110303 CC Ws AgP
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.cLshorewood.mn.us · cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 28, 2003
RE:
Mayor and Council Members
Af\)
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk -....Y'
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator tb>
CITY CODE BOOK RECODIFICATION
TO:
FROM:
At the October 20,2003, Council Work Session, Council completed Duke Addicks' legal review report
through Chapter 900. We will continue to review this report, starting with Chapter 1001, through
Chapter 1200.
An updated copy of Duke Addicks' legal review report of Chapters 1001-1200 is attached. Staffhas
indicated its responses to Mr. Addicks' proposed changes on the report. Staffhas also indicated
additional proposed changes, which are inserted with shading to distinguish them from the proposed
changes by Duke Addicks.
Council members should bring the materials they received for the October 20thW ork Session to the
November 3rd Work Session.
ft
'-., PRINTeD ON RECYCLED PAPER
THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ARE TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE NOVEMBER 3 WORK SESSION
NO. SECTION PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS SHOREWOOD
STAFF RESPONSE
49 Chapter 1001 PROPOSED CHANGE OK TO ADOPT THE
2003 STATE
Delete the provisions of this section and replace it with the BUll.DING CODE
enclosed sample ordinance adopting the 2003 State Building
Code. Or, in the alternative, have your building inspector advise
as to what changes to be made to the language in the draft code.
REASON
In March the state adopted a new building code.
Please advise.
50 1004.05 PROPOSED CHANGE OK
Add a new subdivision to read:
"Subd. 5. Permission of the tenant shall be requested before a
rental unit is entered. If the tenant refuses to permit the
inspector to enter, the inspector is authorized to obtain an
administrative search warrant before making the inspection."
REASON
Permission of the tenant is required. See the enclosed Cardinal
Estates v. City of Morris.
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
51 Chapter 1201 NOTE TO CITY
In some of the notes below, I will make reference to the
enclosed "Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances". Please
see that document for more information on the issues I raise. It
contains explanations of the recent legislative changes which
affect the zoning chapter of the draft code.
20
NO. SECTION PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS SHOREWOOD
STAFF RESPONSE
52 1201.02 PROPOSED CHANGE TIM KEANE AND
BRAD NIELSEN TO
In the definition of "FAMILY" delete everything after "group" DISCUSS FURTHER
and insert the following: "composed only of members of a & COMMENT ON
common housekeeping management unit all of the members of NOV. 3
which have common use and access to all living and eating
areas, bathrooms, and food preparation and serving areas and
which is based on an intentionally structured relationship
providing organization and stability."
REASON
Court decisions prohibit limiting the number of persons in a
single family dwelling, but language like the above may be
used to limit unrelated individuals occupying a single family
dwelling to members of a common housekeeping unit.
This change will be made unless advised otherwise.
53 1201.02 PROPOSED CHANGE NO CHANGE
In the definition of DWELLING- SINGLE-FAMILY After the
first sentence, insert "A manufactured home as defined in this
section shall be considered a single family dwelling.
REASON
Manufactured homes are permitted uses in all districts which
permit single family dwellings. They must meet any
performance standards which apply to all single family
dwellings. See Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances,
point #9.
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
54 1201.03, Subd. PROPOSED CHANGE NO CHANGE
19.
Delete "the value to be determined by the City Assessor".
Item continued on next page
21
NO. SECTION PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS SHOREWOOD
STAFF RESPONSE
REASON
Later in the subparagraph, the language provides for the
estimate of damage to be made by the Building Official. Fair
market value is determined by what a willing buyer and a
willing seller would pay, not an arbitrary amount established by
a city official. That value mayor not be the "taxable value". If
necessary, the city and the building owner should obtain
appraisals and bring them to the city council which would make
a determination of value subject to appeal to district court.
Findings should be made to justify the decision.
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
55 1201.03Subd. PROPOSED CHANGE OK
1h.
page 25 Delete "90 days" and insert "more than one year".
REASON
See Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances, point # 7.
Since this change is made to comply with state law, the change
will be made unless advised otherwise.
,
56 1201.03, Subd NOTE TO CITY OK to insert date this
11 chapter was originally
page 26 Rather than saying "the effective date of this chapter" which enacted.
will be the date the new code is adopted", the date this language
was enacted should be inserted.
57 1201.03, Subd, PROPOSED CHANGE OK
11 b( 1)
page 63 Delete the first sentence. Delete "90 days" and insert "100
days" .
REASON
The city may not regulate the size or content of political signs.
The city should also be aware that state election law, M. S. ~
Item continued on next page...
22
NO. SECTION PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS SHOREWOOD
STAFF RESPONSE
211B.045, provides: "All non-commercial signs of any size
may be posted from August 1 in a state general election year or
municipal election year until ten days following the election".
The 90 day provision conflicts with this law.
Are these changes acceptable?
