Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 8 <br /> April 21,2014 <br /> 6. Any item or condition found that indicates the site is likely to yield <br /> information important to pre-history or history shall be reported to the city <br /> immediately. Further, the city reserves the right to stop work authorized in <br /> its approval until the site is appropriately investigated and work is <br /> authorized. <br /> Motion carried 4-0. <br /> Site Plan <br /> Moved by Councilmember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember <br /> Wilson to approve the Site Plan request for a 52-unit apartment building from <br /> Duffy Development with the following conditions: <br /> 1. As site plan approval is not a building permit, the applicant must apply for <br /> and receive approval of all required permits. <br /> 2. Staff approval of updated landscape plans, grading plans, and stormwater <br /> calculations reflecting the addition of a fire access drive. <br /> 3. The property shall be platted, and recorded, prior to release of the <br /> building permit. <br /> Motion carried 4-0. <br /> 7.4 Interim Use Permit: Juanita Glenn on Behalf of Wapiti Park to Allow <br /> Accessory Use, Case No. CU 14-08 <br /> Mr. Carlton presented Mr. Leeseberg's staff report. He further noted information the <br /> city has asked for in order to review and evaluate the Interim Use Permit (IUP) <br /> request has not been provided. Mr. Carlton stated city ordinance would require curb <br /> and gutter on the parking areas and the applicant has not indicated on a site plan <br /> where these areas would be located. He also stated accessory structure size and <br /> location, and existing signage must be located on a site plan and submitted to staff. <br /> Mr. Carlton stated the site is located in the Shoreland Management Overlay District <br /> within two different districts: Urban River Segment and General Development Lake. <br /> He stated the septic system must meet current requirements of Minnesota Statutes <br /> and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before the permit can be approved and <br /> the city must receive proof that it meets these requirements. He noted the city <br /> attorney sent a letter on March 14, 2014, that outlined the process for extending the <br /> time period for consideration of the IUP if the applicant doesn't have enough time <br /> to provide the inspection and certification documents for the April 8, 2014 Planning <br /> Commission meeting. He stated the applicant did not provide any documentation <br /> and there was no request to extend the time for Planning Commission or City <br /> Council action. <br /> Mr. Carlton stated no one spoke at the public hearing for the Planning Commission. <br /> He further stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. Mr. <br /> Carlton stated staff is recommending denial of the request for an IUP for the two <br /> P 0 W I R I D 9 Y <br /> 1`4M UREJ <br />