Laserfiche WebLink
<br />would like some sort of time window to allow the applicant to continue to work while construction <br />is in progress, Staff is open to that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley asked if there is some enforcement on that even though Council is being <br />asked to approve the permit, Staff is saying it would take place after the construction of the <br />requested items. <br /> <br />Planning Manager Larson replied once everything is built then it would be operating under the <br />permit. It would be monitored until whatever time the Council deems it must be done by to ensure <br />compliance. He stated preparing the detailed plans by the architect will likely take a couple of <br />weeks, review by the building staff will likely take a couple more weeks and construction could <br />take a couple months. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked for clarification if it was correct that Staff’s original <br />recommendation was to deny the HOP. <br /> <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that is correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the City has a recollection of any other Home Occupation <br />Permits (HOP) that have required any architectural code analysis as well as the addition of things <br />like a bathroom to a HOP. He stated it seems a little more commercial than traditional HOPs. <br /> <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that is true, and from his understanding there hasn’t been one <br />proposed in an accessory building this large and that when they are in a building this large, they <br />would fall into the commercial code category rather than residential. He stated a lot of the smaller <br />ones are residential style garages or in house. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove noted if a portion of the home was used for an HOP it already comes <br />with a bathroom so it wouldn’t be a requirement. Part of the architectural design request or <br />requirement has to do with the size of the building. She asked if that was correct. <br /> <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that is correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked regarding the warehousing portion separate from the <br />manufacturing, based on how this is written in the title, noting if Council approved it the <br />warehousing is already there and the Planning Commission was okay with that. She asked is it the <br />case that Council would approve or deny just the other section based on whether the applicant <br />could get it done in a certain timeframe. She also asked if that is what Council is being asked to <br />do, to delineate out the manufacturing portion of it. <br /> <br />Planning Manager Larson replied if Council is inclined to approve the manufacturing portion as <br />well, they would need to add that to the motion. He stated Mr. Hillman is in attendance to talk <br />about a reasonable timeframe to give Council an idea of a deadline to include in the resolution <br />should they decide to approve the request. <br /> <br />City Council /July 12, 2022 <br />Page 6 of 22 <br /> <br />