5/13/2020 - Planning Commission - Regular - Agendas CITY OF SPRING PARK
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MAY 133, 2020 — 6:00 PM
SPRING PARK SPRING PARK CITY HALL
On Lake Minnetonka
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. ADOPT AGENDA
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 11, 2019
b. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 16, 2019
6. CONSIDERATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. 2463 Black Lake Road Variance Request
i. Staff Presentation
ii. Public Hearing
iii. Discussion
iv. Recommendation
7. COMMUNICATIONS
8. MISCELLANEOUS
9. ADJOURNMENT
SO
CITY OF SPRING PARK
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 - 6:00 PM
SPRING PARK SPRING PARK CITY HALL
On Lake Minnetonka
1. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Mason at 6:05 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE —Acting Chair Mason led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Planning Commissioners Michael Mason, Acting Chair; Max Avalos; Pete Kaczanowski; and
Present. Bruce Homan (arrived 6:10 p.m.)
Planning Commissioners Jeff Hoffman, Chair
Absent.•
Staff Present: Dan Tolsma, City Administrator; Al Brixius, City Planner; Scott Qualle,
Building Official; David Anderson, Assistant City Attorney; and Theresa
Schyma, City Clerk.
Others Present- Catherine Kane Palen, City Council Member/Planning Commission Ex-
Officio and Pamela Horton, City Council Member/Planning Commission
Ex-Officio Alternate
4. ADOPT AGENDA
M/Avalos, S/Kaczanowski to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 3-0
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from August 21, 2019
M/Avalos, S/Mason to a1212rove the minutes.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. CONSIDERATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Short&Long Term Rental Licensing Public Hearing& Discussion
City Planner Brixius provided a summary of the proposed ordinances including changes that have
been made following previous discussions at the July 10 and August 21 Planning Commission
meetings. He further discussed his conversations with Hennepin County's Environmental Health
Program Manager regarding short-term and long-term rental properties in the county. The couno
encouraged regulating short-term rental properties on a local level since the county does not
regulate these properties. He also discussed the misinformation that has been circulating regarding a
supposed duplication of efforts with the county and state regulations for rental properties.
M/Avalos, S/Mason to open public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
Motion carried 4-0.
Tom Lhotka, 2450 Island Drive #307, stated he is against the proposed ordinance. He understands
the importance of safety but stated inspections should be left up to property owners and renters on
a case by case basis. He is concerned about privacy issues.
Robert Rich, 4626 West Arm Road, stated he is against the proposed ordinance and thinks there are
better uses of city resources than this ordinance.
City Administrator Tolsma discussed ordinance process with the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Tom Wallis, 2470 Island Drive, stated he is against the proposed ordinance. He believes the semi-
annual inspections conducted by his landlords are sufficient and he is concerned about violations tg�
his privacy and his fourth amendment rights.
K.D. Koecheler, 2450 Island Drive, stated she is against the proposed ordinance as it is an invasion
of privacy. She has been a renter in Spring Park for over 24 years and believes that the landlords
should be allowed to inspect the units but not the building inspector. She further believes that the
cost of this ordinance is more than has been presented since the landlord will be forced to make
repairs and the cost of those repairs will be passed on to the renters. She added that if this
ordinance passes, she believes there will no longer be any affordable housing left in Spring Park.
Amanda Gorra, 8201 Stone Creek Drive, Chanhassen and part owner of Park Island Apartments,
stated she is against the proposed ordinances because as they are being presented they need
changes. She further asked for clarification on short-term rentals being allowed in Spring Park.
City Planner Brixius discussed the history and process of the proposed short-term rental ordinance.
Ms. Gorra said the complaints that the City has received are mainly for short-term rental properties
so the City needs to further differentiate the differences between the two proposed ordinances. She
stated that long-term rental housing is for homes not party houses. She added that technically the
proposed licensing fee is correct for price per unit per month but it does not factor in the amount
of money needed for a property owner to get administrative search warrant if necessary, having to
pay caretakers to accompany inspectors, and also any costly fixes that are deemed necessary by th
building inspector. She added that passing this ordinance would push out affordable hous*
landlords and believes re-inspection fees incentivize inspectors to find fault where there truly is no
problem.
Steve Bedell, owner of a rental property at 4323 Shoreline Drive, stated he is against the proposed
ordinance and believes there is a conflict with asking a rental property owner to hold their property
• to a higher standard than a homesteaded single family property owner. He further asked for the
statistics regarding complaints.
City Planner Brixius responded that there is not a log of rental complaints because there is no
ordinance for City staff to resolve the issues so they simply need to refer them elsewhere. However,
complaints are definitely received by City staff regarding rental properties in Spring Park.
Acting Chair Mason responded that the reason for the ordinance is for basic health and safety.
City Planner Brixius added that the homesteaded owner of a single family home is putting
themselves at risk in their own home; however, the situation is different when a tenant is unaware
that they are putting themselves at risk when moving into a property that they are assuming is safe
but has never been inspected and is unaware if the property has any major health and safety issues.
He reiterated that the reasoning for proposed ordinance is to create minimum standards for health,
safety, and welfare.
Josh Leddy, 4400 West Arm Road, supports the proposed short-term rental ordinance from a
resident perspective but also as a business owner in Spring Park. He added that he does not want
short-term rental properties to be classified as party houses. He stated there are not any local
accommodations when friends and family are in town so visitors need to stay further away and
spend a lot more money.
Fred Puzak, owner of 4400 West Arm Road, Lord Fletcher's Apartments, stated he is against the
proposed ordinance because he has never had any complaints from his tenants. He believes the
presented cost estimate is not realistic because landlords will need to factor in the costs to have
caretakers accompany building inspectors. He also believes the City displays anti-tenant behavior in
how they bill multi-family buildings for utilities and because renters need to pay for recycling
services when single-family homeowners do not need to. He added that he believes the City is using
a solution to try and find a problem which is government overreach.
