcement services to the
community. Some of the ways that this is done is through neighborhood support activities such as but not limited to
mediation collection, animal control and public education.
Medication Collection
In 2015, the North Mankato Police Department installed a medication disposal box in the
lobby of the Police Department and properly disposed of 349 pounds of medicine
to protect human health and the environment.
Animal Control
The North Mankato Patrol Officers are responsible for responding to all animal control issues. This includes
animals at -large, animal abuse/neglect, and animals disturbing the peace.
In 2015, the North Mankato Police Department responded to 209 animal related reports and impounded 99
animals compared to 83 impoundments in 2014 for a cost of $3,813.40 compared to $2,761.84 in 2014.
[207
pound Breakdown
60
■ Dns
❑Cat
Adopted Euthanized
Owner
The City of North Mankato maintains an Impound Agreement with Premier Veterinary Center of Mankato.
-12-
Public Education
The North Mankato Police Department conducted the following public education in 2015:
DATE
LOCATION
TOPIC
OFFICER
ATTENDANCE
1/19
Good Shepherd Church
Race Relations
701
30
1/20
Mankato Clinic
Sexual Assault Training for Nurses
710
20
2/10
Belgrade Methodist Church
Law Enforcement for Cub Scouts
704
6
2/27
Garfield Elementary
Making Positive Decisions
710
275
4/17
Crossview Covenant Church
Public Safety for Tapestry
710/711
30
4/23
Hoover Elementary
Severe Weather
715
77
4/23
Monroe Elementary
Severe Weather
715
80
5/7
Children's Museum
Bike Safety
801/802/820
100
5/12
Mankato Civic Center
Emergency Management and Senior
Safety for Senior Expo
701
200
5/15
Crossview Covenant Church
Tapestry Graduation
701/710/711
20
6/15
Taylor Library
Read with a Hero
706
15
6/22
Safety Camp at Fire Station
Personal Safety
706
25
7/8
Police Department
Daycare Police Department Tour
700/712
15
8/4
North Mankato
Neighborhoods
Night to Unite
706/703/701
100
10/25
Nicollet County
ATV Safety
704
12
10/30
South Central College
Domestic Violence
716
40
11/3
Best Western
Human Trafficking
710
60
11/10
Mayo Clinic Health System
Sexual Assault Training for Nurses
710
13
11/12
Monroe Elementary
Winter Safety
715
100
11/12
Hoover Elementary
Winter Safety
715
95
11/19
Girl Scouts/Nicollet
Female Police Officer
709
7
12/18
Police Department
Boy Scouts Police Department Tour
704
30
12/18
Lincoln School
Tapestry Graduation
701
24
12/30
Mayo Clinic Health System
Sexual Assault Training for Nurses
710
10
2015 Total Public Education: 24 2014 Total Public Education:
16
lk
oti - ati
-13-
North Mankato Police Reserves
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015
The North Mankato Police Department has a long history of having a reserve program. The Special Police
Reserve Unit was established during the Minnesota River Floods of April of 1965. The Special Police were
formed to patrol the City to secure the homes and businesses. The dikes were patrolled and inspected and
assistance was given to many volunteers who helped build and maintain the dikes. First aid, meals, and
transportation were also provided by the Reserves.
The Reserve unit was made permanent in the fall of 1965 and training was established for traffic control along
with crowd control. North Mankato Fun Days and other events were provided with policing to supplement the
regular police force.
Today, our reserve officers are still a volunteer position with the City of North Mankato. Reserve officers
provide the City with traffic and crowd control during the many parades and races held throughout the year. All
of our reserve officers have other employment and we are very grateful for the time and service they provide us.
We currently have 15 Reserve Officers dedicated to the community. These Reserve Officers collectively
volunteered over 1,200 hours this past year.
In 2015, The North Mankato Police Reserves assisted the community with a variety of events including but not
limited to the following; North Mankato Fun Days, Fun Days Triathlon, Kiwanis Holiday Lights, MCHS Bike
-14-
Safety Rally, Taylor Library Fun Run, Gorilla Run, A.B.A.T.E Parade, Movies in the Park, Bier of Belgrade,
Girls State Softball Tournament, Mankato Marathon, Blues of Belgrade and YMCA Fun Run.
-15-
E.1 North Mankato Police Department: Distribution of Police Calls
CITY OF NORTH MANKATO
401 Page
2010 Types of Police Cal Is
(# of Properties: 3,656)
Juvenile Offense
6
2
560.50
153.50
Neighborhood Support
468
118
7.19
2.60
Other Crimes
28
7
120.11
43.86
Personal Crime
102
43
32.97
7.14
Property Crime
112
31
30.03
9.90
Traffic Related
12
3
280.25
102.33
Uncategorized
10
3
336.30
102.33
2011 Types of Police Calls
(# of Properties: 3,675)
Juvenile Offense
6
2
563.33
154.5
Neighborhood Support
512
98
6.60
3.15
Other Crimes
50
7
67.60
44.14
Personal Crime
105
46
32.19
6.72
Property Crime
197
32
17.16
9.66
Traffic Related
17
0
198.82
0.00
Uncategorized
13
3
260.00
103.00
2012 Types of Police Calls
(# of Properties: 3,707)
Juvenile Offense
6
3
568.67
103.00
Neighborhood Support
505
101
6.76
3.06
Other Crimes
20
10
170.60
30.90
Personal Crime
121
31
28.20
9.97
Property Crime
126
28
27.08
11.04
Traffic Related
11
6
310.18
51.50
Uncategorized
12
2
284.33
154.50
2013 Types of Police Calls
(# of Properties: 3,739)
Juvenile Offense
9
3
382.22
104.33
Neighborhood Support
518
113
6.64
2.77
Other Crimes
49
14
70.20
22.36
Personal Crime
114
62
30.18
5.05
Property Crime
130
31
26.46
10.10
Traffic Related
14
4
245.71
78.25
Uncategorized
23
2
149.57
156.50
2014 Types of Police Calls
(# of Properties: 3,743)
Juvenile Offense
6
3
574.00
104.33
Neighborhood Support
454
112
7.59
2.79
Other Crimes
44
25
78.27
12.52
Personal Crime
121
53
28.46
5.91
Property Crime
159
36
21.66
8.69
Traffic Related
18
2
191.33
156.50
Uncategorized
25
1
137.76
313.00
-Ratio of Police Call occurrences per property. In 2010, for example, there were six Juvenile Offenses
that occurred among 3,656 properties. This is a ratio of 6:3,656 or 1:558.8. There was one occurrence
for every 558.8 properties in Single-Family:Owne r Occupied vs. one occurrence for every 151.5 Renter
Occupied Units.
2010 Types of Police Calls
(it of Properties: 3,656)
Juvenile Offense
4
0
538.00
0.00
Neighborhood Support
233
15
9.24
5,13
Gtre-C-nes
_2
0
-79,33
0,00
Pe sera C--ne
50
4
43.04
_9,25
C--ne
56
5
38.43
5.40
T-aff i R.e ated
4
0
538.00
0.00
Ugeat-¢crized
1
0
2152.00
0.00
2011 Types of Police Calls
(k of Properties: 3,675)
Juvenile Offense
4
0
542.00
0.00
Neighborhood Support
254
10
8.54
7,90
Gtre-C- lies
28
1
'7.43
79,00
Pr5713 ire
46
6
47.5
13,17
P-cae-tvC--ne
116
8
_8.69
9.88
Traffic Related
10
0
216.80
0.00
Uncategorized
6
1
361.33
79.00
2012 Types of Police Calls
(K of Properties: 3,707)
Juvenile Offense
0
1
0.00
79.00
Neighborhood Support
271
8
8.11
9.88
Other Crimes.
