HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-05 OrdinanceDEFEATED
Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Assistant Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5239 (REZ17-
00001)
Ordinance No.
An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 21.79 acre of
property from Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone to
Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) zone located north
and south of the intersection of South Gilbert Street and
McCollister Boulevard. (REZ17-00001)
Whereas, the applicant, Southgate Development Services, L.L.C., has requested a rezoning of property
located north and south of the intersection of McCollister Boulevard and South Gilbert Street from Interim
Development Multi -family (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -family (RM -12); and
Whereas, the property is located in the South Planning District; and
Whereas, the South District Plan, an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan, sets forth goals and
objectives for creating compact and connected neighborhoods integrating a diverse mix of housing types that
are compatible in scale; and whereas
Whereas, the South District Plan indicates that the area directly adjacent to the intersection of
McCollister and Gilbert Streets is appropriate for multi -family development with surrounding land appropriate
for Low to Medium Mixed Residential, which is intended for medium to high-density single family with
opportunities for low-density multi -family uses; and
Whereas, the applicant has proposed a concept for development with a mixture of townhome-style multi-
family and a mix of 4-, 8-, and 12-plex buildings, preserving open space between the existing single-family
neighborhood and the proposed development; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
recommended that the City Council deny the application because it was incompatible 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, The Preserve @ Sandhill LLC, 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 -RM to RM -
12: Outlot A and Outlot B of Sandhill Estates, Part Two, as recorded in Book 470, page 230.
Section II. Zoning Map. The building official 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 the ordinance as approved by law.
Section III Conditional Zoninq Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the
City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property 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 record the same in the Office of the
County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and
publication of this ordinance, 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 , 20_
&L 0—
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Jim Throgmorton, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Kellie Fruehling, CITY CLERK
PP oved by Q— // —ZD 1
City Attorneys Office
Ordinance No.
Page 3
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 12/05/17
Vote for passage: AYES: None. NAYS: Dickens, Mims, Thomas,
Throgmorton,Botchway, Cole. ABSENT: Taylor.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356.5239 (REZ17-00001)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City") and The Preserve @ Sandhill LLC (herein after `Owner"), and Southgate
Development Services, L.L.C. (hereinafter "Applicant').
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 21.79 acres of property located
north and south of the intersection of S. Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard; and
Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from Interim
Development Multi -Family (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12); and
Whereas, the South District Plan, an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan, sets forth
goals and objectives for creating compact and connected neighborhoods integrating a diverse mix
of housing types that are compatible in scale; and
Whereas, the South District Plan indicates that the area directly adjacent to the
intersection of McCollister and Gilbert Streets is appropriate for multi -family development with
surrounding land appropriate for Low to Medium Mixed Residential, which is intended for medium
to high-density single family with opportunities for low-density multi -family uses; and
Whereas, the applicant has proposed a concept for development with a mixture of
townhome-style multi -family and a mix of 4-, 8-, and 12-plex buildings, arranged in a walkable
pattern of similar scale to single-family development with an area of open space between the
existing single-family neighborhood and the proposed development; and
Whereas, the City Council has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding
the overall layout and concept for development, building design and quality of construction, and
the composition of ane- and two-bedroom apartments, 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 the development to complement the adjacent single-family neighborhood
as well as the adjacent natural open spaces; 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 Preserve @ Sandhill LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as
Outlots A and B, Sandhill Estates, Part One, as recorded in Book 47, Page 230.
ppdadMagVsandNO estates eta.doc
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the South District plan. 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 agree(s) that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. Substantial compliance with the approved concept plan with regard to street and block
layout (including pedestrian street), arrangement of building types, location and size of
open spaces, and sidewalk and trail connections.
b. The pedestrian street must meet the standards for pedestrian streets provided in the
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code.
c. Townhouse and row house style multi -family buildings must comply with the attached
single-family housing standards for entrances and design in the zoning code.
d. Eaves and window and doorway trim will be required on all buildings according to the
attached -single family housing standards.
e. Building designs to be approved by the Design Review Committee for compliance with
the conditions noted herewith.
f. Buildings shall be constructed of durable, high-quality building materials according to
table 2G-8 of the Riverfront Crossings Form -based Code.
g. Landscaping must comply with recommended plant list provided by the provided by
the Bur Oak Land Trust.
h. Overall density of the development should not exceed:
• 115 units north of McCollister Blvd., at least 20% of which should be one -bedroom
units—the remainder being 2 -bedroom units.
90 units south of McCollister Blvd., at least 25% of which should be one -bedroom
units—the remainder being 2 -bedroom units.
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 acknowledge(s) that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
ppdadVagVsandhM estates =.doe
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 Applicant's expense.
Dated this 7WWday of / V 0% -'fl jE4
City of Iowa City
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk
pp ved by:
Z
City Attorney's Office
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
20 IT -
The Prese @Sandhill LLC
By:/��/
By:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Jim
Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Sea[)
Title (and Rank)
�►2 Preserve # Sandhill LLC,Mi!g, Acknowledgment:
State of 1;C110—
County
;C11wCounty of-66ttif'ow-\
ppOod"agVsandhill asWte, .d.c 3
This Epcord was acknowledged before me on ii • ZO • ill (Date)
by Y e (Name(s) of individual(s) as
vv\ck " (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of
` l (name of party on behalf of whom record
was executed).