Sarah Reinhardt, 4490 West Arm Road, stated she is not in favor of allowing short-term rental
properties in Spring Park. She discussed specific goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan that are not
in agreement with allowing short-term rental properties. She added that the City is already
promoting Lake Minnetonka so it is not necessary to offer lodging for the entire lake community.
She further stated that of the 14 cities on the lake, Spring Park is ninth in population so she is
questioning why a city of this size is taking on the burden of short-term housing for the rest of the
lake area since many other communities on the lake do not allow them. She stated that she likes her
neighborhood and doesn't want short-term rental properties allowed in the R-1 District.
Randy Bickman, 4652 West Arm Road, stated he is opposed to the proposed ordinances especially
since there are no complaint statistics to support the need for them. He presented the State's
Landlord and Tenant Handbook and stated that everything in the proposed ordinances is already
• covered by this handbook. He stated he does not believe the presented cost of licensing is accurate
and that fees will continue to increase.
Bud Groth, 4467 and 4469 Lafayette Lane, stated he supports both the proposed short-term rental
and long-term rental ordinances. He added that the City needs to protect itself when it comes to
health and safety issues. He further stated that he enjoys using short-term rental properties when he
is traveling and thinks they are an advantage for the City. He believes the proposed rules for short-
term rentals are sufficient to protect the neighborhood. •
Ian Maloney, 4710 West Arm Rd, stated he is against allowing short-term rental properties in the
City. He likes his neighborhood because it is quiet and part of how they enjoy the lake. He believes
allowing short-term rental properties in his neighborhood would increase noise and intrude on the
neighborhood. He added that he does not believe that short-term renters are bad people but they
are transient and do not consider the needs of the neighborhood when they are in town and
wanting to make every minute count while they are on Lake Minnetonka. He further stated that he
was told by a realtor that if there is a short-term rental property nearby that he would have to
disclose that information if he decided to sell his property and that would hugely impact his ability
to sell. He believes allowing short-term rental properties will change the makeup of the
neighborhood and ruin his enjoyment of the lake.
Anton Reder, owner of 3946 and 3948 Shoreline Drive and current short-term rental operator,
asked when the proposed ordinances are expected to be enacted because he is definitely not going
to allow building inspectors into his home and will not pay the City any money towards licensing
and inspections.
Gina Machenehl, 4400 West Arm Road, enjoys renting and has been living in Spring Park for 14
years. She wanted to know what kind of fees would be charged if an inspector got injured by a pet
while inspecting her home.
Ms. Koecheler stated she would need to take off of work during an inspection because she woulo
want to be present to ensure that her personal belongings don't go missing.
MaryAnne Koran, 4400 West Arm Road, stated she is against the proposed long-term rental
ordinance. She believes landlords are already taking care of their properties and that any costs
associated with passing this ordinance would ultimately be paid for by the tenants. She stated she is
also concerned about the safety of animals during the proposed inspections.
Mr. Puzak stated that he believes the proposed inspections process is onerous and that red tape is
being added for no reason. He encouraged the Planning Commission to reject the proposed
ordinance for long-term rental licensing.
Joanna Widmer, 3882 Sunset Drive, stated she is against the proposed long-term ordinance since
she owns a rental property next door to her home and she has never had an issue.
Mr. Groth stated there are currently only a handful of short-term rental properties in the City so
maybe there really isn't a problem that the City is trying to solve.
Mr. Rich asked how many complaints the City receives per year because he agrees with previous
comments that perhaps the City is trying to fix something that isn't broke.
City Administrator Tolsma reiterated that there is not a complaint log for rental properties becaus*
there is currently no ordinance in place that would allow City staff to resolve the issues. However,
he stated that City staff receive approximately five to ten complaints per year but the caveat is that
many of the complaints are for serious issues. He further stated that currently short-term rental
properties are not even allowed in the City.
• Josh Clemons, 2486 Black Lake Road, stated he supports the proposed short-term rental ordinance
because it gives options to families that are visiting the area. He believes that the success of short-
term landlords is highly dependent on their ratings so they take care of the properties. He further
stated that he understands the tenant concerns that have been raised tonight about affordable rent
and privacy issues for long-term renters; however, he stated that he rented at Park Island
Apartments for three years and experienced a lot of deferred maintenance and saw many violations
while he lived there with his children. He added that he feels bad that the tenants have been stirred
up by fear-mongering.
Mr. Puzak submitted a petition to City staff with the signatures of 28 of his residents who are
strongly opposed to the rental licensing ordinance.
City Administrator Tolsma announced that three written comments were received from residents
prior to the public hearing that were forwarded to the Planning Commission. Written comments
were received from:
• Michael Schofield, 4400 West Arm Road
• Bob & Gloria Rich, 4626 West Arm Road
• Mark Melby, 4712 West Arm Road
M/Avalos, S/Mason to close the public hearing at 7:51 P.m.
Motion carried 4-0.
City Administrator Tolsma and Assistant City Attorney Anderson discussed the options available to
the Planning Commission regarding the proposed ordinances.
Acting Chair Mason believes the comments from tonight should be considered.
Commissioner Avalos added that he would like Chair Hoffman to have the opportunity to be part
of the final discussion. He further stated that he would like City Planner Brixius to address the
ramifications of not adopting the long-term ordinance.
