The URL can be used to link to this page

111984 CC Reg AgP ... " . .. ....',. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 7:00 PM-Finance Comm. 7:30 PM-Council Meet. AGENDA **7:00 P.M. - COUNCIL AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance C\ OJ'-"'^-~ B. Roll Call Mayor Rascop Haugen- Shaw- Stover- Gagne== 1, APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - October 22, 1984 (Attachment la) B. Ca.nvassing Board (Attachment lb) 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR A. B. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT A. B. 4. PARK COMMISSION REPORT A. B. 5. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE REQUEST - SETBACK Applicant: Location: Redfield Homes, Inc. 5330 St. Alban's Bay Rd (Attachment 5a-legal) (Attachment 5b-Staff report) 6. BID OPENING - BOND SALE Applicant: Waterford ii' AGENDA REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MON., NOVEMBER 19, 1984 page two -7. PRELIMINARY PLAT - HARDING ACRES Applicant: Bernard Harding Location: N.E. corner of Wedgewood Dr. and Smithtown Rd (Attachment 7a-Staff report) (Attachment 7b-Plan. Comm. Rpt.) 8. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Susan Reid Location: 23585 Yellowstone Trail (Attachment 8a-Staff report) 9. SIGN REQUEST Applicant: Heiland Automotive Location: 25575 Smithtown Road (Attachment 9a-Bldg. Permit App.) O. SIGN REQUEST ~. '~'.) Applicant: Excelsior Covenant Church V:cl~' ~ Location: 19955 Excelsior Blvd. ~r~ (Attachment ~ott~ SHOREWOOD OAKS - REZONING (Attachment lOa-Bldg. Permit App.) 11a-Proposed Resol.) 12. ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Response to Cabalka request B. 13. ENGINEER'S REPORT A. Request for Extension Project 84-2 (Attachment 13a-O.S.M. letter) B. Traffic Study Review Dates C. 14. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. Ordinance Codification Proposals (Attachment 14a) B. C. Set Union Negotiation Meeting D. Update on. Purchase of Computer E. CITY OF REGULAR MONDAY, ~""'.yA"r.'~' '~lA".~r"'~,'''',,~. SHOREWOOD ........ ..>i'lo* """,< "^,,,.,,. .....,...IIl~COUNC IL CHAMBERS COUNCIL MEETING . 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD OCTOBER 22,1984 7:00 PM - Planning Commission Interviews 7:30 PM - Reg. Meeting M I NUT E S PLANNING INTERVIEWS Council members interviewed Mari Kooi, a present member of the Park Commission, for the vacancy on the Planning Commission. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:30 PM, October 22, 1984. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Rascop opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and a Prayer. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rascop, Councilmembers Gagne, Haugen, Shaw and Stover. Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Administrator Vogt, and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve the minutes of the October 15, 1984 Council meeting, as written. Motion carried - 5 ayes. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. and Mrs. Robert Whelan of 5910 Cathcart Drive was present to question the Building Inspector's request for a survey of their property to accompany a Building Permit for a porch. Mr. Nielsen felt there is a need for either a site plan or a survey to determine whether a variance is needed. He feels the existing home is a nonconforming structure due to the set back requirement of 50 feet from the road. It was in compliance with the Ordinance requiring a 35 foot set back when it was originally built. Mr. Whelan agreed that a variance may be necessary and will proceed with that application but would like to put in footings prior to receiving his variance as required by Ordinance due to possible freezing. He stated that he will remove any construc- tion done if he does not receive his variance as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Stover reviewed the Commission's recommendation to approve the Harding Acres subdivision - 3 ayes - 1 nay. '\ A statement from the Planning Commission was received, requesting the Council to interpret Ordinance No. 159 for them. Council felt that they should interpret these Ordinances as they understood them instead of as the Council may interpret them. .f). /(0' . M.TES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCT. 22, 1984 Page Two OAK RIDGE ESTATES 3RD ADDITION FINAL PLAT APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 74-84 Engineer Norton reviewed the plat and felt everything was in order, the utilities are installed and have been inspected and approved. The City should not accept the road within the project until one year after completion and a form of bond or security should be held until it has been accepted. Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve the final plat as submitted subject to the Engineer's recommendations, payment of all subdivision fees, park fund fees, acceptance of assessments, and the title opinion. Motion carried by roll call vote - 5 ayes. ACQUISITION OF PARK PROPERTY Council discussed with the staff the progress of the park land acqulsl- tion of the "Dayton Property". Council discussed possible ways of purchasing this property; depletion of all park funds; credits to Bruce at time of subdivision; possible renegotiation of purchase price; buy a portion from Dayton and obtain additional land from Near Mountain. Mr. Mason asked the Council to secure the property necessary for the intersection of "Old Market Road" and Covington Road. Shaw felt that the total purchase should be determined at one time. Gagne moved seconded by Rascop to proceed through the Attorney in acquiring the road intersection property. Motion carried - 3 ayes - 2 nays (Shaw and Haugen). PARK COMMISSION REPORT Roger Stein from the Park Commission requested an increase in salary for Rink Attendants to be raised from $4.25 to $4.75 per hour. Shaw moved, seconded by Gagne to approve the increase if it is within the limits of the budget. Motion carried - 5 ayes. ATTORNEY'S REPORT SHOREWOOD OAKS DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 75-84 Council reviewed the Resolution of Denial of the Shorewood Oaks project. Shaw moved, seconded by Stover to accept the Resolution of Denial in- cluding minor corrections. Accepted by roll call vote - 5 ayes. ENGINEER'S REPORT CHANGE ORDER Np. 1 - WATERFORD PROJECT 84-5 RESOLUTION NO. 76-84 Engineer Norton submitted a Change Order in the amount of $7e,901.28 to be added to Project 84-5 for additional work to be included within this project. An additional 22% for Engineer expenses and any additional bonding costs will be added to the $78,901.28 and increase the total bond to cover this project. .~ . MIlES RE LAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCT. 22, 1984 Page Three Engineer's Report - Change Order, continued: Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to accept the Change Order as submitted also that any water improvement done in conjunction with this Change Order, be paid for by the developer and not added to the bonding. Engineer Norton informed the Council that Mr. Mason has agreed to all the recommendations for utility specification submitted by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron. ACCEPT REVISED BOND ISSUE AMOUNT RESOLUTION NO. 77-84 Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw to rescind portions of Resolution No. 73-84 and issue Bonds in the amount of $1,250,000.00 as submitted by Springsted, Inc. based on a 15 year spread for the Waterford Project. Resolution adopted by roll call vote - 5 ayes. INTERVIEW FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER James Schultz of 5465 Timber Lane was interviewed by the Council for a possible appointment to the vacancy on the Planning Commission. ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONTINUED FINAL PAYMENT - PROJECT NO. 84-1 RESOLUTION NO. 78-84 Engineer Norton recommended final payment in the amount of $537.20 to Allied Blacktop for Sealcoating Project No. 84-1. Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve payment as recommended, accepted by roll call vote - 5 ayes. FINAL PAYMENT - PROJECT NO. 84-3 RESOLUTION NO. 79-84 Norton recommended final payment in the amount of $2,907.65 to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. for Ivy Lane Storm Sewer - Project No. 84-3. Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne to approve payment as recommended, accepted by roll call vote - 5 ayes. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT MnDOT LAYOUT NO.1 Council reviewed a layout submitted by MnDOT making alterations to turn off lanes and crossings along Highway 7. Council recommended realignment of the Highway 7 and Highway 41 intersection, on the north side; keeping open the Galpin Lake crossing; requests an explanation of the closing of the "Thonander crossing". Staff to notify any affected residents. GREENWOOD/DEEPHAVEN MERGER Council discussed the intended merger between Deephaven and Greenwood. Haugen is in disagreement of this merger. Council directed a letter be sent to the "Municipal Board" stating the City's position in this matter. .... . M.TES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCT. 22, 1984 Page Four Administrator's Report, continued: THEFT OF SATELLITES Administrator Vogt informed the Council of the theft of 2 of the Satellites leased for the City parks. Satellites are requesting $250.00 a piece to cover the loss, they have no insurance on them and the City does not have them listed on their policy. Shaw recommended checking to see if the City has a "Liabilization Clause" in our Hennepin County Policy. Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to pay for the satellites only after all coverage has been researched. MEETING DATES November eth - Canvassing Meeting 5:30 PM November 19th - Council Meeting and Bond Sale December 10th - Council Meeting for December UNION PROPOSAL Council reviewed the proposed contract from the Union and responded to the contract demands. ELECTION JUDGE APPOINTMENTS Shaw moved seconded by Rascop to accept the list of trained Election Judges as presented. Motion carried unanimously. MAYOR'S REPORT METRO COUNCIL APPOINTMENT Mayor Rascop appointed Administrator Vogt as the "contact person" to the Metro Council for the City. COUNCIL REPORT Cable Commission Budget was submitted for Council information. Finance Committee Council would like to invite the Finance Committee to the Council Meeting of November 19th at 7:00 P.M. Bob McDougall - "Person of the Year" RESOLUTION NO. 80-84 Shaw moved seconded by Haugen to pass a Resolution in suppcrt of Bob McDougall, former Mayor of Shorewood, award of "Person of the Year" by the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT Rascop moved, seconded by Haugen to approve the claims for payment to be followed by adjournment at 11:55 P.M. Motion carried 5 ayes. General Fund (Acct # 00166) Checks 29581 thru 29618 $204,629.00 Liquor Fund (Acct # 00174) Checks 2678 thru 2706 $31,807.06 Respectfully submitted, Sandra Kennelly City Clerk Mayor * i- - . . GENERAL ACCOUNT CHECKS PAID SINCE October 22, 1984 .Qb.~~~_tt 29473 29474 29475 29476 29477 29478 29479 29480 29481 29482 29483 29484 29485 29486 29487 29488 29489 29490 29491 29492 29493 29494 29495 29496 29497 29498 29499 29500 29501 29502 29503 29504 29505 29506 29507 29508 29509 29510 29511 29512 29513 29514 29515 29516 29517 29518 29519 29520 29521 29522 29523 29524 29525 29526 PURPOSE: --------------------- Sept Legal Fees " Council Salary IQ_~~Q~_EAIQ__________ Gary Larson, P.A. Robert Rascop Jan Haugen Bob Gagne Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Key Leasing Inc. Roberta Dybvik Void Comm of Revenue Void Jedlicki, F. F. Assoc. Asphalt City of Minnetrista City of Tonka Bay Exide Battery Sales Hopkins Parts Co. Hatch Sales Company Henn Cty Govt Center H.C. Mayer & Sons Void Mn Suburban Newspapers NSP Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Barbara Fletcher Sterling Fence Inc. Satellite Services Village Sanitation Nor-west Bank Allied Blacktop Loren Kohnen Sandra Kennelly Void Evelyn Beck Roger Day Roberta Dybvik Dennis Johnson Sue Niccum Brad Nielsen Dan Randall Patti Ray Howard Stark Dan Vogt Ralph Wehle Don Zdrazil State Treas-Soc Sec Fund Oct. 24 Mtka State Bank "24 Comm of Revenue "24 State Treasurer- "24 Brad Nielsen Mileage Mn Dept Natural Resources Permit Evelyn Beck Mileage City of So St. Paul Membership-Bldg Officials Bruce Construction Purchase St Right-of-Way " " " " " " " " " " " " October Lease Payment Mileage 8/2-9/25 Fuel Tax License Construction Payt 84-3 Street Materials Sept Burning Fees 3rd ~ Water Usage Batteries - Equipment Equipment Parts Small Tools Aerials & Overlays Gasoline Purchases Legal Notices Electricity Engineering Fees Cleaning City Hall Hockey Rink Mesh Services Services Bond Principal & Int. Seal Coating Bldg Inspections Salary " " " Payroll FWH Taxes SWH " PERA WH 10/11-10/24 Application $ AMOUNT ------ 3,968.40 150.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 223.30 26.84 -0- 10.00 -0- 2,907.65 216.84 75.00 479.64 65.94 9.43 59.84 88.00 347.93 -0- 54.44 709.73 1,214.11 35.00 63.00 362.86 53.00 111,336.30 537.20 175.00 530.63 -0- 657.51 538.22 437.66 538.22 388.22 673.06 631.57 389.71 482.32 736.98 512.62 702.66 1,427.10 1,342.30 698.00 859.38 38.06 30.00 79.45 15.00 1,000.00 84-3 . GENERAL ACCOUNT . - 2 - October 22, 1984 f~~~~~ r2_~~2~_E~!Q__________ EQ~E2~~~______________ 29527 29528 29529 29530 29531 29532 29533 29534 29535 29536 29537 29538 29539 29540 29541 29542 29543 29544 29545 29546 29547 29548 29549 29550 29551 29552 29553 29554 29555 29556 29557 29558 29559 29560 29561 29562 29563 29564 29565 29566 29567 29568 29569 29570 29571 29572 29573 29574 29575 29576 29577 29578 29579 29580 City of Mound Sandra Kennelly Roberta Dybvik City of Excelsior Dennis Johnson Mn Dept Pub Safety Graybar Electric Co. Metro Waste Control So Lake Mtka PSD Colonial Insurance Central Life Ins. State Bldg Inspector EBA Dee Allar Bonita Carl Heather Gorecki Sue Grahn Margaret Kelly Mary Beth Knopik Win Kohls Mari Kooi Irene Kronholm Holly McDougall Doris Randall Jane Stein Jude Williams Clara Winters Rae Wooldridge Joanne Herman - Chair June Coad Erna Engstrom Helen Everett Less Feichtinger Mary Guenther Pat Hannum Lee Heimark Leona Heimark Cindy Larson Heidi Larson Billy Maddy Barbara Martin Karen Miesen Nancy Peterson Jean Ann Raby Jean Reese Ginny Rode Betty Stake Alice Vosmek Michael Warber - Chair Susan Brecke Carol Butcerfield Jane Cole Judy Handke Jane Heiland 4th ~ Fire Contract Mileage - Elections " -9/27-10/24 4th ~ Fire Contract Salary Register 1985 Ford Tk Wire for 2-way radios November Sewer Charges November Budget November Premium November PRemium Bldg Permit Surcharge November Premium Precinct 1 - Judge " " " " " It " " " " II " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 2 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 3 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " AMOUNT $ 880.74 9.24 12.32 9,433.50 525.08 14.75 59.36 20,282.16 20,884.12 46.50 1,602.59 25.93 1, 11 7 . 14 74.54 40.20 43.55 40.20 50.25 40.20 72.03 82.91 64.49 49.41 50.25 43.55 40.20 40.20 40.20 99.00 58.63 51.93 27.64 31.83 27.64 61.98 27.64 5.03 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 58.63 27.64 27.64 27.64 51.93 51.93 60.30 121.50 51.09 3.35 51.09 44.39 51.09 . GENERAL ACCOUNT f~~E~_! !Q_~~Q~_E~!Q__________ 29581 29582 29583 29584 29585 29586 29587 29588 29589 29590 29591 29592 29593 29594 29595 29596 29597 29598 29599 29600 29601 29602 29603 29604 29605 29606 29607 29608 29609 29610 29611 29612 29613 29614 29615 29616 29617 29618 Tony Heiland Mari Hertzberg Judy McCuskey John Parenteau Myrtle Paulson Jean Sampson Ruth Spatz Karen Winn Barbara Thibault Dixie Dow Vera Horgan Roseanne Miller - Chair Marge Ringsred Ginny Soule Rita Spellman Sandra Yanik Void Evelyn Beck Roger Day Roberta Dybvik Sandra Kennelly Sue Niccum Brad Nielsen Dan Randall Patti Ray Howard Stark Dan Vogt Ralph Whele Don Zdrazil Sandra Kennelly Evelyn Beck Roberta Dybvik Brad Nielsen State Treasurer Mtka State Bank Comm of Revenue Barbara Fletcher U.S. Postmaster r,,,,,.,. .~. 1,.i'.P~"~: , ", C}110fi."':' .'. ". ~ 1 ,.". A r~1 ~~) ~_! .~. '';- ~._--_._-_._---- ..... j . - 3 - PURPOSE: Precinct 3 Judge " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 4 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Salary " " " " " " " " " " " Mileage - Elections " 10/24/84-11/6/84 " 10/25-11/7 " Bldg Inspections FICA - 11/7/84 Payroll FWH " SWH " Clean City Hall Utility Billing Total .; ~,' ....