p5tWt0 SUSAN J WEAVER
o Commisslon Number 794422 Notary Public in d for the State of Iowa
? My Commission Expires (Stamp or Seal
a
IFebrua 5 zot9 Title (and Rank)
My commission expires: Z• 5. 19
ppdadaVagVsandhill estates cm,dac 4
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
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, as one initiative to stabilize the older residential neighborhoods most impacted
by the pressures of the student rental market in furtherance of the goals set forth in the Central
District and Southwest District Plans to achieve a healthier balance of rental and owner -
occupied housing, the City implemented the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program,
whereby run-down single-family rental properties are purchased by the City, rehabilitated, and
sold as affordable owner -occupied housing for income -qualified buyers; 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, as further refined based
on the more specific goals and objectives regarding neighborhood stabilization set forth in the
Central District Plan for the area described and delineated as Sub-Area A and to acknowledge
the boundaries of the Riverfront Crossings District; all of these elements of the City's
Comprehensive Plan being adopted subsequent to the creation of the open space districts; and,
Whereas, the neighborhoods commonly known as "Goosetown" and "Deweyville" have a
similar rental pattern, similar era of homes, similar zoning, and eligibility for the UniverCity
Neighborhood Partnership program, it is reasonable to combine these neighborhoods with the
Northside Rental Permit District; and
Whereas, most of the remaining Hickory Hill Rental Permit District is park, cemetery,
Regina Education Center, multi-family development along 15' Avenue and small isolated
subdivisions unconnected to neighborhoods to the west or to the City High area to the south
and distant from the University campus, it is not necessary to include these areas within the
Rental Impact Area; and,
Whereas, since the single -family neighborhood directly north of Rochester Avenue and
west of Regina Education Center is consistent with the City High Rental Permit District south of
Rochester Avenue, it is reasonable to include it with that district; and,
Whereas, the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership program boundaries include the
east side of S. Governor Street; and,
Whereas, the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership program boundaries also
correspond to a zoning boundary between the RS-5 zoning along both sides of Summit Street to
the RS-8 and RNS-12 boundaries to the west in the Governor/Lucas neighborhood; and,
Whereas, there is a conservation district that covers both sides of S. Governor Street
that is distinct from the Summit Street Historic District; and,
Whereas, there have been at least 2 downzonings in this S. Governor Street area to
stabilize the neighborhood and to prevent further densification; and,
Whereas, based on the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership boundaries, the recent
downzonings on S. Governor Street, and the conservation district boundaries, it is reasonable to
include the east side of S. Governor Street within the Bowery Rental Permit District;
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 previous neighborhood stabilization efforts pursuant to adopted
goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, 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, which will be exacerbated by the loss of an
important tool to control occupancy; 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 76.1 % and the lowest being 54.0%; 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 28% 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 28% 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 30%; 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 finished floor area of a dwelling should be
bedrooms, and a minimum proportional amount of shared living space should be provided within
each dwelling unit based on the number of bedrooms within the unit; 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 rooming 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, to ensure open space for the use and enjoyment of tenants, new paving of
backyards in single-family and duplex rentals should be limited to the rear twenty (20) feet; 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.
The one tenant exception provided herein is limited to one tenant per dwelling unit
regardless of the number of owner occupants. By way of illustration, if there are two owner
occupants in a single-family dwelling, a rental permit is required if there are two or more
tenants.
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.
Rental Permit District means the geographic districts labelled and delineated on the
Rental Impact Area Map in Figure 17-1.
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 30% 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. 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
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, Q and R:
L. Bedrooms cannot exceed 35 percent (35%) of the finished floor area of a single-family
dwelling or duplex unit, not including floor area of a recreation room in the basement.
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. Any lawful
dwelling unit in existence prior to January 1, 2018 that is not in compliance with this
provision may continue as currently configured. However, if and when the shared living
space is brought into compliance with the current minimum dimensional requirements, it
may not be converted back to a substandard size. Any change that would increase the
noncompliance with this provision is not allowed. 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 that opens from one duplex unit directly into the other duplex unit.
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. After November 21, 2017, an improved surface shall not be constructed, installed, or
established on the rear yard of a single-family dwelling or a duplex, except within the first
6
20 feet of lot depth as measured from the rear lot line and setback at least 5 feet from
abutting properties. The remainder of the rear yard shall remain landscaped open space,
free of impervious surface. This provision shall not apply to allowed accessory
structures. Rear yard shall have the meaning as defined in Title 14 of this Code.
Improved surface means asphaltic cement concrete, Portland cement concrete,
manufactured paving materials (such as brick), or similar hard surface.
R. 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 day of
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
10
2017.
App ove y
atii
//-?,/-/7
City Attorney's Office
Figure 17-1. Rental Impact Area Map
y
2<
T
Ssr
/FosterSSTnv,, ity Park
Hwya
NAlw Ns OR
K
0
°s r �
ME _ _ _ i MELR EAVE
Melrose / Brookland /
Emerald Roosevelt
West High
RT
Riverfront
Willow Creek Crossings
West
1 Bow .i'•' �.,
s,� r
M0i
'wV ro I VORA NiiEK B�yD
F�eO
Mayflower
/ Shimek
Dubuque Road
I N
OC
Northside
N
y O
ozo w
p rc ROCHESTERAV
ti MARKET ST <
F O
College Green a
City High
w COURT
N p
Riverfront `
Crossings East Bowery
�YF
a Longfellow 9
z K COD AVE lO
n $Fqy
o x Mark Twain
A
s Om
lY i
Legend
QRental Impact Area
Q Rental Permit Districts
I-,-� Iowa City City Limns
Upper
ooe`1p Ralston
Creek
Grant Wood
Hill / Lei
Court
/ Luc
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cola
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration -11/21/17
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Botchway, Cole, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 12/05/17
Voteforpassage: AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway,Cole,
Dickens, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Taylor.
Date publisbed
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 21, 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: Karen Howard, City Planner
Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Tracy Hightshoe, Interim Director NDS
Stan Laverman, Senior Housing Inspector
Fiscal Impact: No Impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: NA
Attachments: Ordinance; Maps
Executive Summary:
This memo includes additional information requested by Council and recommendations for
refinements to the ordinance and rental permit district boundaries presented at the November
6 Council meeting that would establish a rental permit cap in certain neighborhoods and
strengthen the minimum requirements for rental housing.
Background / Analysis:
At your November 6 meeting, Council directed staff to examine the boundaries of the rental
permit districts and provide guidance on any adjustments necessary based on input from the
public and any unintended consequences this ordinance may have on other previous and
ongoing neighborhood stabilization efforts. Council also requested information about the
implications of reducing the rental cap from the previously proposed 40%. Furthermore, based
on some questions from several landlords, we are suggesting some minor changes to the code
language to clarify several of the provisions and are recommending an additional requirement
for single family and duplex rentals to prevent excessive back yard paving. The proposed
changes to the rental impact area map and ordinance are outlined in more detail below.
Rental Permit Boundaries
The open space district boundaries were used for the purposes of this ordinance because they
follow logical neighborhood edges, such as busy streets; railway lines, the river, creeks, and
other natural barriers. They were developed to respond to neighborhood open space needs
which in most cases also make sense for the purposes of the neighborhood stabilization
ordinance currently under consideration. Due to concerns expressed regarding the boundary
between the Northside and Goosetown neighborhoods and the boundary of the Bowery District
along South Governor Street, Council requested that we examine more closely the district
boundaries to make sure they align with past and ongoing neighborhood stabilization efforts.
I CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
Staff identified several reasons to adjust the eastern boundaries of the Northside, College Hill,
and Bowery rental districts to match the eastern boundary of what is described and delineated
in the Central District Plan as Subarea A. The Central Planning District is divided into three
subareas as a means of emphasizing issues that are of particular importance or relevance to
those locations. Subarea A encompasses the older eastside neighborhoods that surround
downtown Iowa City and the University campus. It has the greatest diversity of housing types
and widest range of zoning designations, is the only area of the City where the stabilization
zoning designations (RNS-12 and RNS-20) are used, and includes most of the historic and
conservation overlay districts. It also coincides with the areas of higher and more widespread
nuisance and noise complaints, as shown on the attached heat map. The Central District
Subarea A boundary has been used in several neighborhood stabilization efforts, including the
UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership program, and as a guide for creating the University Impact
Area for the neighborhood stabilization effort in 2012 that addressed density, occupancy and
parking regulations for multi -family properties. There have also been a number of down -zonings
in the College Hill neighborhood and along both sides of South Governor Street to help stabilize
and maintain the existing single family character of those areas.
