The URL can be used to link to this page

09-20-16 Planning Comm Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson, and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Siakel Absent: Commissioner Riedel APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda for August 2, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 19, 2016 Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK Applicant: Rachel and Derek Dahlen Location: 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She explained the Planning Commission is composed of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a six-foot fence in a front setback for Rachel and Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive. Director Nielsen explained Rachel and Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, have requested a C.U.P. to construct a six-foot high, alternating board on board (shadowbox) fence across part of the front of their property. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contains 22,739 square feet of area. Although their home orients to Shorewood Oaks Drive, the front of the lot is technically State Highway 7 (for corner lots, the narrowest frontage on the street is the front). Highway 7 is an arterial street. The proposed fence would be located across the Highway 7 portion of the applicants’ property. It would be approximately 120 feet long and located 12 to 15 feet back from the right-of-way (ROW) of Highway 7. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Ordinarily a fence located within the front or side yard setback abutting a street is limited to four feet in height. The Zoning Code was amended several years ago for properties abutting arterial streets to allow fences up to six feet high. He displayed a sample illustration of a fence and noted it was different than what the applicant submitted. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted Section 1203 Subd. 2.f. of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting a C.U.P. for allowing fences six feet high in the front setback. He reviewed how the applicants’ fence would comply with the criteria. 1. The fence must be located at least eight feet from the front property line. This is intended to provide space for landscaping. The proposed fence would be approximately 12 – 15 feet back from ROW of Highway 7. 2. Landscaping in this case is provided entirely by existing vegetation. Existing trees and understory brush will be maintained to soften the view of the fence as viewed from the roadway. 3. The location of the fence takes into account traffic visibility. An ample sight triangle exists at the intersection of Shorewood Oaks Drive and Highway 7. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicants’ request for a C.U.P. be approved. The resolution approving the C.U.P. should state that the C.U.P. is valid as long as the landscaping on the south side of the fence is maintained. Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, stated he and his wife want to put up a fence primarily for safety reasons. He confirmed there is a fair amount of brush between where the fence would be located and the road. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for a six- foot-high fence in the front setback for Rachel and Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, subject to the resolution approving the C.U.P. stating that the C.U.P. is valid as long as the landscaping on the south side of the fence is maintained and to there being 3.5 inch spacing between the boards. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its August 22, meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: William and Melanie Keegan Location: 25830 Birch Bluff Road Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider variances for Willian and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Director Nielsen explained William and Melanie Keegan own the property at 25830 Birch Bluff Road. The property is currently occupied by a single-family home with an attached garage and a small shed. The property has 20,995 square feet of area; a standard area for the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district it is located in. The lot is only 60 feet wide making it nonconforming. The Keegans propose to demolish the existing home on the lot and replace it with a new one that complies better with zoning requirements. Their proposal requires three variances: 1) new construction on a substandard lot; 2) a 10-foot variance to the side yard setback requirement; and 3) impervious surface in excess of 25 percent. The current home is nonconforming with respect to side yard setbacks and the amount of impervious surface. The house is only 4.7 feet from the west lot line and 14 feet from the east lot line. The required side yard setback is a total of 30 feet with no one side being less than 10. With respect to impervious surface, the Code allows a maximum hardcover of 25 percent; the property is currently at 34.4 percent. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(3) of the Shorewood Zoning Code prescribes criteria for building on a substandard lot of record (a lot that existed prior to current zoning requirements and does not meet area or width requirements). He reviewed the criteria and how the Keegans’ lot complies. 1. The lot must be in separate ownership from adjoining properties. The Keegans do not own the lots on either side of theirs. 2. The lot must meet at least 70 percent of the width and area requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. This requires a lot to be 70 feet wide and 14,000 square feet of area in the R- 1C zoning district. The subject property is 10 feet short of the 70-foot width requirement. It does, however, comply with the minimum area requirement. 3. The proposed buildings must comply with the setbacks of the zoning district. The existing home is only 4.7 feet from the west property line. The proposed home will be 10 feet from both side lot lines, requiring a variance of 10 feet. Front and lake setbacks comply with the R-1C/S requirements. 4. The floor area of structures cannot exceed 30 percent of the area of the lot. Total hardcover cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot. Floor plans for the proposed home contain 4247 square feet of floor area – 22 percent of the lot area. Proposed total hardcover (impervious surface) is 30 percent, versus the current coverage of 34.4 percent. He then noted Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. The existing home could be enlarged by adding additional space above the existing footprint of the home. This does not improve the property with respect to better conformance with the Zoning Code. He reviewed how the applicants’ request conforms to the criteria for variances: 1. Despite the substandard width of the lot, the applicants have designed the new home to improve the property with respect to side yard setbacks and reduction of hardcover. 2. The applicants’ “practical difficulties” are not economic in nature, nor is it the result of their actions. The lot and the existing home and garage existed prior to current zoning standards. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 4 of 7 3. Granting the variance does not confer any special privilege on the applicant that would be denied to other properties. Similar consideration would be given to any owner who is willing to increase the conformity of a substandard property to the extent proposed by this applicant. 4. The proposed home does not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood. Houses on either side of the applicants’ have similar side yard setbacks. The applicants’ letter suggests that the new home would be placed at essentially the average setback created by the two adjoining properties. That is not reflected in the proposed site plan but it is highly recommended. Moving the new structure back to the average setback line preserves the views of properties on both sides of the subject property and should result in slightly less impervious surface since it shortens the length of the driveway. Earlier in the day the applicant did ask to be able to extend the new home a little bit forward of the average. Currently the average would be 14 feet. The applicant asked that be pulled back to 10 feet instead of the 14 feet. A graphic was distributed showing how the houses on the adjoining properties are situated. The houses on the properties on either side of the applicants are wider than those of the proposed new home. The applicant did provide letters from the owners of the adjoining properties which indicated they agreed with the house as it is shown (without pulling it back a little). The plans for the new home include front and rear porches. As of now there are no plans for a deck or patio. The area saved by moving the structure back could be allowed to be used for such ground level features in the future, provided the total amount of hardcover on the site does not exceed 30 percent. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The proposed house and garage are very much in scale with the size of the existing lot. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the lot width variance, the hardcover variance, and the side yard setback variance. Bill Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, thanked the Planning Commission for allowing him the opportunity to speak. He stated Director Nielsen did a good job of describing the project. He noted they have lived in their home for about four years and they had always intended to either remodel the house or rebuild it. He explained he had reviewed plans with his neighbors. Mr. Keegan offered to entertain questions from the Commissioners. Chair Davis stated it was nice to have someone propose building a normal size house. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. Commissioner Bean stated what is being proposed is not atypical for what was done with platting long before Shorewood became a City. Some interesting lots were created. He thought the applicants have proposed a reasonable approach to building on a lot of that shape. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Chair Davis asked Director Nielsen if he recommended pulling the west front corner of the house back to the average setback. Director Nielsen responded not quite. Mr. Keegan explained his neighbor to the west has his home 20 feet closer to the lake than his house is. The neighbor to the east has his home 15 feet farther back. Two properties to the east of his the house is 20 feet closer to the lake than his. What he had proposed was to build the main part of the new house where the old one is but add a porch on the front of it extending 14 feet closer to the lake. After discussing things with Director Nielsen they agreed on moving it only 10 feet closer to the lake from the existing structure. Commissioner Johnson stated the applicant submitted three letters of support. He asked Mr. Keegan to point out where those individuals lived. Mr. Keegan stated to two letters came from the owners of the two properties to the west of his and the third from the owner of the property to the east. Commissioner Maddy asked if they had supported the plans for the new structure being 14 foot closer to the lake. Mr. Keegan confirmed that. Chair Davis stated if it were her she would not want to move the house at all. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of variance for new construction on a substandard lot, a 10-foot variance to the side yard setback requirement, and an impervious surface variance for William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the applicants submitting a revised site plan which moves the new structure back ten feet from the north end of the house to the west. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its August 22, meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (continued from July 19, 2016) Applicant: John Benjamin Location: 24250 Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated the applicant has asked that this continued hearing again be continued to the Planning Commission’s September meeting and explained that each time it is continued the 60-day clock is stopped. Nielsen suggested the hearing be continued one more time. Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has for a number of years chosen not to meet the day after a Monday holiday. Labor Day this year falls on Monday September 5 and the first Tuesday of the month is September 6. He asked if the Commission wants to meet on September 6 or move its meeting to September 20 which is the third Tuesday of the month. Commissioner Bean stated he could meet either day. Commissioner Johnson stated his schedule toward the later part of September is going to be more hectic because of his responsibilities with the Ryder Cup event. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Bean asked if the date has to be moved to September 20. Director Nielsen stated it could be moved to a different date Davis moved, Maddy seconded, moving the Planning Commission meeting from September 6 to September 20. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen stated he will send the applicant a 120-day notice and inform the applicant that the Planning Commission wants to make a recommendation on this request during its September 20 meeting. Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 P.M., noting the hearing was continued from July 19, 2016 Bean moved, Davis seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a request to rezone the property located at 24250 Smithtown Road from R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to C-1, General Commercial to the Planning Commission’s September 20, 2016, meeting. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS There was some discussion about the property that has been having short-term renters disrupting the neighborhood. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is the continued public hearing from tonight regarding rezoning slated for the September 20, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. There will also be the continuation of the Public Hearing on an amendment to the City Code regarding short-term rental. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Siakel stated she had not attended the July 25, 2016, Council meeting and therefore cannot report on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s July 25, 2016, meeting (those items are detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Siakel then stated filing for office is open from August 6 through August 22. She noted the terms for Councilmembers Sundberg and Woodruff and Mayor Zerby are up at the end of 2016. This is the first time the mayor will be for a four-year term. Siakel explained the City did advertise for the city administrator position. The time for taking applications has closed. The Personnel Committee reviewed the resumes received and selected a few candidates that appear to be a good fit for the City to interview. Director Nielsen stated there was a lengthy discussion about the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension during Council’s July 25 meeting and how long it is taking to get the sidewalk completed (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 7 of 7 There was ensuring discussion about burying power lines with projects. • SLUC • Other 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 2, 2016, at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 September 2016 RE: Oys, Patricia – Special Home Occupation CUP FILE NO.: 405(16.20) BACKGROUND Ms. Patricia Oys owns the property at 5825 Brentridge Drive (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached). She has applied for a special home occupation permit pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 12 of the Shorewood Zoning Code, to give exercise (Pilates) classes in her home. A special home occupation permit requires approval of a conditional use permit (CUP), a public hearing for which is scheduled for next Tuesday. The subject property is located in the R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district. As stated in her letter (Exhibit B), dated 15 July 2106, she typically teaches one on one to her students. Occasionally, however, she may have two students at once. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION This request is quite simple. Ms. Oys business would otherwise qualify as a limited home occupation, for which no permit is required. She wants to address the potential for having more than one student at a time by obtaining a CUP. Approval of the CUP is recommended with the specific condition that any client parking be limited to the existing driveway and that cars must be parked no closer than 25 feet from the edge of the street. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Patricia Oys I ^ ti i i fAn la4ar-6, Q-1 M144 -h-: AZ) Exhibit B Planning Commission City of Shorewood 5755 County Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Patricia Oys Request of a Conditional Permit SLP '19 ?0iri September 19, 0T :._ °F.!OfvvUOu I am opposed to the request for a conditional permit for a Special Home Occupation permit for the following reasons: First, there is no limitation on the number of clients which would be allowed. It simply states "to more than one client per session in her home" Second, I don't know of any other permits like this in this neighborhood and granting the request would be setting a precedence which would be difficult to overcome when the next request comes in. Robert Thiner 5855 Brentridge Dr Shorewood. MN 55331 r FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 18 September 2016 RE: Magney; Mark - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (16.21) BACKGROUND Mr. Mark Magney has applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory, space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 21195 Radisson Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). Mr. Magney has recently remodeled the existing home and added a new attached garage (see Exhibit B — Sheet 1). The new garage, in addition to an existing detached garage and an existing shed, bring the total amount of accessory space to over 1200 square feet of floor area. The property is zoned R -1A/S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland and contains 40,259 square feet in area. The new garage contains 467 square feet. Combined with the utility shed and the existing garage, the amount of accessory space on the site will total 1258 square feet. The proposed garage will be 30 feet from the side (east) lot line and approximately 125 feet from the northerly front lot line. Plans for the new garage are illustrated on Exhibits D and E, attached. The existing home contains 1961 square feet of floor area above grade. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicant's plans comply with the Code: a. The total area of accessory buildings (1258 square feet) does not exceed the proposed floor area (1961 square feet) above grade of the existing home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R -lA/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). Memorandum Re: Magney C.U.P. 18 September 2016 c. The proposed garage complies with R -lA /S setback requirements. The total area of impervious surface on the property will be only 21.4 percent.. Since the new structure is tucked into some rather large trees and screened by the existing garage, no additional landscaping is considered necessary. d. The architectural character of the new building is the same as the existing house. Siding and roofing of all the accessory structures is compatible with the house (see photo — Exhibit F, attached. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recoininended that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject only to the standard warning that such structures are for residential use only, and that any type of home occupation conducted within an accessory building must obtain a separate permit. cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Mark Magney 2 ra, o C:) LL a� o J z� o -� 4-, Lo s U N , HCL o � cn a p ale] WIS u m Q cn J LU U pa i U O S I I Q Exhibit A mot- SITE LOCATION ff� c // cr. S U W n� j 0 Q &� QCk , AKE �D o� T,oN 0 w x U 0 m ui N is !i s� F QO N r n � Alf ui !i N RS s�eo ' No 2�s ui !i N C) v 0 inE � X o C W ^y � 0 ; F ~j v E�Ss �n M �� `^ 6 n :2 mc� o y R F / you$ Qi l w w E z (D c a 0 0 hF Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY °NQ �O�o °u X81 / 1fIOd5tN' OlJ1V,131ll19 h131J hbE / ZE A dm i - -- iz of I u< .'S', 1— i*- OzO'O ON 1 1 c .7.t o1 NZ i I OFN � I z 00 _ ..,• i J 7ZE 4 T N i U C O 4 J 1 O C 1 N C) O / 1 ............... .'�' r I z ' s 1 Q 0 O= I � 1 N p \ ,i Z W W LL- LL W W IL W W IL W W U-- LL- to m U� cn n to n to n to IL- Q �6) 0nLn0 I TC)00no zW W�� to z � 'T G-) NON �O- -m�9 0 C) w U LU p�m 0 NC�r m -O (j f - - -- _a QO N N �zZZZ In FD - r)OOtn u< Z w m - u� O �� - °`rte W N - + N Q (n LL Q Z6) �LLLL LLLL ILWIL a-LILLL w U p = tnN -NOO° I noon �� ztntncntn LL g Q xO �NN(�� cQNN6� I �(�O OF'��p !,,W)I P O O V' I \ — n C 9 - W � — — - - ' \ W ( n m ro =zzzz W �Q z z >- o O Q Om CO d" N = Q Q Z d- [D U Q z� H — i �� w O Q U J W W to Z Q Q Q 0 a LL- LL > cz > 1 Q o o uo W� 0 �z z o g Q� z z° mm o °� o w Zo o J � W � W m m Q Q W 0 Oz W/LLl >�Q QQQw O W O z � Q In �W �� O� UU�I— 0) U= wQ Q o w W ��z�z > >��000z�W w �QO w a- o� �� 0 0 °00°cz o�wQ ° =zOO'� v �'�z v W :5 °o � Q�z =WOtnWotnwcngW�g QQ(n Q L zz z �Q � m E N o W � J � � V1 E rn U o E w xv E m � EU99, rn� o w n mF R �z W 0 T � 0 W p U- w N Z C w O W 0 = O W Q C) 0 Z z 0 of W m ° Z Z Lu w LLJ Zu O LL, C) T Exhibit C SITE PLAN 0 o 3 � iii �P a ni V> U 2 Q e� U z O O Q � II a 0 °p mx N N oD0 O U Q�iwO on �i �NU OXO - m • NzQ z O O Q � II a 0 — ] U N B-9 °p mx N N oD0 O U Q�iwO a w O eiw0? U za Off" oOC Q G K U� ONN� p " ,n N � -p K 3S p K p 2zr-¢ p O =' N O z u u N o ti oz p d d '� =�F NuNUNi K w 3� o n ,n �J m u � o Nv — ] U N B-9 ro 7� mP Qu N 3 o °ok �ut-i UQ �K N S Np p � ON 3 N U U � O lu KO � nO n O U 1 N p � w N O z � � 8 ] U ] u 0= � O Q - � II w _W H Q 00 Q °cccc v m�mm° 0 E fl E� =�Y R W O T � N O W E Z� 6 C O Q LU W� Zv 1^), w V �( T E E Exhibit D NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS ax w mx N v zU ro 7� mP Qu N 3 o °ok �ut-i UQ �K N S Np p � ON 3 N U U � O lu KO � nO n O U 1 N p � w N O z � � 8 ] U ] u 0= � O Q - � II w _W H Q 00 Q °cccc v m�mm° 0 E fl E� =�Y R W O T � N O W E Z� 6 C O Q LU W� Zv 1^), w V �( T E E Exhibit D NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS d� x o 0 LLL O F O V S O V O m � _ O NC o c o oz w °o o 3 o o Qo�o N N s W a g o w o dd O C SQ U a 0 Om C F m N° NQ �N dU,PN 6 d d� x o 0 LLL O F O V S O V O m � _ O NC o c o oz w °o o z O b a w u W -1D � W W C N L a .n k m U ui G a Q Fo Z� �? NQ 2,Q �2 3 > O ¢Ogg O EN po QK N S ,OU 0 0 ° L F q 3 O � U OzmN ry _ g N � N O z o o i- w � U U w in T J e �T d Q CC�mC —o 0 E H of 0 .ae oNh W O \� N /_ 0 O LLJ E 7 C 6 C O 5 Q LU W (�\ Z 1^ /\ UJ V � T 0 E A Exhibit E EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS o o N / F- ° OFD dd O C SQ U a 0 Om C F m 6 o - 3 x - z O b a w u W -1D � W W C N L a .n k m U ui G a Q Fo Z� �? NQ 2,Q �2 3 > O ¢Ogg O EN po QK N S ,OU 0 0 ° L F q 3 O � U OzmN ry _ g N � N O z o o i- w � U U w in T J e �T d Q CC�mC —o 0 E H of 0 .ae oNh W O \� N /_ 0 O LLJ E 7 C 6 C O 5 Q LU W (�\ Z 1^ /\ UJ V � T 0 E A Exhibit E EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS ��i"�•3.. � �,cM. �iiJ 1. `TV' F It OL: x x m O� ; �.~.•`Ri1�1' `TV' F It OL: CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 16 September 2016 RE: Short-Term Rentals – Findings and Draft Code Amendment FILE NO.: 405 (Rental Hsg – Short-Term) BACKGROUND For the past few months we have been working to develop amendments to Shorewood’s City Code that would deal more clearly and more efficiently with the issue of short-term rental of homes in Shorewood. As you are aware the short-term rental industry has greatly expanded over the past few years and we have had cases where it would have been helpful to have regulations specifically focused on the issue. Currently, Shorewood’s Rental Housing Code does not specify any time limits during which homes in residential areas can be rented. Increasingly, complaints have arisen regarding traffic, over-crowding, parking, and noise. These issues are not exclusive to Shorewood as you will find as you go through the attached background material: Exhibit A This is the current Rental Housing Code chapter with proposed deletions shown in strikeouts and additions shown in red. Exhibit B City Regulation of Short-Term Rentals by Owners, a brief report on the issue from the League of Minnesota Cities. Exhibit C Assorted emails from residents who have experienced problems with short-term rental properties in Shorewood. Exhibit D Vacation Home Rental Study by Crow Wing County Land Services. Exhibit E Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations by Explore Minnesota Tourism Memorandum Re: Short-Term Rentals 16 September 2016 This material is by no means exhaustive. There are volumes of information on the subject available on the internet. What we have attempted to do is glean a set of findings that will support the adoption of the proposed amendments in Exhibit A. PROPOSED FINDINGS  The potential exists for short-term rentals to become a significant business operation in Minnesota.  Many short-term rental properties may fall under the jurisdiction of state law (those that qualify as hotels, motels, or lodging establishments). The level of state licensing compliance may inevitably be low due to: - The amount of manpower required for monitoring and enforcement. - The fact that new short-term rentals constantly enter the market. - Those offering accommodations not in compliance may be notified and then take steps to avoid further detection from licensing authorities. - These same issues apply to cities trying to regulate short-term rentals  Rental of private homes for temporary occupancy is contrary to the essential character and stability of residential neighborhoods because short-term tenants have little interest in the welfare of the local community, do not engage in activities that strengthen residential neighborhoods, and do not integrate into residential neighborhoods.  Rental of homes for temporary occupancy disturbs residential neighborhoods by creating excessive noise, accumulation of refuse, trespassing, disorderly conduct, vandalism, high occupant turnover, excessive traffic, and excessive numbers of parked motor vehicles.  Regulating rental of private homes for temporary occupancy is necessary to protect the essential character of residential neighborhoods and the health, safety and general welfare of the community.  Rental of residential homes for temporary occupancy is often undertaken without adequate on-site management, compliance with state and local codes for commercial lodging establishments, and other safeguards for those renting the home.  Operating a commercial business venture in close proximity to neighboring residences can lead to conflict and undermines the fundamental principles of zoning.  Short-term rentals render a significant number of housing units unavailable for long-term residents and raise the cost of housing.  Short-term rentals have the potential to diminish property values. Shorewood’s Rental Housing Code was originally adopted, in part, to provide safe and healthy places for people to live, not places for people to stay. The amendments included in Exhibit A are intended to reflect that original purpose. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Patti Helgesen Joe Pazandak -2- 7/,, ?J16 City Regulation of Short -Term Vacation Rentals by Owners Organizations like Airbnb (Link to: https:llwww.airbnb.coaaal? of =43720035 &c A_ TC% 3Dta2z19t9w9% 26G_ MT% 3De% 26G_ CR% 3D100808697856 %26G_N%3Ds %26G_K%3Dairbnb. 26G_ P% 3D% 26G_ D% 3Dc& gclid= CKCz- YXbaraMivCFQa7aSaQod4X8Dlty& dclid= CMttBhohbanMivCFYx4 AQodaaaUOE9w) and VRBO.com (Link to: https: / /1a tvia� vrbo. tonal) have made things interesting for cities and residents. These are services individuals may use to arrange short -term rental of someone's house, apartment, room, or bed for a night or more. Sometimes they cause issues for cities. Increasingly, cities are seeking information on whether and how to regulate these "short -term rental" situations. League research attorneys are available to answer your questions. What can cities regulate? Under state law, the Department of Health has jurisdiction to license and inspect hotels, motels, and lodging establishments unless a city or county has been delegated that responsibility. Hotels and motels are defined as buildings, structures, enclosures, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be places where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public for a stay of less than a week. This alone captures a lot of short -term situations advertised online. Lodging establishments are defined as buildings, structures, enclosures, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out as places where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public as regular roomers for stays of a week or more and having five or more beds to let to the public. (Lodging establishments also include accommodations for those awaiting medical treatment, their family, and caregivers.) In short, a lot of typical AirBNB or VRBO.com situations are subject to state regulation, but that does not preclude additional regulation by the city. The state and its delegates have invested a lot of effort into locating and requiring licensing compliance by applicable properties throughout the state offering accommodations through AirBNB, VRBO.com, or other means. However, the level of state /delegate licensing compliance of short -term rentals might inevitably remain low due to; The amount of state /delegate manpower required. The fact that new short -term rentals constantly enter the market. Those offering accommodations not in compliance may be notified and then take steps to avoid further detection from licensing authorities. For these reasons, the state fully supports cities adopting some regulation of situations potentially subject to state licensing to the extent it better enables state law licensing compliance. The short -term rental of any space having fewer than five beds and for periods of a week or more is unregulated by state law. These are situations only a city may regulate —at least until a legislative change gives regulatory authority to the state and its delegates or makes it exempt from any regulation, including city ordinance. There are plenty of situations the city can regulate. How can cities regulate these situations? The two basic approaches cities currently use to regulate short -term rentals are licensing /permitting or prohibition. How cities regulate short -term rentals varies in what constitutes "rental," what accommodations are subject to regulation, the location of the property, and other respects. For information on cities and counties that have taken steps to regulate these situations, contact the League Research and Information Department at (651) 281 -1200, (800) 925 -1122, or research @lmc.6rg (Link to: mailto: aeseawh @bnc. oag) . Should cities regulate short -term rentals? This is a decision for each city to make. If a city chooses to ban short -term rentals, it will have to figure out how to enforce a ban on what can be difficult to detect and yet is an increasingly popular phenomenon. If a city licenses or otherwise permits these situations, it will have to find a way to do so that doesn't discourage participation in the regulation. There are certainly reasons to, at the very least, have a record of the short -term rentals being made available within the city and to have a person to contact in the event there are complaints by neighbors. Again, the state or its delegated http:// Imc .org/page /1 /ShortTermRentalJsp Exhibit B T i. ' ^016 City Regulation of Short -Term Vacation Rentals by Owners licensing authority is eager to work with cities to maintain state licensing compliance. If you have questions about short -term rentals, contact the League Research and Information Department at (651) 281 -1200, (800) 925 -1122, or research @lmc.org (Link to: »zailto: research@ltnc.org) . Read the current issue of the Cities Bulletin (Unk to: hap:11wiviv bne.org/perge /1/ cities- bulletiiz- izewsletterjsp) Your LMC Resource Contact Edward Cadman Staff Attorney /Special Counsel (651) 281 -1229 or (800) 925 -1122 ecadman @lmc.org (Link to: mailtoxcacbmn @kc.oig) Meet our city vendors! Building a Behar NO lot All ul Us (Link to: http: / /lvtivt4t1711c.07glads /102407) hftp:/Amc.org/page/l/ShortTermRental.jsp 2/2 8/812016 Volling 042516.htm From: Volling, Jon [ Jonathan .Volling @PERKINELMER.COM] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 3:40 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 Wild Rose Ln Brad, We spoke earlier on the phone regarding 26040 Wild Rose Ln. 1 found the following link on VRBO showing the home is being listed as a vacation rental property for $768 per night targeting large groups. Please see the link below httos:/ Iurldefense.uroofj)oint.comlvZlu r1 ?u= httos- 3A www.vrbo.com 723309&d=CkvICAQ&c=3mGIBQKb1eS1YDHb7az3kFkT2UAGBJ12o2lcEC1ihXk&.r=azkDIMBHPAUC2Putcultv24xnQ4DGMKaK5for29EPKI&m=wQeE1HNXGdYQfeiviD2iiRNT2Llm7hBWGoiSsW- hdn2w& s= nF1Ta 0Yv2iQ1- 9Jik2umsFocaAcHvQHiucuN zG2wM &e= Jon Volling I Regional Sales Managerl Diagnostics Mobile: 952.210 -7420 930 Winter Street, Waltham MA 02451 USA �a'!�ax,*xrlkii7C'hraJr.w.r „ „ Please consWerthe emimnment before printing INs emaW. This e�+all message and anyalatihments are cenfdenFal and proprle +ary to PerldnElmu, Inc Vf m are naMe Intended redplentof gdsmessage, please Inim #is senderby replying b fle email oreending a menage to fne sender and desYayhe message and anyaVadurents. Thankyau. Exhibit C file: / / /C:/ Users/ bnielsenlDesktopllrey% 20Resident %20emails/Volling %20042516.htm - 1/1 Johnson 051316.htm 8/8/2016 From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 8:45 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose lane Brad Thank you for calling me on the residence at 26040 Wild Rose Lane. My experience at this residence has been primarily on the weekend, however, yesterday 4 vehicles which included 2 large passenger vans were at the house overnight. will watch for a picture opportunity to show the number of vehicles. There are 2 boats one a large pontoon that are parked in the front of this property as well. The property owners live in Texas and I'm sure they are not aware that boats are being stored there as well. We have had an issue with garbage being dragged into our yard. I'm guessing its animals in their trash. They do not appear to have a trash service. Thanks again for your help Bruce A. Johnson 26060 Wild Rose Lane 952 - 923 -1622 q` '{ 1l1 file:l / /C:IU serslbnielsenlDesktopllrey% 20Resident %20emailslJohnson %20051316.htm 8/8/2016 Volling 052216.htm From: Volling, Jon [Jonathan.Volling @PERKIN ELMER.COM] Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 11:37 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 Wild Rose Ln. Attachments: 20160522_090046_resized.jpg Brad, I wanted to make you aware that the home next to ours appeared o be rented out again this past weekend. Attached is a photo from this morning, May 22nd at 9:00 am. I saw the same cars in the driveway the evening before, so i know they are spending the night. Regards, Jon Volling Home owner at 25930 Wild Rose Ln. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone file:/ / /C: /Userslbnielsen/ Desktop / trey %2OResident %20emai]sNol li ng %20052216.htm 1/1 8/8/2016 Volling 060616.htm From: Volling, Jon [ Jonathan .Volling @PERKIN ELM ER.COM] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 7:26 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 Wild Rose LN Attachments: photo 1.JPG; photo 2.JPG Brad, I wanted to make you aware that the home next door to us, 26040 Wild Rose Ln, was rented out to a large party (15 cars and 20 +people) again this past weekend (June 3rd -5th). Attached are some photos we took to show the activity. I ended tip calling the police on Saturday afternoon because of the noise and outdoor drinking games occurring next door. They have removed the boats from property which would indicate they received the letter you sent earlier, but it certainly has not deterred them form renting the property out illegally. What can we do next? Can you increase the amount of the fines? I spoke with several neighbors over the weekend and we all share a growing frustration for this type of behavior in our neighborhood. We want to work with the city and police dept to come up with a plan that will put an end to this. Please let me know what the next stores are and how we can work together. Regards, Jon Volling 952 -210 -7420 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Jessica Volling <jessica.vollina(t-v, Date: June 6, 2016 at 7:10:27 AM CDT To: jon volling < jonathan .vollina(tvperkinelmer.com> Sent from my iPhone file: / / /C:/ Users /bnielsen/ Desktop/ Irey% 2OResident°/ o20emaiIsNolIinq °/o20060616.htm 1/1 8/8/2016 Volling 061316.htm From: Volling, Jon [ Jonathan .Volling @PERKINELMER.COM] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:11 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose LN rental Brad, Just informing you that 26040 Wild Rose LN was rented out two separate times this weekend. There was a party that rented on Friday and sat and then another party that came on Sunday and is still there as of this morning on Monday. I am attaching pictures of the two separate instances. The first is from 6/11 and the 1/2 file: / / /C: /Users /bnielsen/ Desktop /Irey %20Resident %20emai] sNolling` /`20061316.htm 8/8/201 Vollina 061316.htm Please let me know when you might have some time this week to connect regarding this matter. Regards, Jon Volling I Regional Sales Manager) ionathan v-olline�,l2erkinelmer.co n Mobile: 952-210-7420 930 Winter Street Waltham, MA 02451 `S�1 www nerkinelmer.com 212 fita• / / /(:: /Llserslbnielsen /Desktop/ trey ° /a2OResident ° /o20emaiIsNolli ng %20061316.htm 8/8/2016 Volling 061316 (2).htm From: Volling, Jon [Jonathan.Volling @PERKIN ELMER.COM] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:18 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Re: 26040 wild rose LN rental Brad, Thanks for the update. I am more than willing to testify at the hearing as will other neighbors who are being negatively affected by this outrageous use of the property. I travel a considerable amount for work and would appreciate as much advance notice as possible in order to make scheduling arrangements to be available on the date of the hearing. I hope the city is continuing to fine the Ireys for each violation as their disregard for the city and the neighbors affected by their actions is completely disrespectful. Also, if possible can a written notice of the hearing be provided prior to the meeting as I would like to reach out to as many of the neighbors as possible in efforts to have a strong showing. If this is possible please send me a copy and I will be more than happy to distribute and go door to door asking for the neighborhood support to stop this nuisance behavior of the Ireys. Regards, Jon Volling I Regional Sales Manager) Jonathan yollina@perkinelmer.com Mobile: 952 - 210 -7420 930 Winter Street. Waltham MA 02451 USA www.perkinelmer.com On Jun 13, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Brad Nielsen <B`ielsenei.sloretirod.mn•us> wrote: Hi Jon, Just to let you know that the Ireys have appealed the notice we have sent, claiming that they are only renting to families and not advertising it for business use. l think the activity and their ads in VRBO and AirBnb suggest otherwise. We will be setting up a hearing in the next few weeks to consider their appeal. Everything about that is public information and the hearing itself is open to the public. In fact, when I spoke with the City Attorney, he indicated that nearby residents can testify at the hearing, if they are willing to do so, which could be very useful to us. I will keep you posted. Thanks for the photos. Everything helps. Planning Director 952- 960 -7912 ....... _ ................... ........