~ ..; . October 22, 1984 AMOUNT ------ $ 54.44 57.79 47.74 43.55 20.10 47.74 50.25 51. 09 46.90 12.56 \ \ \ 46.90 66.60 46.90 12.56 12.56 12.56 -0- 657.51 525.08 437.66 871.11 408.72 673.06 599.86 403.98 482.32 736.98 512.62 702.66 24.20 33.06 12.76 28.82 1,485.35 1,400.50 714.00 42.00 172.68 ---------- $~g~~g~~=gg LIQUOR FUND fh~~~_tt 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2257 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 . . CHECKS WRITTEN SINCE Occober 22, 1984 TO WHOM PAID E~~EQ~~l________________ ----------------------- Bellboy Corporation Quality Wine & Spirits Intercont. Pkg Co. Quality Wine & Spirits Bellboy Corp Eagle Wine Co. Prior Wine Co. Griggs Cooper & Co. City of Shorewood Ed Phillips & Sons Coca Cola Bottling Paustis & Sons Johnson Bros Liquor Intercont. Pkg Co. Susan Culver Void Russell Marron " " Bob Nash Chris Odegard Stewart Peterson Stephen Theis Don Tharalson John Josephson Bill Josephson Susan Latterner Stevene Maeger Dean Young State Treasurer Mtka State Bank Comm of Revenue State Treasurer Treasury Dept Quality Wine & Spirits Mn Fire Inc. Griggs Cooper NSP City of Shorewood Ed Phillips & Sons Griggs Cooper Eagle Wine Company Johnson Liquor Co. Ryan Properties Harry Niemela Mn Bar Supply Intercont. Pkg Co. Twin City Wine Quality Wine Co. Griggs Cooper Village Sanitation Ed Phillips & Sons Central Life Liquor Purchases " " Wine Liquor " " " " Wine " " " Liquor June Bkkp. Liquor & Wine Purchases Sept Pop Purchases Wine Purchases Wine & Liquor Purchases Wine " Salary " " Travel Expense Salary " " " " " " " " " FICA - 10/24 Payroll FWH - 10/24 " SWH 10/24 " PERA 10/24 " FWH Addn. Wine & Liquor Purchases Chemicals-Fire Exting. Liquor Purchases Utilities August Blkkp. Wine Purchases Liquor Purchases Wine Purchases Wine " November Rent Store I " II " " Misc. Purchases Wine Purchases Wine IJ " " Liquor " October Services Wine & Liquor Purchases Group Insurance AMOUNT $ 254.75 1,345.11 115.11 68.04 579.75 47.55 59.81 989.90 790.31 217.02 190.60 3.83 1,118.22 22.04 168.63 -0- 429.40 22.00 99.00 45.00 76.00 93.50 104.25 175.30 471.56 141.88 261.58 382.56 202.24 221.30 129.00 121.79 7.60 1,387.60 33.00 700.82 260.92 500.43 289.23 311.20 186.62 616.57 1,715.00 882.50 113.15 122.35 411.27 859.86 838.63 64.00 577.77 29.81 '" . LIQUOR FUND f~~~~_t !Q_~~2~_f~IQ_________ 2678 Employee Benefit Plans 2679 Ed Phillips & Sons 2680 Intercont. Pkg 2681 Johnson Liquor Co. 2682 D & D Trucking 2683 G & K Services 2684 Be1lboy Corp. 2685 Susan Culver 2686 Russell Marron 2687 Bob Nash 2688 Don Tharalson 2689 Stephen Theis 2690 John Josephson 2691 William " 2692 Susan Latterner 2693 Steve Maeger 2694 Stewart Peterson 2695 Chris Odegard 2696 Dean Young 2697 State Treasurer 2698 Mtka State Bank 2699 Comm of Revenue 2700 Quality Wine Company 2701 Rex Distributing 2702 Prior Wine Co. 2703 Griggs Cooper 2704 Eagle Wine Co. 2705 Day Distributing 2706 City of Shorewood . - 2 - October 22, 1984 AMOUNT fQ~fQ~~~______________ November PRemium Wine Purchases " " " " Oct Delivery Liquor Laundry Service Liquor Purchases Salary " " " " " " " " " " " FICA - 11/9 Payroll FWH - 11/8 " SWH - 11/9 II Wine & Liquor Purchases Beer Purchases - Oct. Wine Purchases Liquor Purchases Wine Purchases Oct Beer Purchases Sept Bkkp. TOTAL A t:J, ::r~1T~; ': ".~..... .... ...;; f .:.\ ! ,~..., .. j", ... $ 242.64 388.15 292.40 778.91 46.00 36.20 608.00 115.50 429.40 127.50 109.25 126.25 183.75 471.56 135.60 281.38 94.00 98.00 382.56 206.34 255.50 80.50 2,505.62 68.75 118.66 1,525.78 825.10 2,032.01 386.39 $~J::!:~gZ,;gg CITY OF SHOREWOOD ~ SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1984 ~UNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 5:30 P.M. M I NUT E S The Shorewood City Council met at 5:30 P.M. on November 8, 1984 in the City Hall Council Chambers, to canvass the results of the City Election held on November 6, 1984, pursuant to Minnesota Election Laws. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Haugen, Shaw, Stover and Gagne (Rascop absent). Staff: Clerk Kennelly CANVASS OF ELECTION RESOLUTION NO. 81-84 Review of the summary results as presented by the Judges of Election for the four precincts were submitted. Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw to accept the canvass results as presented: Mayor - 2 year term Bob Rascop - 2175 Councilmember - 2 positions - 4 year terms Kristi Stover - 1985 Robert Gagne - 1822 Kevin Cronin 716 ~. Canvassing results accepted by roll call vote - 4 ayes. DELINQUENT SEWER AND WATER CERTIFICATION LISTS RESOLUTION NO. 82-84 Gagne moved, seconded by Stover to accepted the list of Certification of Delinquent Water and Sewer Utilities, to be certified to taxes payable in 1985. Motion carried by roll call vote - 4 ayes. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT - JAMES SCHULTZ After discussion of the two Commission candidates, Stover moved, seconded by Gagne to appoint James Schultz of 5465 Timber Lane to Planning Commission seat previously held by Robert Shaw. Motion carried unanimously - 4 ayes. Shaw instructed the Clerk to notify Mr. Schultz of his appointment, a letter of thanks to Mari Kooi, and letters to the Planning Commission introducing Mr. Schultz. ADJOURNMENT Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne to adjourn at 6:45 P.M. Motion carried - 4 ayes. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Sandra L. Kennelly City Clerk -iJ /6 . . I LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SHOREWOOD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Shorewood will hold a Public Hearing in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on Monday, 19 November, 1984 at 7:45 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the Hearing 1s to consider a request by Redfield Homes for a front yard setback variance on property located at 5330 St: Alban's Bay Road. Said property described as: "Lot 5, Block 1, St. Alban's Bay Estates". PIO # 25-117-23-33-0025 Note: The Shorewood Planning Commission will also review the request on 13 November at 7:30 P.M. in the Shorewood City Hall Council Chambers. All interested parties are encouraged to attend. Oral and written comments will be considered at that time. City of Shorewood SANDRA KENNELLY City Clerk To be published 5 November 1984 64-.--- - . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stover ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 1984 RE: REDFIELD HOMES INC. - SETBACK VARIANCE FILE NO. 405 (84.33) BACKGROUND Mr. Gary Nelson, representing Redfield Homes, has requested a front yard setback variance to build a single family home on the lot located at 5330 St. Alban's Bay Road (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached). Exhibit B is a letter from Mr. Nelson explaining the need for the variance. The property in question is approximately 511 feet deep, 114 feet wide at the street and contains approximately 48,545 square feet in area. The lot is located in the R-1 zoning district and is surrounded by the following development and zoning: north: single family residential, zoned R-1 east: single family residential, zoned R-1 south: single and two family residential, zoned R-1 and R-3 west: automobile junk yard, zoned R-1 . ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION As can be seen on the topography map attached as Exhibit C, and the Site Plan, Exhibit D, the site drops off drastically to the west. The applicant cites both property access and sewer service as being problems created by the severe change in grade. Both factors are quite valid reasons for grant- ing the variance. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 5/J . . PLANNER'S REPORT REDFIELD HOMES INC 7 NOVEMBER 1984 page two First, a driveway grade of 10 percent is normally the absolute maximum which should be accepted. Eight percent or less is preferred. Excessively steep driveways can result in unsafe entries onto the street, as more speed is re- quired to climb the grade, particularly under wet or icy conditions. With regard to sewer service, the proposed house could be served by a pump, but this practice has and should be avoided whenever possible. Even with the reduced setback, the floor drains in the lowest level of the house will require a pump. The remainder of the house, however, will have gravity service. A factor not mentioned by the applicant, but which has some bearing on the request, is that the garage of the property to the south is within several feet of the front property line. As a consequence site lines along the street will not be affected by granting the variance. As a final note, the applicant mentions that a similar request was granted by the City in 1980. As it turns out, a variance was granted in November of 1979 as shown in the Council minutes attached as Exhibit E. Since the vari- ance was not used within one year it has expired. Given the factors discussed herein, the variance is considered justified. Consistent with current City policy it is recommended that the resulting building permit be reviewed by the City Engineer. cc: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Jim Norton Sue Niccum Gary Nelson ~ . \ ... 3 ,lD 4. ~ ( .._~.....\-' . . \ . \, = : '\ 'i': ..,. '\, -I :., . .. '" ;.' . , , " , ". . 'J fI) II) 4 . reDFleLD HomES Inc. li ,... -J 4309 SHADY OAK ROAD HOPKINS. MINN, 55343 933-7262 I 933-9949 October 17, 1984 City of Shorewood 5575 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 SUBJECT: 5330 St. Alban's E Shorewood, Minnesota - "J , . ',,- " ,. ',ti-- '. .:l ',_ ~.--_.._-;.~ . ....~ Dear Sir, Redfield Homes is asking fc 50 feet to 35 feet for an ~) proposed res~dence at 5330 in 1980, was granted a varj economic conditions delayec:>' agin asking for a variance ') .rc"~- *-.. -~. I to :J::) I -~....-~-- . .. . ~} '?~ ~fr, I '. , . I~ .N ~ ( I I I I I~ -1 I ~ - . '.a ~ '1" , . ,',I I j \\ , - Setback Variance :"r. ~~ . c-' .w.I. "<<' .' .........'~ ;. x~ .... "\'.'" \~ '''"~, . .... ~', , ,~. p~'~:~: ...., . ..c.~ ..y; !i,\:~ ' .~~~ A~~ ~M ~"'""111::. ... ~.~"....,. ~~.~.~ .~ . ~ bf;14.ac:>,.. a$""~. ~I'\~~"" ..-.:-.--.....- - ~~.'''~~I- ~ J'~.~ ,...,.,.....,~M. .. .-. ~ it '. - '. I; ',d " ,,~' . ,........1 ~'~..~T.~ ~Q't~.,O~ no..d:':.;i ~ 2~-rt> ~ ~T ~ ,,,.,'-C; ~,\~..,:.~ '~I'tl Co ,~~... (JIO?ur-\t "-€.D.') ,,,,.' ~'~":"&"".lj.;.A',~~t,.,.__.I,}"'" ........!;( ,~I"'" .\.... ., >,~,:-:;,~r"~,~'.,'~1:',,~~,~;.;>~.-~,~?7;;:',;~~"'" '~,~'." 1. ""'~~~'.~T' ~'~'&e. ~'-d ~..~..~....~,""'Y ~ ,', ~"'" ,."~~~~ ."V~'1!c" '6~ (1Jit::1'-p, ,~,'1tiI.oWif~~VtIt."irr .'12,," ( ~M." t.. ~ ~,'lO~C>+","'" '~. k>~.'-J.. M\1-J ~d-. ,",",~e;. ~'A",~ ...., ~ <-~"d~) ,*,.th.~ .~.e:.' ~ 'e!' ~ p.- ~1.1~ <'...';-. : -,' \: '_>r" -:.:' !'~ "~ t ..:j '..~ . "i.~ ~. .... ~ ,,-:i4 .~~ " Exhibit D PROPOSED SITE PLAN , J " ~ ",~ f"-"~.. ....t P;:t~ ~;J~1~ . . COUNCIL MINUTES -3- November 19, 1979 . , That four 8 foot trees be planted on the east side and four 8 foot trees be planted on the west side of said lot 8 in accordance with plan submitted. Further that an amount of $2,250. be deposited with Shorewood to be held in escrow to be returned at such time that all the conditions of the permit are met; if work not completed by the builder by May 30, 1980, it shall be the right of the City to then plant the 8 trees on the adjoining lots and that the escrow payment shall be made to the City before commencing work on the site. Motion carried unanimously. WATER EXTENSION - Weiman - 5845 Division Street John Weiman appeared before the Council requesting permission to connect to the water line along Division Street. It was agreed that a 90 foot extension would be needed and also to move the hydrant. Because of the emergency of the situation, Keeler moved, seconded by Shaw, to instruct the engineer to prepare plans and obtain cost estimates and advise Weiman of the costs involved as soon as practical. Motion carried unanimously. BUILDING PERMIT - Lot 5 - St Albans Bay Estates Jay Carpenter, of Redfield Homes, appeared before the Council request- ing a setback variance from St. Albans Bay Road right-of-way to set the house back 35 feet due to the topography of the lot in relation to the sewer elevation. Moved by Keeler, seconded by Naegele, to approve the proposed setback in accordance with the survey submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - USE OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS in 1980 Budget Pursuant to published notice, a Public Hearing was called to discuss the proposed use of the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds of $24,000. to be rec~ived in 1980. As already proposed in earlier discussions on the budget, and since no other proposals were made, it was moved by Keeler, seconded by Haugen, to transfer the funds into the City Hall Construction Fund. Motion carried unanimously. NEAR MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT Moved by Haugen, seconded by Keeler, to authorize the approval of the EAW in accordance with the recommendations by the Engineer, Attorney, and Planner. Motion carried unanimously. Attorney agreed to set a meeting with the Pflaumwell Development Company to obtain some committments as to their construction time schedule for Near Mountain. M.J.LONG - Auditor's'A~pointment Moved by Keeler, secon ed by Haugen, to appoint M.J. Long Company as the Auditors for 1980. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURM-lENT - 11:10 P.M. Moved by Frazier, seconded by Haugen, to approve the payment of claims as presented to be followed by adiournment: General Fund - Ck #21 Liquor Fund - Ck #. ~ -{ml Respectfully submitted, c;J;,,, ~~/~.. Exhibit E PREVIOUS VARIANCE Council minutes dated 19 November 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO. BACKGROUND . . MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo- Kristi Stover ADMINISTRATOR . Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BRAD NIELSEN 27 SEPTEMBER 1984 HARDING ACRES - PRELIMINARY PLAT 405 (84. 27) Mr. Bernard Harding has submitted a preliminary plat for his property located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Smithtown Road and Wedgewood Drive (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached). The property contains approximately 10.8 acres and is located in the R-2 District. The applicant proposes to divide the property into 18 single family lots. He proposes to develop the seven lots aYong Wedgewood Drive and Smithtown Road as a first phase to take advantage of the existing streets. The interior lots would be developed at a later date. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The proposed plat has been reviewed based upon the requirements of the R-2 zoning district and the Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance. In its evaluation of the request, the City should consider the following issues. 1. Lot Size. The R-2 District requires lots to be a mlnlmum of 20,000 square feet in area, 100 feet in width and 120 feet in depth. All of the proposed lots conform to these requirements except the four southernmost lots, which are all smaller than 20,000 square feet. Accord~ng to the applicant, these lots were made smaller to allow the road to serve the property immediately to the east in the event that the landowner wished to divide the rear of his property. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore \...c... 'lo- , . . PLANNER'S MEMORANDUM 27 SEPTEMBER 1984 HARDING ACRES page two In the past the City has been receptive to allowing certain lots within a given plat to be somewhat smaller than the minimum lot size as long as other lots were enlarged to make up the difference, and the average lot size was no less than the required minimum. In this case the lot sizes average 19,861 square feet. More importantly, however, is the fact that the smaller lots are located near Smithtown Road which has been designated a collector street. If anything these lots should be larger to allow future homes to be built further back from the road and possibly to accommodate loop driveways so cars would not have to back onto the street. Although the applicant is to be commended for providing access to the adjoining property, it is felt that the same could be accomp- lished through redesign while maintaining larger lots. An alter- nate layout will be discussed in the following section. 