Loading...
9/9/2020 - Planning Commission - Regular - AgendasSPRING PARK On Lake 911nnewnk 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ADOPT AGENDA CITY OF SPRING PARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 — 6:00 PM SPRING PARK CITY HALL 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from July 8, 2020 6. CONSIDERATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS a. 3765-3781 Sunset Drive Re -Zoning Request i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Hearing iii. Discussion iv. Recommendation b. 4000 Sunset Drive Setback Variance i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Hearing iii. Discussion iv. Recommendation c. Short -Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Hearing iii. Discussion iv. Recommendation 7. COMMUNICATIONS 8. MISCELLANEOUS 9. ADJOURNMENT SPRING PARK On Lake 31innetonka CITY OF SPRING PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 8, 2020 — 6:00 PM SPRING PARK CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Homan at 6:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Acting Chair Homan led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance 3. ROLL CALL Planning Commissioners Present: Planning Commissioners Absent.• Staff Present, 4. ADOPT AGENDA Bruce Homan, Acting Chair; Michael Mason; Max Avalos; and Pete Kaczanowski Jeff Hoffman, Chair Dan Tolsma, City Administrator; Al Brixius, City Planner; and Theresa Schyma, City Clerk M/ Mason, S/Kaczanowski to aonrove the agenda. • 10 t •. , 1 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 10, 2020 M/Mason, S/Avalos to a12212rove the minutes. 6. CONSIDERATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS a. 4317 Channel Road Variance i. Staff Presentation City Planner Brixius reviewed Land Use Application No. 20-02 VAR requesting a side -yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a 3-car attached garage with additional living space on the second floor. He further detailed staffs recommended conditions for approval. Patrick and Hannah Berry, 4317 Channel Road, were available for questions. ii. Public Hearing M/Kaczanowski, S/Avalos to open the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. M/Mason, S/Kaczanowski to close the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. iii. Discussion The Planning Commission thanked the applicants for enhancing their property. iv. Recommendation M/Avalos, S/Mason to recommend to the City Council to approve Land Use Application No. 20- 02 VAR, to approve aside -yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a 3-car attached garage with additional living space on the second floor subject to the conditions of the July 1, 2020 plyreport. Motion approves 4=0. b. 4364/4368 West Arm Road Variance i. Staff Presentation City Planner Brixius reviewed Land Use Application No. 20-03 VAR requesting a street -side setback variance to allow for the expansion of a two-family dwelling unit located at 4364 and 4368 West Arm Road. He further detailed staffs recommended conditions for approval. He added a correction to Condition #2 since the current area of the project is already hardcover, the applicant will not need a stormwater management plan. He suggested Condition #2 change to "All runoff from the building and driveway shall be directed away to storm sewer subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer." Barbara and Andrew Ward, 4364 and 4368 West Arm Road, were available for questions. Duane Myers of Myers Construction, project manager of the proposed remodel, was available for questions. ii. Public Hearing M/Mason, S/Avalos to open the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. M/Avalos, S/Kaczanowski to close the public hearing at 6:40 12.m. Motion carried 4-0. iii. Discussion Acting Chair Homan stated that the proposed project enhances and improves the community. iv. Recommendation M/Mason, S/Avalos to recommend to the City Council to approve Land Use Application No. 20 03 VAIN to approve a street -side setback variance to allow for the expansion of a two - dwelling unit located at 4364 and 4368 West Arm Road subject to the conditions of the July 1, 2020 planning report and with the correction to Condition #2 to read "All runoff from the building and driveway shall be directed away to storm sewer subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer." Motion approved 4-0. 