Commissioner Homan stated that the long-term ordinance cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach
since the apartment buildings have different issues than single-family rentals. However, he stated
that the Commission would not be fulfilling their obligation if they didn't address the conditions of
long-term rentals in the City based on the visible evidence that some of the rental properties in
Spring Park are rundown and the conditions are concerning.
Commissioner Avalos stated that the tenants that spoke tonight were not speaking out against their
landlords; they were more concerned about privacy issues and rent increases.
• City Building Official Qualle responded that sometimes tenants are afraid to complain in a public
setting when they know their landlord is going to be in attendance.
Acting Chair Mason stated that the inspections are not about vanity; the inspections are for basic
health and safety issues.
Acting Chair Mason asked if landlords are going to increase rent for tenants and accelerate the coo
of licensing and repairs.
City Planner Brixius stated that the testimony of landlords from tonight's public hearing was that
the inspections were going to mandate improvements and that the improvements are going to
expand the cost per unit and that cost would be passed on to the renter. However, he added that in
reality if those health and safety improvements aren't made then the building condition will
continue to deteriorate. He stated that the City can only control the cost of inspection, not the cost
of repairs.
Commissioner Homan asked if the proposed ordinances are trying to solve problems that don't
exist.
City Planner Brixius responded that perhaps some of the testimony tonight may not be
representative of the actual building conditions of rental properties in the City; there are clearly very
rundown and potentially unsafe properties in the City.
City Administrator Tolsma stated that another aspect of the proposed ordinances is that, while the
City can rely on complaints, isn't it part of the City's responsibility to know that the housing stock is
safe? Just because the City doesn't receive a complaint from a person that is happy living in their
current situation does not necessarily mean that their housing unit is habitable. Does the City wab
to have minimum safety standards throughout the City?
Commissioner Homan stated the proposed ordinances are setting a standard for the city. He then
questioned if it is someone's right to put their own safety into question and live in a garage or in
unsafe conditions if they so choose.
City Clerk Schyma responded that City staff sometimes need to consider worst case scenarios and
in regards to this ordinance that is when children are living in unsafe conditions. An adult may have
a choice to live in unsafe conditions but does a child have that same choice. She added that the
proposed rental ordinances are policy decisions that the Planning Commission and City Council
need to consider but there are children living in some of the properties that appear very rundown
and unsafe.
Council Member Kane Palen stated that sometimes life can get busy and you don't notice things
that aren't basic safety measures when moving into a new rental property. She added that protecting
the safety of children in the City is important.
City Planner Brixius reminded the Planning Commission that at some point a decision will need to
be made.
Mr. Clemons added that the Commission is really considering the first shot at this ordinance; ther�
is nothing saying that it cannot be amended at a later date to deal with situations as they arise.
M/Mason, S/Kaczanowski to table the discussion regarding short-term and long-term rental
licensing to the October 9, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 4-0.
• 7. COMMUNICATIONS
City Administrator Tolsma provided an update on the plaques at the City's two parks.
The Planning commission requested an update on forfeited properties at a future meeting.
8. MISCELLANEOUS —None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
M/Avalos, S/Homan to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:36 p.m.
Motion carried 4-0.
Date Approved: May 13, 2020
Dan Tolsma, City Administrator Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
•
5b
CITY OF SPRING PARK
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2019 — 6:00 PM
SPRING PARK SPRING PARK CITY HALL
On Lake JKinnetonka
1. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order by Chair Hoffman at 6:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Hoffman led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance
3. ROLL CALL
Planning Commissioners Jeff Hoffman, Chair; Michael Mason; Max Avalos; Pete Kaczanowski; and
Present: Bruce Homan
Staff Present: Dan Tolsma, City Administrator; Al Brixius, City Planner; Scott Qualle,
Building Official; and David Anderson, Assistant City Attorney.
4. ADOPT AGENDA
M/Mason, S/Homan to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 11, 2019
Commissioner Mason stated that he believes the minutes should be edited to reflect the comments
made by Josh Clemmons at the meeting; he recommended not approving the minutes until they are
edited.
M/Mason, S/Avalos to not approve the minutes until further edits are made.
Motion carried 5-0.
6. CONSIDERATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. 4636 Shoreline Drive (Rembrandt Landscapes) Conditional Use Permit Application
i. Staff Presentation
. City Planner Brixius provided a summary of the application for a conditional use permit at 4636
Shoreline Drive. He discussed the history of the site and proposed conditions for approval.
Matt Kallas, owner of Rembrandt Landscapes, was available for questions.
Commissioner Homan asked about the lease process with Hennepin County for use of their
property. 0
City Planner Brixius responded that the current owner does not have a lease but it is not an unusual
practice for Hennepin County to grant this type of lease.
The Planning Commission discussed drainage/stormwater management, outdoor storage, traffic
visibility, landscaping, and snow removal.
ii. Public Hearing
M/Hoffman, S/Mason to open public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0.
Ken Olson, 4580 West Arm Road, stated he has noise concerns since there were similar issues with
another business on Shoreline Drive until they put up a noise abatement wall. He asked about noise
mitigation and proposed hours of operation.
Mr. Kallas responded that the typical hours of operation in the summer would be 7 a.m. — 6 p.m.
He added that noise goes along with the landscaping and snow removal industry, but their company
uses smaller equipment which should help control noise. He further stated that snow removal is a
different story because winter weather is unpredictable but noted that his plow trucks do not hav
audible reverse signals. He discussed the elevation of the property and that there are several tr*
lines that separate the residential properties from their site which will act as a sufficient noise buffer.
Chair Hoffman asked Mr. Kallas if he has reviewed the list of proposed conditions.
Mr. Kallas responded that he has reviewed the list of conditions and is agreeable.