7
3
314.00
26.33
Personal Crime
47
3
46.77
26.33
Property Crime
58
3
37.90
26.33
Traffic Related
6
0
366.33
0.00
Uncategorized
2
0
1099.00
0.00
2013 Types of Police Calls
(K of Properties: 3,739)
1 j ey'''e Offense
2
1
1112.50
83.00
Nelg�-,c=Dd S.ioport
270
19
8.24
4.37
Gt�e gres
20
2
111.25
41.50
Pe sera C--ne
45
4
49.44
20.75
Pcae-t:C--ne
52
4
42.79
20.75
Tiaff,c Re,ated
4
1
556.25
83.00
Uncategorized
8
0
278.13
0.00
2014 Types of Police Calls
(K of Properties: 3,743)
Juvenile Offense
1
0
2229.00
0.00
Neighborhood Support
216
14
10.32
5.93
Other Crimes
18
5
123.83
16.60
Personal Crime
51
7
43.71
11.86
Property Crime
78
4
28.58
2075
Traffic Related
6
0
371.50
0.00
Uncategorized
5
0
445.80
0.00
2010 Types of Police Cal Is
(# of Properties: 3,656)
Juveni le Offense
2
2
605.50
115.00
Neighborhood Support
235
103
5.15
2.23
Other Crimes
16
7
75.69
32.86
Personal Crime
52
39
23.29
5.90
Property Crime
56
26
21.63
8.85
Traffic Related
8
3
151.38
76.67
Uncategorized
9
3
134.56
76.67
2011 Types of Pol ice Calls
[# of Properties: 3,675)
Juveni le Offense
2
2
606.00
115.00
Neighborhood Support
258
88
4.70
2.61
Other Crimes
22
6
55.09
38.33
Personal Crime
59
40
20.54
5.75
Property Crime
81
24
14.96
9.58
Traffic Related
7
0
173.14
0.00
Uncategorized
7
2
173.14
115.00
2012 Types of Pol ice Calls
(#of Properties: 3,707)
Juveni le Offense
6
2
202.33
115.00
Neighborhood Support
234
93
5.19
2.47
Other Crimes
13
7
93.38
32.86
Personal Crime
74
28
16.41
8.21
Property Crime
68
25
17.85
9.20
Traffic Related
5
6
242.80
38.33
Uncategorized
10
2
121.40
115.00
2013 Types of Pol ice Calls
(#of Properties: 3,739)
Juveni le Offense
7
2
173.57
115.00
Neighborhood Support
248
94
4.90
2.45
Other Crimes
29
12
41.90
19.17
Personal Crime
69
58
17.61
3.97
Property Crime
78
27
15.58
8.52
Traffic Related
10
3
121.50
76.67
Uncategorized
15
2
81.00
115.00
2014 Types of Pol ice Calls
(# of Properties: 3,743)
Juveni le Offense
5
3
243.00
76.67
Neighborhood Support
238
98
5.11
2.35
Other Crimes
26
20
46.73
11.50
Personal Crime
70
46
17.36
5.00
Property Crime
81
32
15.00
7.19
Traffic Related
12
2
101.25
115.00
Uncategorized
20
1
60.75
230.00
CmWau placer that Em loch Jl aaple'wwx
Halsington Koegter Group Inc.
To. Winona CityCouncil, Planning Commission and aty Staff
From: Mark Koeglerand JeffMillerr(HKGQ
Date: February21,2012
Rat WlnarY Rental Housing Restriction ChdbMnce—Uterature Review & Data Analysis Rndinga
HolsIniden Kaegler Group Inc. (HKGq hes conducted a literature review relating to rental housing
concentration and Its negative Impacts on neighbothood qualRy and livability. This literature review
Included rental housing's relationship with increased nuisance ocenpiaints, Increased police incidents,
decreased property MAkdenma lawla, decreased homeownership levels, and decreased property values.
Although there Is a substantial amount of literature that addresses rental housing Issues, much of the
literature does not contain empirical armlysk. Through our literature review, we were able to Identify
empirical sttdles of five dire that have faced tenial housing issues that are relevant to Winona. Based
upon our HndlrW from the literature revlaw, HKGI then compiled and analyzed detailed data related to
Win eases rental housing concentration levels and Its relatiamhip to nuisance and poling violations. Based
on our findings from the literature reulaw and city -!acral empirical studies that nuisance and police
violations are key lndiedm of neighborhood qualRy and livability, coo focused our dam analysis on the
relationships between concentrated rental housing and nulsaocefpoRa violations In Winona. This memo
sum am literature review and data analysis findings,
1. UtereMe Reviewed
L Craig Reborn, "Coping With C ollegea: Has Communities Address the Problems of Students Uving
ON-� Zoning Allows (May 20021.
2. Duncan Assoclates, 'Andysh of Issues Regarding Student Housing Near the University of Florlela,'
Apr112002.
S. JackS. Frlerson ,'1bw Are local Governments Responding to Shdent Rental Problems In University
Towns In the United States, Canada, and Engkencir GeorlOJa JOwnd of kdematkmnsl and
GsmporodW low (Wh*er 2W5j
4. Joico Jeamaat,'Me Cum of Student Harekgr Evidence from WoHulle, Nova Scotty' 2010.
S. Ko Wang, Terry V. Grimm, James It Webb and Lewis Spe0mary "The Impact of Rental Properties
on the Value of Sbegle-Family Reshleneey' Journal of Urban Economics, 1991.
ti Meyor'sCommission anHousing &Home Ownership, 'PrgmadmofHome Ownership inthe city of
Binghamton: A Report of the Mayor's Commission on Houskg and Hama Ownerstdp," 2008,
7. Npi Piadell,'Home Sweet Home? Tha Efficacy of Renu Rda rktions to Promote Neighborhood
Stabltry," Sdholmy Wab (Po Per Sn 200.
B. Terence J. Rephamy "Rental Housing and Crime: The Role of Property Ownership and
Management," The Annals of Regional Science (43),200%
9. Sage Policy Group,'Thwe is a Rational Bash for Rent Smblleatiat In College Park Maryland," April
200L
page 1 of 10
10. Sage Poltty Group, OMem Remains a Rational Bash for Rent Stabilization in College Park,
Maryiand," August 2009.
11, State College Borough Staff,' Sustainable Nalghborhoods In State College Bomugh," June g, 2009.
12. West Urbana Ndghborhood Association, "What Other College Communities Have Done. Examples
of Regulatory Actions to Preserve the Singlefamlly Residential Character of a Campus
Neighborhood,' January 2005.
13. Warn M. Rohe and Leslie S. Stewu% "Homeownership and Neighborhood StabMtVN Housing
Policy Debate (Volume 7, Issue 1), IM
14. Farley v. Zoning Hearing Board of tower Merlon Township,1994.
15. Lentos v. Zoning Hearing Board of Heverford Township, 1993.
It. Issuas with Concentratlon/ Density of Rental Housing in Single-Faadly "Itbarhoods
Regulating the concentration or density of rental housing in sing"milq residential neighborhoods is ■
particular Issue that the City of Winona Is addressing with Its 3096 limit of rental housing properties per
block. Spacifhak the City's low end medium density resldentlal mning dlsHkts allow rental units as a
permitted use but limit the number of resideutialipaned tots an any block that can obtain rental housing
certgiration to a maximum of 3096. According to Qty Planning Commission Meeting Mlnutes, the parking
Task Fara concluded that housing density, property melntenance, off-street perking and deterlornting
residential community character were major problems •resulting from the extensive number of homes
which how been converted to rental purposeel in some areas of the community. Based on this finding, the
task force proposed to establish a limitation on the number of rental housaa that coin be concentrated
within each block within all residential zoningdlstdcts, with the exception of the R-3 zoning district.
The literature review supports the Cgt/s concerns with an over -concentration of rental houses In single-
family residential neighborhoods. Many university towns face the problem of large numbers of single-
family houses being converted to rental houses in single-famty residential nelghbmhoods, thereby,
aeatbg a high concentration of studaM rental houses within single-famfiy and !onkel neighborhoods. The
IReraturemvlawed supports the argument that over-concentratlons of tercel houses have negative Impacts
on surrounding residential properties and netgliborinods Is general, including note, increased traffic,
fitter, Kiwi parking, Inadequate property maintenance, and a general decrease In the quality of Ife for
permanentresidentsofthe netghborboed''The tvplcallyfaUIntothreepdmargcategories;
• increased nuisance and property malnumamxeompleintN
• Increased Qty Code violations and police citations,
• decreased Property values
Thus, the Impacts are physical, economic and socK ultimately contributing to decreases In the quality and
WabMiy of neighborhoods.
sCDy of Winona Planning Commuter Meeting (diauhr, October 24,2M' S.
sJaeJ S iderson,'Haw Are Local Gouemmants RespandsrgtoStudent Rental Problems in UelversityTowns In the
UnitedSteMCanada, and Eg+ land7'GeoMbbumalLyirdemotianalmcdOrrnporaftLaw(Wklmr2W5)'L
Page 2 of 10
In general, the studies found that rental residential properties, particularly, rental single-family houses, ore
generally maintained at a lower level than ownerwecupled houses. Property maintenance Issues often
Include building repalrs, yard care, and snow removal. The "Homeownership and Neighborhood Stablkgr'
article riles several studio that show "that homeowners are more Maly than landlords to undertake
repabs and that they spend more on them•' This same article also asserts that owneroccupled housing
unite are generally maintained at a higher level because homeowners, unlike landlords and ranters, possess
both an eaonomlc and use Interest In their homes. "The Impact of Rental properties on the Value of Single -
Family Residences" article dies several studies that have empirically demonstrated this situation.
Inadequate property maintenance Issues often result br toweased levels of nuance complaints and City
Code vlabdons, as wall as decreases In property values of nearby hoeing.