_.. From: Volling, Jon [mailto•Jonathan Voliin @, ERKINELMER.COM1 Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:11 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose LN rental Brad, Just informing you that 26040 Wild Rose LN was rented out two separate times this weekend. There was a parry that rented on Friday and sat and then another party that came on Sunday and is still there as of this morning on Monday. I am attaching pictures of the two separate instances. The first is from 6/11 and the second from 6/12. <image001.jpg> <imagc002.jpg> file: l / /C: /UserslbnielsenlDesktop/ trey %20Resident %20emai IsNolli ng %20061316 %20(2).htm 1/2 8/8/2016 Vol ling 061316 (2).htm Please let me know when you might have some time this week to connect regarding this matter. Regards, Jon Volling I Regional Sales Manager ionathan.volline(a—perkineln er.coin Mobile: 52_210_742 93€1 Winter Street. Walthani MA 02451 USA www.perkinelmer.com file: / / /C:IUsers/bnielsen/ Desktop / Trey %20Resident %20emailsNolling° /x20061316 %20(2).htm i�—' —,q 2/2 8/8/2016 Johnson 061416.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 1:55 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 Wild Rose Lane Brad the web site has been revised for 26040 Wild Rose Lane on the web site "airbnb" SM # 46 This the code that the people that rent out the house use for it. Live Large 7Bedroom, 5 baths, 16 beds $2534.00 per night 2 night min. $290 cleaning fee $321 Service fee $999 security deposit $5.00 per person per night over 7 people Family reunion, great space for large group meetings, Dining for 24 with addition space No limit on parking on the street near building The same group is there that came on Sunday afternoon. 9 cars This the first time that the house has been occupied through the week. The group that was here last Thursday, left Sunday morning and the current group came Sunday afternoon. Please keep advised on when the appeal hearing is. Thank you Bruce A. Johnson file:///C: /Users/bnielsen/ Desktop /Irey %20Resident %20emails /Johnson %20061416.htm Cm °'/ 1/1 8/8/2016 Volling 062216.htm From: Volling, Jon [ Jonathan .Volling @PERT <INELMER.COMj Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 1:45 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Renting 26040 Wild Rose LN for company functions Brad if you zoom in on the attached picture you will see that several of the cars have the same logo on them representing a company called "It Works ". They also had a sign on the front of the house which is a little hard to see. In addition the individuals renting the home certainly had clothing with the company logo and carried bags /products into the home representing the It works logo. This photo was taken on June 12th. Please let me know if you have any questions Regards, Jon Volling I Regional Sales Manager) _onathan vollinQ ct,�perkinelrner.com Mobile: 952- 210 -7420 930 Winter Street. Waltham MA 024511. SA www.12ci-kincliner.com fil a•ll/C:./ users / bnielsen /Desktoplirey %20Resident %20em ai IsNol li ng %a20062216.htm —' '^ ' \ / ` ` `\ � � ` 'Y\ (| � The Great Commission'. To go forth and make disciples of all nations. There are millions of people around the Xglobe and in our country waiting and needing to hear the Gospe|. Currently there are over 3OO,0)U Christian churches in America led -' people called to share re the Gospel. What if those messages could echo around the globe 8o umremched What if that echo had the power to literally feemfanmes, What v Jtcould provide for both ' mmd spiritual needs? � -'�m��m What fp the Ror�through not only h hearing but dohngo��mou6°fi �M um��o_noe� g hearts? ��V � . it can and � ` - The Provision Project takes the audio from your weekly sermon, teaching or workshop and recruits mesaage�asomeanstoe�rna\ivinQ. vvorkorxfronnunraached people groups totranscribe those Changing Lives, ~~r-----b^ Keystroke People who may never have heard God's Word are now n ot onk' able to hear but listen, understand and document the Word and through their editors' /D�uip|eo\ feedback, uonfi/rnunderstanding oftheir document. God's VVnrd,through His BodKprovides ao income to put food on the table and shoes on small feet. �~ ~// The Provision Project provides a resource not only for the unreached but for all it touches, including all of us. Quantum Learning states that we learn: ® 10% of what we read 20% of what we hear ® 30% of what we see ® 50% of what we see and hear ® 70% of what we say ® 90% of what we say and do, Isaiah 55 :11 says: It is the same with My Word./ send it out and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all 1 want it to and it will prosper everywhere I send it. Our prayer and our calling is that we might fulfill Ephesians 4:12 -13 in "the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up on the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God". Please join us in this global outreach to encircle the globe with the Word of Christ. Will you join us fulfilling the mission given by our Lord and Savior, to make disciples of all nations? If so please contact Rebecca at 512- 966 -3710 or provision @truebluetranscriptiori.com and find out how to get started right away! You may not remember our family. We lived for 12 years at 26040 Wild Rose which some of you may know as the old Taylor house where Softsoap was invented and eventually led to the lovely octagonal master bedroom addition where our three youngest children were born . In 2013, we made the big leap to a warmer climate and moved our family of 9 to Texas. While we love our new home, Wild Rose will forever be a part of a cherished family history. I remember many crockpot meals delivered to neighbors, walking Mrs. June's dog, babysitting for the Myers family and pushing many an Irey stroller around the huge Wild Rose "block ". Our oldest daughter is now married and expecting our second grandbaby, we have become full time missionaries and our Wild Rose time now seems like the "good old days ". Since we moved to Texas, God has done a major work in our family in addition to becoming grandparents! We have started a ministry that send the Gospel to the 52 countries around the world where the Bible is restricted or illegal and have reached people in Iran, Nepal and Serbia. The Lord has also put a burden on our hearts to be missionaries in our own backyard fulfilling the commandments in Isaiah 58 to care for the widow, orphan and the prisoner. That is where our story returns to Wild Rose Lane. Despite efforts to sell our home, we were unsuccessful. However,. we met a lovely couple, Scott & ]enna, Minnesota natives who rented our home and utilize it to serve our community as a short term rental serving local families experiencing bereavement, family reunions or even parts of sports teams (Go Skippers! n0) They in turn send part of the proceeds from that effort and community service to support our mission work. Our lovely community in Shorewood is supporting us still and it warms our hearts. So far utilizing this method, we have been able to help with a homeless mission providing food, shelter and even tiny houses to families transitioning out of chronic homelessness, served in Kairos prison ministry at the prison in Lockhart, Texas, as well as serving widows with upkeep and housework they are no longer able to do. Isaiah 58 in real life! "/ Scott and Jenna are fantastic and meet every single person that stays in our home, vetting them to make sure they will fit into the community no matter how short their stay. They are utterly clear about the unacceptability of excessive noise and disturbance and that everything must be shut completely down by 10 pm as required by city code. If you ever have ANY concerns at all, I would love to chat with you by phone, email, or letter. I be happy to share any and all information and Scott and Jenna are local and will jump on any concerns you might have immediately. You can reach them at 612-701-0900 or 6-112-759-1022 if no answer. Community is so important to our family and we know it is to you too! We are so excited to be able to provide a service to the place we called home for so long just like Otis two doors down, or the security company a block up, the construction company at the end of the street and the greenhouse too! I know all of those folks blessed us at one time or another in our time in Shorewood. I am enclosing a bit more information about our ministry as well as a picture of our family in case you don't remember us or maybe you have moved in since our family moved south. May you be even more abundantly blessed than we were during your time in this wonderful neighborhood! H= W ", -T-Vi- WWR-7 512-966-3710 Rebecca & Quentin Irey June 22, 2016 I am responding to the letter left in our mail box on June 21, 2016. I think it is great that you have chosen a Christian calling and wish you success with your venture. We are amazed and confused by your interpretation of how your home is being used. We live next door and the parties that have been going on for months have been a total intrusion on our life. We can no longer feel comfortable on our deck with the activity on your decks and back yard. The Police have been called and visited your home several times. We are not the only ones affected by your home rental. Several neighbors have asked what is going on. They are concerned about the excessive drinking. On one occasion there were 30 cars in the yard and parked on both sides of the street making passing cars stop to get by. The parking stretched past our house. We did not know at the time that your home was posted on at least 2 vacation sites for short term rental. We thought it was a realtor open house. We knew that on occasion you had large groups at your house so we your let it go. We did not realize it would continue overnight and continue for 3 days. That was just the start of this nightmare. We were informed by 2 women who came to our house by mistake and asked if this was the house that was advertized on "airbnb ". We went to the site and found your home listed for rent 2 day minimum $654.00 per night. It suggested the use for Business /wedding, events, seminars, conference center and retreats. We have been informed by the City of Shorewood that you have been cited for violating zoning and you should ceace renting. This notice is dated May 20, 2016. We have not seen any change and the parties continue. The neighbors have been reluctant to call the Police as they were concerned about retaliation. In as much as there does not appear to be anyone in charge or responsible for what goes on, we have no one to contact. We have witnessed loud arguments on your decks into the early morning. Pool side parties that have gone on until 2:30 am. Day time drinking parties that covered all your property. Foul language and bosisterous groups of both groups of men and groups of women. We have Sunday morning cleaning crews with leaf blowers cleaning you're out door carpet. We saw that the web site changed again with a little different terminology and hugh increase in rent to $2534.00 per night 2 night minimum. To suggest this a place for bereavement, sporting events is hard to believe at that price. I'm afraid you are disillusioned as to how your home is being used. We were aware you were trying to sell your house. We never saw an open house and when we tried to contact the person on your sign about a tree branch, we were unsuccessful. On another occasion an alarm went off in your house and the Police contacted me to see if we knew how to get inside. You did have a renter for several months who told us they were interested in buying your house, but that it needed extensive repair. They were trying to negotiate the price because of the repairs needed. They left in Feb of 2015. During the time they were renting the large refrigerator in the kitchen was making a terrible sound for days. The renters told use the motor was shot and they were turn it off. Last fall your furnace starting making noise that made uncomfortable to be outside. This went on for weeks before that repair was made. You talked about neighbors and this great neighborhood. Mrs. June sold a couple years ago and a young coupled moved in. They have 2 small children and have had to deal with this ongoing party as we have. They have done a greatjob fixing up the June house and are very concerned what your rental house is doing to property values. The boat storage has been taken care of after the City of Shorewood had you move it. We had that pontoon overlooking our front yard since last fall. The area where the boats were stored has never been cleaned up. The weeds are waist deep there are tree branches down and the wires are still hanging from the tree that came down when you lived there. This area is your front yard which faces the road. If you truly are the Christian people you say you are, you will put a stop to this short term rental and let us have our neighborhood back. Bruce & Carolyn Johnson 26060 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, MN. 55331 M 8/8/2016 Johnson 071116.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:58 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Re: 26040 wild rose lane We are disappointed to hear of the delay. There are 5 SUV's in the driveway that have been there since saturday. It is a larger group that have several children. Its like living next to a water park. I have not received a reply to my letter to the Ireys. We have seen people on the deck at Ireys photographing our back yard. Today a lady stopped her car in front of our house and took a photo. I don't know if any of this is related. It appears we will have to put up with this the rest of the summer. We were planning on adding a screen porch to our deck, but have put that on hold until we see what happens next door. Please keep us advised. Bruce Johnson From: Brad Nielsen <BNielsenL@ci.shorewood.mn us> To: Bruce Johnson <bcjohnson4649 cox yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:34 AM Subject. RE: 26040 wild rose lane Hi Bruce, The Ireys have hired an attorney, a result of which is that we need to bring in the City Attorney to represent the City side of the case. The attorneys are talking about an additional delay of perhaps a week. I will let you know as soon as I know more. Brad Nielsen Planning Director 952 - 960 -7912 From: Bruce Johnson [mai Ito: bcjohnson4649@yahoo coml Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 8:21 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose lane Good Morning Brad Its pretty quiet next door. Looks like the 4th of July renters are gone. Their pool motor is making a loud noise. I suspect it will quit one of these days. I have the date for the hearing as Wednesday July 13, however, I don't have a time. I haven't shared any info with neighbors as I was waiting for a time for the hearing. We have not been able to find the web site for rental. It does not appear where it was previously listed. Please advise. Bruce Johnson file: / / /C:/ Users /bnielsen/ Desktop /Irey %2OResident %20emails /Johnson ° /o20071116.htm t 1/1 8/8/2016 Johnson 071516.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 11:57 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 20640 wild rose lane Hi Brad Friday noon and the same 5 SUV's are here . All week it appears to be 5 families. Just wanted to give you an update. Thanks Bruce Johnson file: / / /C: /Users/bnlelsen/ Desktop /Trey %2OResident %20emails /Johnson %20071516.htm SAL, 1/1 8/8/2016 Johnson 071816.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:54 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose lane Good morning Brad. There has been a turn over of renters again yesterday. The cleaners showed up Sat. and stayed the night preparing for the new group 6 vehicles several children. They have not slowed down. They are running the house like a hotel. Do you have a date for the hearing yet? This is taking far longer than I ever imagined. Bruce Johnson 26060 wild rose lane. file: /! /C: /Userslbnielsen/ Desktop /Trey %20Resident %o20emaits /Johnson %20071816.htm �fr r/ 1/1 18 July 2016 Shorewood On June 18, 2016 at 6:30 PM my husband, my sister -in -law, my husband's step- mother and I were returning from a family event and drove by the property at 26040 Wild Rose Lane. We all commented on the abundance of cars parked not only on the road but in the driveway. And as there had already concerns expressed at city hall about the appropriate rental use of this house and the accompanying weekend party noise, I leashed up my dog and went up for a look. Attached are the pictures that I took when I wandered up to the house. There were a total of 17 cars parked there; they were parked 2 rows deep in front of the garages, all along the inside curve of the driveway and on the street. As far as I could tell they all had Kansas license plates. The pictures were taken at 7 PM. I walked up to the house and chatted with a woman sitting on the porch about who rented the house and left but was over taken by 2 gentlemen when I reached the road. I mentioned that the party was already very loud and that the house was already known to be a problem because it did not have a short term rental permit to be used in this manner (I did say that this was not his personal problem but rather an issue with the actual owners of the house), and in fact this was otherwise a very quiet neighborhood in a very quiet city. The regular, almost weekly parties that were being held here were on the police radar and while I would not be the one to call them this time, he should be aware that police would probably be by. The gentleman said they were in town for a dance event and "had some extra burgers" so they invited a few friends over. I said, there are 17 cars here. And he said, well only 5 families are staying here. He also said that the noise would abate "at the appropriate time." And he said that he would spea tto the neig -bo s f they actually came over. To which I replied, well, I am here now. I live of the property. From where we live (off th of this property) we could easily hear a considerable party under way, music, screaming and splashing. We are situated across the wetland immediately behind the house and on lower ground so the weekly party noise that emanates from this property is broadcast out the back like a band shell for all to hear. Now we check it prior to every weekend. By Friday there are 3 -5 vehicles parked in front of the garages. Many Friday or Saturday nights you can hear a loud party -loud music, yelling, splashing. Again, it is broadcast like from a band shell out the back. There was a big party for instance last weekend, with some kind of pool "competition" (you could tell by the nature of the yelling after each splash) followed by fireworks when the sun went down. (There are often fireworks at these gatherings.) There were 8 cars parked that I could count on the fly the morning of the 16th when I drove by on my way to do errands. The home is being treated as if it was a part of a resort property with noise levels and "guest" behaviors that are inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. 