M/Homan, S/Mason to close the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0.
iii. Discussion
Chair Hoffman discussed the City's current noise ordinance since there are residential properties
nearby this proposed business. He asked Mr. Olson what his thoughts were on the owner's
response to his questions regarding noise concerns.
Mr. Olson responded that he was happy with the owner's response and that their vehicles are not
large enough to require audible reverse signals.
iv. Recommendation
M/Avalos, S/Kaczanowski to recommend to the City Council to approve Land Use Application
No. 19-01 CUP, for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor sales displays and outdoor storage
for Rembrandt Landscapes at 4636 Shoreline Drive with the Proposed list of conditions.
Motion carried 5-0.
b. Short& Long Term Rental Licensing Discussion & Recommendation
i. Staff Presentation
City Planner Brixius provided a summary of the proposed short-term and long-term rental
ordinances that have been in process since 2018. He discussed the history of the proposed
ordinances including the edits that have been made to the proposed ordinances throughout the
process. He further addressed questions and concerns that have been raised by current renters and
landlords.
ii. Discussion
Commissioner Homan asked about restrictions by homeowner associations regarding short-term
rentals.
City Planner Brixius responded that many times homeowner associations do have restrictions on
rentals so even if the City Code allowed short-term rentals a homeowner association could restrict
that use; any disputes of that nature would be a civil matter between property owners and not a
matter for City staff.
Commissioner Homan asked about how complaints would be documented.
City Administrator Tolsma responded that the licensing process would provide staff with a way to
track legitimate complaints and their resolutions.
City Planner Brixius discussed the complaint process, inspections, licensing tiers, and fees.
Chair Hoffman discussed whether homeowners wishing to sell their properties need to disclose
information regarding short-term rentals in their immediate area.
Assistant City Attorney Anderson responded that it is an objective standard and it is based on what
an ordinary buyer would think, that is how disclosures are determined. This scenario would come
into play with a lawsuit after a home sale and based on if the buyer could prove that having a short-
term rental in the area is a detriment and that it was an issue previously known to the seller.
Commissioner Avalos asked about the differences are between the proposed City's licensing and
enforcement process versus the County's escrow system for tenant complaints.
City Planner Brixius discussed the complaint process for the proposed City's licensing process
including inspections, repair notices, re-inspections, citations, and ultimately revoking a rental
license with the City. The County does not have the ability to revoke a license since the County
does not license rental properties.
• City Administrator Tolsma stated that the impetus for landlords to make repairs with the County's
escrow system is that they are not getting paid until the repairs are made since all rent money is held
in an escrow.
Rick Gorra, 8201 Stone Creek Drive, Chanhassen, and owner/landlord of Park Island Apartments,
stated that many times tenants think that complaining to the County means that they can stop
paying rent. Once the tenant realizes that they still must have the funds to put into an escro
account, any illegitimate complaints usually end. Sometimes tenants use the complaint system a*
stall tactic because they did not have money to pay their rent. The escrow method is a good check
and balance system to ensure that complaints are legitimate.
iii. Recommendation
M/Homan, S/Avalos to recommend to the City Council to approve draft ordinance language as
presented, amending the Spring Park City Code to allow and regulate short-term rental properties in
the Ci .
Chair Hoffman stated that currently there is not an ordinance that effectively addresses short-term
rental properties in the City so this ordinance gives the residents of Spring Park a vehicle to control
these types of uses.
Chair Hoffman requested a roll call vote.
Motion carried 4-1. (Avalos, Hoffman, Homan, Kaczanowski— ayes, Mason—nay)
M/Homan, S/Mason to recommend to the City Council to approve draft ordinance language as
presented, amending the Spring Park City Code to regulate and license long-term rental properties
in the City.
T
Chair Hoffman questioned whether the long-term ordinance could be split to differentiate between
multi-family and single-family rentals.
Assistant City Attorney Anderson responded that he has never seen an ordinance split that way
before because the City would be making a decision to treat landlords differently based on the type
of building they own. The City would have to provide legitimate reasoning from a public policy
standpoint to justify that type of split.
Chair Hoffinan responded that most multi-family buildings are inspected annually by their
insurance agencies.
Assistant City Attorney Anderson responded that insurance inspections are not as detailed as the
type of proactive inspection program being proposed, especially in regards to public safety. Another
thing to factor with an insurance inspection is that the motivation behind the inspections is
different because it is about liability and claims, not public safety. Furthermore, the bulk of the
inspections are in the common areas of the buildings.
Building Official Qualle added that inspections conducted by insurance companies are about issues
relating to potential property loss.
Mr. Gorra stated that some random units are inspected with annual insurance company inspection
but not every unit.
Commissioner Avalos stated he does not see the benefit of a long-term ordinance because he
doesn't believe there is evidence to support that there is currently a problem. He also added that it
would create additional work for a very small office.
Motion carried 4-1. (Mason, Hoffman, Homan, Kaczanowski— ayes,Avalos —nay)
Y)
Chair Hoffman asked for clarification on the short-term rental vote and whether or not there was a
conflict of interest with one of the commissioners.
City Attorney Anderson responded that the issue had been addressed previously and that ultimately
the Planning Commission is simply making a recommendation and does not have the power to
adopt the ordinance.
7. COMMUNICATIONS —None.
8. MISCELLANEOUS
City Administrator Tolsma provided an update on tax-forfeited properties in the City. He stated
that City Attorney Tietjen is doing some research regarding all tax-forfeited properties in the City.
He added that two of the properties in question abut properties that currently have violations of
the City's outdoor storage ordinance. The properties in violation are going to be addressed at the
next City Council meeting on November 4 and the tax-forfeited properties that abut those
properties will also be part of the discussion. The City Council will be making a decision as to how
to move forward.
