Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Slup Salubrious Spa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northlake Mall massage business faces building‑permit and sidewalk conditions after SLUP hearing
Summary
The council heard a first reading and public hearing for a special land use permit for Salubrious Spa at Northlake Mall. Staff recommended approval with conditions (building permit/OTC, display licenses, storefront maintenance, sidewalk/connectivity requirement contested). The applicant requested 90 days to secure permits; council left the public hearing open and will revisit the item at the next meeting.
Tucker — The council held a public hearing and first reading of a special land use permit application for Salubrious Spa, an after‑the‑fact massage business operating inside Northlake Mall, and discussed permitting, safety and a contested connectivity condition.
Planning staff said the applicant began operations without realizing a SLUP and built out the suite without a city building permit; staff recommended approval with conditions that include maintaining the storefront and windows, closing by 10 p.m., displaying state and local licenses in treatment rooms, submitting a building permit and obtaining the city's occupational tax certificate (OTC) within 60 days, and (contentiously) installing sidewalks/crosswalks within 120 days or otherwise assigning responsibility to the property owner.
Josh Mahoney, attorney for applicant Shauna Forrester, told the council his client hired counsel after learning of the permitting requirements and asked for a 90‑day period to obtain a building permit because the original contractor is unreachable. "She will continue to operate her business as it does now," Mahoney said, and added his client is prepared to pay back taxes once the OTC is issued.
Council members pressed staff and the applicant about safety and enforcement. Staff explained that, where prior unpermitted work cannot be inspected because it has been covered, the city will allow a certified engineer to inspect, sign off and, if necessary, require corrective work and permitting. Staff also said the property owner signed the SLUP application to permit the tenant to apply and that, while staff typically issues violations to both tenant and owner, the planning commission recommended some changes (including a longer 90‑day window for the building permit and striking the city’s condition that the tenant pay for sidewalk construction).
No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition during the public hearing windows. The council concluded the hearing and left the application to be taken up again at the next regular meeting (second read), giving the applicant and staff time to resolve outstanding permitting and condition language.
Next step: council will revisit the SLUP at the next regular meeting for final action after staff and applicant work through the engineer inspection timeline and any revised conditions.