7. COMMUNICATIONS —None. 8. MISCELLANEOUS a. Parks Site Visit Recap City Administrator Tolsma presented an update on the memorial plaques that will be placed at the City's parks. He further discussed the June 15 meeting he had with Commissioners Kaczanowski and Mason at the City's two parks. He detailed the potential updates to the parks that were discussed at the meeting including the addition of curb and gutter along Park Lane for Thor Thompson Park, repaving the entrance to the playgrounds, updating the existing entrance signs, and looking into obtaining an easement for access to Wilkes Park from Black Lake Road. b. 2413 Black Lake Road Variance Extension Request City Administrator Tolsma presented a summary of the extension request. Max Avalos, 2413 Black Lake Road, was available for questions. He discussed the difficulty of getting a contractor due to COVID-19 and did not believe he would complete the project before the August deadline. M/Mason, S/Kaczanowski to recommend to the City Council to approve an additional 12-month extension to Land Use Application No. 18-03 VA& that was originally approved by the Council on August 20 2018 to allow a garage at 2413 Black Lake Road. Motion approved 3-0. (Avalos recused) 9. ADJOURNMENT M/Mason, S/Avalos adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. Date Approved: September 9, 2020 Dan Tolsma, City Administrator Theresa Schyma, City Clerk NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners,gnacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Tolsma FROM: Alan Brixius / Daniel Elder DATE: September 3, 2020 RE: Spring Park — 3781 and 3765 Sunset Drive — Rezoning FILE NO: 175.01 — 20.06 PID: 1711723310006 & 1711723310007 BACKGROUND: William Naegele of Restaurants No Limits Inc, has submitted an application requesting a change of zoning from R-1 Single and Two Family Residential district to C-1 General Commercial district. The site currently is two vacant residential lots at 3765 and 3781 Sunset Drive which are currently being used for parking for Lord Fletchers. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property to a general commercial district and bring the existing parking lot into compliance with city code. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Application Material Exhibit B: Aerial Photo Exhibit C: 2040 Future Land Use Map Exhibit D: Existing Zoning Map Exhibit E :Photos ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low density residential. The current R-1 zoning is reflective of this land use plan. In conjunction with this zoning request the city will process a comprehensive plan amendment if the zoning change is approved. Comment: The current use of the lot is for parking. The access to the parking lot is from a single access point to the north. The parking lot is at an elevation that is lower than the home to the south and there is a retaining wall , fence and significant trees screening the parking area. The change in zoning would bring the parking lot into conformity with the city code. The sale of the lots for residential use would result in new homes fronting on Sunset Drive and facing Lord Fletchers Restaurant. These lots would have direct access to Sunset Drive introducing new driveways accessing a busy street. The location, orientation and size of the lots isolate them from other residential neighborhood having them contend with existing adjoining commercial uses. The aforementioned conditions raise consideration as to whether residential use and zoning is the best use of the site. The following Comprehensive Plan stated goal and policies provide support the change in land use. Goal 4: Ensure compatibility and strong functional relationships between land uses. Policies: A. Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. B. Prevent over -intensification of land use development, that is, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). C. Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems and review and make changes to the zoning map accordingly. D. Examine requested land use changes in relation to adjoining land uses, site accessibility, utility availability, and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and policies. E. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining developments. F. Address conflicting and non -complementary land uses through code enforcement or improved site design options, where practical. G. Examine and re-evaluate under-utilized commercial parcels to insure full land utilization and proper infill development of parcels. H. Amend the R-1 zoning district to limit uses to single family homes. Land Use Compatibility. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. 2 Comment: The surrounding land uses are shown below. Land Use Zoning North Lord Fletchers C-1 south City of Orono- wetlands N/A East Lord Fletchers - parking C-1 West Single Family R-1 The rezoning of the lots to C-1 would bring the lots into similarity with the balance of Lord Fletcher's parking east of Sunset Drive The single family home presents some concern, however the current parking area is at a lower elevation that this house, there is a retaining wall, fence and mature trees existing to screen this house. As stated above, the location, size and orientation of the two lots makes development under the R- 1 district questionable due to surrounding land uses and need for street access. Utilities. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Comment: The two parcels will be utilized as parking lots if rezoned and will not have an impact on City utilities. Streets. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of the streets serving the property. Comment: The traffic generated by Lord Fletchers has in the past created parking problems by customers utilizing local streets for parking. This parking lot is integral to Lord Fletcher's operations to reduce on -street parking elsewhere. The parking lot has a single point of access that controls traffic leaving the parking lot. The C-1 zoning brings this parking into conformance the city codes RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned review and the findings of this report we recommend approval of comprehensive plan land use map change and a change in zoning from R-1 to C-1 for the properties at 3765 and 3781 Sunset Drive. The comprehensive plan amendment will require submission to the Metropolitan Council as a minor amendment. CC: Theresa Schyma Scott Qualle William Naegele 3 A, �,o4 �LF"nFD)ON6 FA n 0# Lake IMItetohka GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application No: Date Filed: Date Complete: Received By: Base Fee: Escrow: 1 Instructions: Please read carefully and answer all questions thoroughly. Only complete applications will be accepted after validation by the Zoning Administrator, and prior to acceptance of required processing fees and escrows. PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Identification Number (PID): Street Address:& Z.1 Legal Description: L - 1 I f Other information: la°G1.5 T .5 ,ice �l�dL� /� D P1 > 1AI APPLICATION INFORMATION Name: UIII-LifiM d , AIAE6rtE Business Name: A_01W Ile 1- Al7-5-A 1117,1/I Inc Address: - I 164 l "P. City: & State: Zip Code 6 Telephone -/ Faxe-mail PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (if Name: Address: City: tate Telephone Fax REQUEST Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance Amendment (text or map) Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Administrative Permit Variance Appeal er than applicant) Business Name: Zip Cc e-mail Site and Building Plan Review Subdivision Sketch Review PUD (concept plan/development) Preliminary Plat Final Plat Minor Subdivision Other: DESCRIPTION of REQUEST (attach additional sheets as necessary) Existing Use of Property:/.tlG AL` Nature of Proposed Use: Reason(s) to Approve Request: rVm 41-5vGo Exhibit A 2 DESCRIPTION of R QUEST attach additional sheets as necessary) Please describe any previous applications pertainin to the subject site: Project Name: Date of Application: Nature of Request: APPLICATION FEES AND EXPENSES. The undersigned has paid the application fees and posted the required escrows for this application. The undersigned agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the City of Spring Park for review and processing of this application, including expenses for legal, planning, engineering, administrative and/or other professional services. If these expenses exceed the application fee paid and the posted escrows, the undersigned understands and agrees that it is the responsibility of the applicant and the property owner to pay such expenses in full within 30 days of receiving a bill from the City, If the City does not receive payment in full within 30 days of the date of the bill, the City may approve a special assessment against the property for the full amount of such unpaid expenses, and the property owner specifically agrees to such an assessment and waives any and all appeals under Minnesota Statutes Section 429.82. All fees and expenses are payable in full whether the application is approved or denied. Escrow funds received in excess of the City's expenses for review and processing of the application will be returned to the applicant/property owner. I, the undersigned, hereby apply for the considerations described above and declare that the information and materials submitted in support of this application are in compliance with adopted City policy and ordinance requirements and are complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that this application will be processed in accordance with established City review procedures and MN Statutes Section 15.99, as amended, supplemented or replaced from time to time, at such time as it is determined to be complete. Pursuant to MN Statutes Section 15.99, as amended, supplemented or replaced from time to time, the City will notify the applicant within (15) business days from the filing date of any incomplete or other information necessary to complete the application, Failure on my part to supply all necessary information as requested by the City may be cause for denying this application. A complete application shall include a completed and signed application form, payment of all required fees and escrows, and a complete plan submission for the specific application. I