•
Commissioner Kaczanowski asked if the two property owners have any interest in taking over that
tax-forfeited land.
City Administrator Tolsma responded that he has discussed the issue with both property owners
because they are currently using that tax-forfeited land without permission and some of their
violations are located on the tax-forfeited land. The issue is complicated on both properties. He
added that the owners have raised the issue of tax burden if they were to take over the land even if
it was sold to them for one dollar. The two tax-forfeited properties, especially the one nearest
Wilkes Park, can have a public benefit.
9. ADJOURNMENT
M/Mason, S/Hoffman to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 8.00 p m
Motion carried 5-0.
Date Approved: May 13, 2020
•
Dan Tolsma, City Administrator Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
V�
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS" INC.
. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Dan Tolsma
FROM: Alan Brixius / Ryan Grittman
DATE: April 23, 2020
RE: City of Spring Park— 2463 Black Lake Road — Setback
Variance Request
FILE NO: 175.01 — 20.01
BACKGROUND
Gregg and Carol Steiger have submitted an application for a street side setback
variance for property located at 2463 Black Lake Road. The proposed variance is for
the teardown of an attached single stall garage and the construction of a new two stall
garage and living space (above the garage). The existing garage has a failing
foundation and needs to be replaced.
The site is zoned R-1 Single and Two Family Residential. Under the R-1 zoning district,
a single-family home and an accessory garage are both allowed uses. The site is
currently occupied by the existing home and an attached non-conforming garage. The
site is 9,134 square feet, or 0.21 acres in size. The site is adjacent to R-1 zoning to the
north, east, and south, and Black Lake to the west.
The project requires the following:
• A building and site plan review and approval.
• A variance to allow a street side setback encroachment for the construction of a
new garage.
• Storm water management techniques as the impervious surface exceeds 30%.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Applicant Narrative
Exhibit B: Site and Building Plans
Exhibit C: Engineer Comments
ISSUES ANALYSIS •
Zoning. The subject site is zoned R-1 Single and Two Family Residential. Within the
R-1 district, garages are an allowed accessory use. While the garage is a permitted
accessory use, it is allowed if it meets the zoning ordinance requirements and does not
present an obstacle to public improvements or create a public safety concern.
The current garage exists as a non-conforming building in that it fails to meet the
required street side and side yard setbacks. Section 42-62(g) of the Spring Park zoning
code allow lawful non-conforming building to be expanded to improve livability and/or
utility of the structure; provide the structure is not expanded into the required setbacks.
The proposed expansion encroaches into the street side setback requiring the
consideration of a variance.
Lot Area and Width. The subject site is 9,134 square feet in area; and has a lot width
of approximately 80 feet at the setback line. While the lot width is compliant, the lot
area does not meet the 10,000 square foot minimum for the R-1 district. As such, this is
a legal non-conforming lot.
Existing Adjacent Uses. Black Lake Road is a very narrow local street ranging from
12 to 17 feet in width. Properties on both sides of the street have similar single-family
homes and accessory uses similar to the applicant's property. Many of the existing
homes along Black Lake Road exist as non-conforming buildings due to noncompliant
setbacks. These conditions and the narrowness of the street present issue for safe
traffic movement, access to city utilities and resident parking.
The Spring Park Capital Improvement plan anticipates reconstructing Black Lake Road
to a minimum width of 20 feet. The 20 foot width is the minimum standard for fire lane
access. This street improvement will impacted by the development on both sides of the
street.
Setbacks. The following table illustrates the need for a variance request for the garage
addition.
Required Proposed / Existing Compliant
Street side (east) 30 feet 5' 1/2" No*
Side Yard (north) 10 feet � 1' '/2" No'
Side Yard (south) 10 feet 46' Yes
Lake side (west) 50 feet (OHWM) 50' Yes
'Condition for which a variance has been requested
+Existing condition, no changes proposed
It should be noted that the existing garage is a legal non-conforming structure in that it
fails to meet the required street side and side yard setbacks. The existing garage takes
direct access via the street. With only a five foot setback from the street, the driver's
visibility of on-coming traffic is obstructed until most of the automobile is out of the
2
• garage. The proposed expanded garage is designed to have two garage doors toward
the street. With the narrowness of the street the proposed garage design presents
concerns for visibility of automobiles and pedestrians on the street. The public street
width lacks adequate maneuvering space for safe and efficient access and egress to
the garage.
Utilities. This site has an existing storm sewer running through the property on the
south side of the house. The applicants have noted this easement prevents them from
locating a garage in this area of the lot. Their narrative indicates that it is cost
prohibitive to relocate the storm sewer and easement to free this area for construction of
a new garage. The City Engineer in his review indicates that it is possible to relocate
this storm sewer.
Municipal utilities serving the Black Lake Road neighborhood are located under the
street. The water main is on the west side of the street and is very close to the existing
garage / garage expansion. Both the sanitary sewer and municipal water are located
approximately eight feet below the street and are 50 + years old. Spring Park's Capital
Improvement Plan has scheduled the replacement of utilities and reconstruction of
Black Lake Road for 2024. The city will need to trench to access the utilities for
replacement or repair. The new garage expansion will interfere with access to the
utilities for replacement or future repair. The proposed garage location will interfere with
the City's Capital Improvement project for Black Lake Road. Staff also has concerns
over the potential for damage to the garage due to its proximity to the street during
street and utility improvements.
Snow Storage. The proposed garage is to be only five feet from Black Lake Road. The
garage location presents issues for city snow plowing and the storage of snow. The
existing and future garage setback presents a potential for property damage from snow
plows or snow wash.
Parking / Street Access. The site has a large parking pad on the east (front) side of
the home. The site can accommodate three or four vehicles. This area does not
contain access to the existing or proposed garage stalls other than a person door.