Several cradles (Wang, at al; Rohe & Stewart, Janmaar, PhMdn contain empirical analyses that Usked
higher concentrations of retial houses to decreases; In nearby property values. The most direct study of
these reviewed relstine to Impacts on properly value was "rhe Impact of Rental Properties on the Value of
Single -Family Rsidencee study, which condudad that 'an I n eme relationship mAsts behueen the%Wue of
a house and the presence of rental properties in the study area." r This study analysed data from 23,139
singlefamlly residences and 7,162 siroeiaralty sales In Sen Antbrdo (TX]. Another study found that "after
controlling for housing stock characteristics, household characterWc% end MSA -level economic factors, a
5•pvoentage-point change (htcreasa] in the homeownership rata of tract Would be associated with about
a $4,000 increase In moan shrgkfamgy pruperty value over a 10jear period of line's A subsequent
impact of decreased property vales is the decrease In prop"taarevenues for the My, Countvand other
taxft Jurisdiction,
Several studies (Sage Policy Group, Rephann, Duncan Associates; State College Borough) contain empirical
analyses that link the coacaotration of read houses to increases in nuisance compla its, City Code
violations, and trim Incidents. Nulsaaces typically Include yard ore (e.g, weed control, grass cuMnsh
anav tttrnoval, refuse, Illegal parking, noise, disorderly eandact, liquor mut over-oottpwngy. Section III of
this mento describes the empirical analyses Joking the concentration of rental houses with nuisance
complaints and City Code violations in fire cltks. Nuisance complaints, cote violations and mime Incidents
are key Indicators of a neighborhood's Ihnbil ty and residents' satisfaction with their neighborhood. The
literature reviewed Indicates Increased Incidences of nulsances, code violations and crines M ranter,
occupied houses versus ovroervoccopiad hour A subsequent Impact of Increased emoslnts, viwations
and crime Incidents Is the additional costs Incurred by a city to observe, address and process them.
3VAIllam te. Robe and Leslie &Sienart, "Homeowners* and Neighborhood Stablitq,' Housing PdW Debate
P.Wurre7, We 1), 7496 4e.
Ko Wane Tart' V. Gdsmn%J, 4 R. Webb and [ewkSpellman, Me tophi of Rental Properties on the Value of
SlrnWamly Residenes,"Jaumalof Urban EmnarrAw, Volume 30, Issue 2 (3991): WA.
a Welam M. Rclu and Leslie S.Steawk `'Homeownership and NeWtborhoed Stab",' Housing Pricy abate
(Volum 7, low 1), IM 71-72.
Pap 3 of 10
IB. Empirical Stadles of Rental housing Impacts on Community Livability in Five Cities
Through the literature review, we were able to identify empirical suttee in five cities that show e
correlation between the concentration of rental housing and negative Impacts on community livability. The
five cities are Gainesville (FL), State College (PA), College Park (MD), Cumberland (MD), and Chapel NIII (NC).
Specifically, these five ampedcal studies Identify a Mk between the concentration of rental housing and
increases In nuisance complO ts, code vidletions and police tecklants.
In 200$ the City of Galnesvtlfe conducted an analysis of student housing Issues In the neighborhoods
mound the University of Florldo, which were Identified as the study's University of Florida (UF) Context
Area. The CRFs Comprebensive Plan specifically contains a policy calling for such a study In Its Future Land
Use chapter. Policy 5,L7 states the OThe City shall prepare a study of the Impacts of rentals on single-
family ndghborhoods and shall Implement additional programs as necessary and appropriate to stabilize
and enhance these nelghboMoods.°s Based on Census data for the Census tracts that make up the UF
Context Atm, the study estimated that approximately 7911 of the res#ma:s in this area are used as rental
heuslag. Using code and noise complaint data from the City's Coda Enforcemert Division, the study
tabulated and compared the number of compWnts from the OF Context Area with the overall city.
Aithough the Uf Context Area represents 23% of the households In the city, the study found that
approximately 51% of the noise complaints came from Ibis area, 46% of the mer =pency wmplsintI6
50% of the "vision triangle" (obstructed vlows at Intersection corners) complaints, 4396 of the sign
violations, and 3796 of the minor housing code violations?
711.4- t�,y: ,
In 1994 and 2007, the Borough of State College compiled "violations by Housing Type' reports. The housing
types Include apertmenta, duplexes, fraternities, single-family houses, rental houses, rooming houses end
townhouses. This analysis showed that rental shtgle-famlly, houses had the highest avenge number of
nuisance violations per un1t, followed by duplexes ams fraternities! The top four violations for rental
shiWamily houses were snow, refuse, weeds and noise. The record does not show any evidence that the
maximum of three unrelated persons rule, which was enacted In 1979, reduced the number of conversions
of awner-occupied slnsla4m1y houses to student rental hbutes. In 1997, State College Borough
established a minimum spacing ordinance between student rental houses. The record suggests that the
mkdmum diatom between student rental sirhgledamliy homes has resulted In a decrease in conversion of
owner-oeuphed homes to rental homes!
In 2005, the City of College Park conducted a rental lousing study that looked at declining homeownership,
an Inerani :g beef in conversions of owner-ocrupled singb4emuv housing being to rental [musing, and the
• Duna Associates,'Aoslyds of Issues Regarding Studentifousing Nearthe Unlvess1tyof Plorlda,' April2MI: L
r @idr 24.
Staff ofSate college Borough, aftstaftwe Nelghbwfaods instate Camp Borough `hoe b 2009:7.
° Ibld:&9.
Page 4 of 10
concentration of qty Code violations Occurring N rental IEngk famlE housh:g. In 2004, the study calculated
that the average number of first notice code violations per residential rental unit was m7a compared to
0.21 first notice code violations for owneo-aecupled residential units, which equates to 3.7 times more
violations for rental housire In 2008, there were 0.92 violations per rental housing unit compared to 038
for owneroccupled hoasbg tmiGU This study fond an Increasing trend In converslons of owner aocupled
sing"mily homes to rental housing and a corresponding higher rate of City Lode vbatiens In rental
singladamily housing. In addltton to the negative Impact on neighborhood quWky and livability, this
signllkeht higher Wei of nuisance violations &iso results In addIda al costs far the City to process code
vloaffons, Including observation, retarding, communicating and rectifying them.
Cumberland. MO
This paper analyzes the Oaks between resldentlal rental properties and cdmo ImUmb In the City of
Cumberland, M% which has a populatlon of approximately It= realdents. tieing poke huuldent report
data for pdvatelyowned rental properft,the (dsturbances ansults; ond dtug m4liftLandfregypnry
of Ncldanb were analvud. The study selected these crines because °they aro fieV@rV
I found N e
residertWl setting and arocohhatdes�7 pan gt catures or lidEWors of ndgiiberlgod q 12
This study found that Increases In trine were lWited to resldemlel mntal properties, In particular rental
properties where the landlord does not We on -sl% properties that are part of larger rental property
holdinip, properties that use Section 8 vouchara, and properties In neighborhoods with a lower percentage
ofownaraxupled houses.
OWBILULK
Chapel Hllrs 20M Comprehensive Plan nls organized around twelve mayor themes, each growing out of the
community values that have been Identified and which, taken together, farm a Strategy for Chapel Hurs
IVWMre 'u Oat of these myor themes Is to conserve and protect existing neighborhood. The
Comprehensive Plan contalns on entire chopterdevoted to communitychareaer, Incl u ding goals, strategies
and actlom to conserve and protect the dharacterofthe communityb selghborhoods. "The central purpose
Of the stmtegks and actions contained In the Comprehensive Pato Is to manage growth and change so that
Chapel IN wtil continue to have a spacial commrmity character and quality of life In the Tutu W'4
Ona of them strategies Is to address the neighborhood Impacts of the convandon of ownerotcupled
housing m rental horsing, lnducilng nulmnce compaInts. The City has Identified commm ty Indicatars that
are moultored annually as a means for tr aeft progress of the implementation of Its Comprehensive plan
strategies For the rental housing stmtagy, the mrrespanding co Indicator Is th_ e�erdehtege of
loud nolle complalnb that otsxhr N netglhbahoods that touch and circle the donittmw& end antreI
campus, which have been destgaated Residential Cat:onsaryatlon Arm In the,City's land Use Plan, In 2004,
8396 of tent Rolm complabits occurred In these ndghborhoodt, withhave concentrathrm of residential
saga PaacyGroup,'rhere Is a Rational Bests for Rentsaahlltzadon in College fork, Maryland,' Apra 2M5:17.
u Saga POITCY Group,'There Rdnalos a Rational S ulsfa Rem StabOkation in Ca fte Pari; Maryland,' Apdi 2009; 1L
Terannl.Rephann,'RemalHousing and Crlme: The Rate ofPropwWOwmrahlpand Manggement,'The Am lsof
Reglonal Science (44 2009:2.
n Tam ofgopel Igll INCL 'Planning forChapd Hors tubae: Tim Comprehonalve Plan," May 8, 2000: L
u Ibldnll.
Page 8 Of 10
rental housing." Since these neighborhoods represent approximately 20% of the total housing units within
Chapel HIII, they are responsible for a disproportionate share of the laud nolse complaints In the
Community. The lily of Chapel HIII dearly links and monitors rental housing nuisance Incidents with
neighborhood character aril quality of ilfe.