acknowledge and grant permission to any city staff members, city consultants, council members or planning commission members to access the property named in this application, at any time during this application process, in order to view, evaluate and understand this request. Applicant: Date: �_ �S Property Owner:l/Gfi1�%3 Exhibit A =40 owl 'PA= 10 . — lsm-AteV. I k 2040 Future Land Use - City of Spring Park Orono .r Lake Minnetonka Mound GA 0 Legend Low Density (1-4 units/acre) Medium Density (5-19 units/acre) - Mgh Density (20+ units/acre) Mixed Use Residential (40+ units/acre) _ Commercial - Industrial and Utility - Institutional _ Parks and Open Space Wetlands OnPotential Rede\elopment QBoundary Lakes LIIaI W Feet 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 sours:, Hennepin County, City of Spring Park Minnesota Departmmt of Natural Resources, & Northwest Associated C—itants, Inc. P*p--d: J—ry2018. Exhibit C Zoning Map City of Spring Park I -.`••� Lake Minnetonka C �L Zoning Districts CJ R-1 Single and Two Family Residential 0 R-2 Medium Density Residential R-3 High Density Residential C-1 General Commercial C-2 Shopping Center C-3 Health Care Facility C-4 Office Commercial �M Manufacturing P Public/Semi-Public ® Floodplain r; ;ICity Limits Feet 0 340 680 1,360 source: Minnesota Department of Natural Reno Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc Map Date: August 2010 IdL ..... ....... Exhibit D NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners(a,nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Tolsma FROM: Alan Brixius / Daniel Elder DATE: September 1, 2020 RE: Spring Park — 4000 Sunset side yard variance request FILE NO: 175.01 — 20.05 P I D: 171-172-333-0031 BACKGROUND: Joe Cheney owns the property at 4000 Sunset Drive in Spring Park. The lot contains an existing duplex. Mr. Cheney wishes to renovate and expand the building to provide additional living space and garages for the two units. In review of the lot City Staff discovered a property line concern that differs between past and current surveys. The lot abuts the city owned lake access off of Sunset Drive. This lake access was platted as City street right of way between Lots 13 and 14 Skarp & Lindquist's Hazeldell Addition to Minnetonka in 1906. (See Exhibit A) Since the original plat, Lot 14 has been divided into 6 lots by metes and bound descriptions (no subsequent plat). All of the 6 lots have been developed. In 1993 and revised in 1996 Gronberg Inc prepared a survey of 4000 Sunset Drive for Scott Schulz. (See Exhibit B) This survey illustrates the duplex being located on the lot's north lot line and 2 feet from the lake access pavement. This survey presents a number of hurdles to any expansion of this building. In 2018, Otto Associates prepared new survey for 4000 Sunset Drive (Exhibit C). This survey shows that the duplex is located 8 feet from the north lot line with the City's Lake access drive extending into the Cheney lot. The discrepancy between the surveys has not been resolved. To allow Mr. Cheney to precede the remodeling and expansion of the duplex a variance application has been submitted. Joe Cheney, property owner in the City of Spring Park, is seeking a variance from the R-1 district side yard setback requirement for the duplex property at 4000 Sunset Drive. This variance is needed to renovate and expand the building to provide additional living space and garages for the two existing units on the property. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Original Plat Exhibit B: 1993/ 1996 site Survey Exhibit C: 2018 Site Survey Exhibit D: Project Narrative Exhibit E: Site Plan & Elevation ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Existing Site Challenges 4000 Sunset is located within an R-1, Single Family and Two -Family Residential District. Two family homes are a permitted use within this zoning district. The existing Duplex is a legal non -conforming use in that it is located on a lot not meeting the R-1 lot area. width or setback requirements. The applicant's lot area of 6,335 sq. ft. falls below the required R-1 lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. and the 47.9 ft lot width does not meet the required 50 foot lot width requirements. The building also does not meet the R-1 required 10 foot side yard setback along the north lot line. The development pattern to the south of 4000 Sunset, reflect similar nonconforming conditions with regard to lot area, lot width and setbacks. Setbacks and Lot Requirements: The following table outlines the R-1 District standards for lot area and setbacks compared against the existing conditions on the lot in question: R-1 District Existing Proposed: Compliant: Code: Conditions: Lot Requirements: Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 6,335 sq. ft. N / A No * Existing Single- Condition Family* Lot Width 50 ft. 47.7 ft. N / A No *Existing