2. Streets. Based upon a staff suggestion, the applicant has extend- ed the proposed street northward through his project connecting it to Glenn Road. It can be expected that some residents along Glen Road may object to connecting the two streets. However, the road was obviously intended to go through, given the lack of an adequate cul-de-sac. Furthermore, as it currently exists Glen Road is a dead end street nearly a half mile in length. Despite the connect- ion, it is not anticipated that Glen Road residents will experience a drastic increase in traffic resulting from the project. Only 11 of the new homes front on th~ interior street and the street is considered too circuitous to attract traffic from outside the pro- ject. The previous section mentioned an alternative road alignment which would allow larger lots on the south end of the site and still provide access to the property to the east. Exhibit C illustrates such an alternative. It should be noted that the existing right-of-way for Wedgewood Drive is only 40 feet wide. While it is important to bring the street up to City standards, it would not be fair to require the entire additional 10 feet from Mr. Harding. Since there is developable land on the west side of the street, it is recommended that five feet of right-of-way be acquired from each side. 3. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. These items will be addressed in a separate staff report from the City Engineer. 4. Park Dedication Requirements. Section VII of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that subdivisions must dedicate either land or cash to the City Park system. Based upon the cash requirement of $500 per lot, the project would ultimately generate $9000 to the parks fund. It should be noted, however, that the property is within a search area for a neighborhood park in that vicinity. PLANNER'S MEMORAJIIa 27 SEPTEMBER 1984 HARDING ACRES page three . 4. Park Dedication Requirements - continued Given the relatively small size of the project, it is questionable whether land acquisition is appropriate. Based upon the eight per- cent requirement, the City could acquire only .87 acre. The applicant has designated a small triangle of land as park at the very north end of the plat. Presumably this is a leftover remnant resulting form the configuration of the site. The issue of park dedication should be subject to review and recommendation by the Park Commission. 5. Phasing. The applicant proposes to develop the lots fronting on the existing streets as a first phase. Presumably the cash from sale of those lots would be used to construct the streets and utilities for the remaining lots at a later date. This is consider- ed acceptable as long as the interior of the site is platted as an outlot and the new street is dedicated at least 125 feet east from Wedgewood. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding analysis it is recommended that the preliminary plat for Harding Acres be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot sizes on the south end of the site should be increased, if necessary through redesign of the proposed street. 2. Five feet of right-of-way should be provided for Wedgewood Drive. 3. Utilities, grading and drainage should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading and drainage should also be reviewed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4. Park dedication should be subject to review and recommendation by the Park Commission. BJN:sn cc: Dan Vogt Jim Norton Gary Larson Sue Niccum Bernard Harding Ed Otto J I . . ._~ d cr '\11 .. c::i -------- cr () w W ....J ~ <( .- . " . ~JI 7-. . '\11 n01JN\1~ - z W ....J C> ~ CO <( ~ Z o .- '~I:) 331 w z en ....J w Z ~0.?~1 jl rn ~ \f)f3~n3 1tl rl Po ?:, H cd ~ 'rl 8 ,rl rl Q) H Po ~~ OJ o Q) HH [-< () ~ ,=.t1 <: D ..p 0 fell 'rl ...:l ~ .0 'rl 'rl r,-'! .-0 A1F-oH ;"H ctl "::1 rJ1 ~ '~a- <: -------2 -------2 <l ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'Ob . ~ Noftl\ ; ,33 Lo".2.3,4 Loti,': ,3 e' of L O'S Bxhibit :3 PROPOS'=;J PLi:..} . fl' ~ , I~ \' \.1, I \' "...-. ( .;.....,.,. '" ---r- ~-- ---.0. . ,(" 9fi(J __ \ ,- { (, 1/ il . - ;t.~ ,\~\ , , ,...\''j. \ ..r Ij , ~ " " ---- , 'f ,,' ; "1 ,z,l\~.~~. . ':~ ", \ -~~~::~ 't ::". >; ,( !' .~ '\ j ~ '-I~ . <~ ..). _' ~\~. \ Vi . \ ~~ ~ !It ' . ~ t f I" ID,\\! .,/ (: I r.' JL.r _' - __'j .~ 1-.- ., .. ., ., ~. P 11\ - . L.._ -,.-J'.~ . . ",""IfClIlIII'-- ",- "'. "1IO~,arw.","-J.... _.~... "2..w~rr~ -..- ..' ~ ~..-.;:: -.. _ . ! . . tir' If'" ...~., \ \ '---- /"~"7""-- I- I' \. , ..... I I; / I .;) '" '" -~'---~/ (.J '0' /, "" , ,". \'f., ," ~. l' \ " '- "t rr)/f) ~ '{ ~ - . - G 0 ..J--.J ~"- . \~~ I<l "'l ~ 'X '\ ~ ~ i. " t/ .,' ".' . ...-' /-'~'. .. " -' " .. ~ '. .----.... ':--- ~.::;. r ~ -~ .. '. L ~~ ~ ~, .... \.. .. ~~ ~ h d H u1 ~,1 ~I o l~ ,.', .,< :,1 ::; UH Y -!..:J ::~ rI 1--:,", p~ .,-1 feel ~8 t.J ~ d~ ~ . PLANNI~COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, page three MINUTES 1984 8:00 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - HARDING ACRES The Public Hearing opened at 8:07 PM. Mr. Ed Otto and Mr. Bernard Harding were present to submit a preliminary plat for property located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Smithtown Road and Wedgewood Drive. Property is zoned R-2 and is approximately 10.8 acres. They propose 18 single family lots, to be phased, 7 lots on existing streets first. Comments from audience: George Latterner-25295 Smithtown Road - Mr. Latterner feels that there is a discrepancy in the lot line abutting his property. Commissioner Benson explained to Mr. Latterner that he would have to contact an attorney or another surveyor to pursue this problem. Mr. Ed Otto told Mr. Latterner that his land is a Registered Land Survey, and that they had measured from the markers on Mr. Latterner's property. Mr. John Force-25380 Smithtown Road - No objection to the proposed development. Does object to having the City take 5' of his land for road. He went down and got a survey map of his property and the man there told him it looks like 10' of the paved surface of the road is already on his property, he is concerned about this. Traffic situation, noise and speeding, on Wedgewood road is bad and this will make it worse. Why wasn't Wedgewood continued into County Road 19? The area on the north end of Wedgewood is already a fire hazard. Commissioner Benson explained to Mr. Force that Planner Nielsen was not request- ing 5' of easement from him at this time, however, if he subdivides his property, he will then be asked for the easement. Chuck Amlaw-25270 Smithtown Road - Says he understands that the property to be developed is actually 9.5 acres, not the 10.8 acres mentioned in the Planner's Report. He is concerned with the lot sizes, house sizes and what it will do to the value of his just under 2 acre property. He wanted to know if the house size can be regulated by the City. Commission Benson said the house size is up to the developer. Mr. Amlaw objects to the cul-de-sac on his property. He does not want to lose 1/8th of an acre. He also feels that if he did subdivide his property, two driveways coming together at the south end of Harding Avenue would be sufficent. Commissioner Benson said that he didn't think the cul-de-sac would go in unless Mr. Amlaw developed, and that they couldn't just take his land. 7.6 / A . PLANNI.OMMISSION TUESDA CTOBER 2, page four MINUTES 1984 Bob McDouga11-25110 Glen Road - Mr. McDougall is concerned with the direct effect of opening Glenn Road. The road is not designed to carry more traffic, the surface on the 12'-13' Glen Road would present a problem. Entering unto County Road 19 would be dangerous as the traffic on it is already bad. He recognizes the valid concern over the length of the road regarding emergency vehicles,but feels the negative aspects involved in connecting the roads outweigh the good that would be done. He feels that to attach the roads, widen the road, assess the Glenn Road residents to benefit the new property would indeed be ironic. Roger Fishbasch-24885 Glenn Road - Glen Road is almost a single lane road. There are no sidewalks and our children have no place to ride their bikes and play except in the road. Added traffic will create a dangerous situation. It also seems as if the City is out to benefit developers and doesn't care about it's longterm residents. The City bends over backwards for the developers and the people end up getting assessed to benefit development. Jerry Meier-25135 Glen Road - You can't blame the developer, he was not the one that suggested connecting the roads. The residents were not even consulted as to their opinions. He doesn't feel the road would be able to handle the in- creased traffic and urges the Planning Commission not to do it. Jim Hoban-5525 Manitou Lane - People bought and built in this area because it was a dead end, and their children would be protected. If the roads were connected the residents on Wedgewood would also use the road as a cutoff to County Road 19 and create more traffic problems. I would like to see Glen Road remain as it is, with the same width and accessibility. Jan Towne-24740 Smithtown Road - Smithtown can't stand the added traffic. What about the water, will there be one well or eighteen wells. Will it affect me? Commissioner Benson said the choice is up to the developer. He didn't think it would affect her but coundn't say for sure. Greg Suddendcrf-5685 Star Lane - said there is some question of whether Star Lane would be extended to Glenn Road. Are there any plans for this? Commission and Staff said no. Mr. Suddendorf also asked the value per lot. Mr. Harding said he'd say the average lot value would be approximately $22,000, and that it would be to the developer's advantage to build $100,000-$120,000 homes. Pat Neimi-25125 Glenn Road - Glenn Road is not set up to handle more traffic. Has the Planning Commission visited the location? I think it would be a mistake to connect the roads. Dr. Bruce Mogen-25145 Glen Road - We bought where we did because we like the area the way it is. A thoughofare would destroy the neighborhood. A lot of children and animals live here. I don't agree with the Planner's Report, I think there would be a drastic change in the amount of traffic. u . PLANNI~OMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1984 page five Bill Griffiths-5680 Star Lane - He asked if the property referred to for later development is the Plowman property. Commission said no, it is the proposed property. Ms. Francis Mara-25165 Glen Road - What about the water situation? Commissioner Benson read the Engineer's Report to the audience. Ms. Mara also asked about staying in character with the area because there are many large lots. Commissioner Benson said that the area is zoned R-2 which is 20,000 sq. ft. lots. The developer is allowed to subdivide their property and do their own designing. Star Circle and Star Lane have 20,000 sq. ft. lots and the homes would probably be similar. Dave Littlefield-24775 Glen Road - What right do the citizens have to allow or not allow that access. There is no safety enhancement, no upgrading of the neighborhood, the objective of extending that development is simply and only to serve the developer of 20,000 sq. ft. lots. Bob McDougall - Why the sudden concern over the safety factor? One half of Shorewood has the same problem and one half the City would have to be torn up to correct the problem. Commissioner Benson - Yes it would, from a planning prospective we upgrade when we can and when the chance comes along to do so. The Public portion of the hearing was closed at 9:10 PM. Commissioner Reese said he has not had time to study the Engineer's Report and he is not prepared to make a statement at this time. Commissioner Leslie mentioned putting a cul-de-sac at the northern end of the proposed Harding Avenue, thus alleviating the increased traffic onto Glen Road, yet servicing the entire proposed project. Commissioner Leslie also asked Mr. Harding about his phaSing. Mr. Harding said if he could sell the first 6 lots he would begin building immediately. Commission discussed the issue and f~lt that they neede time to study the Engineer's Report (received at meeting) and would like Planner Nielsen's input. Benson moved, Boyd seconded, to table the 8:00 Public Heari~on Harding Acres Preliminary Plat until the meeting of October 15, 1984. Motion carried unani- mously. NOVEMBER MEETING DATES Tuesday, November 13, 1984 Tuesday, November 27. 1984 - ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD .... ,~PLANNING COMMISSION MEE~G TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1984 . COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. ( M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bruce Benson called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Bruce Benson; Commissioners Reese, Leslie, and Boyd; Planner Brad Nielsen; Council Liaison Kristi Stover; Deputy Clerk Sue Niccum. Absent: Commissioners Watten and Spellman (neither called). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to approve the minutes after removing Kooi's name from the list of those absent. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUATION - HARDING ACRES - NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF WEDGEWOOD DRIVE AND SMITHTOWN ROAD This Hearing is a continuation of a request by Mr. Bernard Harding to divide his property into 18 single family lots. Planner Nielsen said the concerns at the last meeting appeared to be: l 1. Whether the proposed road should connect to Glen Road. It is the recommendation of the City staff, the Engineer and myself that the new road should connect to Glen Road. Glen Road was designed for this, thats why no cul-de-sac was put in at the time. The connection benefits the residents, it provi~es a second access and makes it better for snowplowing purposes and emergency vehicles. 2. Lot Sizes. It has been suggested that the four southerly lots be enlarged, proportioning land from the large lots to the north. 20,000 square foot lots have been proposed. This area is R-2 which allows this. 3. Right-of-Way. At this time the developer will be asked for 5 feet of land on the west side of Wedgewood Drive. The concerned citizen to the east will not be asked for r.o.w. at this time, however, if he develops his land in the future he will be requested to do so at that time. 4. Question on accuracy of survey. Mr. Latterner has compared surveys with Mr. Otto and is satisfied that the survey is accurate. \ 5. Engineer's Report. The only thing that enters into the first phase is utilities and installation of the sewer. The Engineer indicates that this is acceptable. Prior to final plat approval the developer will have to provide construction drawings. ~~ . . MINUTE. PLANNI COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1984 page two Engineer Report, continued (Harding Acres): The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is currently reviewing the project and any of their recommendations will be taken into consideration as part of the final plat process. Audience Comments: Kathy Amlaw - 25270 Smith town Road It seem hilly. Planner - The Engineer foresees little grading. The property is relatively flat, it does drop off to the north but for development purposes it is quite well laid out. John Forss - 25380 Smithtown Road Is the sewer coming up Wedgewood? Planner - The sewer will be coming up the east side. Mr. Forss - Why hasn't Wedgewood Drive ever been carried through to Cty. Rd. 19? Planner - Wedgewood Drive was dead-ended at a piece of undeveloped property, with the understanding that if the property was ever developed, the road would be extended through. l Frank Mara - 25165 Glen Road How much land will be taken from residents to develop Glen Road? Planner - Glen Road is already platted at 40 feet. The road is substandard, 50 foot width would be standard, but there are no plans to extend the road at this time. Glen Road is already platted into lots and the City would have to buy the land, which they are not in a position to do. Mr. Mara - Can surveyors enter private property? Mr. Otto - Yes, State Law allows this. Mr. Mara - Had a complaint about shrub damage. Chairman Benson told Mr. Mara that it is not a City problem and he will have to deal directly with surveyor. Mrs. Knutson - 24820 Glen Road Why can't a cul-de-sac be used at the end of Glen Road? Planner - The City policy is to refrain from putting in a cul-de-sac on a road longer than 700 feet. Glen Road would be 2,700 feet to a cul-de-sac. Tom Story - 24845 Glen Road Why do you want to put through a road to increase traffic? \ . . M.ES PING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1984 page three ( Planner - There will be 18 units using this road, some of them will be going south instead of north. I don't believe there will be a great increase in traffic. Planner Nielsen informed the Commission that the developer has shown a willingness to cooperate and do whatever the City desires regarding the roads. Jan Towne - 24740 Smithtown Road Objected to traffic coming out on Smithtown Road. Objected to half-acre lots. Public porticn of the meeting was closed at 8:13 P.M. Commissioner Reese said that based on guidelines the City has in terms of subdivision plats, a little adjustment is necessary on this plan. Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend to Council to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the Planner's recommendations: 1. Lot sizes on the south end of the site should be increased, if necessary through redesign of the proposed street. (See Exhibit C). 2. Five feet of r.o.w. should be provided for Wedgewood Drive. 3. Utilities, grading and drainage should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading and drainage should also be reviewed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. l 4. Park dedication should be subject to review and recommendations by the Park Commission. Motion carried by Roll call Vote - 3 ayes - Reese, Benson and Leslie, 1 nay - Boyd. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS Council Liaison Kristi Stover gave the Council Reports: Planning Commission Candidates - there are two applicants, Mari Kooi and James Schultz. They will be reviewed at the next Council meeting. Police Department - one of several possible locations being considered is the north- east corner of Badger Park. Hockey Rinks - were discussed. Rapid Oil - disputed their bill but agreed to pay. ~ ~ " . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stover ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 8 NOVEMBER 1984 RE: REID, SUSAN - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FILE NO: 405 (84-34) BACKGROUND Ms. Susan Reid, 23585 Yellowstone Trail (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached), has requested approval of a simple subdivision allowing her to split off the southerly portion of her property in order to convey it to the property owner to the east. The proposed division/combination is shown on Exhibit B. The property is zoned R-2 and contains approximately 112,500 square feet (2.58 acres) in area. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION In a request such as this the City has two primary concerns: 1) the conform- ity of the resulting parcels; and 2) affect on future development of the property and area in which it is located. Despite the property to the east (shown as parcel A) being currently non- conforming due to inadequate frontage on a public street, the request requires no variance. The applicant's remaining lot will contain 73,675 square feet in area. I~ is suggested that the property owners strongly consider increas- ing the size of the parcel being conveyed to 40,000 square feet. In doing so the lot would not require a variance or gerrymandered lot line to be developed at some later date. This would only require moving the division line five feet to the north. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 5u-, . . . PLANNER'S REPORT REID, SUSAN - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION 8 NOVEMBER 1984 page two With respect to future development, there is considerable land in the area capable of further development. The proposed division/combination is not considered to adversely affect the future development of the area. For example, a new road could be extended westward into the area from the south- ern end of Glencoe Road. It is recommended that the applicant's request be approved subject to the following: 1. The parcel being divided must be legally combined with the property to the east. 2. Drainage and utility easements must be provided - 10 feet on each side of each lot line. As a final note, since the division/combination does not result in any new lots being created, no park dedication fee will be required at this time. cc: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Jim Norton Sue Niccum Susan Reid L .. -.. .. .. . _ - -lIJ - - -~ , \ , \ \ \ \ \ I-- I I I I I I I I \,4P\~~O I I I I I -, - - - - - I I I I I : \ OJ" I I I I 1 I - __I I I I ~J- o fT1 )t~';fd I I I I I I ----r-j-- I I I I . ,00"" ." , ----,~-- . ~ o .rl (J) .rl :> .rl cd ,.0 ::l (J) ~ \ \ \ ~ Q) Or--l H p, F-< S ~ ~.rl 00) +>0 .rl H I ,.0 .rl n ~J .>:: 8 .rl X H OJ r,~ m ~ " ( ~ \.. ~ . . , ... e:' .. 'h. 5IoJ', . ~ ~ ..., ." t..... : '''' I. ;;.~. -" A ---- _1_ 140' I I I H_H~ ~ l ~ J~I ,'..,. .., 1100 . ~ '" r ~ereby certify that this plan was prepared by me cr Lnder my direct suprr- vi~ion and that I am a duly Regi~tered Civil Engineer and Land Survpyor under ~h~ laws of the State of Minnesota. ,. s..J: ... ; ~ ----- .(~. "3," 1( ~ ,~I ~ l'- "It . . 1'"", ',nt. Ilv~ dlIlIO....., .~ ~ ?.. ~ .1 ~ . . , ..Z3f),S: . -- - - - -... ;~,&~S ~. (t. ZJO,S' ! ,';ca 1 to: : 1 inch : 100 feet Dat,p': Uctober 31, 11184 Exhi bi t B PROPOSED DIVISION/CQlI:BINATION ~/~- Mark S. Gronb~rg Reg. No. 1 55 GORDON R. COFFIN CO., INC. I::ngineerl'l and Land ~llrveyors Long L.akp., Mlnnesuta \I ~ ~ Permit for: penn~t .~~ . Permlt ~'oe .) Plan Check lee ~ ---- ~itate .iurcharge ,) ~etro J.A.C. ; ;.t!.Juote,i lee /3treet Nwnber & flame. ~ ...------ .' :I New Construction o o o o JU13 i'Q rAL .;. .' Remodel or :.H ~. , ~ -,(\ r- ,lelJ) Pemi t .:' Je\'je r pe rmi t rf .Iater Permit .) .) ~()i.'AI. 'J Fire ~e?8-ir (~or Office l3e only) Jate Paii . ___.. __. _... __._.... ..__.____ _.____ _._ __._________ ...__._.e___._ WARNING Before digging call local utiliti:s TELEPHONE. ELECTRIC. GAS [i;:. 1;~"(~?r) ax lA\\i . .r..~_;-_e.i0,:t_ .0Y'!'..CE' ':1 -;}'{ OF .)r-:O:'~,.C(.1) --_... - ---.., ~tIUI:;G :~:~.:I:' ;,.?r:LIC;"~IO~; --.----. --..-- ..--...-...---- )0. ': e ../ L:L.l.::1:.L_ liume __l~~ .~~"d-__~-~t~I.~: ____ ----- ---- A,Ure3o. :.2_5.:s:.7.S: _~ i.J.t.. je~~-1L~ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ ,_ ~ele~hone'7'.li:.~ro JC Cant :-actor: :;ar:1e -------- ..... ---- -...- -..--.--. .....--- - ..- - ---- :.:.ire~3 ... ... .-...... -.- .--.---.- ..-- ---. -- .". --.--... - -.-..... ---------.- -... . -- ~'cle?r.one 1. Lo;:al Je!jcri::rt ion of :'ro~erty includin:; : 1: reet .:".iiress if t:r.O\,n: .._-- .-.- --.---.-....-. -----------.-----.-.-- ----_._--_._--- .. -.. .----- ..- .-..- --... -.- --. ----. --.----.----------- Flo~ i)l:U1.:.\.~t;;,c~ . ~o': ;-1JJ'l ot' lot s1.o\;in...; 10cationJf :my :-ro:Jc:Jei or e;(i~t;in; buil',~ir" or. :lame '..:i;:t re~pect to boun.1.aI"J lines. ~jho"'l on plan ;:~3ent or ~roposed location of ,,:a:er .')u?ply ;:'acili tics :ll'la. ',later and ::;e\-jer ,->ut:ply ~i~ing. ?lot ?la.n~ are to be certifiei by ;J. ~urvo.1or. Jisposal of sur.face ',later must be Gho~~. 30il Jearin~ reot may be requirei at foundation level by a minimum 0 t',tO "corings by a. Profe~sional Civil ::n6ineer. H<lr.e3 and :~,~.-lresses of ::iub-Cont ractors or Installers of': 1. ~onstr~ction ---------.. ----------- 2. .;anitury .je',:er ;onnection: .-.--- -.--.-.---.----.-- ------------.. 3. ,.ell ani -.;ater ..)uP?ly ..iyster.l: Construction Information: --- --- - -- ----.. 1. ~:otimated value of work for ...thich pennit is requested, not including value of lc 4. l'ype of Hork to be done: (1rame :l\~ellin6', remodel t other.) _P-v-'-~&_-(, ~ X l' 51,,J. /';JJr c! t'/' NeLtJ cJt..JMr.rh ~ "\-pJ<..~,~kcJ ~ Attach copy of working drawin~ for which construction permit is requested. Attach .tomestic water supply specifications if improvement includes \otell. I It .ALL::- /I L ,,e:- /!- d::- . Jignature of :\ppllcant o/CL/ 2. 3. 3'..reet :;wnber & llame . pe nni t rI ___ Permi t ;;'oe .) -/iJ.,.Hd- Han Check lee .;; - .Hate .iurcharge ':;:=:."'-n - :,:etro J.A.C. .j- ;\uJunte,i lee , ;, .------ . Pemit for: Remode lor :\ if o fJ o o jun i'Q 1'AL .~ -/11.:lP- ,J New Construction ,,ie\..er pennit .~ ..ater Pennit- .;, - .------ .) Jell Pemit .:.. ~c ~AI. .; LfL...... tJ .Jate paii~t!L11--QJ-- j Fire Re;>air (For Office ~se only) WARNING ';2:~'{ OF .)r.O:'''::;,.O()] Before digging call local utiliti~s TELEPHONE - ELECTRIC. GAS El::. 1r-~, If~;.n BY lft\\~" :'?'5~ert.1 d\.mor: I;~-e- - -t:~'-~ ; e-4!. \O~ ~~ ~....rt ~ \.:) 'M." c -- - --. -. ---.--------- ------ - -----------.-. '/71f~ L A,liresG._~~~~. _ o'-9__~f'. ~'-~~__ _______ ._:'elephone _&j1~'-~~cS ~,~~\ ~ ~::"~~~_~_~.} ~~~_A ~1- __~~ 10 ~ ~~ ~,,\..:t ~__._ ;~iire~s.__.. .____~~tt~~_~~~..-!~~\~'1::~~~\i>>1-.'c1e?r.one _________ :)L. I L.JI::G : "'::lr.:I:' i;'2l:LII-;..:IO~I ;3.:~ ,,\,' \~L1 _ ____t::J_ 1. LeGal Jescri?tion of :'ro~erty includ.in.'; ,:)n-eet ....,iiress if t:r.O\.n: Flo~ Pl8.n:',~~:1.C~ . ~o~ ;-1:U1 of lot s!.C\;i::i_~ locaticn of JIl.y :ro~)c3ei or e:<:i03tin; buil~tin,_-:s or. :Jame '.:i~:l re:::poc't to bouI1.iary llnes.~i:o\-I on plaIt ?-~3ent or ,",roposed location cf ',.:a:;er ::;u?ply (:J,cilitics ond. '..:a::er and 3e',ier .Ju;ply ~i~ing. Plot ~lana are to be certifiei by ::l. ~urve.1or. Jisposal of surface ',:a.ter must be a~o~~. 30i1 Jearin~ re~t may be re~uirei :Lt found.ation level by a minimum of t'ilO borings by a Profe~sional Civil ::n6'ineer. 1. ;;onstI"..l.ction ,;',~.iresses of' :jub-Contractors or Installers of': / . ... - . - -7 .. ------- - - - - ....... _.. -..- --- -- - -- ----_.... - _.- Iiar.:es a.nd ? '- . ..ianit<l.r;'f .,ie',:er ;onnection: .-.--- -.-- -.---.----.-- -----.---------. --- 3. \;e11 an::' ',ia':er ';;u??ly .iy~ter.l: Construction Information: 1. ~:~timated value ot work for \-/hich permit is requested, not including value ot lot. 2 .1'ype of '.-lork to be 'tone: (1rame .:h:e11in~, remodel, other.) ------------ 3. Attach copy of' \-Iorking dra.wings f'or which construction pennit is requested. 4. Atta.ch~. mestic \-/ater llUPpI y.. s~:;'~;.n~ i" improveme~ . \---01... G ~ t \or" '0....... , to ~\).G"~ ),0.... ~ignature of' Applicant /00---- . . RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Shorewood Oaks Development, Inc. is the owner of approximately 44 acres of land, located on the north side of State Highway 7, between Strawberry Lane and Freeman Park; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned owner has requested that the zoning of the property be amended from R-2, Single Family Residence to P.U.D., Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would exceed the land use density prescribed by the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, dated September, 1984; and WHEREAS, comtemporaneously with the rezoning request the owner requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which was fully considered by the City Council and heretofore denied on 22 October 1984 by Resolution No. 75-84; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby denies the request for rezoning. DATED: 1984 CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Robert Rascop, Its Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk /IC(~ . . ORR'SCHELEN'MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors October 26, 1984 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attn: Mr. Dan Vogt, Administrator Re: Street Construction and Appurtenant Work Project No. 84-2 Comm. No. 033-3508 Dear Dan: We have received a request for an extension of time from Valley Paving, Inc., Contractor for Project No. 84-2. They are requesting an extension of time "due to the unfavorable wet weather conditions". The new completion date would be November 22, 1984. It was October 22, 1984. We recommend the City approve the request for an extension of time. A motion from the Council would probably suffice unless you feel a change order should be prepared. If you have have any questions or comments, please call. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. i~~ t? 1~ James P. Norton, P.E. JPN:mln cc: Mr. Gary Larson, City Attorney 2021 East Hennepin Avenue · Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 · 612/331- 8660 13~ ~SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Syndicate Head Net Interest Dollar Cost Net Interest Rate Position "\t1.Jc: 7lU1AA..Al '0/. y ~P"Xti - I' /.iffR 63/. zS ~ ~. ~. e.L.LA&-L d eK.-~((--.L<-../h_~J ~ ~U1..~0~ ~C- A.. , ~ ~--e/~ . ;jj itA I - e..iC ~ . Total Number of Bids: y Awarded To: ~~ ~ 9. 7.317 9 55 OS qg2/3 1. go 7/3 . .:...c.- 800 Osborn Building, saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241 MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCI L Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 DATE: November 19, 1984 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM, Dan Vagt ~ SUBJECT: Codification of City Ordinances Attached you will find information and proposals from four (4) firms interested in codification of Shorewood's Ordinances. As I'm sure you are aware, $10,000. has been budgeted for the codification using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds. As can be seen, none of the proposals exceed this amount. ~he task now lies in selection of a firm who will perform the codification services for Shorewood in the manner which most closely fits our needs. Al though price of a codifier. a long with the is always a concern, it should not be the primary factor in selection The end product and its usefulness to the City should be primary various other factors. Below I will try to compare proposals. Price - Includes codification and 25 copies: (25 copies was used only for comparison of bids. desired) More copies can be ordered if SD S Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 35 West Commercial Weiser, Idaho 83672 s ']15 ' $3,850. ljoOf~' Gary Larson, P.A. 17736 Excelsior Blvd. Minnetonka, Minn. 55345 't~st> $7.920. Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc. 7400 Lyndale Ave. So. Minneapolis, Minn. 55423 $8,740. LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minn. 55402 $10,000. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore .;t Mayor and Councilmembers November 19, 1984 page two Time needed to complete and codifying process: Sterling - 8 to 12 months. Review, edit, and organize. Larson - 4 to 8 months. Review, edit, and organize. Municipal Ordinance Codifiers - 8 to 12 months. Revise, rearrange, and codify. LeFevere Firm - 8 to 12 months. Rewrite entire code, review and organize. Reference check: Sterling - Contact was made with Prior Lake, Lakeville and Burnsville. All are very satisfied with their work and use Sterling for annual updating. I received no negative aspects. Being out-of-state does not seem to be a problem. Experience is extensive both in Minnesota as well as the upper midwest. Larson - I contacted Willie Norfleet at Tonka Bay. He seems satisfied with their work which is nearly complete. Experience level in codification is minimal. Municipal Ordinance Codifiers - I made contact with Orono and Eagan. The City Manager of Eagan has used this firm in several cities and is pleased and comfortable with their work. Orono stated that this firm did "basically a good job". This firm has extensive experience since they specialize in ordinance codification. LeFevere Firm - West St. Paul and South St. Paul were contacted. Both cities were pleased with the end result of the codification and like the format. The firm has codified ordinances for approximately 10 cities over the past 13 years. Recommendation: Based upon my interviews with the proposers, analysis of the proposals, discussions with references and the proposers' experience with codification, I recommend award of the proposal to Sterling Codifiers, Inc. in the amount of $3,850. DJV:pr ~ STERLING CODIFIERS, Inc. 35 W. Commercial/P.O. Box 711, Weiser, Idaho 83672 (208)549-2830 M. R. Rollins President Ruth M. Smith VP/Marketing Sally S. Baker Secretary-Treasurer Midwest Office: 1165 Waukegan Road Deerlield. Illinois 60015 (312)945-8466 PROPOSAL To: Mr. Daniel J. Vogt City Administrator of the City of Shorewood,Minnesota STERLING CODIFIERS, INC., hereby submits the following Proposal to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD for the preparation and publication of a Municipal Code for the CITY OF SHOREWOOD. STERLING CODIFIERS,INC., hereby agrees to codify the ordinances of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD according to the best accepted codifica- tion standards and print twenty five (25) copies of the Shorewood City Code. In addition, STERLING CODIFIERS,INC., agrees to sup- plement and keep current the Municipal Code of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD . Details regarding the codification procedures, the Supplement Service and miscellaneous services offered by STERLING CODIFIERS, INC., are described in the attached two (2) pages entitled: "Procedures for Codification of Ordinances, Supplement Service to Up-d.ate Code Books, Miscellaneous Services". This two (2) page summary is hereby made a part of this Proposal. In addition, STERLING CODIFIERS, INC. agrees to the following: 1. Provide loose leaf, mechanical binders to fit Bi" x 11" page size. 2. Provide three (3) ring binders. TIME SCHEDULE: The time involved by STERLING C ODIFIERS, INC. in the codification and publication of the Shorewood City Code is as follows: 1. From date of delivery of executed Agreement and ordinance material to STERLING CODIFIERS, INC. to date Sterling pre- sents the Code Work Book to the City...