Loading...
1998-07-28MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 28, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 28, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official John Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Greg Knutson, Becky Cherne, Steve Behnke, Stephen Can, Thomas Stokes, Frank Weiland, Linda & John Verkennes, Michael Rizzi, Don Bonnicksen, and Dave Moore. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Mayor asked for a moment of silence for the two slain police officers in Washington, D.C. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. The City Manager explained that Item #H on the Consent Agenda, (Set Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment to Modify the B-1 Zoning District to allow TV & Radio Stations Without Towers by Conditional Use Permit. Suggested Date: August 11, 1998), should be removed from the Agenda at the request of the applicant. Councilmember Jensen asked that Cases //98-39 and g98-42 be removed from the Consent Agenda. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 354 *1.0 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 14. 1998 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.1 CASE 95-40; MINOR SUBDIVISION, RELOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE, STEPHEN 7 ELIZABETH ANN FARLEY KAKOS. 65~1 MAPLE RD.. LOTS 1 & 2. BLOCK 4. MOUND TERRACE. PID #14.117-24 3~ 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025. RESOLUTION//98-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION, RELOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE, STEPHEN 7 ELIZABETH ANN FARLEY KAKOS, 6381 MAPLE RD., LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID #14-117-24 32 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE/D8-40 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.2 CASE 98-44: VARIANCE EXTENSION, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK. TO CONSTRUCT A DECK. .lEVI & SUE O'HEARN. 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 1! 0005. RESOLUTION #98-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RF. SOLUTION $97-58 FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE g98-44 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. 355 '1.3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 CASE 98-43: VARIANCE, BLUFF LINE SETBACK AT 6407 BAYRIDGE ROAD. TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME. FR~ JOHNSON, 3510 TUXEDO BLVD,, LOT 8. BLOCK 3. THE BLUFFS, PID# 22-117-24 44 0012~ RESOLUTION #98-79 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BLUFF LINE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 6407 BAYRIDGE ROAD, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME, FRED JOHNSON, 3510 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 5, BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS, PID# 22-11%24 44 0012, P & Z CASE g98-43. '1.4 CASE 95-46: SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS AND MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24 PID# 1.4-1!%24 41.. 0011. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 11, 1998, MOTION to set August 11, 1998, for a Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit, Light Standards and Monopole at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Westonka School District g277/U.S. West Wireless, Unplatted 14-11%24, PID #14-11%24 41 0011, P & Z Case//98-46. Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. '1.6 CASE 98-39: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, DON & TERRI BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS $ & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION, LAKESIDE PARK, PID# !.3-!17-24 31 00.5..2. The Building Official stated he has discussed this item with Councilmember Jensen. The proposed resolution did not address the issue of hardcover because since the original variance was granted, the City has adopted hardcover regulations. This should now be covered in this resolution. He suggested that the hardcover be calculated and if a variance to hardcover is needed, it could be included in the final resolution before it is released to the applicant. The Council agreed. 356 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution which will be corrected: RESOLUTION g98-80 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS $ & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 31 0052, P & Z CASE #98-39 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.7 CASE 98-42: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ADD AN ADDITION, MICHAEL & SONJA SCHULZ, 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14, SUB LOTS 1 & 32 RAVENSWOOD. PID# 13-117-24 41 0043. Councilmember Jensen explained that in the Planning Commission Minutes there was discussion about showing elevations but it says nothing about showing elevations in the proposed resolution. She also questioned how the hard cover was calculated on this Case. The Building Official pointed out that there is a correction to be made in the second Whereas as follows: "WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of ~ 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record and Lakeside setback of 50 feet; and," The Building Official also stated that Item 1.A. under the Now, Therefore Be it Resolved could be changed to read reads as follows: "The applicant provide a complete grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit as required by the~,.~,~..~,r"m'~;"" ~n'"'-:+,,....~, o,.~.,.