Please advise.
58 1201.03, Subd. PROPOSED CHANGE Shorewood Staff to
11 d (2) on draft new language
page 66 Delete this section (2)
REASON
Amortization of non-conforming uses is not permitted by law.
See Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances, point 7.
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
59 1201.04, Subd PROPOSED CHANGE Shorewood Staff to
la, on page 87 draft new language
At the end of a insert the language from the enclosed
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE IMPLEMENTING THE 2003
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES IN THE 60 DAY RULE, Section
2, paragraph (B) regarding disputes over fees. This language is
found after point #11 in Common Mistakes in Land Use
Ordinances.
REASON
To comply with recent legislative changes to M. S. ~ 15.99. A
copy of that legislation is at the end of the enclosed memo
Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances.
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
23
NO.
SECTION
PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS
SHOREWOOD
STAFF RESPONSE
OK
60
1201.04, Subd. PROPOSED CHANGE
1 b on page 87
At the end of b insert the language from the enclosed
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE, Section 2, Applications, which
immediately follows point #11 in the Common Mistakes in
Land Use Ordinances.
REASON
By law, the city has only 15 days after receipt to reject an
application, otherwise by law it is deemed complete. See
Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances, point #1.
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
61
1201.04, Subd. PROPOSED CHANGE
1 e on page 89
NOT ACCEPTABLE
Delete the language in e and insert the language from Sections
3 and 4 from the enclosed SUGGESTED LANGUAGE...
DELETE ONLY THE
FOLLOWING FROM
THE EXISTING:
REASON
This places the time lines required to be followed in the text of
the zoning chapter in a location where they are likely to be
found. There may be a better place to insert these.
"or within 60 days of
the opening of the
public hearing by the
Planning Commission,"
Are these changes acceptable?
SEE NEXT ITEM
BELOW
Please advise.
24
NO.
SECTION
PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS
62
1201.05, Subd. PROPOSED CHANGE
3 d (3)
page 97 Delete "within 60 days of the opening of the public hearing".
REASON
This time line would not comply with the "60 Day Rule". See
the enclosed Common Mistakes in Land Use point #1.
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
63 1201.05, Subd. PROPOSED CHANGE
3e
64
1201.25
page 150-151
Delete the language in this section and insert the following:
"e. Time lines. The time lines for considering the request are
those found in ~ 1201.04, Subd. 1 e."
REASON
To comply with the "60 Day Rule".
Is this change acceptable?
Please advise.
NOTE TO CITY
The city has a very elaborate method for reviewing planned unit
developments. An application for a PUD, like all other zoning
applications, is subject to the 60 Day Rule. They city may wish
to review this chapter in the future and make sure that decisions
can be and are made within the time frame established by that
rule. See Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances, point #1.
SHOREWOOD
STAFF RESPONSE
OK
NOT ACCEPTABLE
DELETE ONLY THE
FOLLOWING FROM
THE EXISTING:
"or within 60 days of
the opening of the
public hearing by the
Planning Commission,"
SEE NEXT ITEM
BELOW
Shorewood Staff to
rewrite timelines and
clarify there is a
separate application for
each of the three stages
of the application
process. To be clarified
in 1201.25, Subd. 3.
25
------
.
.
NO. SECTION PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS SHOREWOOD
STAFF RESPONSE
65 Chapter 1301 NOTE TO CITY Fees will be adopted by
Ordinance.
I advise my codification clients to adopt fees by ordinance
rather than by resolution. Many cities do this once a year, but
do not codify the ordinance. The reason is that ordinances are
enforceable, resolutions are not. Land use fees must be adopted
by ordinance. It is not sufficient to authorize by ordinance the
adoption of fees by resolution. See Common Mistakes in Land
Use Ordinances, point # 8 for a full discussion of land use fees.
Enclosures:
. Editorial Notes from American Legal Publishing
. 2003 Minnesota Basic Code Chapter 10, General Provisions. See various notes to Title I of the draft city
code.
. Common Mistakes in Land Use Ordinances. See note to draft code ~ 201.06.
. Lawful Gambling Memo 255.7. See note to draft code Chapter 301.
. 2003 Minnesota Basic Code Chapter 113, Peddlers and Solicitors. See note to draft code Chapter 308.
. SF 905, Article 15. See note to draft code ~ 312.04 and 312.05.
. Cardinal Estates v. City of Morris. See not to draft code Chapter 502.
. 2003 Minnesota Basic Code Chapter 92, Nuisances. See note to draft code Chapter 502.
. 2003 Minnesota Basic Code Chapter 90, Abandoned Property. See note to draft code Chapter 503.
. 2003 Minnesota Basic Code Chapter 91, Animals. See notes to draft code Chapter 701.
. Sample ordinances adopting the 2003 State Building Code. See note to draft code Chapter 101.
26