Condition Lot Coverage 30 percent 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. No *Existing (46.9%) (46.9%) Condition 40% is allowed with SMP 2 Setback Reauirements: Right -of -Way 30 ft. 46.3 20 ft (approx.) Yes* meets Setback (approx.) average of adjacent structures Side Yard 10 ft. 2.2 ft. 3.4 ft. /8.8 ft. No Setback north /8.1 ft. Side Yard 10 ft. 13.8 ft. 13.5 Yes Setback south Setback from 50 ft. 47 ft. 47 ft. No * Existing OHWL Condition The table above shows the required amount of setback that a structure must meet in R- 1 districts, compared to the anticipated amount of setback that will be left after the construction of the addition. The cited north setback both existing and proposed is reflective of both the 1996 and 2018 surveys. The new addition requires variances from the required side setback on north lot line setback. The setback from the OHWL is an existing condition and will remain without variance. The new addition extends toward Sunset Drive. Section 42-65 (f) applies to this street side setback. (f) [Setbacks differing from requirements.] Where adjacent structures within the same block have setbacks from the street different from those required, the minimum setbacks from the street shall be the average of the setbacks of the adjacent structures fronting on such street. If there is only one adjacent structure, the minimum setback from the street shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the required setback from the street exceed the minimum setback established for the district. The property to the south has a 20 foot street side setback and the property to the north has a street side setback that exceeds the R-1 30 street side setback. Based on the allowed averaging the following street side setback is required for the new addition. South property north property Total combined average required Setback setback 20feet + 30 feet = 50 feet /2 = 25 feet This setback applies to all new construction. The applicant must reduce the garage length to provide a minimum 25 foot street side setback. Lot Coverage: Sec. 42-279 of the City Code, Lot Requirements and Setbacks, conditions are outlined in which new construction can be allowed to have up to a 40% impervious surface by meeting the following conditions. Staff Comment: The applicant is expanding the building upon existing impervious surface and is not increasing the impervious surface. As such the percentage of impervious surface is a grandfather condition and does not require variance. VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA The applicant is requesting a variance from the required R-1 side yard Section 42-165 of the Spring Park ordinance outlines the criteria for considering a variance. Variances from the literal provisions of the chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter. (a) In considering any request for a variance and in taking subsequent action, planning commission and the city council, serving as the board of adjustment and appeals, shall make a finding of fact that the granting of such variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Staff Comment: The expansion that is taking place will not impact the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. Staff Comment: The proposed use continues to be a permitted duplex family home. The addition of an attached garage and additional living space and is not expected to increase traffic in the immediate area. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Staff Comment: The purposed use is not expected to increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Staff Comment: The addition of the garage and living space will be very similar in nature to neighboring properties and should not diminish or impair property values. Approval of the variance request is not expected to diminish or impair property values. 4 (5) Violate the intent and purpose of the city comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: The Spring Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan states in Strategy 2 that it will promote the renovation and reinvestment in existing homes as a priority for the City. The expansion of the duplex will allow for the renovation and reinvestment within the community (b) A variance from the requirements of this chapter shall be permitted only when: • The requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Staff Comment: The expansion of the living area and garage is an allowed use in an R-1 district. The proposed expansion is consistent with the development patterns within the same block. (c) No variance shall be granted that would allow any use that is not permitted in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Staff comment: A house/garage are allowed uses in an R-1 district within the City of Spring Park as stated in section 42-277 of the city code. (d) A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance without a variance. Staff comment: As discussed, the size and shape of the parcel creates numerous challenges in the construction of a home addition without requiring a variance for the lot setbacks. The property line dispute presents and unique circumstance that has yet to be resolved. This issue alone presents a practical difficulty that interferes with the project. The property abutting the lake access to the North provides difficulty with the already non -conforming structure and its expansion. (e) A variance application shall set forth the reasons for the requested variance, including: (1) The unique circumstances of the property, such as topography, lot size or shape, or water conditions, which cause practical difficulties in the reasonable use of the property; and Staff Comment: See comments under provision (d) above (2) The requested variance is the minimum variance from the zoning ordinance required to make reasonable use of the property. Staff Comment: The duplex is an allowed use within the R-1 zoning district. The proposed expansion provides additional living space and garage space making the dwelling units more appealing. The expansion will add value to the property. The proposed expansion mimics the development pattern of the 5 property to the south. Based on these attributes the requested variance offers reasonable use of the property. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing this application, staff has evaluated the variance request against the Spring Park's zoning code criteria for variances. Based our review of these criteria and the findings outlined in this report; staff finds that the proposed variance offers reasonable use of the property and there are practical difficulties unique to the property that warrant variance considerations. Staff recommends approval of the applicants request for a variance from the side setback requirements for the property at 4000 Sunset Drive with the following conditions. 1. Construction will not deviate from the site plan submitted to the city on 8/20/2020 as part of the variance application. Any change to the dimensions of the addition would be subject to a separate review. 2. The applicant shall revise the size of the garage to provide a 25 foot street side setback as required per code. 3. The reduced side yard variance may trigger more restrictive building and fire code requirements for that side of the building with the reduced setbacks. The new construction must meet all current building and fire codes. CC: Theresa Schyma Scott Qualle Brian Hare Joe Cheney 0 Sr 'ARP LINDGUIST5 HAZELDEI-1- ADDITION TO MINNET01MA scald .......... . I ... . ...... ...... . ..... ...................... .................. ............... =L:�A I., l� :71*.'� l'1 Zx" y/A.- E f Ar" EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B Certificate of Survey and Topographic Survey Al / / I I 4e N edp r % / /% ' \ �v.e. x denefx £de1M0 5➢.r Ei.wlfon P r, a .I- fY.WM Fbo. Ehwr/m 44f .:: .. ... ® d.,erw. money ure noi.�w �ja v c :.: / / Lot b 14 /:.: :�::''':':'.:<:::.\ + / ::::'::':: :.r.......... /:....i,..................... PAaPERfY pfSai/P11Nh Swwywa Nola• : .'.": •.i�. •:: '.'::.'O�..•. •....'. . fMl D4'1 r LaI m VARP ANO nH ernrl6p d.,c.bfh., bck. o D.Na a `` �•: f" q; • : • :.. . LI.aaL� M RAiELB AaMnOa' ro DaahVa M hm. Iwne mn..nnl, .n .. . '.'.1�..•.'.'.:' ..... .• ... WM.[ A MamM C IA —1-fw fhe So.ln M.Pa'fY lh. fMr FI Iti ,�.. ... / ••�`a . . �eccoreMq 1. W rrco.drd pbl Ilw,ol. A,lann ./ Je] MIhH as lml one hew '. ... • • •�.: •! �+((�,'. :.': •'• . . 3! � 11 Mina I�Mrvl Nrcln u.ae IIW Ib. c. rM maNannrad IAie. • . :: C .:•... a\ .... •:'::':'....'.. Aonr n m. s.vrn.o,rsly m. u...ot '.'..'.'.'/•'.':. :. %'.'.'.'.'.'�' ':: V y C J6]a0 /.ef Nalnae,reI m.a,—d alanI ... y...... ...'... /... f ::. •: • :.......: :•: EXHIBIT lI mr Swlhswfedy Br. o .ely iof hom '•"/ mwI swlhNy c.mw Ih.r.oL . ..... ............. ...... .. Cert reale o rvey and opogrophc rh.r.eyo.reblh.ram:cmy,o/m,m Rm-1. r e re.ndle. wn moMmra�ri and Sen+ey o/ Lot 14, sKARP AND UNDDUfsT's np —Pl—P--dhym.wmrd.—Y �.norrr HAZELOQL ADD1 R71CW TC MINN£TONKA, °1e0f "'''d ieif 18n1011y Joe Cheney o dmra.. tn,r,m oy to ewrxo, �. Lkw,.MLwM SIvreM'uMar lha l,xs BMYMGI�lan 9tre.r rad m.rk.d 6y Lksruc /QOOB? Hennepin CmnfK Minnesolo d./ft SI ayMnnawl.. "�f �'w`72t Relied' /Tl fO� rFl.: Uemi 61': Sda' (]ronMd6Y-(7i1M2,= S-rFl9-RmP.,ad AddlrM-Aa3 nde. ovb -- 10-30-18 M.J.H. 1"=10' P.E.O. sS=ATEs ary.a ra. �,�14 -a - r rr,y.r.eL.rsawev., Aw 16-0496 10� SID-IMDrLr\a C pQ f D# Lake /i1V*yeA7#ka 1 GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application No: V r_� Date Filed: 'lid` U Date Complete: Received By: Base Fee: '�50`=' 10 /OSy Escrow: 5 D 0 U* 66 0 Instructions: Please read carefully and answer all questions thoroughly. Only complete applications will be accepted after validation by the Zoning Administrator, and prior to acceptance of required processing fees and escrows. PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Identification'v�Numy be Street Address: Legal Description.