Grading and Drainage Plan. As part of the review process, the City Engineer will
review the site plan for grading and drainage. Within the R-1 district, the total
impervious surface is limited to 30% of the lot. The total lot area is 9,134 square feet
(0.21 acres). The garage expansion will take place over a surface that's already paved
with bituminous material; as a result, the impervious surface will not increase as a result
of this project. The site has approximately 3,495 square feet of hard surface including
the home, garage, and parking pad area. This results in a hard surface area of
approximately 38%. Section 42-279 (4) b. of the zoning ordinance allows construction
projects to increase their hard surfacing up to 40% through the plan review process.
Engineer Comments. The City Engineer has reviewed the site and building plans and
has provided comments in an exhibit attached to this report. The Engineer is
recommending denial on the following concerns-
3
•
• Black Lake Road has an existing water main that's located on the west side of
the road, very close to the garage. This would make water main access and
repair very difficult.
• The garage access onto Black Lake Road does not allow for a safe turn radius
and poses a safety hazard to pedestrians and vehicle traffic.
• It is possible to relocate the storm sewer to a different location either on the
property or in the area.
• The road is between 12 feet and 17 feet in width. The recommended road width
is 20 feet. If the road were to be improved to this standard in the future, there
would be issues with the location of this garage.
Variance Criteria. The applicants have applied for a variance to allow a street side
setback encroachment for the construction of a new attached garage. The City of
Spring Park zoning ordinance outlines the following criteria when considering a
variance:
(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 is taking place on an area of the property
that will not impact the supply of light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets.
(3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
Staff Comment: As noted by the City Engineer earlier in this report, the
design of the garage does not offer any safety considerations for
pedestrians, oncoming vehicles, or vehicles leaving the garage. Further,
the road width is not up to the standards recommended by fire code for
emergency access. The street is between 12 and 17 feet in width. The
inadequate width of the road will not allow vehicles the proper turning
radius in or out of the garage. In this regard, requirements (2) and (3)
have not been met.
(4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way are contrary to the intent of this chapter.
4
Staff Comment: Whether the City approves or denies this application,
Staff does not believe that property values will be affected as a result of
this project.
(5) Violate the intent and purpose of the city comprehensive plan.
Staff Comment.- The Spring Park Comprehensive Plan states in the
Community Facility Goals that maintaining and improving the City's
infrastructure and utilities is a top priority. The expansion of the garage
with a reduced street side setback will impede the City's Black Lake Road
improvement plans and will complicate the City's snow plowing services.
Further, The Spring Park Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Goals lists
maintaining and improving the City's streets as a top goal as well as
promoting pedestrian and bicycle safety. As noted earlier in this report, the
street width, reduced setback and garage design taking direct access to
Black Lake Road presents a traffic safety concerns.
(b) A variance from the requirements of this chapter shall be permitted only when:
(1) The requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance; and
Staff Comment: The proposed project does not meet the general purpose
and intend of the zoning ordinance. This development is not consistent
with city standards; it will interfere with city improvement projects; it does
not result in a safe site design (traffic visibility); and does not provide for
snow storage. Further, this design may result in property damage as a
result of city provided services, utility construction, snow plowing, etc.
(2) The requested variance is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
Staff Comment.- As noted above, the proposed project and variance are
not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project
will interfere with utility access; poses a potential danger to pedestrians
and vehicles; and will be at odds with the City's future road and utility
project in 2024.
(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: Garages are a permitted accessory use in this district, if
they can meet the required performance standards of the city to insure
that they will safely function on the proposed lot.
(d) A variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance without a variance. As
5
used in connection with the granting of a variance, the term "practical difficulties"
means that:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by the zoning ordinance:
Staff Comment: It is not unreasonable to have appropriate garage and
living space for a single family home. However, the requested variance
must be reasonable with regard to its relationship to surrounding
properties and the public street and utility infrastructure The proposed
location and design of the garage will impact the City's ability to improve
the Black Lake Road Street and utilities and will interfere with City's ability
to provide services (snow plowing).
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
not created by the landowner.
Staff Comment: The existing storm sewer and easement running through
the lot south of the house is a practical difficulty unique to the lot that
prevents construction elsewhere on the lot. This feature alone does not
warrant a variance. Per the City Engineer's comments there are
opportunities to relocate the storm sewer which may open up lot area to
construct a garage in a better location than what is being requested.
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
Staff Comment: Other properties have garages with similar conditions
and setbacks, these sites are non-conforming conditions similar to the
applicants'. In this regard, any changes in the size and configurations of
these garages will also require a variance which will be evaluated on their
merits in the same process being applied to this variance.
The existing development patterns on both sides of Black Lake Road
contribute to issues of traffic safety, utility access, residential parking,
snow storage, etc. The proliferation of these non-conforming conditions
through variances must consider their impacts on the public street and city
infrastructure to insure safe and effective public functions.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Staff Comment: The applicants have noted that a garage could fit on the
south side of their property, however, it would require a storm sewer and
it's easement to be relocated. They have noted that the relocation of this
utility and easement would make their project cost prohibitive. For this
reason, the applicants have requested a variance to locate the garage on
the east side of the home. The City Engineer has noted that the relocation
6
of said storm sewer is possible. The city must determine if this financial
consideration alone constitutes a practical difficulty that warrants a
variance over the other criteria findings presented in this report.
(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: Without the building expansion, the existing home
represents reasonable use of the property. In review of the site plan, the
garage could be located on the south side of the home with the relocation
of the existing storm sewer and its easement. The requested variance
must be determined to be reasonable in relation to all the variance criteria
and public safety concerns.