6e 0 E� �sx s r ``��"A,"�� ✓fix r'�� i� �rI'�r,r�� rar" TV, 8 n At, Agg �^r S L a t f �'��"� a �Z'31 ✓o s ins 'T- E, < ti v.0 �t Al r NN a � . _y k way it Y ii�s t p y 43° ,d3 ! �� f !. l � ?i Otto 3 'tea 1 u AW no ` 1 tx c i$ "��.&.p b. Z a _ x � 11 L � � dr soy t �N 5 � v u •L v I "50 loco � 4 w �µ 0 E� �sx s r ``��"A,"�� ✓fix r'�� i� �rI'�r,r�� rar" TV, 8 n At, Agg �^r S L a t f �'��"� a �Z'31 ✓o s ins 'T- E, < ti v.0 �t Al r NN a � . _y k way it Y ii�s t p y 43° ,d3 ! �� f !. l � ?i Otto 3 'tea 1 u AW no ` 1 tx c i$ "��.&.p b. Z a _ x � 11 L � � dr 8/8/2016 Johnson 072116.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:00 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose lane Thursday turn over of renters. New group with small children saw 8 cars this morning. Some how they continue to find renters for that property. I don't know where it is being advertised. file:l / /C:IU serslbnielsen/ Desktop /lrey %20Resident %20emails /Johnson %20072116.htm 1/1 8/8/2016 Johnson 072516.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 3:42 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 Wild Rose Lane Monday July 25 We had a group with 5 SUV's several children over the week end. They were in the pool until 10:00 then quieted down. They continue to move groups in and out. It continues to be like a water park... file: / / /C:lUsers/bnielsen/ Desktop /trey %20Resident %a20emails /Johnson %20072516.htm 1/1 8/8/2016 Johnson 072916.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:22 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose lane turnover again Weds. New group of 5 vehicles with several children. very loud group during the day like being next to a water park. Once again they seem to be able to find renters to replace the group over and over. file: / / /C:/ Users /bnielsen/ Desktop ilrey %20Resident %20emails /Johnson %20072916.htm 1/1 8/8/2016 Johnson 080316.htm From: Bruce Johnson [bcjohnson4649 @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9 :27 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: 26040 wild rose lane We saw a turnover Saturday morning July 30th. It was the first Saturday night with no renters all summer. It was very enjoyable. New renters came on Sunday 5 vehicles. Somehow they continue to keep the house rented. I did send a short letter to the Ireys telling them that it wasn't us who complained to there renters. I recieved another letter from Mrs. Irey basically saying that that is there home whether they live there or not and she has the right to do as she pleases with the house. We are still looking for the August 10th hearing. Do you have a time? We would like to inform our neighbors so we get a showing...... fi I e: / / /C:/ Users /bni elsen /Desktop /Irey %2OResi dent %20em ai I s /Johnson %20080316.htm 1/1 \� [�. Al�\,* ffl", Wl\ nip M� I Brad Nielsen From: Volling, Jon [ Jonathan :Volling @PERKINELMER.COM] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 9:21 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Letter from Jon Volling to be used at the hearing regarding the Irey residence Brad, I am writing this letter to provide my personal experience regarding the continued use of the Irey's home located at 26040 Wild Rose Ln as a short term rental property over the past several months because I cannot attend the hearing in person due to out of town business travel. Please use my comments below in lieu of providing comments in person. My wife and I with our two children, ages 9 and 6, live next door (25930 Wild Rose Ln) to the Irey's property. We have owned our home on Wild Rose Ln since August, 2013 and have never personally met the Irey family. As a resident of our neighborhood and the City of Shorewood I am requesting that the city decides to not permit the use of residential properties as short term rental opportunities. Part of the attraction of living in our neighborhood and the city of Shorewood is the sense of community. We enjoy knowing who our neighbors are as we look out for each other. The short term rental from advertising on multiple "For Rent By Owner" websites such as VRBO and AirBnB has disrupted our sense of community as we never know who is staying or coming and going from the Irey residence. The Irey's stated in an earlier appeal letter to the city of Shorewood that "Our desire is to provide a needed resource to the community with little to no negative impact on our neighbors ". I can tell you that living directly next door to the rental property we have been negatively impacted in the following ways: 1. We have called the South Lake Police to file noise complaints because of excessively loud party noise sometimes well after midnight because of unruly renters partying in the backyard of the Irey's home. We also filed a complaint with the South Lake Police on a Saturday afternoon because a large party of renters at the Irey's we participating in group drinking games in their front yard. On this occasion our young children were eating lunch and as they looked out the window of our dining room they were exposed to college age individuals falling down drunk and screaming obscenities. I certainly hope this is not an example of the "needed resource to the community" that that Irey's state they are providing. Our driveway entrance is one before the Irey's driveway if traveling west on Wild Rose Ln. On a regular basis (more than once per week) we have renters mistaking our driveway for the Irey's driveway. We have a large circular driveway in our front yard in which our children ride their bikes and our dog walks on. When renters mistake our driveway for the Irey's they regularly drive all the way around the circle and several times I have had to call my dog out of the way of mistaken drivers and more importantly have to rush to my children and help them get off their bikes and into a safe place away from the passing cars. Because the Irey's advertise the property as being accommodating to large groups /parties we routinely look out our windows to find 20+ cars parked in the driveway and in the front yard of the Irey's home. We have also experienced a food truck parked in the driveway as part of a large party that used transport buses to bus in individuals to a party occurring at the Irey residence. These types of large parties /groups are renting the Irey home on a regular basis, sometimes as many as three different groups in a single week. Having to look at the excess of cars and people and listen to the noise associated with these types of groups is a nuisance to all neighbors and has no place in a residential neighborhood, especially in a city as peaceful as Shorewood. In closing, the short term rental of the Irey's home over the past several months has proven to be a nuisance to our neighborhood and an invasion of our privacy. The Irey's are not providing a "needed resource to the Community" and in my opinion the only resource provided is personal financial gain the Irey's receive from the proceeds of the short term rental of their home. Please consider the negative impact on our family and our neighborhood as described above when deciding over this matter. Sincerely, Jon Volling Jon Volling I Regional Sales Manager) Diagnostics ionathan.volling a()perkinelmer.com Mobile; 952 - 210 -7420 930 Winter Street, Waltham MA 02451 USA www.perkinelmer.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e -mail message and any attachments are confidential and proprietary to PerkinElmer, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please inform the sender by replying to this email or sending a message to the sender and destroy the message and any attachments. Thank you. Brad Nielsen From: Scott Brown [scott @brownmarketinginc.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 6:25 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: vacation rental in shorewood I'm writing in regard to the property at 4595 Enchanted Pt. The owner does not live on the property. However, they now have hired a vacation rental agency, and are actively renting the property for short stents -- a few days to a week. It is a major problem. Sleeping dozens on the property, late night noise, drinking in the streets, parking on others properties among other. We and other neighbors have plenty of photographs. I spoke with the owner and rental agent yesterday. They said they were sorry and that they'll work to control their renters, but that they have moved in yet another group as of last night. I explained to him our objections to his business. I need your help regarding city code covering short -term vacation rentals. Are you available by phone this morning? Please give me a call at 612- 990 -3886. Thank you for your help. Scott Brown BROWN MARKETING, INC 4560 Enchanted Pt. Shorewood, MN 55364 612- 990 -3886 www.browDmarketinginc.com Brad Nielsen From: Scott Brown [scott @brownmarketinginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:06 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: house rental Attachments: 4595.jpeg M-1141 Thank you for looking into the problem we're having with the vacation rental at 4595 Enchanted Pt. Per our discussion: • This is obviously a short -term, vacation rental business effort. Our understanding is that the code protects property owners from having a hotel pop up next door. Here is a link to one of the websites being used to advertise the property: http: / /www.homeaway.com /vacation - rental /p3713284 • Frequently, the number of guests is more than 30, with cars parking up and down the street; sometimes on other's property. The attached photo is one sample. • Frequent loud, obnoxious and alcohol fueled parties -- any time of day, any day of the week. • Public drinking on the streets. • The home owner has admitted he has a problem with people breaking things, stealing things and leaving huge piles of empty booze bottles. • Capacity is so full, people sleep in tents outside. Overnight guests sometimes numbers in the 20's. Rental agents are aware of this, and allow it. • Guests are coached by the rental agency to deny they are renting the home. • After the homeowner was made aware of the problems in the neighborhood, and advised that these actions were not within the code, they checked in another 14 guests that night. Bottom line, these guests behave as if they are at a private resort; not a neighborhood. We are asking for the city to enforce existing codes so that this short -term, vacation rental ends. Thank you. Scott Brown BROWN MARKETING, INC 4560 Enchanted Pt. Shorewood, MN 55364 612- 990 -3886 www.brownmarketingine.com Brad Nielsen From: Scott Brown [scott @brownmarketinginc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:50 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: rental property problem escalating Additional input regarding the problem with the vacation rental property at 4595 Enchanted pt. In the middle of the night (7/29) we woke to thunderous, towering fireworks that lit up the entire sky. Two rounds of multiple explosives. The owner and agent are aware. No apology. Just more verbiage saying they've spoken to the renters and it won't happen again. That's the standing line -- each renter won't do it again. But it continues to happen every single time. The property is owned by Mike Rosenberg, and is being marketing locally by Chrissy Johnson of BarkerHedges. Another website link: http://www.homeawqy.coiyL/vacation-rental/T3713284#calendar. As you can see by this website, we are being subjected to new renters every week. Seriously need immediate attention. Scott Brown BROWN MARKETING, INC 4560 Enchanted Pt. Shorewood, MN 55364 612- 990 -3886 www.brow-nmarketinginc.co m , Brad Nielsen From: Scott Brown [scott @brownmarketinginc.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:46 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: vacation rental :_..1 The neighborhood issue keeps escalating. Police were brought in last night due to renter behavior. Have you been able to identify to code managing this situation? Thanks so much. scott brown BROWN MARKETING, INC 4560 Enchanted Pt. Shorewood, MN 55364 612- 990 -3886 www.browm-narketingine.com 4 -3 7 Vacation Dome Rental Study Committee of the Whole Presentation November 17, 2014 Presented by Ilan Listug Crow Wing County Land Services Exhibit D Executive Summary: Private rental of vacation and lake homes by owners (commonly called vacation rental by owner or VRBO) has been a growing trend nationally and locally, Different approaches have been taken by state and local jurisdictions in deciding whether and to what extent to regulate VRBOs. From a land use perspective, the central question concerning VRBOs is whether the use of a single family home as a VRBO is compatible with the zoning district in which it is located. This question raises the closely related issue of whether and at what point a VRBO may become a commercial operation, This report reviews the treatment of VRBOs by popular tourist states, cities, and counties in Minnesota and across the country. A special emphasis was placed on approaches taken by Minnesota counties, including survey data from 32 responding counties. This report incorporates that data and presents a summary of the issues surrounding regulation of vacation rentals as Crow Wing County pursues a thorough, objective analysis of this issue. In Minnesota, the issue was heavily discussed at the Legislature in 2010, however no action has been taken at the state level. Existing Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) licensing laws governing lodging establishments encompass a great deal of VRBO activity, however the number of VRBOs currently licensed by the state is minimal. MDH has licensed 18 properties which would be considered VRBOs in Crow Wing County, In the absence of state regulations, some Minnesota counties have enacted VRBO - specific land use ordinances. In Crow Wing County, VRBOs are not specifically regulated in the Land Use Ordinance. In the past year, complaints have been received on two properties, Survey data collected from 32 counties shows that only five counties have VRBO ordinances, an additional seven counties state they would require a conditional use permit if the VRBO was determined to be a commercial operation, and 20 counties report they do not regulate VRBOs, Of responding counties, complaints have been received on 26 properties in the past year with no citations being issued and only one case pending in district court. This data also highlights many of the difficulties associated with enforcement against VRBOs including; identification, multiple complaints against single properties, after -hours complaints, renter behavior /nuisance activity, parking, shoreline activities, and costs of enforcement, One regulating county reports it requires between 20 -30 hours of staff time to bring one VRBO into compliance. Additionally, emerging legal issues regarding property rights, regulation of rental properties and property tax classification of VRBOs represent additional challenges to this discussion. This report concludes by summarizing some of the key issues that remain unresolved and key next steps regarding VRBOs, I. Crow Wing County Overview: A. VRBO Regulations: VRBOs may be regulated by a county under the scope of the planning and zoning authority contained in Minnesota Chapter 394. In general, zoning regulation challenges are subject to the deferential rational basis standard, and are likely to withstand judicial scrutiny if the regulation is found to have a substantial relationship to land use impacts in the area. Additionally, regulations most not infringe upon constitutional rights of equal protection and the 51'� Amendment protections against taking of private property without just compensation and due process. A case pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court may have direct impact upon how rental regulations are viewed by courts. In Dean v. City of Winonalproperty owners challenged a rental ordinance passed in Winona which limits the number of rental licenses available to 30% of a the dwellings in a given area. The ordinance has been upheld in district court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Several groups including; the American Civil Liberties Union, the Institute for Justice, the Minnesota Vacation Rental Association, the Minnesota Association of Realtors and the Center for the American Experiment have all joined the case raising the argument that the right to rent property is a fundamental right. If the right to rent property is determined to be a fundamental right, all regulations limiting the right would be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard rather than the rational basis standard. Such a ruling by the Court would have significant impact upon government's ability to regulate rental property through traditional zoning ordinances. The case is expected to be decided in early 2015. B. Ordinance Challenges: Given the recent rise in popularity of using single - family dwellings located in residential or shoreland residential districts as VRBOs, many land use ordinances do not clearly encompass the use within existing definitions. A Minnesota Court of Appeals case from 2009 demonstrates the difficulty in applying existing ordinances to regulate or stop operations of undefined VRBOs. In Douglas County v. Owen 2, after receiving complaints from neighbors, the county determined that 3 VRBOs (rented for 13, 53 and 19 days respectively) owned by the Owens were operating as "resorts" under the zoning ordinance. The county sought to enjoin the rental of the properties until a CUP was obtained. The Court held, citing many deficiencies in the ordinance, that the zoning ordinance did not restrict the rental of single - family dwellings on a short -term basis, and the use of the properties did not compel the conclusion that the properties are resorts. In part because zoning laws are construed against the county and because the county sought to impose regulation on these homes beyond the plain language of the ordinance, the county's efforts to classify a VRBO within their existing ordinance failed and was held invalid twice by the court. 1 Ethan Dean, et al., v. City of Winona, A13 -1028 (Minn, Ct. App. 2014). 2 County of Douglas v. Richard N. Owen and Judith A. Owen, A08 -1776, (Minn. Ct. App, 2009). C. Current Regulations in Crow Wing County: Vacation home rentals are not regulated or defined in the Land Use Ordinance. • Commercial is defined as "any use or establishment pertaining to commerce or mercantile for the sale, lease, rental or trade of products, goods and services." • Single - family dwellings are a permitted use in all but the commercial/Ll zoning districts, and are defined as a detached residence for or occupied by one family or up to 3 non- related individuals. • Hotel/moteI is not defined in the Ordinance, and is a conditional use in most districts. • Resorts are defined as commercial establishments, and are primarily service - oriented for transient guests seeking recreation'. Resorts may obtain a conditional use permit to operate only in the ag /forest, RR 2. 