~ · ,-,e'-~: ..... ,,,.,,,-'~,o. City_ Engineer,_" The Building Official stated he and the City Engineer will do a site visit and check the elevations. Councilmember Jensen asked about the hardcover calculations which show a detached building. The Building Official stated that there is no detached building and he did not know where that figure came from. He stated it may be the driveway and was just put in the wrong space. He will check on this with the Planner and make sure the hardcover calculations are correct. The Council agreed.. 357 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following corrected resolution: RESOLUTION #98-81 RF_~OLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF LIVING SPACE AND GARAGE ADDITIONS TO THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING, AT 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-11%24 41 0043, P & Z CASE # 98-42 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE 98-38: VARIANCE. NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK Ia. DIV., PID# 19-11%23 24 0029, (PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL). The Building Official explained that the applicant has requested a variance to allow a one car garage to remain on a lot without a principal use. He stated that Section 350:435 of the Code states the following: "No accessory building or structure constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. The only way an accessory building could be located on a residential lot is if it were combined with an adjacent property." This is not possible because the applicant's lot with his home is across the street, not adjacent to the lot where the garage is located. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial. The Building Official stated that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting a 4 year stay (allowing the garage to remain on this lot) to enable him to acquire enough money to build a home on this lot. Councilmember Hanus stated that this case involves his neighbor and at the Planning Commission he stepped down because it is his neighbor. He further stated that because the applicant has asked for a change in the plan, he would not be comfortable voting if the action is to send this back to the Planning Commission to reconsider his change in plan. He stated he would step down if the Council is going to discuss the case itself. The applicant was not present. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Polston to table this item and return it to the Planning Commission to review the revised request. This would then come back to the City Council at the August 24th Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 358 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 1.9 PRESENTATION By CITY ENGINEER RE; PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING/ FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVE~ PROJECT. NORWOOD LANE. The City Engineer reviewed the preliminary report on the improvement of Norwood Road. The estimated total cost is $63,600. 5 parcels would be assessed for the improvement. He presented a schedule for the improvement and assessment. The City portion of the assessment would be approximately $5,310.00. The project is feasible. Per lot assessment would be $4,080.00. The developer's proposed assessment would be 51% of the assessment cost for a total of $29,730.00. The Council discussed the zoning being R-1 on the West side of the street and R-2 on the east side. They also discussed deferring assessments for senior citizens. Staff will check on he policy that has been followed in the past. The City Engineer suggested that because there are some questions about Lot 7, Block 3 that the street assessment be levied at this time, but the utility assessment be deferred until or when the lot is developed. The owner of Lots 14-17 was present and stated he would be in favor of this improvement if he would not be assessed for the utilities until the lots are developed. The City Engineer presented the following schedule for this project: SCHEDULE NORWOOD LANE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Council Meeting: July 28. 1998 Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement and Preparation of Plans. a. Adopted at June 23, 1998 Council meeting. Improvement. a. b. Resolution receiving Preliminary Engineering Report and Calling Hearing on Ce Set public hearing for August 11, 1998. Published in The Laker August 1st and 8th. (Must be to the Laker by 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, July 29, 1998.) Mailed notice must be sent by Friday, July 31, 1998. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. a. Set bid date for August 11, 1998. b. Published in Laker August 1, 1998. (Must be to the Laker by 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 28, 1998.) c. Published in Construction Bulletin July 31, 1998. (Must be to Bulletin by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 1998.) 359 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 Council Meeting; August 11. 1998 1. Public hearing on improvement. 2. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment. Resolution for Hearing on Proposed Assessment. a. Set public hearing for September 8, 1998. b. Published in Laker on August 22, 1998. (Must be to the Laker by 4:30 p.m. on August 18th*.) c. Mailed notices must be sent on Friday, August 21, 1998+. * Need total amount of proposed assessment for published notice and + Specific amount for individual property in mailed notice Council Meeting: September 8, 1998 1. Public hearing on proposed assessments. 2. Resolution Adopting Assessment. o Resolution Accepting Bid and Award Contract. a. This resolution would be adopted only if no written objections are received before or at the public hearing on the proposed assessments. b. If a written objection is filed at or before the public hearing, the person or persons aggrieved must within 30 days appeal to District Court by serving notice upon the mayor or clerk. The notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the District Court within ten days after service on the City. The City Engineer stated that if the bids are higher than the cost estimate, he will recommend that the project not be done. Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOL~ON//98-82 RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT Motion carried. The vote was unanimously in favor. 36O 1.10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SETTING OF BID OPENING DATE FOR PUBLIC .!MPRO~ PROJECT~ NORWOOD LANE, SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 11. 1998. Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-83 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR NORWOOD LANE IMPROVMENT PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATIONS: 1.11 GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, The Building Official explained that the Council tabled this item at the last meeting in order to allow Staff time to determine the footage that the light encroaches onto the Commons. He stated it is 12 feet. He stated that the encroachment manual does state that if there is an alternative location on private property, the light should be located there and not on Commons. The applicant was present. Councilmember Hanus stated that the question in his mind is, "Can't this light and outlet be placed on private property on the southwest corner of Knutson's lot right next to the stairway and still be useable?" The Council discussed the placement of the light pole. The Staff recommendation was to allow the light as requested because there were previous permits for the light. The Council asked if there are similar lights on the Commons like this. The Building Official stated there are. Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-84 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR GREG KNUTSON AT 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE # 42077 361 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 Councilmember Hanus stated, "the Council should be prepared to see this case over and over because he felt that it created a new standard that other cases are going to be measured against." The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 JOHN & LINDA VERKENNES, 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, The Building Official explained that this is a request for a public lands permit to replace some existing retaining walls. Councilmember Hanus asked if the wall is on public lands? The Building Official stated, yes. Hanus asked if the tree th_at fell was on the public land? The Building Official stated, yes. The applicant explained that a tree from their property fell on their house and that this tree that fell from the Commons was hanging over their house but not laying on top of the house. He explained that they had a tree service already lined up the next day to remove the trees. The City did remove and pay for the removal of a portion of the tree that fell from Commons. Councilmember Hanus stated that while he is not in favor of spending the Dock Fund for anything that is not necessary but, in that same storm other trees went down on Commons and the City did pay for those trees to be removed and there were repairs to structures, such as stairs that were also paid for by the Dock Fund. The Mayor asked what the status is on the FEMA reimbursement for these storms. The City Manager stated it has been submitted and is close to $100,000. The Feds would pay 75%, the State 15% and the City would be responsible for 10%. The Mayor suggested that since this was a public tree that fell from public property and if there is no insurance reimbursement to Mr. & Mrs. Verkennes, he would like to see them paid for the removal of this tree. This could either happen through FEMA or the City's insurance company. The Building Official stated that he is recommending approval of the public lands permit with the following conditions: A revised plan be submitted as required by the Building Official that is suitable for review. The applicant needs to provide a survey identifying the location of the utility easement between the home and the shoreline. In the event the project is not completed within one year of the date of approval of the resolution, the abutting dock permit will not be issued until compliance is achieved as required by the Building Official. The Council discussed who should be responsible for paying for the retaining wall since it is on public property and is owned by the public. The Building Official stated that this was discussed and the applicant came in and was willing to pay for it. The Mayor felt that since the City can be reimbursed through FEMA for this damaged retaining wall because it is on public property, that 362 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 the City should pay for the repair of the retaining wall. The City Clerk explained that a permit was issued back in 1986 to the previous owner to install this retaining wall, and was not put in by the City. Polston moved, Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $98-85 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO REPAIR A RETAINING WALL FOR JOHN & LINDA VERKENNES, 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE The applicant then mentioned the stairway that is also on the public property. He stated that the metal stairway that is there is not up to code and should also be replaced. The Building Official agreed with the applicant. The Building Official encouraged the Council to require the stairway to also be repaired and brought up to code. The applicant stated that the stairway was not damaged by the storm. The Mayor stated