In light of these factors, staff recommends adjusting the eastern boundaries of the Northside,
College Green, and Bowery districts to coincide with the eastern boundary of Central District
Subarea A, as shown on the attached revised Rental Impact Area Map, Figure 17-1, and as
described below:
• The Northside district boundary is shifted east to include the neighborhoods commonly
known as Goosetown (boundary encompasses properties on both sides of Reno Street)
and Deweyville (the older residential neighborhood west of Hickory Hill Park and north
of Oakland Cemetery);
• The College Green district boundary is shifted east to Parsons Avenue and follows
Ralston Creek to Muscatine Avenue, which then encompasses the College Hill
Conservation District and Moffit Cottages Historic District;
• The Bowery district boundary is shifted east to the alley between Governor and Summit
Streets, to encompass the entirety of the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District
and the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program area;
Since so much of the remaining area in the Hickory Hill open space district is parkland and
cemetery, it does not make sense to maintain this district for purposes of regulating rental
property, so staff recommends incorporating the residential neighborhood south of Hickory Hill
Park and north of Rochester Avenue into the City High District, since it is similar in character to
other residential areas surrounding City High, and shifting the remainder of the area north and
east of the park into districts outside the rental impact area.
Rental Cao Threshold
Council requested additional information about the difference between establishing a 40% cap,
35% cap, and 30% cap. The following spreadsheet shows each of the possible percentage caps,
the current percentage of single family and duplex rentals within each rental permit district (with
r
-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
the amended boundaries as described above), and the total number of new rental properties that
could be added under each cap. Staff is supportive of moving to a 35% cap as it falls between
the rental percentage in neighborhoods that are still stable and healthy at about 28% and areas
that are unstable, the lowest of which is approximately 54%. Since the tipping point is somewhere
within that range, 35% cap is a reasonable level to establish as the cap. A 35% cap also provides
for a reasonable number of additional single family and duplex rentals within the Rental Impact
Area outside the capped districts and rental permits will remain unrestricted in outlying areas. As
with any new zoning initiative, staff will monitor its effectiveness over time and it can be adjusted
if necessary to address future housing needs and to ensure safe, healthy, and stable
neighborhoods for all residents.
Minor amendments to the ordinance
1. Staff added language to the ordinance to clarify that no more than one tenant is allowed
within an owner -occupied property without obtaining a rental permit, regardless of how
many owner occupants reside at the property.
2. The previous draft of the ordinance stated that in rental properties, bedrooms must not
exceed 35% of the habitable floor area of a single family dwelling or duplex unit. Staff
recommends changing the standard to address the "finished floor area" rather than
"habitable floor area" since it more directly matches the results of the study from the
National Homebuilders Association, which included areas of the home considered non -
habitable, such as foyers, bathrooms, and hallways. It will also be much easier to
administer and enforce the standard because building plans submitted for a permit
typically list the total finished floor area of the dwelling.
3. Since there has been some confusion about existing units that are not in compliance with
the new minimum shared living space standards and the provision regarding separation
of duplex units, staff added language that clarified that any existing dwelling unit that is
not in compliance with the minimum shared living space standard may continue as
currently configured. However, any change that would increase the nonconformity by
40_%-p
.35%
35%cap
-:_
30-o ca
:Number ofTobl
:Number ef:Tolal
:Number e(Tob d
Percentage of
:houses :number of
:houses
inumber of
:houses :number of
:Total
Number of:
Single.
:that aould:now rental
:that could:new rental
:That wuid:new rental
Single. 1:
Family/Duplex Units
Percent at new pormi
Percent
:get. new :permits
Percent:gat
now :permits
FamltyfDuplex
that have a rental
that could genal that could
that could:rental
:that could
that could':mmed
ghat could
Open Space District Name;
units'
permit
be added :permit ibe issued
be added
ipmmit be Issued be added
:permit f `be issued
910
656r
406
QtyHigh
1163
13.4'
_
_ 26.6 304 _
!_ __21.6
247 _
_ 16.6
190
Melrose/Emerald
226
15.8''
T4.1 64
1 19.1
43
16.1
32.
Willow Creek
765
17.6
22.4 171
117.4
133
124
95
City Park
544
21.5'
18.5 tot
13.5
73
_ 8.5
_ 46'
Mark Twain
1138;
27.9
_ _ _
12.1 138
7.1
81
2.1
24
Longfellow _'
_ 909:
_. 28.4.
11.6 _ 1061
6.6
_ 60
-''�,
1.6
15
Millarl O¢hard
3101
28.4
11.6 36 _ _ _�.
6.6
20
_ 1.6
51___
Nodhside(Goosetevm
1200
53.81
;
College Green
.365
54.01
�_--..-__-;
--
Brooldend l Roosavoll
297
542'
i
Riverfrant Dressings East
43
0
RitarfrontcrossingsWest
25
68.0
Bowe -
238
Minor amendments to the ordinance
1. Staff added language to the ordinance to clarify that no more than one tenant is allowed
within an owner -occupied property without obtaining a rental permit, regardless of how
many owner occupants reside at the property.
2. The previous draft of the ordinance stated that in rental properties, bedrooms must not
exceed 35% of the habitable floor area of a single family dwelling or duplex unit. Staff
recommends changing the standard to address the "finished floor area" rather than
"habitable floor area" since it more directly matches the results of the study from the
National Homebuilders Association, which included areas of the home considered non -
habitable, such as foyers, bathrooms, and hallways. It will also be much easier to
administer and enforce the standard because building plans submitted for a permit
typically list the total finished floor area of the dwelling.
3. Since there has been some confusion about existing units that are not in compliance with
the new minimum shared living space standards and the provision regarding separation
of duplex units, staff added language that clarified that any existing dwelling unit that is
not in compliance with the minimum shared living space standard may continue as
currently configured. However, any change that would increase the nonconformity by
r_,--r,-s CITY OF IOWA CITY
..;.�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
reducing shared living space would not be allowed. We also clarified the language for the
duplex separation requirement. This provision will not prevent duplex units from sharing
amenities, such as entry hallways and laundry facilities, if each unit has a separate
secured access to these common areas. For example, a resident of one unit should not
have to allow residents from the other access into their unit to use the laundry facilities. A
shared laundry must be located in a common area.