5, RR5, 10, 20, and waterfront commercial zones. Bed and Breakfast Residence is defined in the Ordinance as limited to four or fewer guest rooms, must provide at least one meal per day, and the operator must live on the premises or adjacent premises. A bed and breakfast is a conditional use in nearly all districts. 4 Septic Regulations: To protect the health and safety of residents as well as prevent contamination of surface and groundwater, Land Services may require a compliance inspection whenever deemed appropriate. A VRBOs in Crow Wing County: The following represents a sampling from popular websites used to advertise VRBOs. It should be noted, because of the private nature of VRBOs there may be no way of determining the actual number of VRBOs operating in Crow Wing County at any given time. Crow Wing County Vacation Home Rental Listings: Sample as of 8 -19 -14 VRBO.com 267 Exploreminnesota.com 19 Brainerd Lakes Chamber 2 Airbnb.com 7 flipkey.com 13 lakeplace.com 25 northlandcabincare.com 21 craigslist.org 65 vacation rentals.com 31 byowner.com 56 Tota14 506 3 The Ordinance defines a traditional resort as: A commercial establishment that includes lodges, dwelling units, dwelling sites, structures or enclosures kept, used, maintained or advertised as, or held out to the public to be, a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public, and having for rent three or more cabins, rooms, dwelling units or enclosures. Resorts must be primarily service - oriented for transient occupancy for guests seeking recreation. All cabins, rooms, dwelling units or enclosures must be included in the resort rental business and rates set by resort. The entire parcel of land must be owned, controlled and managed by the single business entity which comprises the commercial .establishment. In order to qualify as a resort pursuant to this definition, the commercial establishment shall also be fully licensed and permitted under the appropriate state and local regulation. 4 Total listings may include duplicate properties listed on multiple websites 11. Approaches around the Country: As vacation home rental numbers have soared nationally in recent years, state legislatures have acted in different ways. Here is a summary of different approaches: Wisconsin: • State law requires a Lodging permit issued and administered through the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for all facilities in the state. • Vacation home rentals are classified as a Tourist Rooming House (TRH), defined as "all lodging places and tourist cabins and cottages, other than hotels and motels, in which sleeping accommodations are offered for pay to tourists or transients," • A tourist or transient is defined as someone away from their permanent residence, • Rental to a tourist or transient, regardless of duration, requires a state permit. • The application process also requires the owner to provide documentation of approved use by the local zoning authority. • Example: Door County, Wisconsin: All municipalities under county zoning jurisdiction permit short-term rentals in all zoning districts, and require registration with the county tourism commission for purposes of tax collection in addition to state licensure. Hawaii: • Individual counties in Hawaii have jurisdiction over VRBO use of property, • Most counties that allow vacation rentals in specific zoning districts and generally require a condition use permit, • Some counties prohibit vacation home rentals (rental duration ranging from under 30 days to under 90 days) unless the owner can demonstrate a legal non - conforming use certificate dating to prior than 1986. Florida: • State law prohibits local units of government from restricting the use, prohibiting, or regulating vacation rentals solely on the basis of classification, use, or occupancy if not regulated prior to 2011. • Recent changes now allow local governments to require inspections or to create certain standards (such as mandatory trash pick -up). • Vacation rental owners also must obtain a license from the state to operate a rental unit, • Example: Fort Myers Beach, Florida: Single - family dwellings located in the residential zoning district are generally restricted to rental for transient lodging to once per calendar month, with a minimum stay of 7 days, Austin, Texas: e Enacted a qualitative restriction on the number of homes that can be rented on a short- term basis. o Depending upon the location within the city, a cap was placed upon the number of short- term rentals that may operate in a given neighborhood. o The city stated a concern for the mix of short-term to long term rental properties as justification for the cap. 4 Scottsdale, Arizona: Rentals of less than 30 days are not permitted in Single Family Residential Districts. Portland, Oregon: • Enacted a tiered approach to short-term rental regulation. • For owner- occupied residences, an over the counter permit may be obtained for short- term rental of 1 to 2 bedrooms. • For 3 -5 bedroom homes, owners must obtain a CUP to operate a short-term rental. Palm Desert, California: Originally passed an ordinance requiring a CUP and 3 -night minimum stay requirement on vacation home rentals. The CUP application process cost $500 and included additional conditions on parking, noise, maximum occupants, and days the property may be rented annually, In 2012, the city significantly amended its regulation and lowered fees after finding that compliance with the CUP requirement was very low. The city now licenses all short - term rentals annually, with a $25 per property fee. The city has found license registration has greatly increased with the lower fees. 111. State of Minnesota A. State Regulation: In 2008, the Minnesota Legislature created a Task Force charged with studying VRBOs in the state. The group published a report in 2009. Citing a lack of knowledge about the application of current laws relating to VRBO owners, the Task Force offered a series of recommendations including legislation to improve awareness and compliance with existing laws. The recommendations included: • Adding a definition to the Department of Health Licensing statute defining vacation rentals as requiring a license, • Clarify sales and use tax law as it applies to vacation rentals. • Increase coordination between state and local officials regarding vacation home rental regulations. • Encourage and develop a means of proactive communication between VRBO owners and renter about the rules and regulations that must be implemented for safe operation, compliance, and interactions with neighboring homeowners. In 2010, HF1072/SF894 was introduced which would have added the Task Force definitions of vacation home rental to the Department of Health licensing statute. The proposed legislation would require VRBO owners to receive a license and comply with the licensure requirements of the Department of Health relating to safe operation. The bills received hearings in committee in both houses but did not advance. s Definition included in HF1072 /SF894: "Vacation home rental means any home, cabin, condominium or similar building that is advertised or held out to the public as a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public on a nightly or weekly basis and is not a bed and breakfast, resort, hotel or motel." 5 In 2011, HF1532/8171190 was introduced which would have mandated that use of residential property as a vacation rental must be considered a permitted residential use, but which may be licensed as rental housing by a county, The bill received no consideration, To date, no legislation has been passed specifically defining vacation home rentals. B. Current Department of Health Regulation: Under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 157, hotels /motels', lodging establishments7, and resorts$ are subject to licensure and inspections by the Department of Health (MDH) and must comply with minimum standards9 in the following areas of health and safety: • Building standards, including ADA compliance • Provide a safe and adequate water supply • Septic systems designed for and in compliance with MPCA Chapter 7080 • Removal of trash, rubbish and refuse frequently from the property • Fire protection, including egress, escapes and fire extinguishers Under the licensing statute, any facility providing sleeping accommodations for rent for periods less than one week is considered a hotel /motel and subject to licensure. VRBO owners venting their property for periods of longer than one week would not be subject to licensure because the renters would not be considered "regular roomers" as included in the lodging establishment definition. Approximately five years ago, MDH developed a list of properties potentially subject to licensure by scanning websites. MDH currently has 18 licensees in the hotel/motel category in Crow Wing County which would be considered VRBOs. IV, Minnesota Counties A. Summary of Minnesota Counties Survey Data: VRBO Specific Ordinances: ® Four counties in the state have enacted specific VRBO Iand use ordinances. ® Seven counties responded that they will require a CUP if the VRBO is determined to be a commercial operation. ® Twenty counties report they do not regulate VR.BOs. 6 M.S. 157.15 Subd. 7, Motel or motel. "Hotel or motel" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public and famishing accommodations for periods of less than one week. 7 M.S. 157.15 Subd. 8: Lodging establishment. "Lodging establishment" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public as regular roomers, for periods of one week or more, and having five or more beds to let to the public. 8 M.S. 157.15 Subd. 11: Resort. "Resort" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof located on, or on property neighboring, any lake, stream, skiing or hunting area, or any recreational area for purposes of providing convenient access thereto, kept, used, maintained, or advertised as, or held out to the public to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public, and primarily to those seeking recreation for periods of one day, one week, or longer, and having for rent five or more cottages, rooms, or enclosures. 9 Minnesota Rules Chapter 4625 MN Counties with VRBO Land Use Ordinances Approved Properties Type of Regulation Inspection Requirements VRBOs Receiving Complaints IUP and County Complaints Only Aitkin Lodging License 13 3 IUP w /Performance 1 during first year of operation, Lake Standards and MH complaints thereafter 20 2 License IUP Application inspection, complaints Mille Lacs thereafter 12 1 CUP and County FBL Annual FBL inspections, no P &Z Stearns License inspections 10 2 *Cottonwood County regulates VRBOs under an FBL ordinance Complaints and Enforcement: * Among these 32 counties, 61 complaints have been registered against 26 different properties in the past year. * Zero citations have been issued in the past year. * One enforcement has resulted in a pending court action (Lincoln County). VRBO Monitoring: * Six counties monitor VRBOs only after a complaint. * Two counties (Aitkin, Lincoln) actively scan for operating VRBOs. * 24 counties do not actively monitor VRBOs. Biggest Challenge; In response to a question about the biggest challenge relating to VRBOs, the following represent the most common responses: • Neighbor complaints. • Owner /Operator cooperation. • Concerns over clarity of zoning ordinance. • Finding VRBOs. • Gathering evidence of alleged violations. • Fairness to resorts. • Fairness of complaints -only enforcement policy. • Septic compliance and proper sizing. • Costs and staff time associated with ordinance enforcement. B. Enforcement Issues: Enforcement of a land use VRBO ordinance involves multiple challenges. Survey results have highlighted several of the main issues associated with VRBO ordinance enforcement. 7 Complaints: Of the 32 counties responding, only 61 complaints involving 26 properties were registered last year. Of these 61 complaints, fifteen issues were resolved by working with property owners, zero citations were issued, and one case is pending in district court. Identification: Given the private nature of VRBOs, scanning websites, responding to neighbor complaints, and voluntary contact are the most prevalent ways of identifying VRBO operations. Only two responding counties stated they actively seek to identify VRBOs through websites and other means, b respondents investigate after receiving a complaint, and a majority of counties do not actively search for VRBOs. Cost of Enforcement: Stearns County reports that it requires 20 -30 hours of planning and zoning staff time to bring a VRBO into compliance with their ordinance. Additional staff hours are required by food and beverage license staff. Land Services staff conservatively estimates it requires a minimum of 10- 15 hours per staff of time to process a conditional use permit application through the public hearing process. With the large number of VRBOs operating in Crow Wing County, regulation of VRBOs could represent a significant challenge given current staffing levels. Evidence of Violations: Most activity generating complaints occurs on the weekends or afterhours. By the time staff are able to respond to the complaint, the activity likely has ended. This creates the need to rely on evidence from neighbors and other sources if an enforcement action is necessary, Additionally, it is extremely difficult to know and track how many times a vacation rental has been rented in a given period. Depending upon the nature of the complaint, it can be difficult to receive law enforcement zoning ordinance support for afterhours and weekend complaints Conduct by renters: Many of the common complaints against vacation home rentals relate to the conduct of renters. This creates a very difficult environment in which to effectively enforce provisions of a land use ordinance. Survey respondents list neighbor complaints, noise, traffic, parking, dogs, and shoreline activities as the most common issues, Septic and SSTS issues are the most common land use problem reported to zoning officials. In general, jurisdictions received very few complaints, but usually multiple complaints about specific properties. Depending upon the type and scope of regulation, a more detailed cost study would need to be conducted to determine the impacts upon current workload in Land Services. Additionally, more study would be required to explore a greater partnership with the Sherriff's Office on addressing after -hours enforcement issues. Active enforcement of a VRBO ordinance may require significant staff resources, and therefore, substantial costs to taxpayers. C. Property Tax Issues: For property tax classifications, short -term rentals differ from long -term rentals because it is unlikely that the owner or renter could claim the property as a primary residence. Properties M such as lake or vacation homes that cannot be classified as residential real estate, either because it is not the primary residence of someone or is vacant and not used for any purpose, can be classified as seasonal residential recreational, An emerging issue is determining when properties used for short-term or vacation rentals can be classified as commercial for tax purposes. This issue was highlighted in a recent tax court case. In T.C. Hewitt, LLC, v, County of McLeod"' a single family lake home purchased by the LLC was classified as non - homestead residential for 6 years until reclassified as commercial by McLeod County. The owners challenged the reclassification. The Court held that the owner did not overcome their burden to demonstrate the reclassification was prima facie invalid. The Court highlighted several facts key to their analysis: • Actual Use of the Property: the LLC organizational documents reserved around five weekends per year for the owners use, with the property either held out for rent or rented for the remainder of the year. • The property is advertised for rental on a year -round basis. • The property earned a small profit or broke even for years in which it was classified commercial. • The property is not anyone's primary residence, • The property was not a "vacant dwelling not used for any purpose" because it was being used for rental purposes when held out for rent. Conclusion: This report represents a broad view of the VRBO issue. Several key questions emerge from the information provided in this report regarding determining the proper approach to VRBOs which require further analysis. On a threshold level the wide variance amongst current and potential county regulations raises questions about fairness and treatment of resort and property owners that may suggest a statewide approach is best. Additionally because most of the complaints associated with VRBOs relate the conduct of renters, land use regulations may not provide the best tools to address the problem conduct. Existing regulations, criminal statutes, legal remedies, and exploring an increased partnership with law enforcement in responding to complaints may provide an adequate framework for addressing this behavior. Finally, the potential costs associated with creating and enforcing a new regulation as well as property tax valuation and classification changes would need to be evaluated based upon the scope and implementation of a regulatory approach. 10 T.C. Hewitt, LLC., v. County ofMeLeaod, June 27,2014, Land Services Department VRBO Report Summary Committee of the Whole November 18, 2014 Scope of Study • Reviewed VRBO treatment by cities, states, and counties around the country & MN • Survey data obtained from 32 Minnesota Counties VRBO Regulations • CWC Land Use Ordinance does not regulate VRBOs • Property Rights & Dean v. City of Winona • Example from Douglas County v. Owen Crow Wing County Overview: • An estimated 500+ VRBOs are operating in CWC at any given time • Minnesota Department of Health is aware of 18 properties they consider a VRBO • Land Services has received complaints on two VRBOs in the past year Approaches around the Country a States: Wisconsin, Florida, Hawaii m Cities: Austin, TX, Scottsdale, AZ, Portland, OR, Palm Desert, CA Minnesota Approach: • Task Force recommends adding a Vacation Home Renal definition to licensing statute • No legislation has been passed on this issue • Minnesota Department of Health licenses lodging establishments and enforces regulations on health and safety • Hotel /Motel definition includes the use of a structure to provide sleeping accommodations to the public for periods of less than one week, • Providing sleeping accommodation for more than one week would not be regulated unless S or more rooms are rented, ® MDH follows the definitions closely and seeks to apply any VRBO Minnesota Counties Survey: o Survey sent to all 87 counties; 32 responses received ® 20 Counties do not regulate VRBOs © 7 Counties state they will require a CUP if a VRBO is determined to be commercial ® 4 Counties have VRBO land use ordinances • Aitkin: IUP required; 13 approved VRBOs • Lake: IUP required; 20 approved VRBOs • Mille Lacs: IUP required; 12 approved VRBOs • Stearns: CUP required; 10 approved VRBOs ® 61 complaints against 26 properties have been registered in the past year e Zero citations have been issued, one enforcement action is pending in district court Enforcement Issues: • VRBOs are difficult to identify; most found through complaints, monitoring is costly • Stearns County reports 20 -30 hours in staff time to bring one a VRBO into compliance • Evidence of violations is difficult to obtain; complaints come after -hours or on weekends • Conduct of renters is the most common source of complaint; this conduct may be difficult to regulate under a land use regulation • Septic system capacity and compliance can represent the most serious land use issues surrounding VRBOs and may be handed through existing requirements Property Tax Classification: • Different treatment of short-term v. long -term rentals • TC Hewitt v. McLeod: emerging issue of when a VRBO is commercial for property tax classification purposes • Regulating VRBOs may also implicate how these.properties are treated for tax purposes EXPLORE MINNESOTA TOURISM STATE OF MINNESOTA IKF ® ©EMT MINNESOTA VACATION HOME RENTAL TASK FORCE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2008 Legislative Session Chapter 291- S.F. 3158 January 2009 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55101 -2114 USA Telephone: 500- 657 -3637 Web sites: www .industry.exploreminnesota.com . www.exploreminnesota.com Exhibit E Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ............................................... ............................... 