- 4+ �+ APPLICAT19N INFORMATION // Name: � j bG (Acne Address: qfP w,vk i< City:: rn� o l� l,� �► (a,�4 cr State: Telephone Fax (PID): 3 c.n r •i q i s ti c• c .` r�7 i• ,..rav 1�Ir.�K{i, �,lne �•u ' � ec4S�+c �� O i cry Lade, M , AAf- 4n, L � Business Name/ 5 L 1K N Zip Code e-mail cat vt �g(ffe"r'I. i1 CO. — PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (if other than applicant) Name: Business Name: _ Address: City: State: Telephone Fax REQUEST Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance Amendment (text or map) Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Administrative Permit Variance X Appeal Zip Code e-mail Site and Building Plan Review Subdivision Sketch Review PUD (concept plan/development) Preliminary Plat Final Plat Minor Subdivision Other: DESCRIPTION of REQUEST (attach additional sheets as necessary) Existing Use of Property: i�KTje."C Reason(s) to ApRrove Request: AccurA4o cam; �vryed� we i'ncd- -�.�. D fov+ t c" C"-\ C "vi cl:V ,� kt S {-- © 1re-- C� . S' Exhibit D a� �4 11 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM: TO: Dan Tolsma FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: September 1, 2020 RE: Short — term Rental Housing code FILE NO: 175.01 20.04 BACKGROUND In October 2019, the Spring Park Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to approve rental license requirements for both long- term and short-term rental properties. At its meeting on August 17, 2020, the Council voted against the recommended long-term rental license ordinance . The Council, in consideration of the recommendation related to short-term rentals, made the following findings: 1. Short —term rentals are a commercial use not suitable to be located in the City's residential zoning districts. Issues of traffic, parking, dock use and other nuisances are created with transient short term tenants. 2. The introduction of this commercial use into the City's residential neighborhoods has the potential of being disruptive to the adjoining residential properties. This prevents the adjoining property owners the quiet enjoyment of their property. 3. The small and narrow lots found in Spring Park are not conducive to the short-term rental use in that they cannot provide separation from adjoining homes, needed parking for tenants, or yard space for outdoor entertainment. 4. Short-term rentals are commercial uses that are already currently not allowed in any of the City's residential zoning districts. Section 42-9 of the Spring Park Zoning Code below indicates that any land use not listed within a zoning district is considered prohibited unless the City amends its ordinance to allow the use. Under this regulation, the short-term rentals existing today are illegal uses and not eligible for "grandfathered" rights. Sec. 42-9. - Uses not provided for within zoning districts. Whenever in any zoning district a use is neither specifically permitted nor prohibited, the use shall be considered prohibited. In such case, the city council, on its own initiative or upon request, may conduct a study to determine if the use is acceptable and if so, what zoning district would be most appropriate and to determine the conditions and standards relating to development of the use. The city council or property owner, upon receipt of the staff study, shall, if appropriate, initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance to provide for the particular use under consideration or the city council shall find that the use is not compatible for development within the city. (Ord. No. 62, § 1(Subd. 1), 9-13-1993) Based on these findings, the Spring Park City Council has requested a City Code change that makes the current prohibition on short-term rentals in the City's residential zoning districts more explicit. The attached zoning code amendment outlines the proposed changes. ANALYSIS Without a rental licensing code, Staff determined that the prohibition of short-term rentals becomes a land use issue that must be addressed in the City's Zoning Code. Any change to the Zoning Code requires a public hearing, Planning Commission consideration and recommendation, and final action by the City Council. The draft ordinance amendment creates a new Section 42-77 in the General Provisions of the Zoning/Shoreland Ordinance that defines the relevant terms, explains the purpose and rationale for the prohibition, expressly prohibits short-term rentals in any residential zoning district in the City, and identifies the possible enforcement options for violations. CONCLUSION: The planning commission is directed to conduct a public hearing on the short-term rental ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals; review the ordinance, take public testimony and make recommendation