(2) The requested variance is the minimum variance from the zoning
ordinance required to make reasonable use of the property.
Staff Comment: The existing home and garage are legal non-conforming
• structures that are grandfathered as allowable under existing code. The
expansion and amount of setback variance is significant as it relates to the
street and public utilities; in this regard Staff cannot not recommend that
this amount of variance is warranted.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on our review of the plans submitted, dated March 14, 2020; Staff recommends
that the requested variance be denied based on the following findings:
1. Black Lake Road has an existing water main that's located on the west side of
the road, very close to the garage. The variance and expanded garage will
interfere with access and repair of the water main.
2. The garage design which takes direct access onto Black Lake Road does not
allow a motorist sight lines to the street and the street width does not offer the
adequate turning radius with the reduced building setback for safe access and
egress into the garage. The proposed garage design poses safety hazard to
pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicle traffic using Black Lake Road.
3. It appears possible to add a new garage onto the south side of the existing home
by relocating the storm sewer. The applicants have stated that relocation of the
• storm sewer and easement make the project cost prohibitive. Financial
considerations cannot be considered a sole reason for the granting of a variance.
7
4. The road is between 12 feet and 17 feet in width. The recommended road width
is 20 feet. The City's current capital improvement plans have Black Lake Road
and the underground utilities scheduled for repair / replacement in 2024. The
expanded garage and the reduced street setback will interfere with this City
improvement project.
5. If the proposed building expansion cannot be located and designed in a manner
that meets code standards or with an approved variance that does not interfere
with city improvements and/or city operations; and does not present a public
safety concern the requested use may not be approved.
Approval. If the Planning Commission disagrees with the staff recommendation /
findings and feels that practical difficulties exist at this property that warrant the
requested variance. The Planning Commission may consider recommending approval
of the variance with the following conditions:
1. All new exterior finishes shall match in color and material type to the existing
home.
2. The applicants shall submit a storm water management plan that incorporates
one or more of the measures outlined in Section 42-279 (4) b. for lots having
more than 30 % of the lot area in impervious surface. •
3. The applicants submit a snow removal plan that shows how snow will be stored
on the property. This includes snow from the driveway, parking pad, and snow
that has been displaced by the City plow in front of the garage.
4. Direct access onto Black Lake Road is prohibited; the garage must be accessed
from the south side of the garage with all access and egress movements
occurring on private property.
5. The applicants submit an updated site plan and building plan to reflect the
changes made by the Planning Commission. Said plans shall be reviewed by
City Staff for compliance.
6. The property owner shall not hold the city responsible for any damage to the
building that may result from snow plowing, snow storage, street improvements /
repairs, utility improvements / repairs that occur due to the location and design of
the building approved with the requested variance.
Cc: Theresa Schyma
Brian Hare
Mary Tietjen
•
8
•
Variance Request Application
2463 Black Lake Rd
PID: 19-117-23-12-0026
Owners: Gregg and Carol Steiger
Existing Use of Property
Existing one car garage is structurally unsound so it needs to come down. The foundation is
broken and the structure is collapsing.
Nature of Proposed Use
Take the one car garage down and put a 2 car attached garage on the property to house 2
vehicles. Also use for additional storage.
Reasons to Approve Request
We bought this house in December of 2019. We fell in love with the charm and character of
the house along with being on the lake. We also realized it needed updates and general TLC
which we love to do. The one car garage was a definite issue that needed to be addressed.
After speaking with Dan Tolsma,City Administrator,there are 3 garage options to consider:
Option 1: Take down the existing garage and put another one up with the same footprint
• Option 2: Apply for a variance to get permission to put up a 2-car garage(new 30 foot setback
rule)
Option 3: Take down the existing one-car garage and put a 2-car garage on the south side of
the property
Option 3-There is a storm drain running through our property on the south side. After
consulting with a contractor,we are not willing to pay$22,000 to have it moved. It will also
take away green space,we'd have to take down multiple trees and it would take away from the
general character of the house. It would also directly impact our neighbor to the south and also
the neighbor across the street.We will not be pursuing Option 3.
Option 2-By putting the 2 car garage in the front of the house,we won't be taking away any
green space and we will increase the value of the property. It makes sense to use the existing
area for a 2 car garage to maintain the character of the house and it won't have any impact on
our neighbors.We realize having a structure close to the rode is not ideal.We also realize that
not having a 2-car garage for a home owner is not ideal. We want to improve the property for
us,the neighborhood,the city and the future owners of this house.
Option 1—While this is not ideal,if the variance is not approved,we will build a new one-car
garage in the existing space.
We hope that you will consider Option 2 and approve our variance.Thank you!
•
Exhibit A
............ ....... ..................................
..................
..............................................................................
r
ao
V.
j
dMil
W.
A;
x
=r
FkwM Deign 3 246S Plack Lake R.I.
$primal Fork. MN 009e4
New Home & Remodeling Design
952 - $28 - 9906
Pr:oriv, MN S�Oi46,
p•u•y0.O.•7 yubla•q•q J.H O
9YG44 NW '•IjI.Jd u•pa N0 co
O
9066 - 8Z9 - Z56
irBrs55 NW '�I"d buljds o u6isep 6ui�epowvb owoH n�en/
a�usp�ss� �sb���s U �_ - O X
W
-------------
I I -
I I
I I I
ii I I I
I I I
J I I I
I I I
I I I
1 I j I
V' I
a O O O
13
3 N a
Z c
7 i u
c �
N
C /af
i � R
z �' � •
o O
v
V y
t
Q � L L
c
x
L
O
O
- � a
,
C
5� J
Q
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................J
................................................................
. ....................................................................