~ to 4 months. 2. From date STERLING CODIFIERS,INC. receives said Code Work Book back from the City for preparation of changes, compre- . The marl< of quality and service in ordimmce codification . STERLING CODIFIERS, Inc. 3S W. Commercial/P.O. Box 711, Weiser, Idaho 83672 (208)549-2830 M. R. Rollins President Ruth M. Smith VP/Marketing Sally S. Baker Secretary-Treasurer Midwest Office: 1165 Waukegan Road Deerfield. illinois 60015 (312)945-8466 PROPOSAL. .Page 2 TIME SCHEDULE: cont'd 2. hensive index and publishing of the Code Books to delivery of printed Code Books to the City...6 to 8 weeks. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR STERLING SERVICES 1. Codification Costs for Twenty-five (25) Copies of the Code Book Completed to the Satisfaction of the City of Shorewood:Covers research, editing, presentation of Code 'Work Book, Ordinance List, Ordinance Resume, preparation of Cross Index, printing and insertion in loose leaf, mechanical binders imprinted as directed by the Municipality. There are no extra charges for lists, diagrams, etc. Total Costs: $3850.00 plus $12.50 per page for each page over 400. Additional Code Books may be ordered at time of final printing at a charge of $30.00 per book. If a logo is de~ired on the binders, there would be an additional charge of $75.00. 2. Costs for SU]:lplement Service to Keep Code Books Up-to-date: A. Annual fee of $400.00 for up to 40 page changes plus $12.50 per page for each page over 40, OR B. $12.50 per printed page change 3. Costs for Special Booklets on SpecifiC? Tit~: Our prices are based on the number of pages and number of copies. If done at the time of the printing of the Code Books, the cost per booklet for up to 100 copies would be as follows: 1-49 pages... $3.15 per booklet; 50-99 pages...$3.40 per booklet,etc. In summary, STERLING CODIFIERS,INC. desires to meet the needs of each Municipality. Its major policy has always been to perform quality wo~,on time as well as personal service to each client. I ,r- e DAY OF, , ..:..- 1984 SUBMITTED THIS . STERLING CODIFIERS, INC. \ , , By i /' ~ ~ { c; -:;; , - /j.., ,~?L R. Metcalf Smith . The mark of quality and service in ordinance codification ! STERLING CODIFIERS, Inc. 35 W. Commercial/P.O. Box 711, Weiser, Idaho 83672 (208)549-2830 M. R. Rollins President Ruth M. Smith VP/Mariceting Sally S. Baker Sec:retalj'-Trmsurer Midwest Office: 1165 Waukegan Road Deerfield, Dlinois 60015 (312)945-8466 PROCEDURES FOR CODIFICATION OF ORDINANCES, SUPPLEMENT SERVICE TO UP-DATE CODE BOOKS, MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES I. Procedures for Codification of Ordinances: A. Municipality forwards to Sterling Codifiers, Inc. one copy of each of their general and permanent ordinances along with any other related materials. B. Sterling Codifiers then reviews, edits and organizes all ordinances. C. Code Work Book, Ordinance List and Ordinance Resume: Within four (4) months of receipt of the ordinance material, a Sterling Representative will personally present to the Municipal Attorney, or any other designated official, a Code Work Book, an Ordinance List and an Ordinance Resume. 1. Code Work Book (or Proof Copy): This Code Work Book will be printed on 8 ~" x 11" page size, one side only, with wide margins so that the Municipality may easily make corrections, deletions, etc. This Code Work Book (or proof copy) will show all the codified and edited ordinances of the Municipality in their current, amended form. 2. Ordinance List: A chronological list of all general and permanent ordinances submitted by the Municipality to Sterling. The list will show the disposition in the Code Work Book of all of the ordinances and code sections and show any amended or repealed provisions to each individual ordinance and/or code section. This Ordinance List proves of great value in keeping a running record of the location, in the Municipal Code, of future ordinances. 3. Ordinance Resume: This Ordinance Resume, prepared by our experienced Staff, gives the suggestions and results of their editorial and research work. Sample ordinances may be included if, in the opinion of our Staff, they might be of help to the Municipality when reviewing the Code Work Book. I The mark 01 quality and service in ordinance i:odification .. PROCEDURES -1,C,3 cont'd. Page 2 This Ordinance Resume points out any discrepancies in the ordinances, gives suggestions for the elimination of any conflicts, duplications, ambiguities and/or obsolete provisions and also gives suggestions for wording revisions to eliminate any vague or confusing phrases so that the law is written in modern, concise and accurate language. Any conflicts with state law are pointed out and suggestions made for new materials so that the Code is broad and comprehensive, covering existing conditions and/or conditions that may arise in the predictable future. 4. The Municipality reviews the Code Work Book, Ordinance List and Ordinance Resume and makes all changes, additions and deletions, and when finished, returns to Sterling Codifiers the Code Work Book with proper authorizations. D. Cross Indexing and Final Prinling: Upon receipt of the Code Work Book, the Sterling Staff makes all changes authorized by the Municipality and prepares a comprehensive Cross Index. The desired number of copies are printed and each copy inserted into a loose leaf, mechanical binder, imprinted as desired by the Municipality. This procedure takes about six (6) to eight (8) weeks. The required number of Code Books are then shipped to the Municipality along with a sample Adopting Ordinance. II. Supplement Service to Keep Code Books Up-ta-Date: As new ordinances are passed by the Municipality a copy should be sent to Sterling Codifiers. Sterling then prepares same for insertion in the Code Books. One ordinance change often involves several page changes. Ordinances may be sent to Sterling as they are passed, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or annually, whichever is most convenient for the Municipality. The new sheets are then returned to the Municipality with instructions as to where the sheets should be inserted in the Code Books. III. Special Booklets on Specific Titles: Many of Sterling's clients like to have special booklets printed on specific titles such as Zoning, Building or Traffic and sell these booklets to interested persons. Sterling is equipped to perform this service and also supplement these booklets if so desired by the Municipality. IV. Sample Ordinances: All of Sterling's clients may, at any time, request sample ordinances. This can be a great time saver to a Municipality when working on a new ordinance. There is no charge for this service. t Introduction The Codifier hereby proposes to revise, rearrange and codify the ordinances of the City with such additions and deletions as may be necessary or desirable to provide a workable and current City Code. Upon acceptance of this Proposal by the City a copy of all present ordinances will be furnished to the Codifier, and codification will proceed as set forth below. Part 1 Codification and Procedure The Codifier shall first study the City's present ordinances and prepare a list of Code or Chapter topics, designation and sequence for approval. When approved Codifier shall review and catalog all present ordinances, list and categor ize the ordinances required by law to be retained and perpetuated, together with those which it would be desirable to retain uncodified. Codifier shall then arrange for and hold a pre-draft conference in the City. This conference is very important to a successful codi- fication. It shall be limited to one day and department heads should be on-call to discuss the topics of interest to their departments. Council members should also be notified and, if possible, participate. The purposes of the conference w ill be to review the City's present ordinances, to afford Codifier an opportunity to make suggestions for updating and revising them, and to suggest new legislation that the City may wish to adopt and include in the City Code. This conference will provide Codifier with an outline for subsequent drafting. Thereafter, each Chapter shall be drafted by Codifier, type- written, and a copy forwarded to the City upon completion. Drafts of individual Chapters may be forwarded, but not necessarily in sequence. A memorandum shall accompany each Chapter indicating sources of the provisions and calling attention to new provisions requested at the pre-draft conference. Zoning and subdivision ordinances shall not be prepared in draft form, but Codifier shall revise the format to con- form with the City Code and incorporate their provisions (and any amendments) into the Master Copy. Drafts may be photocopies. After City staff members have been afforded sufficient time for review and study of each Chapter and the draft as a whole, the Codifier shall arrange for and hold the post-draft conference in the City. This conference is, again, most important to success, limited to one day, and includes the same participants as the pre-draft conference. Its purpose is to make final revisions in the draft. Conference time will not permit a line-by-line consideration of the entire draft. However, it should afford an adequate opportuni ty to discuss problems, suggestions, changes and explanation of specific provisions as noted by reviewers. City participants in post-draft conference shall make all decisions and instruct Codifier as to final revisions in the Code draft. -2- Drafting new or review and substantive reV1Slon of any subdivision ordinances are not included in this Proposal. the Codifier shall include specifically requested changes, not be required to participate in necessary hearings. Codifier shall prepare a Foreword for the City Code with appro- priate historical notes. The text of the Foreword shall be submitted to the City for approval. zoning and However, but shall Part 2 Time Lapse and Interim Ordinances Between the time that drafting is commenced and the sets delivered to the City, time is considered of the essence and neither the City nor the Codifier shall cause any unreasonable delay. Such delay could cause the Code to become "stale". Accordingly, the project should move forward expeditiously but not without reasonable time being afforded to complete the work then to be performed. Copies of all ordinances adopted by the City before the pre-draft conference shall immediately be forwarded to the Codifier for inclu- sion in the draft. Between the pre-draft and post-draft conferences only essential ordinances shall be adopted but those, too, shall be forwarded to Codifier and included. Between the post-draft conference and the effective date of the City Code (generally no more than 60 days) no ordinance shall be adopted by the City unless it is to be repealed by adoption of the City Code, or unless satisfactory arrange- ments can be made between the City and the Codifier. Part 3 Completion and Printing A draft of an adopting ordinance and notice of availability required by Minnesota law shall be prepared by the Codifier and fur- nished the City with appropriate instructions. Codifier shall print a Master Copy of the entire City Code, as revised at the post-draft conference, including a topical Analysis and Sub-Analysis, on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper camera-ready for offset print- ing. The text of all Chapters of the City Code, the Analysis, the SUb-Analysis, and the Foreword, when collated, shall constitute a set. The City Code shall be offset printed from the Master Copy on good quality paper with page sizes of 8-1/2 x 11 inches or reduced to 6-1/4 x 9 inches, and in the number of sets, both as specified in Part 4. Each page shall be printed on one side only and punched with holes spaced at standard three-r ing binder intervals. The Ci ty shall provide the Codifier, without charge, two bound copies of the Code upon completion. Codifier shall furnish City staff with suggestions as to form and procedure for amending the City Code by making changes or addi tions. -3- Part 4 Price and Expiration The total contract price is $8,740.00, due on delivery of 25 sets of the City Code printed on pages 8-1/2 x 11 inches in size. This Proposal expires on December 1, 1984 unless previously accepted. DATED: November 12, 1984. ..- esident and Counsel CODIFIERS, INC. Avenue South Minnesota 55423 Designation and Acceptance The (title) is hereby designated to correspond with Codifier, receive drafts and consider and approve Code topics and sequence, and approve the Foreword. THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL day of is hereby accepted by the City this , 19 Mayor (Title) -4- 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Jeffrey J. Strand Mary J. Bjorklund John G. Kressel Dayle Nolan Cindy L. Lavorato Michael A. Nash Brian F. Rice Lorraine S. Clugg James J. Thomson. Jr. James M. Strommen Mary C. Nielsen Terry L. Hall Ronald H. Batty LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & Drawl ..\ Prn[t'ssiona I ."-,sodation November 14, 1984 Mr. Daniel J. Vogt City Admini~trator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Codification of Ordinances Dear Dan: Pursuant to the Council's invitation and discuRsions with you, we submit the following proposal for the codification of the ordinances of the City of Shorewood. We understand that the City will provide us with one copy of the City's present Code and one copy of all ordinances now in effect and not in the Code. The materials referred to in thiR paragraph will be fur- nished to us within five days after the acceptance of this proposal. In accordance with the provisions of this proposal letter, we will deliver to the City, on or before November 30, 1985, a complete Code of the thpn existing general ordinances of the City. The Code will contain the following features and element:s: 1. Integration of all ordinances of a general nature into a comprehensive City Code, organized by subject matter, with sections suitahly arranged under a decimal coding system. 2. Chapters, sections, subdivisions and other major divisions appropriately entitled with headnotes. 3. A generalized table of contents of the Code and an index to enable rapid location of subject matter. Mr. Daniel Voqt City of Shorewood Page 2 4. A suggested repeals ordinance to repeal ordinances which are obsolete, conflicting or otherwise inappropriate, and a suggested ordinance adopting the new Code, with necessary notices and certificates. 5. Suitable appendices containing material germane to the Code, but not appropriate for inclusion in it. Included in this category are special ordi- nances of an administrative or transitory nature, disposition tables, franchises and similar items. 