that the stairway would be a separate issue and should be dealt with separately. The Building Official suggested the following: That the Council approval the public lands permit for the replacement of the retaining walls and the stairway. The applicant to be responsible for the cost and installation of the stairway and that the Staff be directed, through the City Manager, to work with the applicant regarding the City paying for the cost of replacing the retaining walls. The Council asked if plans have been submitted. The Building Official stated that the applicant does have plans and that he and the Park Director are agreeable to the plans. He further explained that they are not sufficient for a Building Permit but they are sufficient enough to get through this process tonight with the two conditions mentioned above. The Council asked the applicant if he is applying for both a permit for the retaining wall and a permit for the stairway. The applicant answered, yes. The Building Official stated that the City would choose the contractor to do the work. The Mayor stated there is a motion on the floor to approve a public lands permit for the retaining wall and having the City look into using FEMA reimbursement for the repair of the wall. He stated he would then make a second motion for the stairway. The Council discussed only repairing the damaged wall with a similar type timber wall. If the applicant wants a better wall than the timber wall that was damaged, he would be responsible for that cost. 363 MOUND CITr COUNCtL MI~TF.S- JULY 28, 1998 The Building Official stated that Staff and the applicant have put together a cost estimate of the portion of the project that is related to the storm damage and the City could pay that portion .... ~ The Mayor stated he would like to see some type of general specifications developed for stairways and retaining walls that go in public lands. This could include a standard type of material to be used. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Polston moved, Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-86 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO REPLACE A STAIRWAY FOR JOHN & LINDA VERKENNES, 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE The Mayor stated that he wants this stairway to be some standard wood type construction that has been allowed in the past. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MULTIPLE DOCK APPLICATION: 1.13 FINE LINE DESIGN, STEVEN BEHNKE, SETON BLUFF. The Building Official stated that today new information was received which changes the number of slips being requested and the location of the dock. He stated Staff has not had a chance to review the change in the application and he is recommending that the application be referred back to the Dock & Commons Commission and be treated as a multiple dock license under Section 437. The applicants were present. Tom Stokkes, owner of the property, stated he would like to give a little background. "Back in May we had plat approval of the development there and we were told we couldn't start the dock approval process until plat approval was completed. So we started our process in May to get on the May Dock Committee. We found that rather difficult. We found that we couldn't get a consensus as to what was required from us. We got limited information. We also got conflicting information from different Staff members as to what was necessary. Having gone through the process for the development, we felt that it was necessary for us to really document our paperwork. So we sent our request in, I believe it was dated June 10th, receipt return so we could document that the paperwork had been given. We waited for the normal communication process. I think we had a couple or at least one phone conversation with Staff between then and the next Dock Committee Meeting. So we contacted them a few days before the Dock Committee Meeting and Kris hadn't seen any paperwork on it. We were told at that time that 364 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 you hadn't received our application and nobody knew where it was. We then followed up with our paperwork and said we not only know we sent it but, we have a receipt that says you received it. A few days later, we were told it was indeed received but had floated around in the offices and nothing had been done on it. At that time, we were rather frustrated. Certainly time is of the essence for us in the project and I don't think I need to go through basic sales with any of you folks. If you want to sell a car to somebody, you have to get them in the car. If we want to sell lakeshore to someone we have get them down to the lake and we've started our process and within 30 days, we'll have our development finished, we expect, or very close to that. I contacted some of the Councilmembers, I guess, and they assisted us in getting here in front of you tonight. Certainly, it was no fault of ours that it didn't go in front of the Dock Committee at that time. It was rather frustrating. It was a pattern that we had seen in the past and now we saw it continuing. We were told we could come before the Committee tonight and we got the recommendation from the Staff and we were told, at that time, actually, something completely different than I had been told up to then, that it was a Commercial Dock License, and th_at we needed additional items. That was the first we were notified of it. I believe it was Monday morning when we received that recommendation. It wasn't until this afternoon that we were then told that, for whatever reason, things had changed, and now it was a residential permit that was going on'to the Dock Committee. I had a brief conversation with Jim Fackler and