-------------....................................................... .........................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
to
fxlotlnq Structure Now Construction A
C,
IL
V\ IN tA
e s i J e n c e
lip Pomus Room Homeowner
NrW COWRUGfION WAILS
'0
CO 0
0,
0�
z a
OD
C4
Date;
201-101, --- -14 -2020
5CAM
i/41,
Second Floor - bonus Doom
SCALr. 1/4"
of 5L.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Exhibit B
m
�ruy rsaro�0ubirrQrp��H � •A
` 91,G45 NW 'riairud urp� N O
e 9066 — BS9 — Z96 -
�; u6isep 6uilepoweb V Qw0H MOO X
*124444 NW 'lJwA rrIJds o "� <1 4' �
V =""V W
/il •�I�1 �I��IY 49YZ E 8� e; �� p
- c
0
4
> u
rl O
r F
3
� z
b
L
..O-,OL
M I
FE-11
fill
M
I I I
I I �
3
O
-- u
N
ut
.................................................................... ..................................................................
y 1.-0-11.H O M•�91,445 NW '•uir"d u•pa
9066 - 8S9 - Z56 a
s u619ep 6ui10powQd 8 GUJOH MON
i,B466 NW "IJ-J builds a �p�
Ira •*Iw1 Avoid 49irt e V NoV 8 a N" p
W
FED]
v
o
® \
N
LM
'..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
i...................................................................
....................................................................
9YZZ5 NW 'ilnrAd u-ra N O co
n o 9066 - BZ8 - Z96
irBfs55 NW '°I�OJ bul-Idt� o u61600 6ullopoweH 8 ewo�� neaN N
'PZI ���'1 �I�rlil G9�►t E U W 84JBH o t ,
>o�usp�so� �rb�s�s �= a vN a► x
W
::O-.ZZ
O-Al :.O-.0 c-,r
0
—
�� I I
I I r I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I , I
I I I
I I D ! I
Y J
Y
3 O ' Y O O
< —
C Y Y O Q N
V V:
� Y
N Vo V Z o
1 C
a o ,
x: L
39
a � a
c
a ri R
z u
IAI
o �
o � z
v
o
111
at t V
ol
a
_ M ,
L
O
O
� a
I
C6
•
: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
:................................................................... ....................................................................
ca
0,11 ,t-.4, uj
------------
jw
im J L
< be
<
LZ
Im k3
..................
SL
® v
4b
IQ
O
O
•
...........................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................ ....................................................................
R an Grittman
From: Alan Brixius
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:47 AM
To: Ryan Grittman
Subject: FW: 2463 Black Lake Road Variance Request
Attachments: Water Improvements Project 63-1.pdf
From: Brian Hare, PE [mailto:BHare@sambatek.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 10:51 AM
To: Alan Brixius
Cc: DTolsma@ci.spring-park.mn.us; Theresa Schyma
Subject: RE: 2463 Black Lake Road Variance Request
I did a quick review of existing utilities and record plans for BLR. The CIP water main appears to be located on the west
of the sanitary sewer. The age of this WM is 56 years. After the 50 year mark, per the Asset Management Plan,you
typically start to see failures in CIP WM. CIP has typically an expected life of 50 years. The risk failure is lower from 50-
60 years, but is shown to increase somewhat linearly as it ages. This area,from what records show,has only had 1 break
in the past 27 years. WM is typically offset from San by 10'. This puts the WM near the front face of the garage. In the
event of a WM break in front of the garage,it would be very difficult to repair the WM in an emergency situation
without significant effect on the garage. The garage proximity to the edge of road allows for 0 turn radius and no
reaction time to pedestrians or oncoming vehicular traffic. The storm sewer can be relocated if the garage is moved to
.the south. It is a 12" pipe that runs from edge of the road through the property and daylights on the hill side. Without a
recent survey of BLR, I would need to be on site during a rain event to observe existing conditions in that area. The likely
relocation spot for the storm sewer would be to put it on the north property of 2463 BLR if grade allows. If the garage is
to be relocated,this is a viable option. The street width,as my records show,varies from 12'-17'. NFPA/IFC requires 20'
minimum width for any Fire Apparatus Access Road. If the garage is to remain, it would force any road widening to the
east.
I would recommend you deny the variance based on the above information. Please let me know if you have any other
questions. Thanks!
Brian Hare, PE
Senior Project Manager
Direct 763.398.0888
Email BHare(a)sambatek.com
acsambcatelk
Engineering I Surveying I Planning I Environmental
Trusted advisors since 1966.
09113 1 Watch our video and see why we're unique!
CONS ,,TIALITY NOTICE, This e-mail and the documents accompanying this e-mail contain confidential
information. The information is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s)named above If you are not the
intended recipient,please notify us immediately by phone and delete it from your system
•
1 Exhibit C
. From: m.kinter@mchsi.com <m.kinter@mchsi.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 5:08 PM
To: Dan Tolsma <dtolsma@ci.spring-park.mn.us>
Subject:Variance request for 2463 Black Lake Road
Mark and Kris Kinter
2468 Black Lake Road
Spring Park, MN 55384
952-334-7882
m.kinter@mchsi.com
City Manager
City of Spring Park
4349 Warren Ave.
Spring Park, MN 55384
Dear Dan Tolsma:
Concerning the application for a street side variance for a garage at 2463 Black Lake Road.
We've reviewed the plans that were submitted to the city and discussed them with the property
owner, Gregg Steiger.
We feel it will enhance the appearance and functionality of the house. Parking is always a concern
on Black Lake Road but since no parking spaces will be lost this shouldn't be a problem.
We have no objection to the variance for the plans as submitted.
Sincerely,
Mark & Kris Kinter
•