IV. Minnesota Examples efgWswith Rental Housing ConcealostionRegulations
At the state IrM, In addition to Winona's rental housing concentration erMnance, we are aware of three
other Minnesota cities that have established ordbumces to address the issue of Concentrated rental
housing—Northfield, Mankato and West St. Paul. While Winona'sordinance established a maximum of 30%
rental louaing propertles per residential Mode, the other dries' nkvdmums are all lower Including 25%,20%
and 9096. These three ordinances were all established after Winona's ordinance was In place — Northfield
(2007), Mankato (2008) and West St. Paul (2012).
Northilehi, MN: Located In Businesses Ordinance (not Zoning Ordinance). Rental Honing (Chapter
14, Artlde III). Limits the percentage of houses on a single block that can be granted rental housing
licenses to 2096 N low density neighborhoods (11-1 and R,2 zoning dbtrkts).
Mankato, MN: Located in Business Regulations & Licensing Ordinance (not Zoning Ordinance),
Dwelling Unit Rental (Section S.42, Subdhdslon20). Lknits the number of its on any block that are
eligible to obtain a rental license or to be licensed as a rental property to 2596.
West St Paul, MN: Located In Building, Housing & Construction Regulations Ordinance (not zoning
Ordinance), Rental Dwellings (Section 435). limits single-family, rental properties to 1096 per block
in an Ri zoning district.
"Town of Chapal Hi0 (NC), -AU Chapd HM Data BoW)uly 2004: S4
Page 6 of 10
V. Analysis of Winans Nuisance and Pence Violations data
in orderta compare Winona's rental housing situation with the findings from other titles' empirical studies
related to rental housing concentration Issues, which are described to Section 01, an analysis was conducted
of Whlarra's nuisance and police violations data. Since the City's 030% Rule"' zoning an mance was adapted
at the and of 1005, this data analysis caves rite tbrre 20062011 for nuisance complaints. Ponca
citation data was analyzed for the 20092070 time petad4 Intent of this analysis is to calculate and
compare violations date for rental housing vs. owner-oornp d housing within non•m dMmly residentld
areas, as wag as concentrated rental residential blacks (blocks currently over the 30% maximum) vs. all
other residential blade:]
This analysis of nuisance and police violations was limited to properties within the Cltl/a residentW zoning
d1strW4 except for R-3, since the '3096 Rule is only applicable to these zoning districts. Properties len the
fotloWng zoning districts are exempt from the R30% Rule". 0-1, B2, B•3, R-3, Md, and M-2. Within the
applicable residential zmft districts, there are currently 7,303 properties Some of time residential
properties have not been developed with a residential building yet, therefore, the more relevant total
residential properties number that we used Is 6,567 developed residential propertles, not including Rti9
Properties In 2011,1„161 properties had rectal housing certtflwtlon, which means rental housing certilled
properties represented 17.796 of the non-muRYamlhr residential properties within Winona.
In 2ML there were a sig Olout number of blacks that exceededthe maximum level of 30M rental housing.
These blots contain 1,528 residential Properties, including both rental and owner nempied housing, and
represent 233% of the non-muldfamny residential propertes within Winona. 676 of the 4528 properties
on the 'am 30%' blade had rental housing eertIll atim which translates to an average of 44.2%mntal
hoslag propenes on the 'over 30%' blacks. Although marry Meeks exceed the mexknum level of 91196
rental housing, many blocks do not. Within the drys sma of tradgimal sure blacks, gsproximatelyr 700
additional rental housing cin ificathons are permitted an blots that currently have less than 3096 rental
housing. Within the entire city, approximately 1,400 additional rental housing eertlRatlont could be
permitted. In other words, less than half of the possible rental housing cartlnatlots are curre,ntiy being
used since 1471 rental housing certiRcatlons normally exist compared to the Izossl6YRy of an additional
%400 that could be permitted.
The first type of analysis lads at nuisance complaints for the time period of 2006-2011 for at properties
within residential zoning districts, except R-3. The types of nuisance complaints IMInded the following:
uncontrolled wends, grassflnwn maintenance, garbage, Dunk, velgchm, vehicles parked In yank, furniture in
yard, snowAce, nes building permit, building deterioration, fence daUdoratom and other. Tabie i below
summarkes total number of residential properly complaints, number & percentage of ren" property
complains, and number lit percentage of non•rentai property, eo nphinta. The andor firding "that tenni
us
hoing properties, which represent Just 17.7% of el non-mulftmgy residential properties within Winamall
were responsible for 31% of the residential nuisance complaints from 2006-201L
Page7 of 10
Table 1r Nuisance Complaints—Rental Residential Properties vs. Non -Rental Properties (2008-2017.)
year
7otalNumbar
ofReshk"tW
Property
Wmptalnts
Namborof
Reatalpmperty
Complaints
XAssodated
wjReetal
Propertks
Num®erof
Non -Rental
Property
comifflaints
%Assoctdted
w/Alen-Rental
Properties
2011
345
133
99%
212
61%
2010
414
194
47%
220
53%
2009
49I
249
51%
243
49%-
2008
413
232 1
56% 1
161
F 44%
2007
416
25561%
55%
161
39%
2006
236
108
46%
128
54%
2006-2011
2,316
1.171
51%
11146
49%
We: Reard haustao pmpatles repmsent 17.7X of all non mult{1'aWIy MO&ntW prapertks to Winon4 notlndudfny
residential pmpenks in the follawh:g exemptedronkg disaicts —By B 3, B$ R-3, M-1 and M-2.
The second type of anatists looks at nulsana complaints for the time period of 2006-2011 comparing
blacks with over30% rental housing toblacks with less than 3o%rental housing. Table 2 below summarizes
total number of tnslde tial property complaints, number & pbrcentage of complaints associated with
blocks having over 30% rental housing, and number & percentage of complaints associated with bionics
having less than 30% rental housing. The major flnding Is that blacks with over 3096 rental housing, whk h
represent Just 233% of all mm -multifamily, raddentlal propertles'withln Mnonv, were responsible for 47%
of the residential nuisance complaints from 2006.2m+
Table 2: Nuisance Complaints—Concentrated Rental Blocks w, Odor Residential Blocks 12 0 0 6-21111)
year
TOWFUmberof
Resddaaual
Property
Camplands
Numberef
Lbatph76WR
Oda; OM
90X8mttal
HoWng
XASsadatedw/
BAsdxGM
30XRentol
Housing
Namberof
Comptaratsin
Bhod:sLM
THAN3OX
Rsotal Na
XAnadaWdW/
81001al M
711ANM
RerAdHoushrg
2011.
349
191
so
214
62%
7010
414
1B7
4506
227
55%
2609
492
-239
47%
259
53%
2008
413
203
49%
210
51%
2667
416
228
55%
186
4596
71f06
236
102
43%
134
57%
2006.2011
7.,316
1,084
47%
1,232
53%
Note: Bloch with overM rerdattmustfigrepnesentIlUX of og oan•muatfwn*mUdentki propenes k t4*M%not
lel WOW r#fi&fitbfFgWtkshtdaMfowhMexemptodmrdngdhtrkts—&1,8-$8.9,Rd,*1and MA
Page 8 of 10
The third type of analysts delves deeper Into nuisance complaints for the time period of 2006-2011 to
compare retdaynon-rectal propartles on "ores' 3036 rental blocs" with rental/nan4antil properties on
^less than M% rental blocks". Table 3 below summaN:es this data. The analysis In the upper half of Table3
shows that rental housing properties an concentrated rental boder had an average member of nuisance
complalats per property of L16 vs. 0.80 for rental housing properties on nomeoncentratad rental blocks.
This difference transiates to a 45% higher rate of nuisance complaints for rental housing properties that are
located on concentrated rreretel blocks. Anotierwayto kookat It Isthat rental housing properties located on
concentrated rental blow which represent 1096 of all residential properfks, aro responsible for 34% of
residential nuisance complaints. Furthermore, the analysis in the tower half of Table 3 shows that non -
rental housing properties on concentrated rental blocks had an average number of nuisance complaints per
Property of 0.35 vs. 0.19 for non -rental housing properties on nowconcertreted rental blocks. Thus, the
concentration of rental horsing creates a spillover effect on cos{ectal housing to Increase its rate of
averaa mdsanceeomplaints perproperty maathem 8096.
Table 3: Neelsonce Comphift—RentsVNon-Ree"I Properties a Concentrated Rental Bloch (2006 2011)
row CIF 1>tepefths
'?btu
Odecaberof
Awmeee
xofTold
go
Numberof
Nuisance
WRAWof
farsldential
Nufeence
ProparNes
tlratpfdnts
20062011
Nalmove
Cmrpin eat r
jarrPhyrov
PaWrft
Cog bots
Rental Housing Properties
676
783
Lis
10%
349
on Ovrr30%Ram2l Blocks
ReMal lousing Properties
405
388
0.80
8%
1796
on I= non W% Rental
Blocks
Non -Rental Housing
852
803
035
33%
13%
pmperft on Over 90%
Rental Blacks
Nw4terrtalfrou5hg
4,549
844
0.19
69%
36%
ProperilsonlessThan
30% Rental Bloch
Total
61557
$316
095
100%
100%
The fourth type of analysis oaks at PDOm citations for the 2009-2010 time period The types of
unrwao 1, moose Manage to property, and the8fburgtaty. Table 4 below compares the number of police
citations associated with rental/don-rental properties on "over 40% rental blocks" with renteVneen-Whi
properties on °las than 30% rental blade". Tisa analysis In the Opper half of Table 4 shows that rental
htwsfng properties an ooeoentrated rental blocks had an average member of pollee cit a ' par property of
OA533 vs. O0206 for rental housing properties on non-comceatrated rental block. This difference
tmnddes to a 160% higher rate of police citatiars for rental' housing properties that are located on
concentrated ref blocks. Another way to lack at it Is that rental housing properties located an
Page 9 of 10
concentrated rental blocks, which represent 1096 of all resldentiai properties, are responsible for 55% of
residential nuisance complaints.