6. This proposal includes the revision and updating of the Zoning Ordinance. It maybe, however, that the City would prefer to handle that ordinance as a separate matter, and if so, the prices quoted below reflect this, but we would still make suitable pro- vision for the Zoning Ordinance's inclusion as an appendix and make suggestions for its ultimate inclu- sion i the Code. In any event we wouldrecornrnend and contemplate the preparation of the Zoning Ordinance as a separate volume. 7. The Code will consist of the text of the present Code and all presently existing ordinances, without substantive revisions or additions, after deletions of repealed matters, amendments and other modifications to be agreed upon after review with your staff. 8. A chronological list of existing ordinances and with their status and location in the new Code. 9. A list of suggestions, where appropriate, for improvements in existing ordinances for consideration by the Council for future adoption and inclusion in the Code. Other aspects of this codification proposal are as follows: 1. New ordinances not exceeding 25 pages of finished manuscript enacted during preparation of the Code before October 1, 1985 will be integrated into the Code during its preparation. Mr. Daniel Vogt City of Shorewood Page 3 2. Prior to their delivery to the printer, all Code pages in final form will be submitted to the City, with comments, for review. Any changes in or written corrections to the total finished manuscript will be included in the Code if received by us within five days after submission of the total finished manuscript code to the City. 3. Any new ordinances or revisions to the total finished manuscript in excess of 25 pages or any new ordinances requiring changes in the finished manuscript will be included at an additional charge of $5.00 per page. 4. We will supply 30 copies of the completed code in offset print from typed manuscript, in elite type, on one side of 8-1/2" by 11", 16 or 20 pound white bond paper. Twenty copies of the Code will be collated on mylar-edged paper for placement in looseleaf binders. The remaining reserve will be separated by markers or wrapped separately. 5. Twenty binders to be supplied by us will be Baer-Strand binders bound in vinyl over stiff or flexible binder board, silk screened in one color (to be selected by the City) on front and spine, with Delta metal and standard 8-1/2" outside center, 2" capacity, 3 ring. 6. We will perform the above services for the alternate costs set out in paragraph 9 below, payable as follows: $2,000 at the time the City accepts this proposal, and the balance upon delivery of the Code. We realize this payment schedule covers two budget years and we can make adjustments to suit your convenience. 7. In the event the City wishes us to deliver only a print ready manuscript copy of the Code, without binders or printed pages, we will perform the above services, less printing and binders, and with the delivery of a suitable manuscript copy for this a total cost set out below. All other conditions of this proposal will remain the same. Mr. Daniel Vogt City of Shorewood Page 4 8. Our procedure consists in sending individual chapters as originally drafted to thp. City for review and comment by staff and attorney. These drafts are accompanied by detailed commentaries showing changes made, new material, omitted material and the reasons therefor. These comments then become an appendix to. the Code for future historical reference. We also schedule one drafting session with the City upon completion of the first draft to finalize recommenda- tions of the City staff. 9. Acceptance of this proposal may be made by an executed copy of this letter received by us on or before January 1, 1985. The alternate prices for this proposal are as follows: A. 30 copies, 20 binders, Zoning Code included with separate binders. $10,000 B. 30 copies, 20 binders, Zoning Code excluded. 7,020 C. Print ready manuscript, Zoning Code included. 8,500 D. Print ready manuscript, Zoning Code excluded. 6,500 The present status of the City's ordinances suggests that substantial reorganization, addition of np.w material, and deletion of old is required. I would think the format of the Code would resemble quite closely that of the West St. Paul Codp. previously sent to you. As you will note from examining that Code we rely heavily on the techniques of adoption of statutes by reference, centralizing of administrative proce- dures, and the exclusion of ordinances of special application (i.e. franchises, annexation, street naming, etc.) from the Code book. We have found that this approach results in a more concise, readable and workable body of law for the City. f Mr. Daniel Vogt City of Shorewood Page 5 Codification is extremely exacting work, and it is therefore most important that deviations from this proposal be kept to minimum. We will, of course, maintain continuous contact with your staff during the entire project. In some of the cities for whom we have prepared codes we are retained on a continuing basis to integrate new ordinances into the Code, thus maintaining a continu- ously current Code. The service involves drafting ne~7 pages, arranging for printing, and delivery to the City with instructions for indexing and notations of changes. If the City accepts this proposal we would be happy to explore the possibilities of supplying this additional service. The work will be performed by myself or under my supervision. I am a former staff attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities, former Director of the State Office of Local and Urban Affairs, and Assistant Minnesota State Senate Counsel. I have had twenty years experience in the field of municipal law and legislative drafting. Our firm serves as counsel for several municipalities, school districts and local governmental agencies and has prepared ordinance codes for several municipalities. We feel that we are well qualified to perform this service for you. A brief description of our experience and qualifications in this field has been sent to you previously. We are most grateful for the opportunity to make this proposal and hope we can be of service to the City of Shorewood. Yours very truly, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association By DJK:caw > ) \. 1.'.. .,v \; ~l TO. FROM: Gary Larson ;> Dan Vogt DATE: November 19, 1984 LEGAL MEMORANDUM Discussion 1 SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A MUNICIPALITY'S LEGISLATIVE ZONING DECISIONS. Any judicial review of Shorewood's legislative enactment of Section 10, Subdivision 2 of its Zoning Ordinance will be narrow in scope. Honn. v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 NW 2d 409, 414 {Minn 1981}, State by Rochester Association Etc., v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W. 2d 885, 888 (Minn 1978). In Honn the state supreme court expanded and continued to follow its previously enunciated policy that legislative acts will be upheld unless "unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public's health, safety, morals or general welfare" Honn, supra at .......415. The court explained this rational basi s test by stat ing, "{A} city council has broad discretion in legislative matters even if the city council's decision is debatable, so long as there is a rational basis for what it does the courts do not interfere." Id. {citations omitted}. The power to amend and revise a zoning ordinance, like the power to enact the original plan, must be exercised reasonably in furtherance of the public health, safety, and welfare. Olson v. City of Hopkins, 276 Minn 163 (1967). The scope of judicial review of zoning amendments is the same as is applied to the original ordinance. Dunnell's Digest, Municipal Corporations Sec. 6.00, 133. See also: Olson v. Hopkins, Supra at 171. Discussion 2 SHOREWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE "MERGER PROVISION", SEC. 10, SUBD. 2. SHOULD PASS THE "RATIONAL BASIS TEST". Minimum area lot restrictions have uniformly been upheld where they are not so stringent as to be exclusionary. Such restrictions will be sustained where they diminish the value of certain land without destroying its use value. Anderson, American Law of Zoning Sec. 960, ~ Vol. 2, 235. Where economic loss is the on1y~hardship caused by a minimum lot size, an attack on the constitutionality of the regulation will not be successful. Id. In Olson v. City of Hopkins, Supra, at 171, the supreme court noted that persons who own property in a particular zone or district enjoy no eternally vested right to that classification if the public interest demands otherwise. Minimum area lot requirements have been justified by considerations of public interest. It is unquestioned that minimum area lot restrictions tend to preserve property values, and the essentially rural or residential character of an area. In the present case, minimum area lot restrictions in the area in question are necessary to preserve the shoreline of Christmas Lake. In the present case, Mr. Caba1ka does not enjoy an eternally vested right to divide one lot into two parcels merely because the one lot was defined as two lots at the time he purchased the property. Section 10, Subd. 2 of Shorewood's zoning ordinance was enacted for the express purpose of maintaining minimum area requirements for residential lots. Merging of one of Mr. Cabalka's lots to an adjacent lot also owned by him does not in any way deprive him of all reasonable use of his property but only those uses that would violate Shorewood's Zoning Ordinance. Discussion 3 RADICAL INCREASES IN MINIMUM AREA LOT REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN UPHELD AS NOT BEING ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE A number of courts have determined that minimum lot requirements imposed by a zoning ordinance are not arbitrary or unreasonable. In Senior v. Zoning Commission of New Canaan, 146 Conn. 531, 153 A.2d 415 (1959), the Court upheld a zoning amendment that upgraded the minimum lot requirements of Plaintiff's 400 acre parcel of land from 2 acres to 4 acres. In Samuel v. Harrison, 195 NYS 2d 882 (1959) the court upheld an increase in the minimum lot size requirements of a particular -2- district. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had not sustained the burden of showing that the restrictions imposed on their property by the ordinance precluded its use for any purpose for which it is reasonably adapted~ nor was it sufficient for such plaintiffs to simply show that it would be more profitable for them to use such property in a manner prohibited by the ordinance since mere lessening of profits, or even economic loss, did not render an ordinance confiscatory. See 48 ALR 3d 1210, Sec. 5(a). In Steel Hill Development Inc. v. Sanbornton, 338 F. Supp. 301, a federal district court upheld an amendment to a zoning ordinance that increased the minimum lot size from 35,000 square feet to 261,360 square feet. In the present case, Mr. Caba1ka's complaint is: that if he is required to sell his property as one lot rather than as two, that he will experience an economic loss. Such damages, if any are incurred, are not compensib1e. Mr. Cabalka's property is currently being used for residential purposes. Requiring Mr. Caba1ka to sell his property as one unified lot will not destroy its use as residential property. Discussion 4 IN THE LAND USE AREA, DIMINUTION OF PROPERTY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TAKING EVEN WHEN SUCH DIMINUTION IS EXTREME. It is clear that in Minnesota an amendment to a zoning ordinance will not constitute unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation unless restriction or amendment results in a total destruction or substantial diminution of the value of the property affected. The Minnesota Supreme Court in McShane v. The City of Faribau1t, 292, N.W. 2d 253, 257 (1980) quoted the U.S. Supreme Court in Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272, U.S. 365 (1926) stating: "The right to use property as one wishes is subject to and limited by the property exercise of the police power in the regulation of land use, and such regulation does not constitute a compensible taking unless it deprives the property of all reasonable use. Accordingly, we have repeatedly upheld zoning ordinances and other land use restrictions against allegations of unconstitutional taking, even where the value of the property declined significantly as a result of the restrictions." -3- (Citations omitted.) See also: Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., v. City of Afton, 323, N.W. 2d 757, 766 (Minn. 1982). In Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. De Benedictis, a federal district court determined that: "For land use regulation to constitute a taking where no physical invasion by the government is present, the regulation must destroy the owner's entire bundle of property rights." Discussion 5 THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD ZONING ORDINANCES REQUIRING AN OWNER OF A NONCONFORMING UNDEVELOPED LOT ADJACENT TO PROPERTY WHICH HE ALSO OWNES TO COMBINE THE TWO LOTS. The facts in the present case are remarkably similar to those in In Re Application of Dedering v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 313 (1976). In Dedering an owner of adjacent lake shore lots sold.one of his lots to Mr. Dedering. The lot sold to Mr. Dedering contained 35,000 square feet. The Isanti County Zoning ordinance required that for a one-family dwelling to be built on a lot, the lot must contain a minimum area of 1 acre (43,560 square feet). When the lot was conveyed to Mr. Dedering, he knew that the lot he was purchasing did not meet the minimum lot area requirements. The County Zoning Board, in denying Mr. Dedering's conditional use permit application, based its decision in part on the fact that the proposed use would be injurious to property values in the immediate vicinity. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in its decision in Dedering explicitly upheld the county's zoning ordinance requiring that where an owner of a nonconforming undeveloped lot also owns adjacent property he is required to combine the two lots. The Court quoted language from Macchia v. Board of Appeals, 7 Misc. 2d 763, 164 N.Y.S. 2d 463 (1957), stating: "The fact that the building of a residence upon a substandard lot might depreciate the value of neighboring properties is no ground for denial of a building permit if the property has been continuously in single and separate ownership for a period commencing prior to the adoption of amendment of a zoning ordinance making it substandard." -4- ~ In the present case, if Mr. Cabalka had purchased a residential lot, which became substandard with respect to minimum lot area requirements before he was able to construct a residence, denial of a building permit might very well take his entire bundle of property rights and constitute a "taking". The basis for this taking is the fact that a residential lot is deprived of all possible uses if one is not allowed to build a residence upon it. By contrast, in the present case, Mr. Cabalka, by operation of Section 10, Subd. 2, has one residential lot with one residence upon it. Section 10, Subd. 2 does not deprive Mr. Cabalka of all possible uses of his property since the property may be used as a residence and sold to another for residential use. If we apply the Court's decision in Dedering to the facts of the present case, if Mr. Cabalka sells one portion of his property while retaining the other, such a sale will break the chain of continuous single and separate ownership for a period commencing prior to the adoption of amendment of a zoning ordinance. Mr. Cabalka's retention of a substandard lot after selling the adjacent lot will put him on otice that Shorewood may deny him a conditional use permit, variance, or building permit. Based on the court's holding in Dedering it appears that "merger provisions" in zoning ordinances will be enforced so long as they comply with the minimal "rational basis" test and so long as application of the ordinance will not deprive a property owner of his entire bundle of property rights. Discussion 6 SHOREWOOD CANNOT BE BOUND IN PERPETUITY BY WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN PRIOR ERRONEOUS APPLICATIONS OF ITS ZONING ORDINANCE On page three of his letter, Mr. Kelly notes that property owners to the north of Mr. Cabalka may have been treated differently than Mr. Cabalka is being treated at present. First, it appears that these lots may not have the "continuous frontage" required by the merger section of the ordinance since the substandard lot appears to be on the opposite side of Christmas Lake Road for their corresponding "adjacent" -5- .4 . . , lots. Second, if the aforementioned property owners were in the past allowed to subdivide lots in contravention of Shorewood's zoning ordinance, Shorewood' cannot be bound in perpetuity by what it has asserted to be prior erroneous applications of its zoning ordinance. Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W. 2d 865, 869 (Minn. 1979). A municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing its zoning ordinances even if a property owner relied, to his detriment, on prior city actions. Franks's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roeseville, et.al, 295 N.W. 2d 604, 607 (Minn. 1980). -6- ~, 812 107 KINNBSOTA. UPOBTS postconviction remedy statutes, Minn. St. 590.01, et seq. Follow- ing that hearing, the lower court denied relief. Kremer's motion for a remand for a postconviction hearing does not challenge the validity of the basis for issuing the war- rant. Since there is no transcript of the postconviction eviden- tiary hearing, we cannot discern whether the present challenges were raised there. However, in light of both the petition for postconviction relief which Kremer filed with the district court and the district court's order denying postconviction relief, a compelling inference can be drawn that Kremer did 'not make such claims. The sole specific basis for relief alleged in the peti- tion is that one Edward Kido who, subsequent to Kremer's con- viction, pleaded guilty and was sentenced for the same offense executed an affidavit stating that Kremer had no connection with ,the offense, and that he (Kido) desired to give testimony to this effect. The order denying the petition for postconviction relief focuses only on this new evidence presented by Kido and indicates in no uncertain terms that the court below found Kido's affidavit completely trumped up and falsified.1 In short, nothing in the record indicates that Kremer's pres- ent claims were raised at any earlier stage of these protracted criminal proceedings. At oral argument, the only prior appear- ance of these issues on the record to which Kremer's counsel could point was the passing reference to the stiffer probable- cause requirements for nighttime searches at the Rasmussen hearing mentioned above. Counsel urged, rather, that since Kremer's contentions present important constitutional issues, this court should resolve those issues despite Kremer's failure to properly preserve them below., However, the fundamental rule 1 Conclusion of law No.4 read: ... · · [T)hls court is unwilling to al. low its gullibility to be tested and its processes to be subverted by the type of patent manipulation herein disclosed, which if allowed would permit the last of joint defendants separately tried to make a favorable plea agreement, and then to 'exonerate" those co-defendants already found guilty after a fair trial." . ......-- I I IN BE APPLICATION OF DEDEBING v. .JOHNSON 818 that this court will not decide issues which are raised for the first time on appeal, see 1B Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) ~ 384, has not been subject to an exception where the tardily raised errors consist of allegedly unconstitutional criminal procedures. See, e. g., State v. Bosnich, 273 Minn. 553, 142 N. W. 2d 63, certiorari denied, 385 U. S. 978, 87 S. Ct. 522, 17 L. ed. 2d 440 (1966). In fact, in State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228, 195 N. W. 2d 435 (1972), this court ruled that since defendant's contentions regarding the scope of the search and the justification for a nighttime search- the identical issue raised in the instant case--were raised for the first time on appeal, these issues were "not properly pre- sented under soundly based and settled rules limiting our scope of review to issues raised at tria]," 292 Minn. 237, 195 N. W. 2d 441, citing State v. Taylor, 270 Minn. 333, 138 N. W. 2d 828 (1965).2 Affirmed. IN RE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL DEDERING FOR PERMIT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING v. MARGARET R. JOHNSON. 239 N. W. 2d 913. February 27, 1976-No. 45739. ZoDing-countf orcUnance-revlew-court's fbuUng lot cUd not qnaUfy for exemption from ordinance. 1. The trial court's finding, based upon expert testimony, that, due to the combination of coarse soil conditions and the natural slope of the terrain placing appellant's and respondent's water. supply wells downslope from appellant's proposed sewage disposal system, appellant's substandard lot did not meet legal require- ments for exemption from the Isanti County Zoning Ordinance was not clearly erroneous where: 2 We note that Kremer was discharged from custody on March 13, 1974. 814 a07 KINNBSOTA REPORTS (a) the zoning ordinance requires, among other things, that any septic tank be placed, as a minimum, at least 50 feet from any domestic water supply and downslope from that supply where fea. sible; and (b) said ordinance also requires that when coarse formations are encountered the distance specified shall be increased appro- priately; and (c) appellant's proposed septic tank wUl be 60 feet from re- spondent's well and 50 feet from his own well, and upslope from both wells. 8ame-eame-denial of conditional.use permit and variaDce-propriet)'. 2. In denying a conditional-use permit and variance to appel- lant, who acquired a substandard lot with full knowledge of its deficient size, the Isanti County Board of Commissioners was fur. thering the purpose of the shorelands provisions of the county's zoning ordinance and the shorelands policy of the state of Minne- sota. The trial court properly found the board's action was not un. reasonable, arbitrary, or capricious where: (a) such denial was based upon substantial evidence; and (b) appellant's predecessor In title owned adjacent property which could have been combined with the subject property to meet zoning requirements. Appeal to the Isanti County District Court by Michael Deder- ing from a resolution of the county board of said county denying his petition for a building permit to construct a single-family dwelling on a substandard lakeshore lot. Respondent Margaret R. Johnson, owner of an adjacent lot, had objected to issuance of said permit. The court, Thomas G. Forsberg, Judge, found against .appellant and dismissed his appeal with prejudice. Ap- pellant appealed from the judgment entered. Affirmed. Parker & Olsen and Lawrence E. Olsen, for appellant. Dorsey, Mar([UOlrl, Windh.orst, W68t & Halladay, William J. Hempel, and Dennis Buratti, for respondent Johnson. Joh.n F. Dablow, County Attorney, for/respondent county. Heard before Peterson, Todd, !Uld Scott, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en bane. IN lUll APPLICATION OF DEDDlNG 'Y. .JOHNSON 815 SCOTT, JUSTICE. This is an appeal by Michael Dedering from a judgment en- tered pursuant to an order of the Isanti County District Court. He had appealed to the district court from a resolution of the Isanti County Board of Commissioners made on January 8,1974, which denied his application for a variance and a conditional- use permit to allow construction of a single-family dwelling upon Lot 12, Edgewood Shores. The district court then entered judg- ment dismissing applicant's appeal. Appellant is the owner of Lot 12, Edgewood Shores, in Isanti County, Minnesota. Lot 12 is located in an area zoned S-l, shore- lands district, and fronts on Paul's Lake. Paul's Lake is classi- fied as a recreation development lake by an Isanti County zoning ordinance adopted May 10, 1971. Lot 12 was found by the trial court to be approximately 85 feet in width across ita shoreline dimension, 896 feet in length on its easterly dimension, 74 feet in width on its southerly dimension, and S64 feet in ita westerly dimension. The lot contains 35,000 square feet. Until June 1978, Lots 12, 18:- and 14 were owned by Leroy Roll, appellant's father- in-law, wnop181tedihe1otS1n-:M:arch 1956. In June 1978, Lot-14 was conveyed to William Roll, Leroy's son, and Lot 12 to his son- in-law, Michael Dedering. Leroy Roll still owns Lot 18 and the unplatted land to the east. Respondent Margaret .R. Johnson is the owner of Lots 9, 10, and 11 of Edgewood Shores, which she occupies as a year-round residence. Her home, acquired with her purchase, is on Lots 10 and 11. Lot 12 slopes toward Lot 11. Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, ~ 7, subd. 5(6) (b) and (7) (b), requires for a one-family dwelling on a recreation develop- ment lake a minimum lot area of 1 acre (48,560 sq. ft.) and mini- mum lot width of 150 feet. When it was conveyed to him, appel- lant and his predecessor in title knew that his lot did not meet these requirements. The "grandfather clause" of that ordinance, ~ 17, subd. 10, would allow lots platted before May 9, 1969, to be developed as long as certain conditions were met. One of those conditions is that-- ..,..,. .....,..... ---_.. . ~""'--""'_._' .---_....." .....' --' . '4 74 I 75 75 75 n 75l '" ~ . '1 . \\1\ . 'l! \. ~ ~,; ~ i ~ g' . f ~ ~ w ~, . ~ _ ~I: ~ ; ReS1~~:rt'", ~ .'_' J.". ~j, ....,1__ ..1... tl ....:- rot lIS I ....1".7 72..0' 72 I 75 I 75 ~ n 75 o rot +I I .' t: ::::1' ~ ~ .!fi ~ .. ~ rot 0 I" '1~ ..I.... ~ I . ! I 8 Q) H I .~' Ii; ~ Iron P.~" ....j >- p.. i~ t'..!" 'I 8 ~ . -l. II "'11"4)' If.u, )(lIl.5 tt e ~ ~ .~r"'< II! ... ~.., .... Q) Wi :t 1 II \' ....~ H ~~'t>.7 ~ ~ ._~'!- t' 1 ........r;: ~ ~\ ..- . ~ ~ .0;; I j.;.- ~.i ~... l- C "t.... .. ....~ l- ,; ..;...-- .... (7, Vl l""'\"\ 4 I :g ~ .J ~iS'~!'" ~~ '" lIS ... +I rot '" 0 .p..'t H t: . ::s:' -:, .,. >- ~.. ~f Q) ~ o ~ p. M rot o ~ r-l rot o ~. IDOOO ~~ ~ <; <e~ n~ a;...., ::f{l... ::!'t ::~ ID ::e..,<< ::0;-.. 1D1D;8tn. =~,<Coo)Il> N~ms~S-"" fD:'ID::S' a...... ~5' m~ID' S;:fD ~~f{lq~ ~~I~~"~~'OIl~~~ID; 5::r~~;- ...::r-::r.,S::r_~o::r~.,- .,~~O... oll>~Il>Oe.Il>;ID...Il>O~n ID -... ......~...~ ...-., "'=00 fD--"'1l> ~~~~~~;=[a;~s~ ~=n~~ "'1D::r1D~~lDe...;ID;-S~ ~~g~~ ~~~~"'~1D~["8=1D'OIl ::r!ID~ :a1l>1D1l>~~~_- ~::S"'5.~ ... ...-... 1D1l>~ "~~-O 1l>~&1D ~ID~ID~~C';::SO~~~= S lD 0 S ~ S ID ~ f{l << ;::: ~ ~ 16 0' .. Ei Il> ~ID ~ID=E~~~B. ~::s ~~ 51l>~~ Ei~~~~~S~!<<e. "'0 ~~S~ ~~ll>i[~~lDiEi; ;a ... mID m ~ m ~ - 0 0 ... S P; ... ID nEi ;-~~::r ~::rgR[~an~;! g~ g~~~ [~~m~~g~~a; ~~ ~~=g -C'~""'~ So~- ~~OID ~magEi~e e_!; g~ a-....m::s fD"'SfE...-i:i. SIl>~ = ~~~~ i~c:lo~;~E ~lDa Ei! 8o~~ S$~~~ag ::rS~ ~~ S~~= ~= ~1D<e a- n~ ...as:; Q- ;!>>ID ~e.8~" o-"ID ~i ~ ~~ ~~: sz g~~~~... ~ ~...Q mO ~~~~ ID~ ~ o~ ::s~; an &!fD=;~ :- i;1D g& &fD~S- IDS- ; ~5 ~ID~ ~E =~;-~ ~ ID.,.... ~~ ~o ~=....., ~~ : g~ ~~g i; ~fD::s1D li:o ~ 5.02 ~'gg. ... ~gg~ ID~ ID Ei~ a~~ ~; Tc:lolD.... g.1D 'P ~ID -.fD. _ID - ~ ~ ::. 'g S 2!. ~ 0 El < 0 'tS El ~ 0 "'" - ~ ~ 0 '..::s =:. !! g (1)_ ~ ..3 ~ .....~.-~::s -"'SDSD~~ ~ i e. e 8. SD (I) 0 ~ 2!. r1' .... (I) ~ ::r llll D'..+ 1:I"':3~OD'::S~o-lD =~p:,<=~llll o::s'tS~~D''''' ['OIl g D' ~ D' go~g'...i O'tS ~ . Ollll::S:l!j<::S::S"'~=D'~'tS::s .... :l!j W ~ 0 D' ;. = ... 0 ~ ~ :r ~ p: r::SD':l!j = ::3.c.E~El r1'El (I) D' n ~ g, 0 c:: ~ D' -< ... El fDW 'tS !j;l a. g o~g'r&~'?o~~8~~o::S a. a .... ~ eo ..... go ~ _'1 p: ::s q" .... g .2. ::r sa; cc !j;l ~ q- ore; n r/.l OJ ~gr1'E;(I)::S~II'~="'o~o z:r' ::s .. n "'t W ::s :r n m = .~ D' i'br&800fDJ:'i:P:(I)P:r1'::S(l) a e-~ El; 5~ g-n~ g aq"g.o ... 'tS r1' ~ 'tS 0 'tS . 1:1' (I).... e- 1-3 ~ 0 '< :::: .... 5 ... 1-3 .... OJ ... ...... ...::r 'tSz:r'n5a"'o::r::SO ~ ~(I)~...OD'sq-<(I)oq~~e co ;::::. 0 D' P: _ D' 0 ~ W C -0 ~i ao jOI'~-i'" ....t11 ~~::r~....::Snga.sgoa.~i ~~<Cl g s-g S'D' e;... n~! ~....~ < 1:1'" 1:1 oq n nS'o t:oI~ (I) = D' e.~D'q"oo 0 ~s t:'lii' ...~~;~n al:l=;'s"'llll o:r llll SD 0 OJ .... e- .:; r1' .... oq = t+ ~ e: :::. r1' 6.. 2 e tf. ore; ::3. = f; 8- llll ... SD ~ ~ ~ 0 n.... (I) !8'g t+'Cl tf.aj; g toa~g ~'" Et.::S {II;i g <:> so ri8 ~ CI.t[ e!!.E.....=D' ""'_= 1:1 = llll g..... B.5.fD ~ ~ ~n:;;~ S'~D' Fil e; <P it ~ "'t fD 0 W 'tS oq r1' 5!. 0 ::s sC.r1'S.llll(l)2llll~~0-l:Ioq t[j~~~ ~'~~a.~ [~~ ~"\ \:? L\ l""'\"\ ..c -<: o o Q l~ Vl ..,- --- o >:' l""'\"\ loll .... t+ .1:1 o' . D' ::s = rtl .. ...... * m eo 'tS ~ * ~ .... llll S-~ i *S-II' * ~ ::s ~ ~ .* (I) 0' :... n ~e. ~fD $3 E ~= ... i fD - "Oi ~ (~ [j - is. 8 I ~ ~ -~ a~ !1.= :;f CoO .... ~ ! I e o ~ fD ._-~ 1il I.: ~ "ll t: (') ~ ... o Z o "ll tl t"l ~ 1il Q :c ... o ~ ! z CoO ~ ... 818 107 MINNESOTA REPORTS IN BE APPLICATION OJ' DEDERING Y. JOHNSON 319 ... · · to the automatic issuance of permits necessary to build upon any lot of record filed in the office of the Register of Deeds on 01' before May 9, 1969, when such ownership at the time of adoption of the Isanti County Zoning ordinance was in common with ownership of abutting property making it physically feasi- ble to combine such separate lots of record for purposes of issu- ance of permits to [build] only one single family dwelling upon more than one such separate lot of record." The court found that ~ 17, subd. 10, requires that state and local sewer- and water-system statutes, ordinances, and rules and regulations, including the general requirements found in the Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, must be complied with in all respects.2 It also found that an adequate sanitary sewer facility could not be built on Lot 12. The district court concluded that the county board's denial of Dedering's application was not arbitrary or capricious as a mat- ter of law, that the board's findings were warranted, and that appellant was not entitled to a conditional-use permit. The issues presented are: (1) Was the trial court's finding that appellant's proposed sewage disposal system would not comply in all respects with , state and county requirements clearly erroneous? 2 Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, . 17, subd. 10: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, a one-family detached dwelling may be built upon any lot which was of record by deed or plat filed in the office of the Register of Deeds on or before May 9, 1969, and no dwelling existing on said date shall be deemed a non~onforming use by reason of its location on a lot which does not meet the requirements of this Ordinance with respect to lot size, dimensions, or setbacks, pro- vided, however, that, In any event, the ~e yard and setback require- ments of this Ordinance shall be met as nearly as may be, as approved by the Board of Adjustment and provided further that state and local statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations relating to sewer and water systems shall be complled with In all respects, and further provided that any platted lot having less than 19,000 square feet shall be a non- conforming use hereunder." (2) Was the trial court correct in holding that the Isanti County Board of Commissioners was; not unreasonable, arbi- trary, or capricious in refusing to grant appellant exemption under Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, A 17, subd. 10? 1. Appellant asserts that his proposed sewage disposal sys- tem complies with state and county statutes, regulations, and ordinances. Lot 12 currently is not served by any public sewer or water facilities. Appellant's proposed septic tank will be ap- proximately 60 feet from respondent Johnson's well and 60 feet from his own well. Appellant admits that Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, ~ 16, subd. 8(1) (c) (1) and (1) (c) (8), requires that any septic tank be placed at least 60 feet from any domestic water supply and downslope from that supply where feasible. The mini- mum ordinance requirements are greater where coarse soil for- mation is present.. Appellant argues that he can install a soil- absorption unit and that this unit should be regarded as ade- quate despite the presence of coarse soil because it is not feasible to place the septic tank downslope from the water-aupply well in this case. The trial court, relying on expert testimony, found that appel- lant's placement of fill would not adequately meet the ordinance requirement. The trial court concluded that due to the combina- tion of coarse soil conditions present, the fact that the natural I Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, 115, subd. 3(1) (c) (10): "(10) Loca. tion of the soil absorption system shall be an unobstructed and prefer. ably unshaded area, and the distances given below shall be the mini. mum separation between the disposal field and the follOwing: "(a) Any water supply well, or buried water suction pipe 50 feet "(b) Streams or other bodies of water 150 feet "(c) Occupied bul1dlngs 20 feet "(d) Large trees 20 feet "(e) Property lines of buried pipe distributing water pressure 10 feet "(f) Other sol1 absorption systems 3 times the diameter of largest pit (edge to edge). "When coarse soil formations are encountered, the distance spec1fled In items (a) and (b) shall be Increased appropriately." . ,. 