to the city council. Cc. Mary Tietjen Theresa Schyma Scott Qualle 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.2020- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING/SHORELAND ORDINANCE OF THE SPRING PARK CITY CODE (CHAPTER 42) PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTALS WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRING PARK THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Spring Park hereby amends Chapter 42, Article II of the Spring Park City Code by adding a new Sec. 42-77 as follows: Sec. 42-77. — Short-term rentals. (a) Definitions. In addition to the definitions contained in Article I, Division 2 of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply to this section. (1) Operator. A person or enterprise, or its agent, who is the owner of a dwelling, which is being offered for rent to transients, whether such person's ownership interest in the property is as the owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee -in -possession, licensee, or any other interest. Where the operator performs their functions through a rental agent, the managing agency or the rental agent has the same duties as the operator hereunder. (2) Rent. Compensation, in money or other consideration, given in exchange for the occupancy, use, or possession of real property which is charged, whether or not received. (3) Short-term rental. Any temporary occupancy or use of a dwelling or dwelling unit that is offered for rent to a transient for fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days for various purposes, including but not limited to, tourist or transient use, or as a vacation home, or bed and breakfast. (4) Transient. Any person who, at their own expense or at the expense of another, exercises occupancy or possession, or is entitled to occupancy or possession, by reason of any rental agreement, whether in writing or otherwise, concession, permit, right -of -access, option to purchase, license, time-sharing arrangement, or any other type of agreement for a period of fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. (b) Short-term rentals prohibited. (1) Purpose. The City finds that short-term rentals constitute a commercial use of residential property, which conflict with the fundamental character of residential zoning districts, disrupt the residential character of neighborhoods, and have a negative impact on the livability of residential neighborhoods. The City further finds that, while short term rentals are prohibited under the current provisions contained in the City Code, an ordinance amendment clarifying those regulations is necessary. The City has received complaints from residents regarding short-term rentals, including but not limited to complaints related to noise, over- occupancy, and illegal parking. To ensure adequate housing options for residents, preserve the residential character of the City's residential districts, preserve property values, and reduce land use conflicts, the City determines, in furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare, that it is necessary to limit short-term rentals to hotels, motels, lodging establishments, and similar accommodations which are appropriately licensed, zoned, and which have the appropriate infrastructure and services for such short-term use. (2) Prohibition. Short-term rental in any residential zoning district in the City is prohibited. State licensed hotels, motels, and lodging establishments located in areas where permitted by the City's land use regulations are allowed, pursuant to all applicable law and rules. (3) Enforcement. a. An owner, operator, tenant, or occupant of any building or property in violation of the provisions of this section may be charged and found guilty of a misdemeanor and may be held responsible for the cost of enforcement in addition to penalties. b. The City may exercise any and all remedies at law or in equity to ensure compliance with this section. All unpaid costs, charges and penalties may be certified as a special assessment levy against the property. C. The City hereby further declares the short-term rental of a dwelling or dwelling unit may constitute a public nuisance pursuant to Chapter 18, Article IV of the Spring Park City Code and the City may exercise its authority to abate such nuisances. d. To address violations of this Section, the City may exercise its enforcement authority pursuant to Chapter 1, Sec. 1-14 of the City Code and applicable state law. (c) Implementation. In an effort to minimize the disruption of the adoption of this ordinance, the City shall not take any enforcement actions related to short-term rentals until December 31, 2020. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect following its adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Spring Park on , 2020. CITY OF SPRING PARK Jerome Rockvam, Mayor ATTEST: By: Theresa Schyma, City Clerk