Table 4'. Police Citations —Comparison of Rental Propertlos & Blocks (2009-2010)
TYPeofproperdes
Total
Numberof
Avempa
%ofrotal
f6 of police
Numtrarof
Pairce
Numberef
Redd Wkl
citcdiaes
Prapetdes
citations
Paftos
pmperdes
50092010
tSmdansPar
Property
Rental Properties on
675
35
00533
1036
55%
Over 30% Rental Blocks
Rental Properties on
49S
10
0.0206
8%
15%
Less Than 3095 Rental
Blacks
Y
i
1.1 '-.f111111101=116
Non-FkVWPmperd^es
852
9
0.0035
13%
4%
on Overlla%Rental
Blocks
Non -Rental Properties
4,544
17
0.0037
6996
28%
an Less Then 30% Rental
Blocks
Total
6,557
fib
.0100
100%
100%
Nue: The poike dharions dato for2W9-2al0above does not hatde nice f3J of the
rndkaredan thesedaatlansforthe aduallodaMnaftheahaeiiddent.
Vi. Conclusion
Our literature review of rental housing concentration and its effects, hhduding the empirical studies of five
cries, supports the conclusion that the concentratio o4t rental housing results In negative impacts to the
quairy and ItvablRlyof residential nalghborhoot Vin addhion, our compilation and ane b of the
relationship between Winona's rental houshrg concentration and nuisance complabde/pollce violations
data pmallelsthe findings of the literature review. In particular, via find that concentrated rentel homing In
Winona has resulted In a much higher rate of nuisance complaints and polka violations in concentrated
rental housing blocks, Impacting both rental and non -rental residential properties. Thus, based upon the
0teratura review, Including the empirical studies of five titles relevant to WNwns's rental housing Issues,
and the detailed analysts of Winona date, we conclude that the concentration of rental housing In Warms
results In increased levels of nuisance and polka violations In those nelghborhoods. As these violations are
Indicators of Increased nubamm and decreased property maintenance levels that negatively affect
neighborhood quality and livability, we also conclude that the concentration of rental housing leads to
deceased neighborhood quality and livability.
Page 10 of 10
i. A new single-family dwelling or duplex if a building permit was issued before June
13, 2017.
j. An existing single-family dwelling or duplex if a building permit was issued after
December 13, 2015 and before June 13, 2017.
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Bard of Appeals does not
have the authority to grant an exception, variance, or another relief to the rental
permit cap. /
8. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, enti d "Housing Code," Section 17,
tied, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Dwellings," is aryfended by deleting Subsection K,
hgraphs 1 and 2, and substituting in lieu thereof the follow/ng Subsection K, paragraph 1 (no
2):
Minimum Space, Use And Location Requirer
loor Area Per Occupant:
a. very dwelling unit shall contain at least of
h bitable floor space for the first occupant
ad 'tional square feet of habitable floor sp
b. The flob�area of that part of a room
(6) shall of be considered when cc
9. Title 17, entitled " ilding and Housing," a
entitled, "Minimum Structu Standards for All er
Subsection D as paragraph 1 nd adding the fo owir
D2. Newly constructe dwellings wi four
interconnected smoke alar s (hardw' ed or v
(1) or more bedrooms shall h ve int rconnec
undred twenty (120) square feet of
�eof and at least one hundred (100)
for every additional occupant
the ceiling height is less than five feet
Q the total floor area of the room.
gr 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18,
1 Housing," is amended by renumbering
new Subsection D, paragraph 2:
) or more bedrooms shall have
-less). Existing dwellings that add one
J smoke alarms (hardwired or wireless).
10. Title 17, entitled "Building and Hsing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standar All Rental Housing," is amended by adding the
following new Subsections L, M, N, O , an
L. Bedrooms cannot exceed 35 ercent (3 °o) of the habitable floor area of a single-family
dwelling or duplex unit. Thi dimensional r uirement is subject to administrative review.
M. Bedrooms shall have a m' imum of one hun ed (100) square feet of total floor area.
The floor area of that be room where the ceilin height is less than five feet (5') shall not
be considered when c puting the total floor are of the bedroom. These dimensional
requirements are subP ct to administrative review. lawful bedroom/sleeping room
greater than or equal to seventy (70) square feet in e ' tence prior to January 1, 2018
may continue to b used as a bedroom/sleeping room. owever, if and when it is
brought into com lance with the current minimum dimensI al requirements, it may not
N. Within Househo Living Uses, as defined in Title 14 of this de, a minimum of 100
square feet of ared living space shall be provided for every b Broom within the
dwelling unit. y way of illustration, for a two-bedroom single -fa dwelling, there must
be at least 2 0 square feet of shared living space within the dwellin This dimensional
requireme is subject to administrative review.
O. The two ( dwelling units of a duplex must be physically and permanen separated,
and the paration must be continually maintained. By way of illustration, duplex shall
not hav a door separating the two dwelling units.
P. Every 4welling unit and rooming unit shall have a deadbolt lock that can be operated
fromi ide and locked from the outside. "Deadbolt" means a locking mechanism where
the b t cannot be moved to an open position except by rotating the locked cylinder.
HOUSING CODE CHANGES -redline
(deletions have a strike -through and new language is underscored)
17-5-3 Definitions (new definitions and amendments to current definitions)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A temporary dwelling unit that is accessory to an owner -
occupied single-family dwelling or duplex.
BEDROOM/SLEEPING ROOM: A habitable room within a dwelling used or intended to be used for
sleeping Minimum size requirements for bedrooms are set forth in sections 17-5-17 and 17-5-18 of
this Chapter.
HABITABLE ROOM: A room or enclosed floor space within a dwelling URit OF FGGFn ng unit, having a
minimum of seventy (70) square feet of total floor area with not less than seven feet (7') in any
horizontal dimension, used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking or eating purposes,
excluding bathrooms, toilet rooms, pantries, laundries, foyers, communicating corridors, closets,
storage spaces, stairways and recreation rooms in basements (see definition of Recreation Room In
Basement). Notwithstanding the foregoing bedrooms must meet the dimensional requirements as
set forth in sections 17-5-17 and 17-5-18 of this Code.
RENTAL PERMIT: A document, issued periodically, which grants the owner or operator the option of
letting a gait dwelling, dwelling unit rooming unit or Type III dwelling unit for rental purposes and
showing that the dwelling dwelling unit, rooming -unit or Type III dwelling unit for which it is issued
was in compliance with the applicable provisions of this chapter at the time of issuance.
ROOMER: An occupant of a reemtng houses rooming unit ARH AhAll AIRA mean an who is not an
owner occupant
ROOMING HOUSE: Any dwelling OF that part of any dwelling containing ene two or more rooming
units or type III dwelling units, in which space is let by the owner or operator to four (4) or more
roomers. Occupants of units specifically designated as type III dwelling units within a rooming house
shall be included in the roomer
classified as an Independent Group Living Use in Title 14 of this Code.
ROOMING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a Group
Living Use, as defined in Title 14 of this Code, dwelling and forming a single private unit with
facilities which are used or intended to be used primarily by a roomer or roomers for living and
sleeping, but not cooking. A reaming unit shall hAvP, bath ;;nd toilat farilities Rvailgh'A feF the
I
SHARED LIVING SPACE: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms, not including
bedrooms located within a Household Living Use, as defined in Title 14 of this Code.
TO LET: The granting, either in writing or orally, by the owner or operator to another the right to
possess a dwelling, a dwelling unit, a rooming unit, or a Type III dwelling unit.
Amendment to Section 17-5-16A:
A. Certificate And Permit Required For Rental Property: It shall be a violation of this code for any
person, exGept an ewneF 866UPaMt, to let to another any dwelling, dwelling unit, duplex, multiple
dwelling, rooming unit Tvoe III dwelling unit ,
erdinanee) r rooming
unless:
1. The owner or operator holds a valid certificate of structure compliance, issued by the City
applicable to those portions of the specific
structure used for residential rental purposes.
2. The owner or operator holds a valid rental permit, issued by the Cit deparhrmPA- f
in the name of the owner or operator, applicable to those
portions of the specific structure used for residential rental purposes.
