9/21/2020 - City Council - Work Session - MinutesSPRING PARK
On Lake Minnetonka
CITY OF SPRING PARK
WORK SESSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 — 6:00 PM
SPRING PARK CITY HALL
(Work Session discussion times are approximate)
1. 6:00 — DISCUSS UPCOMING REGULAR MEETING ITEMS
a. Short Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance
Rockvam said the Planning Commission looked at this. Rockvam asked for thoughts from
the council. Chase said he has heard from residents of Spring Park and he said it started as a
way to be able to regulate short-term rentals to determine appropriate parking, occupancy,
safety, etc. to whether it should be allowed at all. He said he doesn't really agree to going
from how do we allow this in a safe and smart way to an outright ban and thinks there could
be a compromise. He said when reading what the planning commission put together he saw
there was a lot of thought that went into it but what was missing was how to report a
problem. He said when reading through the minutes it looks as though city staff hasn't kept
a record of these issues. He thinks there could be a compromise. They could adopt the first
ordinance that allows short-term rentals with very strict rules and we give guidelines in the
quarterly newsletter for how residents can report issues and staff keeps a log and ongoing
issues are grounds for revocation. He said rentals can be banned at any point. He said there
could be a year -long trial and reevaluation. He thinks there could be some good from it
because he has noticed some long term rentals that could maybe benefit from the short-term
rental requirements. He sees it as maybe helping out some local businesses and cleaning up
some properties.
Hoffman said initially he was in favor of it. He said he has spoke to some surrounding cities
and persons that are close to short-term rentals and he said there some little things. For
instance, one said there are new guests every weekend and they don't know the property
boundaries and sometimes they're playing Frisbee in his yard or they're fishing off his dock
so it was the little things that they didn't want to report but it was an infringement. He said
cities having zoning for a reason and commercial and residential zones will give a degree of
comfort and separation. He said there is an assurance that businesses will not operate
commercially in a residential area.
Hughes said he is opposed to this. He thinks that if someone rents something for a month,
that's typically okay because they are usually there longer than that. Hughes wonders about
the difference between R1 and R2 and Brixius said the ban would be city wide residential so
anything R-1, R-2, multifamily, would be banned.
Horton said she has also gone back and forth on this and she is still not for it for reasons of
neighbors on either side and infringing on their space. She agrees that it is difficult to
complain about ones neighbors. She wonders about restricted parking and when guests have
vehicles and boat trailers, it's difficult to find parking. She is concerned about those who
would defy the ordinance and say they'll do it anyway.
Rockvam said he didn't realize it's prohibited. He said he knows you can't operate a business
in a residential district but he said there are so many now that are working from home due to
the pandemic. He said when talking with the chief of police, probably over the last 4-5 years
they've had a few complaints. He feels people need to call the police if there is an issue. He
said he doesn't have a problem with the concept but there are qualifications that would have
to be met. He said the two big ones would be off-street parking and noise. He is aware of a
property on the lake in Mound that is used solely for short-term rental and it's become a
problem. He said in an R-1 district there is a reasonable expectation that businesses will not
be next door but he said there are a lot of them operating as such already. Rockvam asks if
this will be brought to the council tonight for a vote or is there more work that needs to be
done on it.
Chase still feels that if the ordinance is crafted to address proper parking, noise and property
infringement, those regulations can be enforced. Brixius said right now if a use is not
specifically defined as an allowed use, it is prohibited unless the ordinance is changed.
Brixius said the ordinance being discussed now is specific and it's not hidden in the general
ordinance.
Rockvam wants to confirm that a yes vote is a vote to not allow it and Brixius confirms that
a yes vote will be to continue to not allow it.
b. 4000 Sunset Drive Variance
Rockvam asked Teitjen if she checked with some associates about whether if the city has
performed maintenance and upkeep on a property for over a period of time it is considered
to be owned by them. Teitjen said yes, if there is evidence that a city has maintained a
property they can retain rights as such. She went on to say if there is a dispute a court would
have to make a ruling.
Hoffman asked a survey has been done and Brixius said right now two surveys have been
done. He said the way the city is looking at the two surveys is neither is correct nor incorrect.
So if processing this variance with recognizing the Gronberg survey showing the building
two feet off the property line then the expansion would require a variance. He said when this
was drafted it doesn't resolve the issue of the north property line and it would have to be
resolved. Brixius illustrates on the overhead the Gronberg survey showing the two feet from
the building and the more recent survey showing the eight foot property line. He said all the
proposed construction would be on the property and not on the easement in accordance
with both surveys.
Horton asked if the north property owner, Mr. Driggs, had a certificate or something.
Brixius said Driggs property is torrens property. Teitjen said for clarification, a variance and
the lot line issue are two separate things. She said a decision on the variance tonight is one
decision that can still be made and if the council were to approve the variance tonight it still
will not affect getting the property line issue resolved.
Chase asks which survey the variance references and Brixius said in his report he references
both. He said in one case the proposed setback will be 3.4 feet and if using the more
contemporary one it will 8.8 feet. The drafted resolution states regardless of which survey is
correct, the variance is still necessary.
Rockvam asked if there is a hardship involved in the variance application. Brixius said with
the current ordinance language it's a practical difficulty and they look at a variety of items.
He said the use is allowed in the zoning district, he said the setback will not encroach what is
already existing, the uniqueness of the lot, the proposed expansion will meet all the other
required setbacks and what is being proposed is an update to an existing structure which is
consistent with the policy. He said the Planning Commission agreed with the findings and
outlined conditions to conditions to include gutters and downspout runoff placement and
not deviating from the construction drawing as illustrated. A minimum 25 foot setback has
been requested from the county road. Brixius said traveling south the road setbacks are less
than 20 feet. Brixius said street setbacks can be averaged so the 25 feet is compliant.