820 807 MINNESOTA REPORTS IN IUI: APPLICATION OJ' DEDERING Y. JOBNSOJf 821 slope of the terrain placed respondent Johnson's water-supply well and Paul's Lake downslope from appellant's proposed sewage disposal system, and the unknown subsurface geologic conditions in the vicinity, there was sufficient basis for the de- termination of the Isanti County Board of Commissioners that the proposed sewage disposal system was inadequate. Appellant questions this finding, but the board, in denying appellant's ap- plication for a conditional-use permit and variance, coupled this inadequacy in appellant's proposed sewer system with the fact that the lot involved and adjacent land were not in separate ownership on the date of adoption of the zoning ordinance. The board noted that it was feasible to combine Lot 12 with adjacent land owned by Leroy Roll and thereby comply with the minimum width requirements of Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, ~I 7, subd. 6(7) (b). 2. Appellant argues that the requirement of separate owner- ship is not specifically set forth in the ordinance and, therefore, cannot be a condition of the exemption clause, ~ 17, subd. 10. This argument is unpersuasive. The purpose of exemption clauses in a zoning ordinance is to protect persons who acquire property prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance from being de- prived of the value of their property. 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning (8 ed. 1974) p. 82-1. Where the owner of a nonconforming undeveloped lot also owns adjacent undeveloped property, however, the owner must combine the two undeveloped lots. 2 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (1968) ~ 8.49, p. 66. This is particularly appropriate where, as here, the local zoning ordinance is adopted in furtherance of state and county low- density shorelands development policy, Minn. St. 105.486, subd. 1.. Although there is no Minnesota case on the question of sepa- rate ownership as a prerequisite for a zoning exemption a simi- lar ~act situation was presented in Macchia V. Board of Appeals, 7 MISC. 2d 768, 164 N. Y. S. 2d 468 (1967), in which a petitioner was denied permission to erect a one-family residence because the lot failed to meet minimum area and front, rear and side yard requirements. That court held: ' "The fact that the building of a residence upon a substandard lot might depreciate the value of neighboring properties is no ground for denying a building permit if the property has been conti,,!,U0U8l~ in Bingle amd Betparate ownerBkilp for a period com- mencmg prior to the adoption of amendment of a zoning ordi- nance making it substandard. . . . "The petitioner's difficulty, in this instance however is that s~e h~ fai~ed to allege that the subject prope~ has", be;n at all tl~es m smgle and separate ownership, in other words, that nel~her sh~ nor her predecessors in title since the adoption of the zomng ordmance have owned adjacent property which combined with the subject parcel, could have formed a single lo~ conform- ing to the minimum area requirements." 7 Misc. 2d 766, 164 N. Y. S. 2d 466. Appellant speculates that the zoning ordinance in Macchia may have required separate ownership. The Macchia court, however, refe~s to no specific statutory language for its single-ownership requirement. Cases in other jurisdictions have found that the fact that an applicant or his predecessors in title own adjacent property which could be combined to meet a zoning requirement mental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise utilization of water and related land resources of the state." Isanti County Zoning Ordinance, fi 7, subd. 1: "The intent of the SHORE LAND DISTRICT is to guide the wise development and utiliza. tion of shorelands of public waters for the preservation of water quall. ty, natural characteristics, economic values, and the general health, safety and welfare of all public waters in the unincorporated areas of the County." . Minn. St. 105.485, subd. 1: ..... [I]t is in the interest of the pub- lic health, safety, and welfare to provide guidance for the wise develop- ment of shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, preserve the economic and natural environ- .,. . . 322 807 MINNESOTA REPORTS STATE v. HOAGLUND 823 is a legitimate factor in a decision regarding the issuance of vari- ances." The court in Lessner v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 165, 195 A.. 2d 437 (1963), for example, found tha~ a zon- ing regulation specifying a 12-o-foot frontage was conf~cato~ where the owner of a 100-foot frontage could not obtam addI- tional footage. " In denying a conditional-use permit and variance to a~pellan~, who acquired a substandard lot with full kno~l~dge of Its defI- cient size, the Isanti County Board of CommIssIoners was fur- thering the purpose of the shorelands provisions of that coun~'s zoning ordinance and the shorelands policy of the state ~f Mm- nesota. A county board cannot arbitrarily deny an apph~ant a variance from local zoning restrictions. See, Zylka v. CIty of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N. W. 2d 45 (1969). However, wh~, as here, the actions of the county board are based on substantial evidence which it considered. in analyzing the proper future course in this important and sensitive land-use field, a court must uphold the board's decision. See, Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 125 N. W. 2d 846 (1964). The trial court was correct. Affirmed. Appeal by Mark Eugene Hoaglund from a judgment of the Hennepin County District Court, David R. Leslie, Judge, where- . by he was convicted of kidnapping. Reversed and remanded. C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, and MoUie G. Raskind, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant. Warren Spa;nnCllU8, Attorney General, Gary W. F'loJme, County Attorney, and Michael M cGlen.nen, David W. Lar8on, and Vernon E. Bergstrom, Assistant County Attorneys, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. ROOOSHESKE, JUSTICE. Defendant pled guilty on April 1, 1974, to a charge of kid- napping a 13-year-old girl and was sentenced on April 29, 1974, to a maximum indeterminate term of 20 years' imprisonment. On direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, defendant con- tends that the trial court erred in accepting his plea. We hold that the trial court did not make sufficient inquiry to establish that there was a factual basis for the plea, and accordingly we reverse and remand. The statute under which aefendant was charged and convicted is Minn. St. 609.25, subd. 1, which provides as follows: "Whoever, for any of the following purposes, confines or re- moves from one place to another, any person without his consent or, if he is under the age of 16 years, without the consent of his parents or other legal custodian, is guilty of kidnapping . . .: " (1) To hold for ransom or reward for release, or as shield or hostage; or "(2) To facilitate commission of any felony or flight there- after; or "(3) To commit great bodily harm or to terrorize the victim or another; or .. (4) To hold in involuntary servitude." The transcript of the guilty plea hearing contains answers by defendant, then age 23, to questions asked solely by defense coun- sel that he took a 13-year-old girl, whom he knew, from her STATE V. MARK EUGENE HOAGLUND. 240 N. W. 2d 4. March 5, 1976-No. 45406. CrIminal law-guUt, plea-factual ba8is-adequac)'" of record. . Where the record of defendant's plea of guilty to a charge of ~d. napping in violation of Minn. St. 609.25, subd. 1, and the, tr:al court's adjudication of guilt and entry of judgment of c~nvH;tlOn is inadequate to support the trial court's determination of a factual basis for defendant's plea, the interest of justice requires a reversal. ".....v.....,....,......", ,,-...,1_-' .-... -f FINANCE COMMITTEE -- CITY OF SHOREWOOD Charter and By-Laws . , Purpose The Finance Committee of the City of Shorewood has been created to provide the City Council with input from the community at large on key financial issues. The Committee will maintain a continuing awareness of the financial condition of the City in general and of key issues and decisions before the City Council which have a significant financial impact on the City; based on this awareness, the Committee will provide continuing feed-back and recommendations regarding the financial management of the City to the City Council as it deems appropriate. The Committee will also study certain issues as directed by Council and develop recommendations for Council action on such issues. j , Membership The Finance Committee will consist of 3 to 7 citizens of the community selected on the basis of merit by the City Council and appointed for two-year terms. In addition to this membership, there shall be two ex officio members, one being the Mayor and one being appointed from the remaining City Council members on an annual basis. Ex officio members are non-voting members of the Committee, and their purpose is to serve as liaison between the Committee and the City Council. Any member of the Committee may be removed from office for poor attendance or participation, or for other just cause, by a three- fifths vote of the City Council. The Committee will also recommend to Council removal or replacement of a committee member for such cause by a ma~ority vote of its members. The Finance Committee shall elect a Chairman on an annual basis and a Secretary on a rotating basis. Elected officers of the Committee may resign an elected seat voluntarily without losing their appoint- ment to the Committee. The Chairman will call and conduct all Finance Committee meetings and prepare formal recommendations. The Secretary will insure that all members are informed of upcoming meetings (to include both the relevant City Council meetings and separate Finance Committee meetings) and will also keep minutes of all separate Committee sessions. . . . Continued. . . ~ r . Responsibilities Committee members will be expected to attend those portions of City Council meetings dealing with annual budget development and approval, the annual audit report and quarterly reviews by the Finance Director of the financial status of the City. Additionally, Committee members should attend other Council meetings dealing with specific major issues which will have a significant financial impact on the City. The Finance Committee Chairman will receive agendas for City Council meetings, and will also be informed by Council Liaison of which Council meetings or portions thereof should be attended by the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee Chairman may also obtain financial information at any time through the City Administrator or Finance Director; simple questions on financial matters may be addressed by the Finance Committee Chairman directly to the City Finance Director, but requests for Staff time on more complicated questions must be made through the City Administrator. All Finance Committee members will also receive copies of all published City financial documents, including budgets, audit reports, monthly financial statements, etc., as soon as these are available. In addition to attending City Council meetings as specified above, the Committee is expected to meet on its own to review and discuss input obtained from Council meetings and/or financial reports, and to develop and communicate formal recommendations to the City Council. The Finance Committee will also meet separately to develop its recommendations on specific assignments from the City Council. Normally, the City Administrator and Finance Director will not attend separate Finance Committee meetings, but if their input is needed, this will be requested through Council Liaison by the Finance Committee Chairman. Formal recommendations to the City Council from the Finance Committee will be prepared by the Chairman with input from the Committee, and will be sent to Council after approval of the Committee basis a simple majority vote of Committee members at any meeting when a quorum of members are in attendance. A quorum shall be defined as more than half of the total Committee membership. Individual Committee members are also encouraged to communicate their thoughts on financial issues to Council during Council meetings when public participation is permitted, or through Council Liaison, or in writing. A Committee member who disagrees with a formal Committee recommendation may present a minority opinion to Council if desired. .' ~ '"FINANCE CCl+1I'ITEE MEErING nll1RSIlt\Y, SEPl'EMBER 27, 1984 SHORENlX>D CI'lY HAIL 5755 COUN!'RY CUJB ROAD M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bridge at 7:14 P.M. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: Members Present - Bridge, Amlaw, Bergslien, Fonte, Francen, Frazier and Malooly. Absent - Council Liasion Stover Staff - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Frazier moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 15. Motion Carried Francen has been secretary for the past three months and now a new committee member must take over these duties. Fonte volunteered to write the minutes for this meeting. COMMITTEE BY-LAWS Amlaw moved and the motion was approved, to let the record show an error in the approved City Council Meeting minutes of September 5, 1984. It was stated the Finance Committee presented By-laws to the City Council, however, it was only a discussion of ideas which Bridge gave to Stover. The Finance Committee had not discussed new By-laws yet. CITY BUDGET Frazier and Am1aw attended the final City Council Budget Meeting on September 24, 1984. At the meeting~ 27 formal recommendations by the Finance Committee, concerning the Budget, were considered by the City Council. Frazier described the discussion on each recommenda- tion and it appeared they adopted approximately half of the recommen- dations. Many they rejected. We especially discussed the potential savings to the City by reducing Legal and Engineering expenses while keeping quality service. We went into a broader discussion of keying in on several issues that we feel we can act on. BY-LAWS to CITY COUNCIL We discussed and agreed on the following By-Laws to be recommended to the City Council for approval; we would like the City Council's approval, comments, etc before our next meeting. The recommended changes to the By-Laws are: 1] The Finance Committee will have a regular monthly meeting and special meetings. 2] Topic coordinators will go to Council meetings pertaining to his/her topic. , FINANCE COMMITT~E MEETING - 2 - September 27, 1984 3] Equal access to information and Staff for all members. 4] Chairman ,will be changed to Chair. 5] Guaranteed staff time for input to Committee on Audit and Budget, including City Administrator, Finance Director, and Mayor. 6] Finance Director to attend regular monthly meetings and when requested special meetings; other staff available at request of the Committee. 7] The Finance Committee will receive a copy of a rough draft of the minutes from .City Council meetings. 8] City Council Agenda, for future meetings, made available to Finance Committee as soon as possible. 9] Must receive information sooner for the Committee to thoroughly review before presenting our recommendations to the City Council. (Specifically the City Budget - 1 to 2 months before the City Council acts on a proposed budget.) 10] Poor attendance at Committee meetings not be criteria for dismissal if the Chair is notified before the meeting if a member is unable to attend for good reason. NEXT MEETING: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Respectfully submitted, Michael Fonte, Secretary