Amendment to Section 17-5-16C4
4. Expiration Of Permit; Extensions: Rental permits shall be valid through the expiration date
contained thereon. However, extensions shall be granted to cover any time period between the
stated expiration date and the period of time permitted by the inspector to remedy any violations
cited subsequent to a maintenance inspection, provided a rental application is on file with fees paid,
up to a maximum of 12 months.
Amendment to Section 17-5-16C (new subsections 16C5c and 16C8d)
5c Effective July 1 2018 the twelve (12) month period of time in Subsection 17-5-16C5b shall be
twenty-four (24) months.
8d Effective July 1. 2018 the twelve (12) month period of time in Subsections 17-5-16C8a, b, and c
shall be twenty-four (24) months.
Amendment to Section 17-5-16 (new subsection 16C13)
dwelling: and (3) whose absence is due to a sabbatical, an extended vacation, spending winter
months in a warmer climate military service, a volunteer commitment employment or substantially
similar reason: or (b) who occupied the dwelling at the time of death and the owner's heir(s)
occupies or intends to occupy the dwelling.
Amendment to Section 17-5-16 (new subsection 16E) (Note: Rental Impact Area Map is
attached to the ordinance)
E. Rental Permit Cap
2.
Definitions:
Rental Impact Area means the geographic area delineated as such on the Rental Impact
Area Map in Figure 17-1. Where the boundaries of said area are along streets, they shall be
construed to be along the center lines of said streets.
Rental Permit District means the geographic districts labelled and delineated on the Rental
Impact Area Map in Figure 17-1 Where the boundaries of said districts are along streets
they shall be construed to be along the center lines of said streets.
and duplex units that have rental permits exceeds 40% of the total number of single-family
and duplex units within said rental permit district except as provided herein This limit shall
be known as the rental permit cap.
3. Exceptions to the rental permit cap:
a. Dwelling with a rental permit on the effective date of this section.
b. Dwelling with a rental permit that expired after December 13, 2015 if a renewed rental
permit is issued before July 1, 2018.
c. Existing legally nonconforming single-family dwellings and duplex units located within a
zoning district where single-family dwellings and duplex units are not an allowed use
d. Accessory dwelling units.
e. Owner -occupied duplexes, where the owner occupies one unit and leases out the
second unit.
f. Approved bed and breakfast homestays and inns.
g. Dwelling with a temporary rental permit.
h. Group Household as defined in Title 14 of this Code.
i. Anew single-family dwelling or duplex if a building permit was issued before June 13,
2017.
j. An existing single-family dwelling or duplex if a building permit was issued after
December 13, 2015 and before June 13, 2017.
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Board of Appeals does not have the
authority to grant an exception, variance, or any other relief to the rental permit cap.
Amendment to 17-5-17K (Subsection 17K applies to owner occupied and rental)
K. Minimum Space, Use And Location Requirements
1. Floor Area Per Occupant:
a. Every dwelling unit shall contain at least one hundred twenty (120) square feet of habitable floor
space for the first occupant thereof and at least one hundred (100) additional square feet of
habitable floor space for every additional occupant thereof.
b.Fer the purpose of determining the fnaximum permissible , The floor area of that part
of a room where the ceiling height is less than five feet (5) shall not be considered when computing
the total floor area of the room.
D2. Newly constructed dwellings with four (4) or more bedrooms shall have interconnected
smoke alarms (hardwired or wireless). Existing dwellings that add one (1) or more
bedrooms shall have interconnected smoke alarms (hardwired or wireless).
4
Amendment to 17 -5 -18 ---New Subsections 18L, 18M, 18N, 180,18P. and 18Q (Subsections
18 L -Q apply to rentals only)
L. Bedrooms cannot exceed 35 percent (35%) of the habitable floor area of a sinqle-famil
dwelling or duplex unit. This dimensional requirement is subject to administrative review.
M. Bedrooms shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of total floor area. The
floor area of that bedroom where the ceiling height is less than five feet (5') shall not be
considered when computing the total floor area of the bedroom. These dimensional
requirements are subject to administrative review. Any lawful bedroom/sleeping room greater
than or equal to seventy (70) square feet in existence prior to January 1, 2018 may continue
to be used as a bedroom/sleeping room. However, if and when it is brought into compliance
with the current minimum dimensional requirements, it may not be converted back to a
substandard size.
N. Within Household Living Uses, as defined in Title 14 of this Code, a minimum of one
hundred (100) square feet of shared living space shall be provided for every bedroom
within the dwelling unit. By way of illustration for a two-bedroom single-family dwelling,
there must be at least 200 square feet of shared living space within the dwelling. This
dimensional requirement is subject to administrative review.
O. The two (2) dwelling units of a duplex must be physically and permanently separated,
and the separation must be continually maintained. By way of illustration, a duplex shall
not have a door separating the two dwelling units.
P. Every dwelling unit and rooming unit shall have a deadbolt lock that can be operated
from inside and locked from the outside. "Deadbolt" means a locking mechanism where
the bolt cannot be moved to an open position except by rotating the locked cylinder.
O. In an administrative review, the Director or designee may grant a minor adiustment to the
dimensional requirement if in conformance with the purposes of this chapter. Minor
adiustments shall be noted in the property file maintained by the Neighborhood and
Development Services Department.
� r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Late Handouts:
Information submitted between distribution of packet on Thursday and close of business on
Friday.
Item 9 Rental Permit Requirements - See revision ordinance pg. 8. See
correspondence from Katy Krapfl and Mary Murphy.
REVISED Page 8 of Ordinance Late Handouts Distributee'
/(/J//I
i. A new single-family dwelling or duplex if a building permit was isw earl heforo i, ine
13, 2017. (�
j. An existing single-family dwelling or duplex if a buildingtArmit was issued after
December 13, 2015 and before June 13, 2017.
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Board of Appeals does not
have the authority to grant an exception, variance, or any other relief to the rental
permit cap.
8. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 17,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Dwellings," is amended by deleting Subsection K,
paragraphs 1 and 2, and substituting in lieu thereof the following Subsection K, paragraph 1 (no
paragraph 2):
K. Minimum Space, Use And Location Requirements:
1. Floor Area Per Occupant:
a. Every dwelling unit shall contain at least one hundred twenty (120) square feet of
habitable floor space for the first occupant thereof and at least one hundred (100)
additional square feet of habitable floor space for every additional occupant
thereof.
b. The floor area of that part of a room where the ceiling height is less than five feet
(5') shall not be considered when computing the total floor area of the room.
9. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing," is amended by renumbering
Subsection D as paragraph 1 and adding the following new Subsection D, paragraph 2:
D2. Newly constructed dwellings with four (4) or more bedrooms shall have
interconnected smoke alarms (hardwired or wireless). Existing dwellings that add one
(1) or more bedrooms shall have interconnected smoke alarms (hardwired or wireless).
10. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing," is amended by adding the
following new Subsections L, M, N, O, P, and O:
L. Bedrooms cannot exceed 35 percent (35%) of the habitable floor area of a single-family
dwelling or duplex unit. This dimensional requirement is subject to administrative review.
M. Bedrooms shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of total floor area.
The floor area of that bedroom where the ceiling height is less than five feet (5) shall not
be considered when computing the total floor area of the bedroom. These dimensional
requirements are subject to administrative review. Any lawful bedroom/sleeping room
greater than or equal to seventy (70) square feet in existence prior to January 1, 2018
may continue to be used as a bedroom/sleeping room. However, if and when it is
brought into compliance with the current minimum dimensional requirements, it may not
be converted back to a substandard size.
N. Within Household Living Uses, as defined in Title 14 of this Code, a minimum of 100
square feet of shared living space shall be provided for every bedroom within the
dwelling unit. By way of illustration, for a two-bedroom single-family dwelling, there must
be at least 200 square feet of shared living space within the dwelling. This dimensional
requirement is subject to administrative review.
O. The two (2) dwelling units of a duplex must be physically and permanently separated,
and the separation must be continually maintained. By way of illustration, a duplex shall
not have a door separating the two dwelling units.
P. Every dwelling unit and rooming unit shall have a deadbolt lock that can be operated
from inside and locked from the outside. "Deadbolt" means a locking mechanism where
the bolt cannot be moved to an open position except by rotating the locked cylinder.
-�4 CJ
Kellie Fruehlin
From: kathleen krapfl <katykrapfl@me.com> Late Handouts Distributee
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 12:08 PM
To: Council � �, \3 \ `]
Subject: Item 9 -Rental Permit Requirements
(Date)
I am writing to request that the Goosetown neighborhood be considered as its own neighborhood, or included
with the North Side neighborhood rather than included with more residential areas as referenced on
attachment 17-1 for purposes of the Rental Permit Requirements being considered November 6.
Goosetown has a long history as its own neighborhood as documented by Marybeth Slonneger in the book
Small But Ours:Images and Stories from a Nineteenth Century Bohemian Neighborhood.
This area has small, single family homes that are especially vulnerable to a change from owner occupied to
rentals. We have seen this begin to happen in recent years.
We are also included in odd even single side parking restrictions.