3 Recommendations................................................. ............................... 4 Background, Opportunities and Concerns ........ ............................... 5 ExistingSituation ................................................... ............................... 7 Existing Minnesota Regulations ........................ ............................... 8 Recommendations................................................ ............................... 9 NextSteps ............................................................... ............................... 11 Appendices: Appendix A - Legislative Language Regarding Vacation HomeRental ................................... ............................... 12 Appendix B - Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force ....... 13 Appendix C - Vacation Home Rental Regulations in Select Citiesand States ........................... ............................... 16 Appendix D - Vacation Home Rental Regulations in Selected Minnesota Counties ....................... ............................... 21 Appendix E - Stearns County Zoning Ordinance ......................... 23 Appendix F - Minnesota Department of Health Statutory Language Recommendations ...... ............................... 25 Appendix G - Minnesota Department of Revenue Statutory Language Recommendations ...... ............................... 35 Appendix H - Minnesota Seasonal Recreational Properties Owners Coalition Concerns ........ ............................... 36 2 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations 11 A iviinnesota Vacation Home Rental Lodginis ' Task Force Report Recommendations Executive Summary At the direction of the Minnesota State Legislature, Explore Minnesota Tourism led a task force studying vacation home rental lodging. This task force of 30 members included representatives of Minnesota state departments including Health and Revenue, planning and zoning organizations, the University of Minnesota Tourism Center, several tourism businesses and tourism industry associations, associations for realtors and vacation home owners and home owners impacted by vacation home rental. The primary focus of this task force was to ensure that vacation home rentals operating as businesses are a safe lodging alternative that are managed and regulated on a level playing field with other lodging options, such as resorts and bed and breakfasts. An additional focus was the need to develop a workable means of mixing commercial and residential uses among properties on the same lake, or within the same area or building. • The rental of privately -owned vacation homes is common throughout the world and is a growing practice in Minnesota. Vacation home rentals are offered through companies that specialize in this business, or directly by the home owners. • The number of vacation homes offered for rent in Minnesota is unknown, but hundreds of Minnesota homes are promoted on various vacation home rental Web sites. There are more than 100,000 seasonal, recreational or occasional use homes in Minnesota. • The task force identified current regulations that apply to Minnesota vacation home rentals in the areas of health and safety, taxes, and zoning. The task force also researched vacation home definitions, laws, permits, licenses and related issues in several other states. • The task force determined that although current Minnesota regulations already apply to vacation home rentals, the language of the regulations does not specifically refer to this type of accommodation. As a result, most people who rent their vacation homes are probably unaware of the regulations that apply to this practice. 3 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Recommendations Although Minnesota vacation home rentals are intended to be regulated under existing statutes and rules, the task force recommends that the management and regulation of vacation home rentals in Minnesota be clarified. Specifically, in Minnesota Department of Health statutes: • Add the definition of vacation home rental in M.S. 157.15 Definitions; • Reference the vacation home rental category in M.S. 157.16 Licenses/ Required Fees; and • Add an exemption for charitable donations in M.S. 157.22 Exemptions. Minnesota Department of Revenue statutes should be revised to: Define an isolated and occasional sale of a vacation home rental that would not be subject to sales and use tax in M.S. 297A.67, Subd. 23 Occasional Sales. ■ There needs to be coordination among state and local jurisdictions and departments regarding regulations related to vacation home rentals. Proactive communication of the rules and regulations must be implemented, so those who offer vacation home rentals provide safe accommodations in compliance with state and local laws and regulations and also maintain a positive relationship with their neighboring homeowners and businesses. Note: The Minnesota Seasonal Recreational Property Owners Coalition, represented on the Task Force, disagreed wifli recommendations in this report. (See Appendix H.) 0 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Background The rental of vacation homes is growing throughout the world. Spurred by the ease of Internet marketing, the need of owners to cover increasing costs including utilities and property taxes, and overall consumer interest in savings and demand for lodging alternatives outside of the traditional hotel /motel offerings, Minnesota's second -home owners are becoming active operators in the vacation home rental market. On a national level, in Hawaii, "individual vacation units" made up 7.9% of total visitor units (5,786) for 2007. The North Carolina Vacation Rental Managers Association recently studied their vacation home rental industry and identified 23,000 vacation home rental units with a total of 92,000 bedrooms and an average length of stay of 4.6 nights. The potential exists for vacation home rental to become a significant business operation in Minnesota. The 2000 U.S. Census found that Minnesota had 105,609 housing units classified as "for seasonal, recreation, or occasional use," out of 2,065,946 total housing units (5 %). These types of housing, although traditionally thought of as cabins by a lake, also include options such as condominiums in metro areas, or "scrapbooking" houses throughout the state. ( Scrapbooking houses are accommodations that have been developed specifically for gatherings of people who scrapbook as a hobby.) They are commonly located in areas surrounded by seasonal and year - around residences that are not used for commercial purposes. Opportunities and Concerns Minnesota's lodging options are evolving. The number of resorts is steadily declining, largely due to increasing costs of operation and the overall value of lakeshore property. Within the last 20 years, Minnesota has added about 200 bed and breakfast operations that offer unique lodging alternatives to the traditional hotel /motel in communities large and small throughout the state. In more recent years, vacation home rentals have been emerging in Minnesota. One characteristic of vacation home rental that further distinguishes it from most other types of lodging is that there is not an on -site manager. To make this is a safe, viable, and economically beneficial development, there is a need to provide both guidance and regulation to these entrepreneurs. The opportunity to address a consumer market interested in this lodging option can generate economic benefits throughout an area. Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota !Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations These new lodging options need to operate on a level playing field with other businesses that offer sleeping accommodations. Specific legal and regulatory concerns include: • Payment of federal, state and local taxes • Licensing by the Minnesota Department of Health • Building code requirements such as the Americans with Disabilities Act • Septic, plumbing and water quality compliance • Fire safety • Capacity issues • Zoning compliance (commercial or residential) • Identifying and posting contact information on management • Insurance requirements In addition to legal concerns, operating a commercial business venture alongside neighboring residences (many of which are converting from seasonal to year -round homes as their owners retire), can lead to conflict. These conflicts, if not addressed on a voluntary basis, will lead to a need for additional regulation. These types of issues include: • Overcrowding /maximum occupancy • Maintenance • 24- hour - per -day contact availability with local manager for guests and neighbors • Noise • Business signage • Parking capacity/ RV parking • Driving responsibly • Garbage • Responsible use of recreational equipment • Outside camping • Trespassing • Malicious complaints • Licensing process • Enforcement 6 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Existing Situation Initially, the task force, through the University of Minnesota Tourism Center, looked at other states and communities that have addressed the development of vacation home rental. The Tourism Center gathered information on: • Arizona, including Sedona • Colorado, including Steamboat Springs and Estes Park • Florida • Hawaii • North Carolina • South Carolina • South Dakota • Texas • Wisconsin • Palm Springs All of these areas have existing but varied vacation home rental regulations, definitions, licensing, fees and taxes. Regulations deal with issues from safety to parking, as well as enforcement fines. See Appendix C for a summary. The Tourism Center also looked at a sampling of Minnesota counties: • Cass • Cook • Crow Wing • Hennepin • Goodhue • Lake • Olmsted • Stearns - has existing regulations regarding vacation home rental (Ordinance 204 enacted in June, 2008. See Appendix E for a summary.) • St. Louis Explore Minnesota Tourism used these same counties to search a sample of the vacation home rental Web sites. Within these counties, www.vrbo.com listed 344 Minnesota homes; www.alwaysonvacation.com listed 67 and www.homeaway.com listed 141. See Appendix D for a summary. Although only three Web sites were examined, based on a Google search, there are at least 816 listings of Web sites that promote vacation home rentals. It is unknown how many list Minnesota properties. Listing services also do not usually bear legal responsibility for the information. 7 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Existing Minnesota Regulations Many of the legal and regulatory issues related to vacation home rental are currently covered in state statute. According to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Minnesota Statutes Chapter 157 and Minnesota Rule Chapter 4625 (although not specifically defining vacation home rental) would apply to a facility offering sleeping accommodations to the public. Currently, businesses renting for a week or more with five or more -units are included in MDH licensing requirements. Licensing by MDH would require verification of a number of issues including building code requirements such as the Americans with Disabilities Act; septic, plumbing and water compliance; fire safety; capacity issues and posting contact information about management. In this process, MDH also requires verification of local zoning compliance as well as a tax identification number. Within Minnesota Department of Revenue oversight, for sales and use tax requirements, short term rentals of lodging are taxable under Minnesota Statute 297A.61 subd. 3 unless the sale qualifies as an occasional sale under Minnesota Statute 297A.67 subd. 23 Occasional Sales. Vacation home rental is not specifically defined, but included under the more general intent of the occasional sales statute. Property tax and individual income tax statutes would also apply. Real Estate licensees, who provide property rental and management services as licensed under chapter 82, are allowed to operate vacation home rental management businesses without an additional license. The vacation home rental unit or units themselves require additional licensing, which may be provided by the unit owner or the rental management company or broker. Shoreland rules are currently being updated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources through a stakeholder committee review process. Vacation home rental has been identified for consideration in this revision process. Cities, counties and townships have their own zoning and nuisance ordinances. There are 87 counties and 853 cities in Minnesota with planning and zoning authority. Zoning decisions are made at the local level. Education and communication are the overall key to developing workable local implementation. Tools or model ordinance language can be provided to assist in local decisions. Regardless of the existing laws and statutes that govern vacation home rental, it was a group consensus that these requirements for vacation home rentals are not known, communicated and /or commonly followed at this time. 8 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Recommendations 1. Regulation of Minnesota vacation home rental properties needs to be clarified in state statute and rules. Minnesota Department of Health Regulations: Specifically, three changes are recommended to statutes regarding licensing by the Minnesota Department of Health: Amend M.S. 157.15 Definitions, by adding a definition for vacation home rental; the recommended language would appear under Subd. 20 Vacation Hoene Rental. "Vacation home rental means any home, cabin, condominium or similar building that is advertised or held out to the public as a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public on a nightly or weekly basis and is not a bed and breakfast, resort, hotel or motel." Add references to the vacation home rental category to M.S. 157.16 Licenses Required; Fees. Add a licensing exemption for one donation annually for eligible charitable donations of weekend stays or periods of a week or less for fundraising in M.S. 157.22 Exemptions. See Appendix F for language. Minnesota Department of Revenue Regulations: One change in statute is recommended by the Minnesota Department of Revenue: Amend Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 297A.67 subd. 23, to define an isolated or occasional sale of a vacation home rental that would not be subject to sales and use tax. The definition adopts the "number of days" used for federal income tax purposes for the purpose of consistency and familiarity. See Appendix G for language. 0 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation dome Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations 2. Communications Regarding Vacation Home Rental A proactive communication plan needs to be implemented to ensure awareness of the regulations, licenses, taxes and operational courtesies that need to be addressed when renting vacation home properties. Currently, requirements for licensing, fees, taxes, inspections and enforcement for the operation of a vacation home rental property in Minnesota are neither clearly defined nor widely known. Lacking clear direction, unlicensed and unregulated vacation home rentals are growing throughout Minnesota. Following the outcome of the 2009 Legislative session, communicating this information is critical to compliance. Target audiences for the communication of vacation home rental operation requirements include: • Vacation home rental property owners • Vacation property owners associations • Vacation home management and rental companies • Nearby residents • Lake associations Organizations and mediums to potentially use in communicating include: • Governing agencies at a state, local and county level • Tourism and hospitality trade associations • Realtors and realtor associations - CEU's and desk top reference guides • Continuing education sources for realtors • Promotional organizations - chambers of commerce, convention and visitors bureaus, state tourism office • Annual licensing and permitting processes • Law enforcement agencies • Insurance agencies • Electric utility companies serving vacation rental areas • Property tax statements for recreational property • Vacation rental websites Communications must be clear, concise, and consistent and have contacts for further information, both phone and Web based. Explore Minnesota Tourism will create a Web site or Web page that includes all current information about requirements for vacation home rentals. Both public relations and public information meetings need to be utilized to reach the targeted audiences. 10 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Next Steps Recommendations for statutory changes will be initiated by tourism industry associations and pursued in the Minnesota Legislature. Following the 2009 legislative session, Explore Minnesota Tourism will coordinate with the task force to implement needed communications efforts. 11 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX A: LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE REGARDING VACATION HOME RENTAL CHAPTER 291-- S.F.No. 3158 An act relating to commerce; requiring Explore Minnesota Tourism to study vacation rental lodging; creating definitions; requiring a report. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. MINNESOTA VACATION RENTAL LODGING STUDY. Explore Minnesota Tourism shall conduct a study of vacation rental lodging in Minnesota and report to the legislature any recommendations needed to protect consumers, ensure tax compliance, promote safe rentals, and promote tourism in Minnesota. Explore Minnesota Tourism shall consult with the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minnesota Department of Health, political subdivisions, and representatives of the tourism industry including resorts, bed and breakfast establishments, cabin owner associations, conventions and visitor bureaus, and others to determine and recommend regulations or legislation to define and promote the vacation rental lodging. Explore Minnesota Tourism shall report by January 15, 2009, to the chairs and ranking minority members of the house of representatives and senate committees with jurisdiction over any recommendations developed from the study, including any proposed legislation. EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment. Presented to the governor May 8, 2008 Signed by the governor May 12, 2008, 1:09 p.m. 12 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX B: MINNESOTA VACATION HOME RENTAL TASK FORCE Tim Aarsvold Geneva Beach Resort 105 Linden Avenue Alexandria, MN 56308 320/763-3200 TIA @GenevaBeachResort.com Jane & Gary Bales 18 Harbor View Lane Federal Dam, MN 56641 218/654-3030 igbales @means.net Angie Berg Stearns County Administration Center 705 Courthouse Square St. Cloud, MN 56303 320/656-3600 Angie.berg @co.stearns.mn.us Christine Berger MN Association of Realtors 5750 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55436 952/215 -8471 cberger @mnrealtor.com Joel Carlson Legal Research - Government Affairs 6 West Fifth Street Suite 700 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 651/223 -2868 idcresearch @aol.com Chuck Dougherty Minnesota Bed & Breakfast Assn. 101 Water Street South Stillwater, MN 55082 -5150 chuck@waterstreetin-n.us 13 John Edman Explore Minnesota Tourism 100 Metro Square 121 7t" Place East Saint Paul, MN 55101 651/296-4783 Tohn.edman @state.mn.us Gary Edwards MN Dept. of Health 625 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55155 -2516 651/201 -4513 Garv.edwards @state.mn.us Tom Ellerbe MN Dept. of Revenue 600 N. Robert St., M.S. 2230 St. Paul, MN 55146 -2230 651/566 -6136 Tom.ellerbe @state.mn.us Henry Erdman MN Seasonal Recreational Property Owners Coalition 331 Winona Street West Saint Paul, MN 55117 651 /247 -1701 Herdman4890 @earthlink.net Jeff Forester MN Seasonal Recreational Property Owners Coalition Two Appletree Square, #235 Bloomington, MN 55425 952/854-1317 jeff @msrpo.org Explore Minnesota Tourism Jim Franklin Minnesota Sheriffs Association 1951 Woodlane Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 651/451 -7216 Franklin@mnsheriffs. orR Annalee Garletz Association of Minnesota Counties 125 Charles Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 651/789 -4322 Garletz@rm-icounties.org Mike Grove Twin Springs Resort 3837 North Pleasant Lake Dr NW Hackensack, MN 56452 vacation@hackensacknu-i.com Kent Gustafson University of MN Tourism Center 120 BioAgEng 1390 Eckles Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55108 612/625-8274 kggstaf @umn.edu Ken Klos Greenwood Township /Lake Vermilion 7595 Timberlore Trail West Cook, MN 55723 218/666 -0359 Kk1os @2z.net Mark Lauderbaugh 38615911, Street NW Maple Lake, MN 55358 320/963-2017 mark @tridentprocess.com 14 Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Joe Mathews Association of MN Counties 125 Charles Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 651/224 -3344 mathews@mncounties. orLY Kevin Matzek Hospitality Minnesota 305 Roselawn Avenue East Saint Paul, MN 55117 651/778-2400 Kevinm@hospitalitynu-i.com Mark Novotny Hyde -A -Way Bay Resort 3489 Ford Drive NW Hacksensack, MN 56452 218/675 -6683 hydeawaybay @tds.net Jennifer O'Rourke League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West Saint Paul, MN 55103 651/281 -1261 jorourke @lmc.org Marissa Papineau MN Department of Revenue 600 N. Robert St. Saint Paul, MN 55101 651/556 -6974 Marissa.papineau@state.irm.us Julie Ring Local Public Health Association of MN 125 Charles Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55103 651/789-4354 ring@i-nncounties.org Explore Minnesota Tourism Gretchen Sabel Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road Saint Paul, MN 55155 651/296 -6300 Gretchen.sabel @state.mn.us Ingrid Schneider MN Tourism Center University of MN Tourism Center 120BioAgEng 1390 Eckles Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55108 612 - 624 -2736 ingridss @umn.edu Dave Siegel Hospitality Minnesota/ Associations 305 Roselawn Avenue East Saint Paul, MN 55117 651/778-2400 dave @hospitalitymn.com Kent Sulem General Consul Minnesota Association of Townships 805 Central Avenue East P.O. Box 267 St. Michael, MN 55376 763/497 -2330 ksulem @mntownships.org Colleen Tollefson Explore Minnesota Tourism 100 Metro Square 121761 Place East Saint Paul, MN 55101 651/297-2635 Colleen. tollefson @state.mn.us is Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Heather VanValkenburg Director of Government Affairs MN Association of Realtors 5750 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55436 952/912-2661 hvanvalkenburg@mnyealtor.com Cathy Wicks Sales and Use Tax Division Department of Revenue 600 North Robert Street Saint Paul, MN 55146 -6300 651/556 -6818 Cathv.wicks@state.mn.us Explore Minnesota Tourism 00 O N Ln 0) Q a� U ro U) a) 4-J ra .4-) 4-J U N N Cn c C O M D 0) N cl� (6 C N N 0 C O M U U X H LU r CL Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations 16 Explore Minnesota Tourism 4 0) �x o o o �o(n ° o�° x v H � o cn z� o Q«S CS bbO bO by , O (fl ii v n Cd U(v N cd V Id u O O CS N O O �O NO p 'd U U 4 m v v UO a U ZU a °�' s��° > °' H4° 10 ?�U °m U ° ° a�i o o °u O O ai m ° � v o 0 °r+° d x ?a o > 0 �° o � > ,� Cd '� a, U) 0 m o Cn \o U m 4 m ° ° ?° °m M 0 a� zz tA O O d W D �i it Q 16 Explore Minnesota Tourism 00 O O N a--) U) D CD Q U c c� 4-J ,N U N L 0 ca nCD n Wl ^^L., / I. Q� O C O f0 U (6 U X H 0 z W d. Q Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations 17 Explore Minnesota Tourism o o CD L6 CT, r-i N 00 N kf-� O (D O X O' ' m 'd A `A CD `p Ep� D Id p O w N O w U 'd cUi • r •+-� Cd cn tC () bA bA 'i�+' c14 U) m bA A o ti U 14� iv{ Ch �l v OH (la U cd a� bA bA p bA bA w o 0 CU o00 Z U U v o °° o �O O •� � O ,H' U Id N 0 0 0 U o 0 CJ N aV v d A w 17 Explore Minnesota Tourism 00 O O N Q LO U W 4-J 4-J 4-J U N Ln 0 0) L.L c 0 N O O M U ra U X Q W a Q Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations 18 Explore Minnesota Tourism o a� o v CA Ed P, O O O U O X ;:i v H X �.O o ~ 'U � ' P a) "�1 i .'� F1 o o (!1 Q 4 cd O CD O 41 N O m 0 r. U o U o O U Q-, p N zj UO O O + N 1 30-i H 00 O v X X 41 � 0 LO C7 En dpi 0 N bJJ v O w �' O D, o N m bA O bA ai U w wo 9 m w cd T.� �, O rd Ed U n (0) i b - O O O O \ O o tti p U O «S u3 T d O � O U p x U X o U �� cam ( O (a o cd � w o U 'S� 41 0� o U �.� a� H �� Lr) 0 04 ° o U U U) ° 'd ed 0 a� U V iy O 9 w H 18 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX C: Vacation Home Rentals in Select States and Cities (August 2008) 19 Explore Minnesota Tourism Sedona, AZ (2007) Steamboat Estes Park, CO (2004) Palm Springs, TX? Springs, CO (2008) Existing Yes — Article 6 of Yes Yes Yes — Chapter 5.25 vacation Land Development home Code regulations Definitions Rental of single Vactain Home Leasing, renting any More than one family or mobile Rental to a single unit for a total residential buildings home for less than party. Not more duration of less than rented for less than 28 30 days than two occasions 30 days vacation home consecutive days to for not more than rental— residential the same renter 29 consecutive unit leased or occupied days. on a unit basis Detail Prohibits rental Maximum of 16 Need to operate within Compliance with all more than 30 days people/ 200ft. Two residential character city fire, noise, parking (noise /traffic /design) building, & health spaces /four Two guests /room codes. 24- hour /day vehicles. No with maximum of contact with local unreasonable eight people; one manager. noise, outdoor parking lot per three sleeping, guest cars NO RV, commercial local manager required kitchens, advertising Fee/License $500 application Business license fee: Initial fee: $25.00 fee, $50 annual varies by number of renewal units Enforcement $2500 fine & six $1000 fine/ day Inspection with Misdemenor for each months in Jail operate without reasonable notice day of violation. license (three License revocation Fifteen days allowed months to after warnings to complete transition) compliance. After Inspection with 24- fourth violation, hour notice license can be revoked Tax Lodging tax Commercial sales tax 11.75% lodging tax 19 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Notes: • Sedona ordinance has become subject of court challenges • Hawaii (2007): "Individual vacation units" made up 7.9 % of total visitor units (5,786) • Maui County, Hawaii, VHR policies part of bed and breakfast ordinance (Chapter 19.64) • North Carolina VHR profile completed for North Carolina Vacation Rental Managers Association Total number of VHR's: 23,000 Total value: $9.6 billion Total'number of bedrooms: 92,000 Average length of stay: 4.6 nights Total number of VHR management companies: 142 University of Minnesota Tottrisnt Ce)iter— August 2008 20 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX D: Vacation Home Rental Regulations in Selected Minnesota Counties 21 Explore Minnesota Tourism Cass Cook Crow Hennepin Goodhue Lake Olmsted Stearns St. Louis Win Existing No No No No No No No Yes No— vacation vacation (P & Z Lodging P & Z (6/17/08) Possibly home rental ordnances Depart- more than Depart- Ordinance town - regulations There is a ment 30 days ment 204 ship "lodging reports no requires Indicate establish- problems) conuner- vacation ment" cial & home ordinance condition- rentals al use not a erinit roblem Definitions "Lodging More than Any group house" — 30 days of rooms (sleeping forming a rooms single furnished habitable to public/ area five+ beds) Details License Any use Application required; may be requires fees set; allowed as water test, inspection condition- sewage standards; al use inspection, construc- when it can to scale tion plan be drawing reviews; regulated penalties to preserve Max. 12 set the stated people, or general one purpose of person /50 the district gallons water/ day sewage can handle. No signs or RV's No more than two /parcel Fees/License Cond. Use License =$200; required Recording based on fee =$46 number of rooms 21 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Many vacation home rental property owners advertise their properties on the Internet, The following chart lists the totals for rentals in selected counties on three popular Web sites. Although only three Web sites were examined, based on a Google.com search, there are at least 816 listings of Web sites that promote vacation home rental. All Ely properties are listed in Lake County In some cases, it is difficult to determine whether a property is in Cass or Crow Wing County The 2000 U.S. Census data, and found that Minnesota had 105,609 housing units classified as "for seasonal, recreation, or occasional use" (i.e., seasonal) out of 2,065,946 total housing units (5 %). University of Minnesota Tourism Center - August 2008 22 Explore Minnesota Tourism www.vrbo.com www.alwaysonvacation.com www.homea,,vay.com All three Web Sites County Cass 33 4 3 40 Cook 110 23 82 215 Crow Win 95 15 23 133 Goodhue 2 0 1 3 Hennepin 27 1 8 36 Lake 22 4 5 31 Olmsted 2 0 0 2 St. Louis 51 19 17 87 Stearns 2 1 2 5 TOTAL 344 67 141 552 All Ely properties are listed in Lake County In some cases, it is difficult to determine whether a property is in Cass or Crow Wing County The 2000 U.S. Census data, and found that Minnesota had 105,609 housing units classified as "for seasonal, recreation, or occasional use" (i.e., seasonal) out of 2,065,946 total housing units (5 %). University of Minnesota Tourism Center - August 2008 22 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX E: Stearns County Zoning Ordinance (This Section last annended June 17, 2008) 6.49 Vacation/Private Home Rental 6.49.1 Performance Standards A Vacation/ Private Home Rental shall be subject to the administrative requirements of Section 4.18 of this Ordinance and the following performance standards: A. Submittal of an application signed by the property owner and including the following: a current water test from an accredited laboratory with test results for nitrate - nitrogen and coliform bacteria, a compliance inspection of the existing sub- surface sewage treatment system and a to -scale drawing of the location and dimensions of the structure intended for licensing and all associated accessory structures, parking areas, shore recreation facilities and sewage treatment systems. B. The occupancy of a Vacation/ Private Home Rental shall be limited to no more than two persons per bedroom plus two additional persons per building, not to exceed a maximum of 12 persons; or no more than 1 person for every 50 gallons of water per day that the building's sub - surface sewage treatment system is designed to handle, whichever is less. C. Parking shall meet the requirements of Section 7.15 of this Ordinance. Designated parking areas shall be off - street parking. D. On premise signs are prohibited. E. The Vacation/ Private Home Rental shall be connected to an approved subsurface sewage treatment system. The sub- surface sewage treatment system shall be designed and constructed with a design flow of 50 gallons of water per person per day to handle the maximum number of guests for which the facility is permitted. The sub - surface sewage treatment system shall include a flow measurement device. Flow measurement readings and monitoring of the sub - surface sewage treatment system shall be recorded monthly and records shall be made available to the Department upon request. The use of holding tanks for Vacation/ Private Home rental units shall be prohibited. F. Rental of recreational vehicles shall not be allowed. G. The Planning Commission may impose conditions that will reduce the impact of the proposed use on neighboring properties and nearby waterbodies. Said conditions may include but not be limited to a fence or vegetative screening along a property line or a native buffer along the shoreline. H. The owners of Vacation/ Private Home Rentals shall ensure that the noise standards of Minnesota Rules, chapter 7030; or successor rules, are met. The Planning Commission may impose a quiet hours standard in order to assist in achieving this goal and to reduce the potential impacts on neighboring properties. 23 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations The owners of Vacation /Private Home Rentals shall, at a minimum, comply with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 504B; or successor statue and make available to all tenants the Minnesota Attorney General's annual statement summarizing the significant legal rights and obligations of landlords and residential tenants, as described in Minnesota Statues, section 50413.275; or successor statute. The licensee shall keep a report, detailing use of the home by recording, at a minimum, the name, address, phone number and vehicle license number of all guests using the property. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Department upon request. No more than two Vacation /Private Home rentals will be allowed on a parcel. Construction of more than one single family dwelling unit or Guest Cottage shall only be allowed on a parcel that meets the requirements of Sections 10.2.8 and 10.2.12 of this Ordinance. More than two Vacation/ Private Home rentals on the same parcel or on contiguous parcels under common ownership shall constitute a resort and must meet the standards set forth in Section 10.2.23 of this Ordinance. 6.49.2 License Required A Vacation /Private Home Rental shall be licensed by the County and shall meet the requirements of Stearns County Ordinance Number 204; or successor ordinances. 24 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX F: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATUTORY LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1996 c 451 art 4 s 71] Subd. 3. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of health. Subd. 4.Boarding establishment. "Boarding establishment" means a food and beverage service establishment where food or beverages, or both, are furnished to five or more regular boarders, whether with or without sleeping accommodations, for periods of one week or more. Subd. 5.Food and beverage service establishment. "Food and beverage service establishment" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part of a building, structure, or enclosure used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be an operation that prepares, serves, or otherwise provides food or beverages, or both, for human consumption. Subd. 6.Food cart. "Food cart" means a food and beverage service establishment that is a nonmotorized vehicle self - propelled by the operator. Subd. 7.Hotel or motel. "Hotel or motel" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public and furnishing accommodations for periods of less than one week. Subd. 8.Lodging establishment. "Lodging establishment" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public as regular roomers, for periods of one week or more, and having five or more beds to let to the public. W Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Subd. 9.Mobile food unit. "Mobile food unit" means a food and beverage service establishment that is a vehicle mounted unit, either motorized or trailered, operating no more than 21 days annually at any one place or is operated in conjunction with a permanent business licensed under this chapter or chapter 28A at the site of the permanent business by the same individual or company, and.readily movable, without disassembling, for transport to another location. Subd. 10.Person. "Person" has the meaning given in section 103I.005, subdivision 16. Subd. 11.Resort. "Resort" means a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof located on, or on property neighboring, any lake, stream, skiing or hunting area, or any recreational area for purposes of providing convenient access thereto, kept, used, maintained, or advertised as, or held out to the public to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public, and primarily to those seeking recreation for periods of one day, one week, or longer, and having for rent five or-- mere cottages, rooms, or enclosures. Subd. 12.Restaurant. "Restaurant" means a food and beverage service establishment, whether the establishment serves alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverages, which operates from a location for more than 21 days annually. Restaurant does not include a food cart or a mobile food unit. Subd. 12a. Seasonal permanent food stand. "Seasonal permanent food stand" means a food and beverage service establishment which is a permanent food service stand or building, but which operates no more than 21 days annually. Subd. 13.Seasonal temporary food stand. "Seasonal temporary food stand" means a food and beverage service establishment that is a food stand which is disassembled and moved from location to location, but which operates no more than 21 days annually at any one location. Subd. 14.Special event food stand. "Special event food stand" means a food and beverage service establishment which is used in conjunction with celebrations and special events, and which operates no more than three times annually for no more than ten total days. 26 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Subd. 15. [Repealed, 1998 c 407 art 2 s 109 Subd. 16.Critical control point. "Critical control point" means a point or procedure in a specific food system where loss of control may result in an unacceptable health risk. Subd. 17.HACCP plan. "Hazard analysis critical control point ( HACCP) plan" means a written document that delineates the formal procedures for following the HACCP principles developed by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. Subd. 18.Hazard. "Hazard" means any biological, chemical, or physical property that may cause an unacceptable consumer health risk. Subd. 19. Statewide hospitality fee. "Statewide hospitality fee" means a fee to fund statewide food, beverage, and lodging program development activities, including training for inspection staff, technical assistance, maintenance of a statewide integrated food safety and security information system, and other related statewide activities that support the food, beverage, and lodging program activities. place "Vacation home rental means anv home, cabin, condominium or similar building that is advertised or held out to the public as a accommodations where sleeping breakfast, resorthotel or motel. History: 1995 c 207 art 9 s 41; 1996 c 451 art 4 s 47- 55,70; 1997 c 203 art 2 s 19 -21; 1998 c 407 art 2 s 87 -91; 1 Sp2005 c 4 art 6 s 43 27 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations (3) any building owned, operated, and used by a college or university in accordance with health regulations promulgated by the college or university under chapter 14; (4) any person, firm, or corporation whose principal mode of business is licensed under sections 28A.04 and 28A.05, is exempt at that premises from licensure as a food or beverage establishment; provided that the holding of any license pursuant to sections 28A.04 and 28A.05 shall not exempt any person, firm, or corporation from the applicable provisions of this chapter or the rules of the state commissioner of health relating to food and beverage service establishments; (5) family day care homes and group family day care homes governed by sections 245A.01 to 245A.16; (6) nonprofit senior citizen centers for the sale of home -baked goods; (7) fraternal or patriotic organizations that are tax exempt under section 501(c) (3), 501(c)(4),* 501(c) (6), 501(c) (7), 501(c) (10), or 501(c) (19) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or organizations related to or affiliated with such fraternal or patriotic organizations. Such organizations may organize events at which home - prepared food is donated by organization members for sale at the events, provided: (i) the event is not a circus, carnival, or fair; (ii) the organization controls the admission of persons to the event, the event agenda, or both; and (iii) the organization's licensed kitchen is not used in any manner for the event; Such tax exempt organizations listed above may accept donations from private property owners at cabins or homes in recreational areas for weekend stays or periods of a week or less for fund raising efforts. Neither the property owner nor the tax exempt organization will be required to obtain a vacation home rental license or other lodging license for that donated period of time when limited to one donation annualh L (8) food not prepared at an establishment and brought in by individuals attending a potluck event for consumption at the potluck event. An organization sponsoring a potluck event under this clause may advertise the potluck event to the public through any means. 