04-18-2011 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes April 18, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Schrieber stated he is willing to work with the city but at this time, he didn't want to • commit to a specific location of the easement until the entire trail plan had been completed on all the properties in the area. He also had concerns with who was liable for the trail and who will maintain the trail. There being no one else to speak, Mayor Dietz closed the public hearing. After some discussion, Council agreed to remove condition #4 from the CUP. Revisions were made to condition #8 in a language that was suitable for both the property owner and the City. MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ZERWAS TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRIGGS PROPERTIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 11-07 FOR THE ELK RIVER LODGE HOTEL LOCATED AT 17432 YALE STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE FIRE CODES AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CHIEF. 3. NO EXPANSION IN THE NUMBER OF ROOMS IS PERMITED. 5. PARKING LOT SHALL BE STRIPED TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST 47 PARKING SPACES (1 PER ROOM PLUS 5 EMPLOYEES). 6. BUILDING SHALL BE CONNECTED TO CITY WATER AND ANY • ONSITE WELLS CAPPED AND ABANDONED. 7. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE C-3 SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS. 8. AN EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE PROPERTY WHEN REQUESTED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE TRAIL ALONG THE RIVER ANTICIPATED BY THE 171 ST FOCUSED AREA STUDY. SAID TRAIL SHALL BE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE FLOODPLAIN OR OTHERWISE BE IN A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON LOCATION, AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES, TAHING INTO ACCOUNT THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE OWNER. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.2.A. Interim Use Permit for the Store Building at Wapiti Park, Case No. 10-16 -Public Hearing Mr. Barnhart reviewed that staff had been directed to work with Wapiti's legal representatives to work out agreements over the issues outlined in the staff report. Mr. Beck had drafted an agreement and presented it to Wapiti's attorneys. Mr. Barnhart handed out a fax he had received late in the day from Wapiti's attorney, Adam Kaatz, stating the proposed conditions outlined in the agreement were unreasonable and that they were declining to agree with the conditions. Mr. Barnhart requested the council either recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit (IUP), or deny the IUP and provide direction on whether to commence revocation proceedings on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). •