It makes no sense to include us with the very residential areas east and south of us as the map is currently
drawn in an area called "Hickory Hill". This is not a group of homes that has been considered together and
should not be. Please instead refer to the map by Neighborhood Associations where we are broken out as
Goosetown.
Thank you for your consideration
Katy Krapfl
1131 E davenport
Iowa city, IA
:)�q
Kellie Fruehlin
Late Handouts is riute
From: mg9425@mchsi.com
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 3:43 PM
To: Council
Subject: Proposed Housing Code Changes - �=
(Date)
Dear City Council Members,
I learned of your proposed ordinance from Iowa City's neighborhood council and am.writing to voice my
opposition to the proposed housing code changes and request that you not support it. My reasons include but
are not limited to the following.
i. I agree with Cheryl Cruises' comments dated 9/18/17 that these changes are "anti -affordable housing" and
incorporate her comments into this email to the extent they apply to the city's proposed ordinance. Ms. Cruises'
well researched and reasoned comments can be found starting on page 32 at https://www8.iowa-
city.org/weblink/o/doe/1756167/Pagei.aspx
2. One consequence of your proposed housing ordinance is to make it more difficult for a Section 8 participant
to find rental housing around Horace Mann if they would like their children to attend school there—this is after
the council recently updated Iowa City's Human Rights ordinance to prohibit discrimination in housing based
on public source of income.
3. The proposed ordinance is unduly restrictive for many reasons, e.g. the requirement that no more than 35%
of the rental dwelling can be bedrooms is too restrictive.
4. Capping the percent of rental permits at 40% in certain areas of Iowa City will have the effect of pushing
more rentals from some Iowa City neighborhoods into other Iowa City neighborhoods.
"From the proposed ordinance
"Within the Rental Impact Area, the City shall not issue a rental permit for any single-family dwelling or duplex
in a Rental Permit District where the percentage of single- family dwellings and duplex units that have rental
permits exceeds 40% of the total number of single-family and duplex units within said rental permit district,
except as provided herein. This limit shall be known as the rental permit cap. ****" See page 571 at
https://www8.iowa-city.org/weblink/o/edoc/176o860/2o17-ii-o6%2oAgenda%2OPacket.pdf
Currently, according to the map Iowa City provided earlier (P3 at https://www8.iowa-
city.org/weblink/o/doe/i75653i/Pagei.aspx), Manville Heights & Parkview Terrace (Mosquito Flats) are at
21.5%, By comparison, North Side is at 58% and College Green at 65.9%, etc. If a cap of 40% is enacted in the
city's defined rental impact area, it appears over time that more rental housing could be pushed from
neighborhoods that are over 40% into neighborhoods that are below 40% or outside the rental impact area, at
least in the foreseeable future. And one solution should NOT be to subsidize more TIF subsidized apartments.
5. Parents of college students whose child is a part owner of a rental home in Iowa City should be able to secure
a regular rental permit prior to selling their property.
I do have a question about how this proposed ordinance is intended to work with form based zoning in the
future. Will rental permits for houses be discouraged (e.g. capped at 40%) while duplexes, triplexes and
fourplexes are later permitted under form based zoning in single family neighborhoods where form based
zoning is adopted?
Again, I do not support this proposed ordinance. Thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
Mary
Mary Murphy
890 Park Pl.
Iowa City, IA 52246
319/40o-7464
mg9425@mchsi.com
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cheryl <cherylcruise@aol.com>
Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:51 AM
Council 1/I
Proposed housing ordinance change re bedroom area allowed
Late Handouts Distributea
(Date)
Council,
Limiting bedroom area to 35% of habitable space in a rental house is better than the original 30% proposed
but still adversely affects affordability.
The idea of limited bedroom area came from looking at averages for new construction of single family
houses with an average size of 2700 sq. ft.
In a home that size, large living rooms and kitchens can be accommodated. This is not so with affordable small
homes.
Habitable space does not include bathrooms, closets, hallways, or utility rooms. What most people want now
are more bathrooms, bigger closets, separate laundry rooms, and bigger bedrooms. They do not want bigger
kitchens and living rooms or dining rooms. It is exclusionary to force that on people, including large families.
The new ordinance (lo -N) states that ioo sq. ft. of shared living space must be provided for every bedroom.
This would be a more correct minimum ratio of 5o% bedrooms/ 50% living room -kitchen. New construction of
apartments and townhomes appears close to the 50-5o ratio while aiming for one bathroom per bedroom.
Drop the 35% requirement from the ordinance.
Cheryl Cruise
905 Bluffwood Dr
Iowa City IA
Sent from my Wad
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council members,
Schwalm, Leslie A <leslie-schwalm@uiowa.edu>
Sunday, November 05, 2017 4:25 PM
Council
Comments for the 11/6 meeting.
Late Handouts Distributed
�At\\-n
(Date)
I'm unable to attend the meeting on the 6th, and so would like to offer a couple of relevant comments.
As a 23 -year resident of the Northside and home owner, I am very concerned about the rental cap in our
neighborhood. I believe it is absolutely necessary to implement this cap in order to protect the stability and
sustainability of my neighborhood. At the same time, I believe we should aggressively continue the UniverCity
program, to make sure that homes remain financially accessible to lower-income city residents. In my block
alone, I have seen three formerly owner -resident houses turned over to landlords, with a significantly
detrimental impact on the upkeep of the housing stock and on the sense of neighborhood --student renters
have very little sense that they are moving into actual neighborhoods. This fall I had to speak to residents of
two nearby rental houses, students who were partying loud and long outside their houses. When I explained
that they were living in a neighborhood that included infants, older residents, and families, they were
shocked --to them, all of the Northside is a student ghetto.
On a related note, I would like to ask the Council to consider how it might limit the paving over of backyards
adjacent to alleyways to create parking lots. Three landlords in my block have done this. My neighboring
landlord just this week commented that he could tear down the garage and make a parking lot that would pay
him a sizeable amount of money --not only to resident renters, but to others who are in search of parking close
in to the University. This trend means less greenspace, the cutting down of mature trees, the increase of auto
traffic in the alleyways and subsequent faster degradation of the roadways. I would very much like the
Council to consider a way of limiting this trend and protecting the overall quality of the neighborhood's
landscape.
Thank you,
Leslie Schwalm
819 E. Market St.
Kellie Fruehlin
From: and rosenquist <mdrosenquist@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:42 AM
To: Council /( A'
Subject: Rental Permit Requirements - Ordinance amending TitlWate)
RE: Rental Permit Requirements - Ordinance amending Title 17
Dear Council Members:
Please maintain the current balance of owner occupied properties to rentals in Iowa City. Please maintain the
single family residential neighborhoods. These areas must remain family friend to raise children. This is
especially important in elementary school neighborhoods. Increasing the number of college students renting
single family homes will add car parking congestion and decreased maintenance.
Thank you,
Marilyn Rosenquist
323 Mullin Ave
Iowa City,IA 52246
Percentage of Single Family and Duplex Units that have a Rental Permit and Number of Nuisances and Noise Complaints
Each rental area is
labeled with the
percentage of
single-family and
duplex units that
have a rental permit
Data Sources:
Iowa City police calls,
1/l/2013-9/9/2016
Complaints through ICGovExpress,
4/19/2013-3/30/2017
Nuisance complaints include:
-Couches stored outside
-No rental permit
-On street parking violation
-Parking on unapproved surfaces
-Snow removal
-Tall grass and weeds
-Vehicle street storage
Noise Complaints Include:
-Loud parties
-Fireworks
-General noise complaints
Legend
QRental Impact Area
j� Iowa City City Limits
O Rental Permit Districts
Number of Complaints
Maximum: 226
- Minimum: 1
p /ANn�
3w in'M% WQf�E
CITY OF F IOWA CITY �SISSVVVVVSS----/////
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
Author: Sylvia Bochner
Department: Neighborhood and Development Services
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Iowa South
This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation
only. This information is not warranted for accuracy a other
purposes.
15.2
19.9
i'
46
'
I
1.3
�r♦•�♦•♦ i
21.5 -
30.8
0.9
--
_
6.8
3.4
�♦
'• WA 66
_. ■. --�
-16.9
�L
1 ♦
i
_iii1 82.7
12.6
0.6
15.9
54.2
30.7
11
68
1.1 -
1114.7
28.1
27.9
21.5
I■
'I
21
11
1
�
19.4
' I
;
♦�
' i
i i
13.3 i
♦
rj
I
----
".��
ri
Each rental area is
labeled with the
percentage of
single-family and
duplex units that
have a rental permit
Data Sources:
Iowa City police calls,
1/l/2013-9/9/2016
Complaints through ICGovExpress,
4/19/2013-3/30/2017
Nuisance complaints include:
-Couches stored outside
-No rental permit
-On street parking violation
-Parking on unapproved surfaces
-Snow removal
-Tall grass and weeds
-Vehicle street storage
Noise Complaints Include:
-Loud parties
-Fireworks
-General noise complaints
Legend
QRental Impact Area
j� Iowa City City Limits
O Rental Permit Districts
Number of Complaints
Maximum: 226
- Minimum: 1
p /ANn�
3w in'M% WQf�E
CITY OF F IOWA CITY �SISSVVVVVSS----/////
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
Author: Sylvia Bochner
Department: Neighborhood and Development Services
Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Iowa South
This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation
only. This information is not warranted for accuracy a other
purposes.
