Agenda - Council - 05/24/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayor Pro Tem Riley stated the Staff recommendation is to table this and asked if there was Council agreement to do that or if Council wanted to discuss it. Councilmember Musgrove stated if this is tabled it needs to be addressed in a timely manner so the applicant doesn't have to wait. Mayor Pro Tem Riley asked if Staff had a suggested timeframe. Interim City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied the Staff recommendation to table the issue is if Council is inclined to seek approval and if the motion is to deny the request it could occur this evening. If it going to be approved, it would be brought back at the next Council meeting on May 24, 2022. Mayor Pro Tem Riley replied there were questions that would make it appropriate to table this. Interim City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied it would be brought back as soon as the applicant felt he had received clear direction of what would be required by the City and would be prepared to do due-diligence on those requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Riley asked if the timeframe would be 30 days. Interim City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied yes, roughly. Councilmember Musgrove asked if the size of the building is the reason to table the motion because the full size of the building is being considered even though only a portion of it would be used for the business and would that not meet the requirement for the HOP. She asked if that could be addressed tonight. Planning Manager Larson replied the building code looks at the building as a whole, not just the portion that is being used for the business. He stated the type of business is also considered including warehousing, manufacturing, and the product. He explained that cities and counties don't have the ability to amend or make allowances to satisfy it. He stated they need an architect to consult with the applicant about the building and business to put together an architectural business analysis that the building official and fire department will review and agree on a plan of what is needed to meet the State building code. He stated it could be minimal or it could be substantial. Councilmember Woestehoff asked Staff to look into the 1999 CUP which lists the building as 13,200 square feet but the applicant stated it is 15,000 square feet. He also asked if an addition is being requested or if it is correct that the building is 15,000 square feet. Planning Manager Larson replied he was unsure of the size because the plans that were submitted weren't done by a design firm. He stated part of the architectural analysis would be to determine the exact square footage. City Council/May 10, 2022 Page 12 of 18