4. Currently there are no parking design standards for single family and duplex dwellings and
parking can be installed right to the property lines without buffering or screening. It has
become an increasingly common practice for entire back yards to be paved to maximize
the occupancy of rental properties. This practice eliminates usable open space for the
residents, increases stormwater run-off, eliminates tree cover, and reduces the enjoyment
of back yard green space for the neighboring homes as well. This is one of the issues that
will be addressed in the forthcoming zoning code changes. However, there have been at
least two instances in the last few weeks of trees being cut down and paving being
expanded in the back yards of rental properties in anticipation of these ordinance changes
and subsequent inquiry from another property owner about doing the same. To prevent
further damage to the single family residential character of our older neighborhoods, staff
recommends inserting language into the housing code to prohibit this practice for single
family and duplex rental properties effective November 21. Once the new standard is in
place in the zoning code, staff can assess whether it is still needed in the housing code.
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,
1/1/2013-9/9/2016
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 t i N 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
p a^--.t<t Miles
Q Rental Permit Districts 3+��r w�e
Iowa City City Limits CITY f IOWA CITY VVVVs �a dt NOVc
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.
1s.s
25.7
12.9
w
1.1
♦•'• ..
21.5
r�
r'-7
r .♦.
53.8-
'
..�
iffOF
0.8
now,
to -
6.7 3.2
r �•
iii
13.4
_iii 76.1
0.6
''-�•2
�-� ■'
28.4
12.6
15.9
65.1
10
68
1.1 28.4
4—
It
27.9
13
17.6
100,00
li
iy .i'
♦
21
11
•'•
j
17.8
r
♦ V
I
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,
1/1/2013-9/9/2016
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 t i N 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
p a^--.t<t Miles
Q Rental Permit Districts 3+��r w�e
Iowa City City Limits CITY f IOWA CITY VVVVs �a dt NOVc
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
GYa�1�P/awath�larai�Peaple'allura
HoWngton Koegler Group Ino,
i
Tx Wixom CltyrbtNX PlanningCommission and Qty Staff
From: Mark KoegleradJeffMWv(HKGQ
Datc; Fabruary21,2=
PAI WInorre Rental Housing ROWdlon Chdlammo-1118FRUMFIVAew A Date Andy* Findings
HawWon Kvagler Group Inc. (HKGQ has cmWucted a IReratune savlew relating to renal housing
commcr"re"OR and Its negative Impacts on M%hborhood quit and Kvabft. Thb Iftenature rovlew
Included rental harthrg's reintlomWp vAth aroused nulcammce eoumptalyds, Increased pail" Iraidants„
decreased ProPerty maintenance larrsk, decreased honwwwoan* mak, and dewed properly vadum.
Although dare Is a substantial amount of literature that ad I rental housing htsaft much of the
lterature does not conteb empirical maiysfc Through our literature revbar, we were aWe to Idem
amPldW studies of On doss that have faced rental housbug Issues that are relevant to Wiaara. Based
upon our ttadlsgs from the literature review, HKGI than compiled and analyzed detailed dem related to
VANWO's rental housbg cat m intratioe buck orad Hs robtbnft to mdamme and poloe vbktbac. Based
on our Hadings from the l6anttaa levisw and dty-level empld al studies that misname and police
vblaHana are bay Indicators of nelghborhood qua ty and RvaWRyr, ova focused our data amallstt on the
reladmmddpe between conceotratah am bd housing end mdaarcalpoRre vlob om In Wewmm. % memo
summarmu our Illmature revlew and data amlyda fundings
L LUU& eft*wad
L Craig Raba%'Cu ft With Colreges: NOW Commurd U Address the Problems of Studvus UWAS
00.0 r0&ftAi=wa(May2002(.
2- Duncan Assodstes, 'Artallab of 1008 Regarding Studaat Housing New the Udkw ty of Florida,`
Apd12002.
S. Jack S. Fdarm .'How Ave Local Governments; Respandtng to Student Rental Preu mms in Unhremlty
Town In the liaised States, l3nudmy and Engtumdi" 6eot& JOurnut of kftmO&W and
LlsroPamtlge Loss (INhm[ar 2005W
4. JftJsrmmat,McCam ofStudent Housiug:t3rldenceframWf as, Nova Smlis,'201%
5. Ko Wang, Tent' V. Gdrsom, James R. Webb and I&A Spalmeq "The Impact of Rental Properties
on the Valueof SIMM-Fomlly ResideacW ldumal of urban Eoonomka Mi.
& Mayors Commission an Housing & Home Ownership, "Prgmodon ofklome Ownerddpin the CRY of
Binghamton: A Report of the Mayors Comnftlon on Housbugand Hua Ownemlrym,' 1008,
Z (,NYyo�d Pln�da�%{�''�N/��oy�.r��/Sarset ROmmo? The
yyW� Imp of Rental Rditkilons to Pronloba NoWbodmod
3 " ft,0WwkF& tA�brint Try. ham, 20K
S. Taranto L RaPharm; "Rental Housing and Cd=: The Role of Property tamerft acrd
Management," The Amada of RegiemlSdence (43L 2W!L
& Sew Poky Group,'Ilare Is a National Bab for Rent Stabilhation in college park MwVkW Apra
2005.
Page 1 of to
10. Sage Policy Group, 'There Remains a Rational Basis for Rent Stabilization in Canoga Pare,
MM*Ild,-August 2009.
11, State College Borough Staff,'Sustalnable Neighborhoods In State College 90mugh," June g, 2009.
12. West Urbana Neighborhood Assodatbo, "What Other College Communities Have Done. bcamples
of Regulatory Actions to Preserve the Wglefan* Residential! Character of a Campos
Nolghhorhmd; January 2005.
13. WMen M. Rahe and Leslie S. Stewart 'Homeawnerahip and Neighborhood Stability; Housing
Policy Debate (Volume 7, Issue 1), 1911.
14. Farley, v. Zoning Hearing Board of tower Merlon Township,1994.
15, lamas V. Zoning Heerhhg Board of Heverford Township, 1993.