he suggested that we change it from five slips to six slips because the DNR had changed their policy. We didn't want to change the flow of anything. I know that our Counsel is here tonight and he has had communications with the City's Counsel on this because we have been very frustrated with this process. We were told that the recommendation was to defer this back to the Dock Commission which is my understanding hasn't met or had a quorum to meet for at least the last 3 or 4 meetings." The Mayor stated that was not true except for the last meeting. Stephen Carr, Mr. Stokkes attorney, addressed the Council and stated that the process has been rather aggravating to Mr. Stokkes in the sense that this committee that now you want him to go back to seems to be having some difficulty getting together. Mr. Carr stated that he had spoken to one of the attorneys in the City Attorney's office who indicated that Mr. Stokkes should lobby the members of the Dock Committee to meet. He did not feel this was his client's responsibility. The Mayor stated he did not think this is the problem. He stated it was his understanding that Mr. Stokkes was told to apply for a Commercial Dock License, which as he understands it is not the case. The Mayor asked the Building Official if Mr. Stokkes was told to apply for a Commercial Dock License. The Building Official state yes, via his report. The Mayor asked if they have applied for a Commercial Dock License. The Building Official stated that the applicants, haven't really submitted an application. They have submitted materials and the background material that is in the Council packet. The Building Official stated that he spoke with Mr. Behneke on June 1st and he attempted to submit a Public Lands Permit that included the dock issues. On that day, the Building Official instructed Mr. Behnke to work with Mr. Fackler, regarding the multiple dock issue. The Building Official stated that on that day, he rejected the Public Lands Permit application because it was incomplete. Mr. Behnke worked with Mr. Fackler and resubmitted some materials to the City and in between that time called the Building Official and told him that they had changed their plans and it was no longer a Public Lands Permit application. The Building Official then stated that then a couple of days later some 365 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 information was received from Mr. Behnke regarding this dock and public lands issues. The Building Official stated he took this information and discussed it in Ms department, and put it in a hold file, because it did not contain the narrative and it was incomplete. It was not an application and it'wasn't suitable for review by his department. The Mayor asked if the applicant was told that his information was being held because it was incomplete. The Building Official stated that he believes Mr. Behnke was in contact with Mr. Faclder and was instructed to work with Mr. Fackler on the multiple dock issues. Mr. Behnke was also faxed information on Sections 436 and 437 of the City Code. Then the Park Director went on' vacation and the balance of the material was received by the City and at that point the Building Official tried to assist the applicant and process their request. The Mayor asked why the applicant was applying for a Commercial Dock License when it is a public lands use for public dockage on City property. The City Attorney stated he does not think the applicant was so concerned about what they were applying for. They want the opportunity to build some docks. The appropriate thing to do was to apply for a multiple dock on public lakeshore. The Building Official explained that today additional information was received from the applicant but the Park Director did not have time to respond to it and put together a report. According to the Code it needs to go to the Dock Commission for their review also. The City Attorney suggested that since there is staff work that needs to be done, but the developer also is anxious for an answer, this could be scheduled for the next City Council Meeting and the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission could be notified that if they wish to review the request they could hold a special meeting between now and then. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to table this item until the August 11, 1998, City Council Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report for June 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. LMCD Mailings. C. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of July 9, 1998. D. Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 16, 1998. E. Mound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 1998, F. Minutes and related information from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA). Peter Meyer, Chair, POSC, asked that two editorials published in the Star Tribune be distributed to the City Council. They are included for your information. 366 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 WCCB Meeting, Wednesday, July 29, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. The City Manage explained that the School District has azked that this meeting be changed to Monday, August 3, because the voting member and the alternate are out of town. The Council agreed. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to a~journ at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion c~rried. ~anager Attest: City Clerk 367 l-~ilJ, s July 28, 1998 Batch 8072 Tot;al. Bills $233,392.64 $233,392.64 t~ ~J ! 7.° ~p LU UJ ._1 O0n~ 3:3:-3 o ? oo~oo~ 1 o z z $?,_,~ k ,m,I oo o .,-If I~ r-l MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 THIS PAGE LEFF BLANK INTENTIONALLY.