Hoffman asked about a vehicle parked 1:14 and Brixius said there is a car length
accommodated and Rockvam wondered about two car lengths. Brixius said they'd face that
even if it wasn't expanded.
Rockvam wonders if anyone has looked at this and he thinks there are cars that are hanging
out into the street. Brixius said it's how it has been and Rockvam said that's probably why
it's up for a vote.
Hughes clarified that two cars parked side -by -side would be okay but it's two deep that
would not be allowed. Brixius said there will be a garage space for internal parking and then
a full garage space between the right- away and the front of the garage of 25 feet, more than
a car length.
Chase said he noticed the property is for sale and he wonders if a variance transfers with the
property. Brixius said it would transfer with ownership but it would have to be acted upon
within a year of the variance.
Horton wondered what was proposed with the property and Brixius said right now there are
two units and what is being proposed is two units with the build out. He said by doing a
CIC, they can condominimize both units so an upper or lower unit can be purchased.
Rockvam clarifies that the proposal is they can build two feet closer to the road. Brixius
illustrates the overhead and said what's being proposed is they can build two feet closer to
the north property line. Rockvam wonders if they are expanding the footprint of the house
and Brixius said yes, they are adding a garage and will be building above the garage.
Hoffman clarifies that they are following the same building line but they are moving the
garage two feet out to match what is already there. Brixius illustrates the setback on the
street portion will be greater from 2.2 to 3.4. Rockvam said wherever they're asking for the
two feet, is that going to be two feet closer to the fire lane on the north side then it is now
and Brixius said no, it moves away from the fire lane. 1:18:53
Chase asked if Brixius has been talking with the property owner about this and Brixius said
after the last meeting they were encouraged to go the variance route. Chase said he
wondered if it could be put in writing that they were going off the first survey. Brixius said
the north property line is going to be an issue and the way the variance is set up now,
everything will be on his property. He said there isn't a condition that the north property line
be resolved as part of the variance.
Rockvam said the lake access road is not resolved and he wants to know how this will be
resolved. Teitjen said either everyone will have to be in agreement or a judge will decide.
The city would have to bring a quiet title action and a judge would decide.
Hoffman clarifies that the plat drawing shows the footprint of the foundation. Hoffman said
there is a proposed overhang for an entry door and he wonders how far that hangs over.
Brixius said it's within the existing footprint and Rockvam said it doesn't look that way on
the drawing. Brixius said this can be discussed with the owner and they would have to cut
the eave off closer to the roofline if it is encroaching. Rockvam said he's concerned with
snow plows keeping the access clear and whether they could end up hitting the encroaching
eave.
Hoffman still wants to know which line is on the footprint because of the roofline for the
entrance looks to be encroaching. Brixius said it would have to be entirely on their property
and that is part of the variance request.
Hoffman continues by saying right now the plans are not current based upon the conditions
of the variance.
Rockvam thinks it looks nice but the overhang is hanging over the neighbor and the City
happens to be that neighbor. He said on top of that, the road that has been maintained by
the City for 50 years is now in question. 1:27:31
Hughes would like to see a drawing without the eaves so they can compare what's there and
what isn't.
Hoffman asked if they are over hardcover and Brixius confirmed they are. Hoffman said
usually when hardcover is exceeded there is a request for a rain garden or runoff
containment. He said this was discussed at the planning level.
Brixius said the reason he hasn't put in a provision to reduce the hardcover is right now it's
an existing nonconforming condition. Because it's a legal nonconforming condition and the
building is going over existing hardcover there is a provision in state law to reduce the
nonconformity become a compensatable expense that the city would be responsible for.
Brixius said because they are building over existing pavement they were not asked to provide
additional stormwater treatment. He went on to say they did however require gutters on the
existing and the addition for runoff. Brixius said when reviewing this, hardcover is not being
increased.
Rockvam said he's having a hard time with the surveys plotting the road at different lines.
He said the original survey was done by Gronberg who has surveyed in this area for many
years. He said he's concerned about this turning into a lawsuit that will be expensive. He
thinks the best way is to put the poles in where it's been established and let the other party
sue the city.
Hoffman asked about adverse possession. Teitjen (inaudible).
Brixius asked the council if they were comfortable with the language added about variance
setbacks shall be applied to the roofline of the house. Brixius said right now there is a two
foot setback on the existing house and the proposed addition brings it to 3.4
c. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance
Brixius said there's been a request from Lord Fletchers has two lots that are zoned R-1 and
there used as parking and they would like to rezone to be consistent with the balance of their
property to C-1. Brixius said he visited the property and the idea of putting two single family
homes right across from Lord Fletchers would probably not be a good idea so they are
recommending rezoning to C-1.
2. 6:40 — TEMPORARY STAFF COVERAGE PLAN
Schyma said she really enjoyed working here but the timing couldn't be avoided. She said the
timing is good in respect to annual licenses not until Spring and building permits are slowing
down. She said elections are covered by the former city clerk Lewin temporarily returning.
She will also stay on to make sure some of the projects are still moving forward and coming
in on certain Saturdays to see to this.
Rockvam asked if there is a replacement search underway. Schyma said with elections it will
be difficult to generate interest until it is over so the suggestion is to keep the search open
longer in order to draw experienced clerks who may not initially see the posting.
Rockvam feels there should be an active search now. Schyma said the next step is to get the
personnel committee together.
Hughes wondered if Brimeyer should be contacted because that's what he does.
Hoffman and the rest of the council thanks Schyma for all that she has done.
3. 6:50 — ADTOURN
M/Hughes; S/Horton.
Motion carries 5-0
Date Approved:
Dan Tolsma, City Administrator Wendy Lewin, Acting City Clerk