If. lasua with ConcentraUmV owWty of RenW HMW g In Singlefadly Nelghberhoods
Reaulafing the conoer&d on or density of rental hotting in slo*4omiy residamtal neighberhaoda is a
particular Issue that the City of Winans Is addressing with !0 Sam brit of rental housing proir, as per
blacL Vatlflaly, the C [Ws low end medlum density residential mnlng districts allow tool Lurgi' as e
permitted use but limit the number of resHeaWly mead loft on any block that ran obtain renal houdrig
MINIMUM to a madmum of SDft. According to City Plsnnhhg Commission Meeting Minutes, the paddng
Task Form concluded that housing density, property maintenarM off-street parking and deteriorating
residential community ctumseter were melon problems °resuRNng from the extensive numbs of homes
whish have been converted to rental purposes'' In sore emu of the community. Based on this Unft the
task force proposed to esWbh a Urdtation on the number of rental houses that could be concentrated
within each bladcwithln all ratdentlal unkgdWcts,with the exception of do Ra uxft dtstrlm
The nterature review supports the CIW& concerns with an over-conoane OM of rental houses In single•
fainly residential nai`hborhoods. Many unhrersBy tarns tam the problem of large numbers of i tle.
family houses being converted to rental houses In si giedamiy reeldantlel neighborhoods, thereby,
csaatkrg a high aoncentrailm of student rental houses within dngledamly addomlel nalgi borloads, The
llteraturerevlewed supports the argument that ownoono setrattanaof rental homes have neaetive impacts
on surrounding residential properties and nalgbbofioods In general, Indudlnti solve, Ina eased tralk
NA&, bleat parting, Inadequate property m aftaaaw4 and a general decrease In the quality of We for
permanent redderds of the na0borhoad sTbe knpa* typlmly fall Into thin primarycategories;
• Increased nuisance and property maintenance comptakrta,
• increased City Code violations and pence dtallorrs,
• deceased property values.
Thus, the Impacts are physlal, economic and socK ultimately contributing to decreases in the qualuy and
liability of nalghborhoods.
:qty ofwbwelPbwftCorranlaslooMeettrrga hwtl OVWW24,MraI
'lents Htlram,'RawArcLealGauprmMitteResponrOrJttoStdentRomaltMahWasinualversityTownsinthe
UWW Sbt%Canada, sed OGIondr 6taplararonalaf dntevmogheafondtampomurre Imvlwlxmr2003r L
Page Z ofID
In gcmrral, the Muller found that rents) residential properdto, part alady, rental dngladamily houses, am
amermil* rnelrutahtad at a boar level On awnw4mxgIed houses. Property melrtmrnaa Issues often
Inducts buldin3 repairs, yard rare, and snow removal. The "Hqnneownership and Neghbor ood Shbiiitg•
arilde ekes several studies that show Khat homewm m are mom Qkely than landhads to undertake
repahs and that they sped more on them.'t Title same snide Wo assert that ownerormpiad housing
units areganamly, maintained at a hkgher level because homeowners, unWo landlords and renters, possess
both an amoffdc and us® blberest M their httmos.'ihe impact of ft*I Properties on the value of Slagia-
Fwft WMances• artlda dtaa saversl studim that haus sapkimly demomiraW this situation.
kmdegaana PrOPerty makttenence Issues often mule br kwaesed lavds of niftance complaints and qty
Code violation;, as well as rises In properly ruche of nearby houske.
Several studies (Wang, et cl; Robe & Stawatk Janmeat, Pindeln metro empkleal waFyses that naiad
higher mttcentnNons of rental houses to dommus s In nearby property values. The most direct study of
than Wasted relating to hepaets on property values was "The Impacted nental Properties on the Value of
Single -Fainly Radden re stuft which concluded that 'an Invarso ndWorAlp oggs between the value of
■ house and the presence of metal Fqw tea In the study wen i° M& study analysed data from 23,129
drtdnd:teRy teddenas end 7,262 single-famfy sales In San AntBdo (M Another study found that `after
comraft for lousing stack characteristics, household characteristIm and MSAaevel economic film% a
S•pardeabto-pohtt chane 0=8194 In the 1110MMunerabtp rata of tract would be associated web about
a $4AW Incnaa In man s[ Wa4l m0y p operty value over a 20 fear period of tine's A subuqueut
Impact of decreand propedirvabres Is the decteme In poPMW ttmmmmm for tic City. Countyand other
tedntptrkdktlons.
SM4111 studies (Sage Policy Group, ROP MR, Hunan Associates; Shit Colgge Bwoudt) coatabt empb W
w alyssa that link the cmentradom of metal houses to huseggn in nubnes ampldntk Guy pods
vloWm% and cdme Incidents. Nubaoces typically include yard ata (eg. watl envoi, tress VjUj*
CROW est W4 refuse, MW Pedchg, noise, disorderly conduct liquor and over`oaupanW. Section RI of
this mento desatbas the empirical anslyset InW4 the armoribn of wmW houses with nuisance
ampbdes and City Code violations In Ism cities. Nutsarme amplaft t°, code violation and adore btddertts
are by Indicators of a nEWMadmud's 11mbi ty and residents' saadadlon wRh their myhborhood. The
literature w4swed Indicates kmemod Incidences of nuisances, code violations and alma In ranter.
occupied houses versus oamam=plW boom A subsequent Impact of lmmnd amplslnq violation
end crime Inche is isthe aNklatal oasts Incurred by a eeyto oboane, address and Mumthem
Smv mILnohaandLWHOSStowart,'HomemmimslrpandNelahta oWStshllty. Houdrodw Debate
PA 7,)ante 1b i99tic cid
KoWW&T&WV.Worm,JamesR.Webband IevisSpeftmoft wp dafRentalPropardesaenvdmof
StnaM FuniyRuNanaR'lbandgf urJrer fimm mb VolumaS%km2(7941).16i.
° Wl1am M. Raised leans& Stement,'Hanoatrarft eW Ne40mhmd ttabftm How" pa" 0abde
(vdWM 7, least 4 IM 7171.
PAPS Of 10
Ill. Fined Ssudleo of Bentol Housing Impacts an Cmnmunfty Uvabglty In Five Qtiea
Through the @ensture review, we were able to Identify empirical studies In five cities that stow a
correlation between the conoentrathm of rental hssesing and nagWm Impacts an conununity liability. The
flue cittas are Gal nwille (FL), State College (PAL College Park (MD), t]unber and (MD), and chapel HIN M.
SpeMcaRy, those five nmpkk d studio Notify a lick between the concentration of rental housing and
increases In nuisance eomplakds, code v1olatlons and police bei ants.
In 2002, the City of GelneadRe conducted an analysis of student housing Issues In the neighborhoods
around the University of Florkds, which were Identified as the study's Universlty of Florida OM Contest
Ares The City's Comprehangve Plan specifically contain a policy calling fne such a study In its Future lend
Use chapter. Poky 5,L7 data that'1he City shall prepare a study of the Impacts of rentals on single-
famihy nelghbouhoods and shall Implement additional programs as rhecassary and appropriate to sab0re
and enhance these nelghborhoods.'s Based on Census date for the Census tracts that male up the OF
Contact AN& the study estimated tnatapprmhinstaly 759 of the residences In this ens are used as rental
housintr Using code and noise complaint dna from the CWv Code Finfaroemert Dhnhlon, the study
tabulated and compared the number of complaints from the OF Contest Area with the overall city.