Figure 17-1. Rental Impact Area Map
m
W
AVE MELROSE AVE
ROHRET RD
Melrose /
Emerald
Willow Creels
ao
OGe
f05�
v
GpG
City Park PARK
F
�
S�
m
O
C
S
I-
Z
N
A
w
O
Crossings
West
i � \
X00-�VD IMORMON TREK@LVD
.•��-.`
-v
Legend
QRental Impact Area
O Rental Permit Districts
-, Iowa City City Limits
1
'00
City Park PARK
RDHickory
Hill
FNorth
ide
Bowery
r
HVyy p
s
z
H ROCHESTER AV
y
MARKET ST
w
HAV✓KINSD
OW
m
w
0
IOWA
JEFFERSON
ST
a
q
ci
R tt
AVE
College Green
1�.ITIII
��
�PAVe°
City High
BUR
ST
MELD
E AVE
y o
Riverfront
Bowery
ry
�
Brookland /
East
ID
Longfellow
Roosevelt
ca
ti
c
°c
BENT T
A
z Q RRKW00DAVE
Miller /
Orchard
r Marls Twain
yr
Riverfront
z
00
Hg's
tiF
Crossings
West
i � \
X00-�VD IMORMON TREK@LVD
.•��-.`
-v
Legend
QRental Impact Area
O Rental Permit Districts
-, Iowa City City Limits
1
'00
GOOSETOWN
Neighborhood
Association
ity Park
• Where is Goosetown?
• What is Goosetown? 44ho
• Historic neighborhood
• Diverse mix of residents AI
• Central city neighborhood It 6ewr
• Close to University
g ost��
6j m
c
n
`� A
W p
Riverfront
Crossings
West
College Green
City High
Riverfront Bowery N
Crossings
EastLongfellow
H
pGm
DOD AVE
a 9
Mark Twain
Mrie ��
g
Hickory Hill
North Side
Goosetown
��rnry
N
AV
MARKET ST
ROCHE
££
JEREERS
S
IOWA?
AVE
U
Riverfront
Crossings
West
College Green
City High
Riverfront Bowery N
Crossings
EastLongfellow
H
pGm
DOD AVE
a 9
Mark Twain
Mrie ��
GOOSETOWN
Neighborhood
Association
Supports Rental Permit Cap
• Rental permit cap vital to protect diversity of older, close in
neighborhoods like Goosetown
• Strongly support innovative effort by Iowa City
• Rental permit cap is fair & reasonable balancing of interests of
stakeholders
• Maintain vibrant mix of rentals and owner occupied properties
GOOSETOWN
Neighborhood
Association
Goosetown inadvertently
left out of rental cap
Older, standardized map
boundaries used
Put in Hickory Hill Rental
Permit District —
no rental cap
h
ity Park PAF
Hickory Hill
North Side Goosetown
G
„p�4E0
m
N7 WA _
AVE Q
3
AIgRKET ST ; 1
JEFFERSON S
u
College Green
NQTQN ST'S City High
ci P
r
h
Riverfront
`�
Crossings
Bowery i
d /
East
N Longfellow
At
C
H
c
�oo
B NT T
Z
2�m
ftKW000 AVE lO
Mark Twain
Riverfront
a �N
Crossings
West
NYw_
t
S
GOOSETOWN
Neighborhood
Association
Goosetown inadvertently
grouped with newer,
suburban, distant
neighborhoods in Hickory
Hill rental permit district
Profile more similar to
Northside, older, close in
noise & other complaints
'i
GOOSETOWN
Neighborhood
Association
• Rentals already above 40% in Goosetown
• Leaving Goosetown in uncapped Hickory Hill district - no limit on
rentals
• 1 block West of Governor St = rental freeze
• 1 block East of Governor St = unchecked rentals
• Heavy pressure on Goosetown
• Rentals will drastically increase in Goosetown
GOOSETOWN
Neighborhood
Association
Unique problem
Solution:
Goosetown on own merits
Redraw district boundaries
Goosetown added to
Northside or
Goosetown district carved
out of Hickory Hill
ity Park
OORNNo
4PAVE
A/
At
QIV
F0
o ,
�'F A
Nf I11
N A
h
Hickory Hill
North Side Goosetown I
Riverfront
Crossings
West
T69
Green
City High
zy Longfellow
DAVE �o(�F9
Mark Twain
e
MARKET ST
N
JE
SOT1
IOWA _
AVE
Riverfront
Crossings
West
T69
Green
City High
zy Longfellow
DAVE �o(�F9
Mark Twain
e
n
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance amendingq Title 10, entitled "Public Ways And Property,"
Chapter 5, entitled "City Plaza," to allow an association of downtown
businesses to place a commercial structure on City Plaza under
limited circumstances.
Whereas, the City Code limits the use of City Plaza, including Black Hawk Mini Park, for
commercial purposes;
Whereas, in addition to provisions allowing for sidewalk cafes, sidewalk retailing, and mobile
vendors, the City Code allows for the commercial use of City Plaza as part of a large, short term
event such as Arts Fest;
Whereas, another such short term event is the Iowa City Downtown District's weekend
holiday market that has allowed local businesses and artists to sell their goods from a tent in
Black Hawk Mini Park;
Whereas, the Iowa City Downtown District would like to expand the holiday market from a
weekend event to an event from Thanksgiving to the end of December; and
Whereas, it is in the City's interest to allow the City Manager to issue a permit for the
placement of a commercial structure in City Plaza and Black Hawk Mini Park for up to 45 days
similar to the permit that allows downtown businesses to place their products on sidewalks and
City Plaza Thursdays through Sundays from March to November.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: /
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 5, entitled "City Plaza," Section 7,
entitled "Use of City Plaza," is hereby amended by adding the following new Subparagraph G:
a. The City Manager or designee may issue a permit to an association of downtown
businesses for the placement of a structure on City Plaza for commercial purposes under
the following conditions:
(1) The applicant must complete an application prepared by the City Manager's
Office.
(2) The duration of the permit cannot exceed 45 days per calendar year.
(3) Insurance coverage as required by the City's risk manager.
(4) Execution of an agreement to indemnify the City.
(5) The structure must be approved by the Building Official.
(6) No sale, transfer or assignment of the permit is allowed.
(7) Other conditions consistent with the purpose of this Title of the Code.
b. The City Manager or designee shall either grant or deny the application within seven (7)
working days of the application being filed. The City Manager or designee shall have the
discretion to deny the application due to the amount of space requested and/or the
conflicting demands for space during the time period requested. The process for appeals
and revocation of the permit shall be the same as for a temporary use of sidewalk permit.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2017.
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved
City Attorney
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS
First Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Mims, Taylor
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
ABSENT:
11/06/2017
ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole,
NAYS: None. ABSENT,Dickens.
that the
r 'CITY OF IOWA CIT` lt�%r14
cul-Th� COUNCIL ACTON REPO 10
November 6, 2017
Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways And Property,"
Chapter 5, entitled "City Plaza," to allow an association of downtown
businesses to place a commercial structure on City Plaza under limited
circumstances.
Prepared By: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager
Reviewed By: Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: No impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Ordinance
Executive Summary:
The Iowa City Downtown District has programmed a number of events for the downtown and
City Plaza in recent years. For the past two years, this has included a winter holiday market in
Blackhawk Minipark held in December. Varying weather, including potential damage to
merchandise, have led to a request for a temporary market structure more weather resistant
and flexible than a tent. City Code provides for processes to approve short term commercial
events such as Summer of the Arts events, non-commercial structures for a longer duration
such as the Prairie Box structure, and provisions for commercial activities such as sidewalk
sales, mobile food vendors, and sidewalk cafes. There is not, however, a mechanism for
structures to be used for commercial activities of a longer duration. This ordinance amendment
would allow for the City Manager or designee to approve a structure to be used for commercial
purposes by the Downtown District or association of downtown businesses for up to 45 days.
Background / Analysis:
The request for a more weather resistant structure in which to hold the Downtown District's
winter market was made after the experience of the last two years. Having a structure in which
to hold the market will improve the experience for customers and retailers and allow for better
overnight security. Approving this amendment will not only help support local retailers, but
improve the foot traffic and vibrancy downtown at a critical time of year for retailers when there
are fewer outdoor gatherings for the public.
The ordinance amendment would require applications for commercial structures to be approved
by the City Manager or designee, with the structure itself approved by the Building Official, and
insurance coverage determined by the City's Risk Manager.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval.
DOWNTOWN IOW
41
NK;
i L:a
SY
iA
DOWNTOWN IOW
41
AY POP-UP SHOPS CHI ECTURE
i L:a
AY POP-UP SHOPS CHI ECTURE