28 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Individuals who are not members of an organization sponsoring a potluck event under this clause may attend the potluck event and consume the food at the event. Licensed food establishments other than schools cannot be sponsors of potluck events. A school may sponsor and hold potluck events in areas of the school other than the school's kitchen, provided that the school's kitchen is not used in any manner for the potluck event. For purposes of this clause, "school" means a public school as defined in section 120A.05, subdivisions 9, 11, 13, and 17, or a nonpublic school, church, or religious organization at which a child is provided with instruction in compliance with sections 120A.22 and 120A.24. Potluck event food shall not be brought into a licensed food establishment kitchen; and (9) a home school in which a child is provided instruction at home. History: 1995 c 207 a1-t 9 s 48; 2000 c 378 s 1; 2001 c 65 s 1; 1Sp2001 c 9 art 1 s 55; 2002 c 379 art 1 s 113157.16 LICENSES REQUIRED; FEES. Subdivision 1. License required annually. A license is required annually for every person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of conducting a food and beverage service establishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, vacation home rental or resort. Any person wishing to operate a place of business licensed in this section shall first make application, pay the required fee specified in this section, and receive approval for operation, including plan review approval. Seasonal and temporary food stands and special event food stands are not required to submit plans. Nonprofit organizations operating a special event food stand with multiple locations at an annual one -day event shall be issued only one license. Application shall be made on forms provided by the commissioner and shall require the applicant to state the full name and address of the owner of the building, structure, or enclosure, the lessee and manager of the food and beverage service establishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, vacation home rental or resort; the name under which the business is to be conducted; and any other information as may be required by the commissioner to complete the application for license. 29 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations Subd. 2. License renewal. Initial and renewal licenses for all food and beverage service establishments, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, public pools, vacation home rentals and resorts shall be issued for the calendar year for which application is made and shall expire on December 31 of such year. Any person who operates a place of business after the expiration date of a license or without having submitted an application and paid the fee shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this chapter and shall be subject to enforcement action, as provided in the Health Enforcement Consolidation Act, sections 144.989 to 144.993. In addition, a penalty of $50 shall be added to the total of the license fee for any food and beverage service establishment operating without a license as a mobile food unit, a seasonal temporary or seasonal permanent food stand, or a special event food stand, and a penalty of $100 shall be added to the total of the license fee for all restaurants, food carts, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, public pools, vacation home rentals and resorts operating without a license for a period of up to 30 days. A late fee of $300 shall be added to the license fee for establishments operating more than 30 days without a license. Subd. 2a. Food manager certification. An applicant for certification or certification renewal as a food manager must submit to the commissioner a $28 nonrefundable certification fee payable to the Department of Health. Subd. 3. Establishment fees; definitions. (a) The following fees are required for food and beverage service establishments, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, public pools, vacation home rentals and resorts licensed under this chapter. Food and beverage service establishments must pay the highest applicable fee under paragraph (d), clause (1), (2), (3), or (4), and establishments serving alcohol must pay the highest applicable fee under paragraph (d), clause (6) or (7). The license fee for new operators previously licensed under this chapter for the same calendar year is one -half of the appropriate annual license fee, plus any penalty that may be required. The license fee for operators opening on or after October 1 is one -half of the appropriate annual license fee, plus any penalty that may be required. 30 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations (b) All food and beverage service establishments, except special event food stands, and all hotels, motels, lodging establishments, public pools, vacation home rentals and resorts shall pay an annual base fee of $150. (c) A special event food stand shall pay a flat fee of $40 annually. "Special event food stand" means a fee category where food is prepared or served in conjunction with celebrations, county fairs, or special events from a special event food stand as defined in section 157.15. (d) In addition to the base fee in paragraph (b), each food and beverage service establishment, other than a special event food stand, and each hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, vacation home rental and resort shall pay an additional annual fee for each fee category, additional food service, or required additional inspection specified in this paragraph: (1) Limited food menu selection, $50. "Limited food menu selection" means a fee category that provides one or more of the following: (i) prepackaged food that receives heat treatment and is served in the package; (ii) frozen pizza that is heated and served; (iii) a continental breakfast such as rolls, coffee, juice, milk, and cold cereal; (iv) soft drinks, coffee, or nonalcoholic beverages; or (v) cleaning for eating, drinking, or cooking utensils, when the only food served is prepared off site. (2) Small establishment, including boarding establishments, $100. "Small establishment" means a fee category that has no salad bar and meets one or more of the following: (i) possesses food service equipment that consists of no more than a deep fat fryer, a grill, two hot holding containers, and one or more microwave ovens; (ii) serves dipped ice cream or soft serve frozen desserts; (iii) serves breakfast in an owner - occupied bed and breakfast establishment; (iv) is a boarding establishment; or 31 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations (v) meets the equipment criteria in clause (3), item (i) or (ii), and has a maximum patron seating capacity of not more than 50. (3) Medium establishment, $260. "Medium establishment" means a fee category that meets one or more of the following: (i) possesses food service equipment that includes a range, oven, steam table, salad bar, or salad preparation area; (ii) possesses food service equipment that includes more than one deep fat fryer, one grill, or two hot holding containers; or (iii) is an establishment where food is prepared at one location and served at one or more separate locations. Establishments meeting criteria in clause (2), item (v), are not included in this fee category. (4) Large establishment, $460. "Large establishment" means either: (i) a fee category that (A) meets the criteria in clause (3), items (i) or (ii), for a medium establishment, (B) seats more than 175 people, and (C) offers the full menu selection an average of five or more days a week during the weeks of operation; or (ii) a fee category that (A) meets the criteria in clause (3), item (iii), for a medium establishment, and (B) prepares and serves 500 or more meals per day. (5) Other food and beverage service, including food carts, mobile food units, seasonal temporary food stands, and seasonal permanent food stands, $50. (6) Beer or wine table service, $50. "Beer or wine table service" means a fee category where the only alcoholic beverage service is beer or wine, served to customers seated at tables. (7) Alcoholic beverage service, other than beer or wine table service, $135. "Alcohol beverage service, other than beer or wine table service" means a fee category where alcoholic mixed drinks are served or where beer or wine are served from a bar. (8) Lodging per sleeping accommodation unit, $8, including hotels, motels, lodging establishments, vacation home rentals and resorts, up to a maximum of $800. "Lodging per sleeping accommodation unit" means a fee category including the number of guest rooms, cottages, or other rental units of a hotel, motel, lodging establishment, vacation home rental or resort; or the number of beds in a dormitory. 32 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations (9) First public pool, $180; each additional public pool, $100. "Public pool" means a fee category that has the meaning given in section 144.1222, subdivision 4. (10) First spa, $110; each additional spa, $50. "Spa pool" means a fee category that has the meaning given in Minnesota Rules, part 4717.0250, subpart 9. (11) Private sewer or water, $50. "Individual private water" means a fee category with a water supply other than a community public water supply as defined in Minnesota Rules, chapter 4720. "Individual private sewer" means a fee category with an individual sewage treatment system which uses subsurface treatment and disposal. (12) Additional food service, $130. "Additional food service" means a location at a food service establishment, other than the primary food preparation and service area, used to prepare or serve food to the public. (13) Additional inspection fee, $300. "Additional inspection fee" means a fee to conduct the second inspection each year for elementary and secondary education facility school lunch programs when required by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. (e) A fee of $350 for review of the construction plans must accompany the initial license application for restaurants, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, vacation home rentals or resorts with five or more sleeping units. (f) When existing food and beverage service establishments, hotels, motels, lodging establishments, vacation home rentals or resorts are extensively remodeled, a fee of $250 must be submitted with the remodeling plans. A fee of $250 must be submitted for new construction or remodeling for a restaurant with a limited food menu selection, a seasonal permanent food stand, a mobile food unit, or a food cart, or for a hotel, motel, resort, vacation home rental or lodging establishment addition of less than five sleeping units. (g) Seasonal temporary food stands and special event food stands are not required to submit construction or remodeling plans for review. Subd. 3a. Statewide hospitality fee. Every person, firm, or corporation that operates a licensed boarding establishment, food and beverage service establishment, seasonal 33 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations temporary or permanent food stand, special event food stand, mobile food unit, food cart, resort, hotel, motel, vacation home rental or lodging establishment in Minnesota must submit to the commissioner a $35 annual statewide hospitality fee for each licensed activity. The fee for establishments licensed by the Department of Health is required at the same time the licensure fee is due. For establishments licensed by local governments, the fee is due by July 1 of each year. Subd. 4. Posting requirements. Every food and beverage service establishment, hotel, motel, lodging establishment, public pool, vacation home rental or resort must have the license posted in a conspicuous place at the establishment. History: 1995 c 207 art 9 s 42; 1996 c 451 art 4 s 56; 1997 c 203 art 2 s 22; 1998 c 397 art 11 s 3; 1998 c 407 art 2 s 92; 1Sp2001 c 9 art 1 s 54; 2002 c 379 art 1 s 113; 1Sp2005 c 4 art 6 s 44 -47; 2007 c 147 art 9 s 34; 2008 c 328 s 8 Copyright © 2008 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All rights reserved. 34 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX G: Minnesota Department of Revenue Statutory Language Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 297A.67, subdivision 23 is amended to read: Subd. 23. Occasional sales. Isolated and occasional sales in Minnesota not made in the normal course of business of selling that kind of property or service are exempt. The storage, use, or consumption of property or services acquired as a result of such a sale is exempt. This exemption does not apply to sales of tangible personal property primarily used in a trade or business. The rental or lease, for a consideration in money or by exchange or barter, of a residential dwelling, including4 anv home, cabin, condominium or similar buildi business of selling that kind of property or service as defined in subdivision 21. as a place for sleeping accommodations and which is not licensed. or required to be licensed as a bed and breakfast, hotel, motel, resort or caprotnd, is exempt as an occasional sale provided the dwelling is leased or rented for 14 or Less days in a calendar fir. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective for rentals and leases after Tune 30, 2009. 011 Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations APPENDIX H: Minnesota Seasonal Recreational Properties Owners Coalition Concerns To the Members of the Vacation Home Rental Task Force: Colleen has asked us all to weigh in on the Draft Report to the Legislature. MSRPO spent much time working on this committee, and we supported the concept of determining if there were a lot of people who were renting out cabins as a business, but not paying the related taxes, fees or obtaining appropriate permits. This Task Force, we believe, has moved far beyond that original goal. As an organization we concur with the resort community that like businesses should be treated similarly in state law. MSRPO does not represent vacation home rental owners - we represent cabin owners and hunting land owners. From time to time some of these owners rent out their places to friends, family or acquaintances. This legitimate use of their property, based on our conversations with our 6,000 members is very infrequent and rare. We had hoped that this task force would illuminate the issues involved in these occasional rentals, and that we could pass this valuable information on to those who own cabins and hunting lands in the state. That being said, here are our thoughts on the report in its current format: 1) We have no idea if there is a problem or if there is, how widespread it might be. At every single meeting we have raised the issue of how big a problem are we talking about. This report does not answer that question. Instead it goes ahead and proposes a legislative change to solve a problem that we do not even know for certain exists. 2) The Task force was to look at those involved in vacation home rental as a business, recognizing that some property owners may, from time to time, rent out their place to friends, family or acquaintances. This is not vacation home rental as a business, but a legal and perfectly fine use of a property by an owner. Yet the proposed regulations do little to differentiate between those who are in the business of renting vacation homes, and those owners who occasionally rent out their places to help make ends meet. 3) Definition suggestion in M.S. 157.15 - We strongly believe that this definition is far too narrow and encroaches on private property rights. Property Owners who occasionally rent out their properties did not buy their properties as a business investment; they are not depending on these properties for their income. W. Explore Minnesota Tourism Minnesota Vacation Home Rental Task Force Report and Recommendations In conclusion, the changes suggested in this report do not "level the playing field" between cabin or hunting land owners who occasionally rent out their places and resort owners, who are in the full time business of renting out access to the great outdoors. These changes harm cabin and hunting land owners unfairly - they did not buy their properties as businesses and are not using them as a business and should not be treated as such. We believe the recommendations made in this report to be an unfair targeting of ALL seasonal property owners and a taking of property rights from them. We cannot support the recommendations as they are currently presented in this report. However we stand ready work with interested parties at the legislature to correct these and other issues. Sincerely, Jeff Forester Executive Director, Minnesota Seasonal Recreational Property Owners, MSRPO 37 Explore Minnesota Tourism