Although the OF Cxftd Area represents 7916 of the IroasehW& In the city, the study found that
apprmrk*MIy 5316 of the noise Complaints came from this and, 4116 of the over oeeupsncy eompidnts,
50% of the 'Mslon triangle (obstnrsted views at Intersection cornea) complalma, 43% of the sign
violations, and 37% of the mhos housingeode violations'
In 3994 and 2007, the Borough of State Cailege compiled'Vkgatons by Houdu Type'repara. The housing
typo Include apartments, duplehsw, fraternities, singfe4smRy, houses, rental hothu, morning houses and
townhouses. Thi anaWs showed that rental abhgle family houses fad the highest avenge number of
nuisance doitiou per u lk followed by duplexes and fhatemlta s The top four violations for renal
shglefamRy houses were gnaw, retuse, weeds and noise. The record does not show any evidence that the
nuadmom of three unrested pusans rule, which was enacted In L197% reduced the number ofemnmrsians
of awneroavpfed ekgh:dengy houses to suhdehht rental hbuses. In 1997, State College Borough
est"hed a minimum spacing ordinance between student rental ficoses. The record stalests that the
minimum disarm between student rental single{amlly homes has resulted In a dxresso In wmcaabn of
ownem mrpied haus bo rental homes.'
In 2005, the City of College Park conducted a rental housing study that baked of declining homeownership,
an lmxeaskhg trend in commmlons ofowner-0oruphd single4emuy housing being to renal housing, and the
' Duma Asaedaies,'AUIPIS of lasum Regaft Student Hoasiy Murtha University of Hatch,' Apr112002: L
rift 24.
'SaMef 64ata OsRgge Somugb,'AhsatesNe HNghbodhcods MSateCeBege earohph,'lnoha4 2009:7.
'tbldX,&
Page 4 of 10
concentration of city Cada dia@atlons a=Fft ht reams! dnEWCM l houshla. In 2004, the study calculated
that then averaw number of first notice code diahtians par residar4k, rental unit uas M7a cammpucd to
0.21 fiat antics code Waoaa for owne"corpled residential uaRs, which equates to 3.7 times mato
vlotatioea for rental housin3e1 in 2008, there vera O.a2 violations par cental housing ua It compared to 0.38
for owner-mwplzd houshgf unM.0 This study found an Increasing frond In comrarsions of ow meer-c=pled
stsg"mlly homes to rental housing ami It corresponding War rate of City Code vlolstlons in natal
614144amlly housing. in addition to the "Wit" hnpact an nelgidwrbood quality and Ihmmity, this
slgnl110614 hMer level of nubxnoe vlolatlans aim results in addWand costs for the CRy to process code
vlotettens, IndudIng abssmttm:, mcondhS aarnnw IcaOng and ratifying them.
nombeland. M0
This popes analyzes the gnus between residential rental properties and crime Incidents in the Cry of
Cumberland, M% whleh ttas a population of appMKImatety 21M9 neshients. Wing ttoitce tacident r ee rt
40—el,-'•••`•�'•••twW^4.VwM!MC4WWImPPrIA.R—MPIRsuMR QS,JLIa _faa101e of n@iRiltforllaW-glm y40—el,Tfrls study farad that inaaasas in crime were acted to residential mats! properties, In particular rental
PWOrths where the laadiord does not live arsitq, propMlm that are part of large rental property
holdings, properties that use liec0on 8 voudmrr, and properties In nalgiibodloods with a lower pamentaga
ofowaarooarpled honses
OMW IM- MG
Chapel Rl3's 2800 Comprehensive plan "is organized around twehm MOW OMMIO, each growing out of the
com nuahy values that have been identMled and whicia, taken tagsthey farm a strategy for clipped Mrs
ttnhrre:''" line of those major themes le to conserve and protect e:dstieg nalgiturrhoody The
ComPMh6Rshre glen conWM as entire dupterdevoted to communitychereder, Rxindinganak st Kngles
and actions to omnterve and protect the demarterofthe ==onto neighborhoods, _Me eemrei purpose
of the EIrM%les and Bottom contained In the GwttprebensWe pleb lata manage growth and cheap so that
Chapel i MwW continue to tame a special community ehansderand quailtyef flfo In the fittureP'
One of those strategies is to addrau the ne%hbahood Impacts of the egnvarslon of ounapaecupled
housing to rental hauling, Including i mdunce omropla rgs. The illy has idWMW community Indleatan that
are moxttaed annually as a means for tracking progress of the ampiemeutetlou of its ComprehansMe Plan
stretegtea. For the rental housing strahgy, the mrrespondl� eem itt tW Indicator is the Mage of
loud no_� complaints that o=r in Mipkbathppds q! touch and clfde the dawmow� cal
ea_mpw, witch Iw a"dedgmi ed geslduffal CbnsaPJWGn. I�rw to the Ci stand (Jpe Plan. In lOp4,
33111 of load nalso coapteerts oeoared to those reiithbaftods, whiff haw eatcentrathans of ndderntlal
ssSePO&WGrCUP,More IsagallonslBods for R t9iscWftnincokpftdyMers'laW AO200 27.
a UpPoRcyGML%'There RenalmaRWanaltialaforRent MulalanheCOPAP adiMarylaad•ApdiMOV: SL
TmnoeJ. Rgftn%"feral Itmahn3 ad Crime: The Role of Property0woerddp and Manegemenot'7heAmah of
Reglandscia e(%20 :2.
"TermofrlupeJWIMQ, aftwhgforCrapelR0Pa11uaaa:The t:aa: dasssivaplant''Maya, 2000:t.
!blob LL
Papa of 1O
rental 11015[11.13 Since these nalghborboods represent apprmdmetey 2013 of the total housing units within
Chapel Hill, they ere rupmnible far a disproportionate there of the lard nalse complaints to the
community. The City of Chapel HILI dearly links and monitors rental housing nuisance Incidents with
neighborhood character and quality of fik
IV. MIMnesota kkamplas of Clikt wHh Rental Housing Concentration RegelaftU
At the state IrM, In addition to Wlnona's rental housing conren4rathm ardinance, vre are swore or three
other Minnesota Was that have established ordinances to address the Isere of concentrated rental
homing—Notdtfleld, MenleW and WestSt. Paul. While Wlnona's ordinance ettaldished at mardmum of lia
rental housing properties per residential block, the other dUW manAmums are all lower Including 25%, 20)6
and 9016. These three ordinances were a0 established after WlnmWs "name was in plea — NerthReld
(2007). Mankato (2008) and West St. Paul (2012).
Northft hi, MN: Located In Businesses Ordnance (not Zoning Ordinance). Rental Houmg (Chapter
19. Article 111). Umbt the percentage of houses orae singke blockUrat can be granted rental housing
Ransato 20% In low deralt r neighborhooda (R-1 and R-2 zoft dtstttats).
Mankato, MN: Located in Business Regulations & Licensing Ordinance (not Zoning Ordinance),
Dwelling Unit Rental (Section SA2, SubdWica20). Limits the number of lots on any block that ore
eligible to obtain o rental license or to be licensed as a rental property to 2596.
