Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Look stated that this issue has been discussed and there are businesses that do <br />not comply with this, so he would ask why the City is "housekeeping" if they are not being <br />enforced. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated that it is to be consistent. She stated that the <br />properties along Highway 10 that will be acquired for reconstruction, the Council has decided <br />that those would not be required to have paved surfaces, if they aren't already, because the <br />properties would be bought out. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that an example he can think of is Lano Equipment, which is in E-l, <br />E-2 district and he cannot have paving because the heavy equipment will tear it up. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he could ask for a variance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that this has been discussed and there is an understanding with Mr. <br />Lano about this. He stated that the City has established that they are not meeting the intent ofthe <br />ordinance, but that it is allowable, and now the City is housekeeping to clean this up and <br />requiring a business owner who has been allowed to operate a certain way to request a variance <br />to what is already allowed. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated that Lano is not the only property that falls <br />under the E-l, E-2. She stated that the whole idea is that there needs to be a reason why they <br />cannot have paved surface and Lano has that reason. She stated that the majority of businesses <br />do not have that type of reason. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that the pavement requirement already exists, so this is just <br />some language that was inadvertently left in. She asked if Councilmember Look was asking that <br />this entire issue be revisited, but reiterated that the requirement already exists. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated that this ordinance helps to give the <br />City the teeth it needs to work with newly developing or expanding properties, not to go back to <br />existing properties and require the paving. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked if the housekeeping measure is only for new properties. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated that it is exactly what Councilmember <br />Strommen stated.' She stated that it is for all properties, but it is only applying to. new <br />developments or expansions because the Council has not made a determination on <br />grandfathering in the existing properties. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Look, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to adopt the ordinance to <br />amend Sections 9.20.23 (E-l Employment) and 9.20.24 (E-2 Employment District) of the City <br />Code, provided that the it applies only to new properties. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: City Attorney Goodrich asked what "new properties" means. <br />Councilmember Look stated that it means new projects that come to the City for development <br /> <br />City Council / November 25, 2008 <br />Page 11 of24 <br />