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

Home

Councilmember Woestehoff stated the parcel was 7.8 acres with an adjacent 2.8 acres. He asked if there is a residence on the second property and if not, could they be put together into one PID. He noted the code states an accessory building on the seven to eight-acre lot is only 400 square feet and the building is already triple that size, which is his concern along with the amount of impervious surface. He wouldn't want the smaller lot to be sold off. Motion by Councilmember Woestehoff, seconded by Councilmember Heineman, to table consideration of Resolution#22-085 per Staff direction for 30 days. A roll call vote was performed: Councilmember Musgrove nay Councilmember Specht nay Councilmember Howell nay Councilmember Woestehoff aye Councilmember Heineman nay Mayor Pro Tem Riley aye Mayor Kuzma aye Motion failed. Councilmember Specht asked if the concerns about the building can be grandfathered in because of previous approvals and it was an existing building that hasn't been expanded. He also asked if State code would have to be met or if the decisions are those that the Council is going to be able to make in 30 days whether to require fire suppression and other changes. Planning Manager Larson replied in the building code there is a concept called a "change in use" and even though the building is an older building when the use is changed, any sort of grandfathering or provisions are eliminated. By State law it has to be brought up to code. The size of the building and the use in warehousing and manufacturing means the building code would require analysis. He stated this is something that if the Council approves this tonight,the applicant will have to do as one of the conditions of approval. He stated with tabling the item more information could be obtained,or the motion could be to approve it contingent and let the applicant figure it out. If it doesn't work out the activities must cease. Councilmember Woestehoff agreed noting in the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) it stated that no commercial business could take place, that it's intended use was a riding arena. He stated the Planning Commission sets the requirements of CUPs very specifically and for a reason. He stated he would have concerns with the size of the building despite the fact that some of it is being used for personal use. Councilmember Howell addressed the original CUP and it not allowing commercial use. She stated Green Valley Road is very busy anyway, noting Green Valley Greenhouse is there. She stated the property is very large and when she drove out to see the business and the neighborhood, it didn't seem like it was a poor location for it. She stated the applicant would have to get in compliance with State statutes. She didn't object to the use but to the road. City Council/May 10, 2022 Page 13 of 18