West St. Poul, MN: !noted In BuRdtng, Housing Ik Construction Reguletkrns Ordinance (not Zoning
Ordinance), Rental Dwaiings (Section 43s). Limits sbrgirfamiy rental propertks to 9o)6 per bock
In an RL molog district.
1°TWA ofChapel HEA(No.-am agwHNoats nonh; 1WyMU..&L
pop GOf10
V. Anclycto of MARC RuEs€xxsa and PaRw Vialatlaw Date
In order to compare t4haunn's rental houstad st uatlon vilth the fin&hgs from other cities, amptriccl studies
related to rental housiry7 ==Iratiatr 1psM V-49ch ere dwalbed in section III, en anelyah was conducted
Of Milo 's nuisance and Police vhdetiew data. Sines the CRy's'3033 Rule ron6ng onRnarae was adopted
at tins and of 2455, this dela analysis severs the tirhte Period 20DS2011 for nuharm mmpkbft police
cltatlon data was analyzed for the 2048 mo thne paredlrit Intent of this analysis le to eskulats end
compare vlola0arts date for rental housing vs. awned- coup boushrg vAhln non-malftmify resWentlal
ars-% as wall as concstdrated rental residential blocks (blodlm currently over the 3046 mmdmum) vs. all
otharraddeatisl6locim] .
This gre[%b of rwlsanca and polios vloletlarsd was limited to proputlas within the CWq resideottei coning
di3trieth6 weapt for P.-30 site® the '2M Rullf b only EPPUble to these zoning districts. properties in the
follovring zenhrg districts we exempt Pram the `3n46 RWeS 9-9, g-;, 8.9, R4, M•1, wd h42, Within the
20kcable twidemiel xanhyt distdets, there em currently 7,383 propertleS.Som: of Wase raelderrtiei
properties have not been developed with a residemhl building yet, therefore, the mom relevant taw
residential pmpartles mrmbar that we uaed is 6,537 developed Mddmftl proPwtb% net hrduderg R-3
propartles. In 107.1„ 1,161 IsmPartim had rMbd boozing CMIfimtloy which means rental housing cartilied
Properties represented 17.746 of the non muhHtndly maidentlel properthn w&hln Winne.
M 1011, there ware a 51028oft number of Mach that w=sdedtbe maximum level GUM rental housln&
These blocks contain 7,578 residential Propuft, including both rental and ownrromvpled housIO& grid
represent 233% at the non-muhffemily residertlel properties vdthla Iklrwoa. 676 of the 1,578 properties
an the'auer SW More had rental housing amtlfltxtIM which trnnshaw to an everm of 44.296 rental
hoisting propartlo an the •over SW each. Although merry beers exceod the meslertam level of SWA
rental housing, many blocla do not. Within the clWg ruga of traditional Mnia, Waft, gppmftab y 700
additional rental houshlg ovtl batik s am permitted an bike 00 mmntly have less than sox rental
Irortlag, Within the eAft city, approdnately 11400 &MftjW M tel housing "at ations maid be
permitted. In other gores, feu than him of the possible mmol hoofing ertlR4tiou am curmnt[V being
used since 1,171 rental housing certifications currently extat compared to the pauW/1ty of cu addinonel
%4000a could be Pam invA
The first type of analysts koks at nuisenoe eomPhInts for the time period of 20o6 2411 for gY properties
W" resMantml zoning dhtdrty except R-3. the types of nuisance complaxts Enckrded the following:
ummotmRed weeds, g►aseMgn mslr" moa6 gam, look, veldsk+c, vehkles
yard, anov/ice, no breading Perm", building deterioration, fence detwilo Parked to tri fu�m m
retlon, and other. Table 1 below
summadeas total number of residential property complalnh, number & pwagetw of rarer property
contpltft and [umber & percentage of der reabd property cwnttainta. The mgm fire is that mntiq
housing properties, which represent just 17.7% of of mm-muttiiemgy residential properties within Winona,
wear responsblefor 51%af the residential mr�n a mmplabte fmm 2006-2011
PM7 of 10
Tt111e 11 MOAN Complalma —Rental RMUCIA101 Praparkiec vr. Ran -Rental Pmpertfeg (t008?O11)
na"
rata NWnW
afRerwootbi
Avpfffy
llsntpMFntoCo
Mn IMiPef
Rnutadrwrty
t#mdafalnts
fS def d
t¢/Ran&af
prop fftu
Monbarof
AON4Wal
frapaatY
nts
zA.^vdfftC+d
w/ffian. fol
lMal"rilns
2011
345
193
3995
212
6%
2010
414
194
47f6
220
53%
2009
492
249
SM
249
4996
2000
4152U
203
5695
161
446
2007
416
255
OR
161
399(,
2006
236
108'
4695
1713
54}S
2006-2011
2,316
1,171
9115
1,146
53%
Mote:RentalhouddypmpertlesmpacsrM17.7%ofdlnai- tt nf%YmsldcrtFa!proPerttesInIdO&ArWIncu&ng
re$fdeIWWPn)PvW hathe faldaxlirp exemptedmnlaS dBGtxs—B 0$, n.& R-4 M-1 and M-2.
The second typo Of anatAls !oohs at auhunce Complaints for the time period of 2OD6-20i1 compating
blacks with over9091rental housing toblacks with Ins then 39%rental housing. Table2belowsummarims
total number Of teatdemlal property complaints, number & pbmentage of complaints assodawd with
blocks Wift aver 306 rental housing, and number & percentage of complaints arsoclued with blodm
heving kss then 30% rental housing. The major finding Is that blbft with over 30% rental housing, which
represent just Z3,3% of all non-MuMmlly residential proper0esWthin Winona, were responsible for 4796
of the residemhlrwlsence complaintsfcom 1006.2M
Tirbfe 2: HtdstnM CamP11106—ConcdMteted Retrial Blocks vs. 011W Residential Biodw (1909.201!)
year
t&Wffembarof
&rMMW
AOperty
OWIPWO
ahanbarap
goat Aak*fa
Abdo OvW
99d6fbntd
H
SAvadawwl
etdtrom
3WRIMIS!
Noasfnp
ftanbgra¢
4bmpldntstn
Shuftl.ES
7NAN9016
RantdNaas
mAssadawdwl
ItiO01141 9
7N4N901fi
HeddtlotOV
2011
349
131
9895
814
6296
7010
414
167
4595
227
5596
20O9
492
234
47%
299
596
20i>0
413
203
496
210
516
7007
416
226
956
166
456
2006
Z36
102
436
134
5796
2006.2011
U16
1,064
476
1,232
53%
,w,w, mauu r,,.. rvQa� rertce� rw¢asrarxpreirarla.ars of OPf nonYroa9remayrcsaaenttoi propertkahr tVlnanq nen
67aod0iSmNdenCalpmperctesaitfxfaifowhtpe+aramrin9dtrtrkta—B-a, t%+9, 8�, R+'� M-landat,2
Page aOf10
O P0RZEd
uo PaWM sxAoftd IV" FQ= 9941 91 41 P ;oq g Aum aaWvv vpgq lalwu po4w wouoa
0o Palaaal an la4l 53pr9dW 9UPeaq .IWM i0; suopgP MUM Jo alai =M !6091 a ol sa491ma4
9ouaradJ1p SM 'SIR PMW Pap4 =W-wu UO =Wsdoud NON MUM ua1 9020'0 'A EE9000
P Auadad jad smpgia @MW p ngtl u aa# nm ug Pal mpolq pluaa paUUWV M W salvadoud 9upnoq
plU9U 9949 OMW i aig91;o 1194 uaddn ala ul 4342un 1% '.mPgq pwm %OE ua4a ml, uo upndaud
IaWa"mAq= tW -Wciq !aorta NOt-Iaao. UO a0Nd0d Immi-Uau/pow qqm polWam suapgp
aotod-3.0�Aa�q�w�M, QV sauadmw ompq i algal. •W q4 Pua' a4 a99wap paU n
a""-- p� JOqW 'gied pntqMljgw p"Wul par sue wgtaip
glad Jo Gaft OU Voyad w* 0[02-800? ala ra; SUCMW WUM as sgaq -q&N u0 p odh WIJOJ aql
71000
%001
sn
gin
two
pl4L
a�pal9 Powe 4AOE
SK
%69
OEM
m
twtb
U9g1•ssaluosapmduJd
94nom mum*uoN
MMPQUWJ
%EL
4411
SE0
19B
we
i"Un aw9dord
9080H IaPM*CaN
9W10
96Lt
469
09'0
99E
991
IGuaUUSNUIUSM uo
MWAdWdIUISWH19!94!!
%b9
vptmate
9101
69t
919
P UM %46MA0 uo
saPmdoud9ulscoH14UoU
Na4a1da69�
4d
MWVW
gqqdom
SftgdWd
aauasPav
l Pt+ap!
Pa9wN
aranqusV
fora"
Ax
iu7olia%
ammy
tomjmw
1094!
(UMMM wiao18 RMBU P91MUMUop T 9alaia+kud Ispsa roly/l9auaU— idaa'J WMPIN lE aPlal
'9098942uaawAUwlwdladR*Outwmuz plan wmg
10 %M 41 M=m of €WIPMq Iguw•Uou uo Eaa1p -lawlsds a Seaga" RUPM4 lwau Jo ucllmtwm
an Isn41'sm PWW P9l04u==-Hw UO IMUedcud ago q IWUW-U0u xq Gro "m 9E'O Jo AUodad
.tad slulgdwaa wuagnu;o asgwnu a99uana u9 pal mpolq lVm pal94uamw uo sg4Ag ld SUFM p4Uaa
-Uou 1941 zm r E algal Ja lily J" aq; ul gsAl9us ala %m wagvna 9alggMm aru9slnu Islauapaaw
to Hm ua1 olgpuedm wa's2WCdoad plauaplsw Ip Jo'.d014Uasaadaa IPIR+a'opaiq pauau p9la4uaeuw
UO Pvl=lsapmd0ud0UPw4 MUM Mq 41391001 o4AMj-.9wv apalq lalwu paamquaouawpaixaal
wDa944wMadadguisnoglaluwmoag9idwooVOU931RUJOMW MON X500 ol OPIM74 mwaampsm
'apalq MUM pcga4MUm•uou UO MWOdwd flalsaaq MUM At OTOTA 917 J0 AUadad Jed qml idwm
aousslnu 1a mgmm agwaAa ua peg s q lwuw Palo4uasua0 uo solvaduad gqsnoq plum lsgl xxags
Eal4alJa Jlol aoddn sq4 UI SIAM LU"MW q4l sarliawwnsauclaq E olqui Amiq !alum gr,,� uegl a;l.
UO salUafcd Ma"OUAMM tMM AP014 JUluau ;fig =0, uo salvadoud I -Uau/layuai as dwm
M YLOZ-90UZ J9 pWad ougl 943 tat ngz;idww musslru aqui j�daap aaaiap sl"us Jo sdAa Rnp all.
concentrated rental bladrs, which represent 10 of all residenttn; propeffim, ere respooElble for 55% of
residential nuisance complaints.
Table 4. Pollee Muttons—Comparison of Rend Propertlaa to Rlo* (Z309,209.0)
7y�efFrapertles
Taloi
9dumbsrgF
AvEtvip
$ofrotal
9dalwav
ldnmbargj
PaRoe
Man6arof
RaWm trol
Citatim
Propafft
cfictfans
Famm
FOXIMIc
2019.3010
CRadarsper
ProFsrr3'
Rental Properties on
576
35
0=3
9.035
5995
Over am Randal eloeb
Renta! Paqutles on
4165
10
0.0106
9%
15%
Lass Than 90%Rental
Blocks
ift-RmkdPropelft
852
3
0.0035
13X
45
on Oter3096Rental
Bloafs
Non -Rental Properties
4,564
17
0=7
60%
1595
an lots Bon 30Xi Rental
Blocks
Tomi
6.557
66
.0100
mm
IOOAS
More. the polkedtatim domf1ar1009-MWabmvdm not Bxhde ale (3) ifttmNtaRons heaouunooddrcuvms
aidymtedaa aesedwWasfordre actualkmNonofthe a hwkddeet.
W. Cond wan
Otr iltensture review of rental housh6 concentkatio,¢�ad its effects, Including the empirical studies of five
cities, support; the conclusion that the Conan dr�bf rental housing results in negative Impacts to the
qualBy and gvahfRty of residential naWtbor df f In additlan, ow comPllati n end a of the
relationship between Vmna's rental housing concentration and mdrome complalntsJpoAm vlafatlons
data parellelsthe findings of the Yteratwe review, In patleulor, via And that concentrated renW homhrg In
Winona has resulted in a much higher rate of tadsasae eamplalnts and poike violations b concentrated
sakdel housIn6 blocks, impacting both rental and non -rental residential properties. Thus, based upon the
0tmWm review, Inducing the empirical studies of ibe cities relmnit to WMwnrs renal housing Issues,
2nd tRe detailed analryls of Winona data, we conclude that the doncentmtlon of rental housing in WYrma
results In Increased (awls of nubanee and police violations In those neighborhoods. As these vbfaum an
Indicators of Increased nuhanona and decreased property malotenance levels that neptty* affect
nellihhwhood quality and Itvabillty, we alto conclude that tha wnxnt lion of rental houshts leads to
deceased neighborhood quality and livability.
Page 10 of 10