Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Frolik replied it is not. She indicated the requirement for paving goes back 20 years. At one <br />time it was included in the City Code that everyone was allowed four years to get the paving in, <br />and it was retracted. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated in a situation such as.a residential property, paving could impact the <br />price of the house, and not paving the property could have a detrimental effect. For business lots <br />there are areas the public does not see and the paving does not impact the price of neighboring <br />properties. Generally there is not traffic across these areas that would bring dirt out to the road. <br />This is a transition area and it does not make a lot of sense to require paving; the City will be <br />purchasing the property in 5 to 10 years and will need to pay more for the property based on the <br />value, and this is not a good use of resources. He sees a contradiction in terms of the City Code, <br />for example if someone builds a new house there are limitations as to what can be paved and <br />what is environmentally friendly, yet businesses are required to pave everything. <br />Councilmember Look stated there is also the issue of discrimination due to the fiscal impact on a <br />smaller business that is looking to acquire property, and the investment needed due to the City's <br />upgrading requirements. The goal of this type of business is to make payroll or buy an additional <br />piece of equipment, and now their goal will be to meet City Code. He sees these improvement <br />requirements as having some benefit, but there is a lot of hardship associated with it. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson indicated City Code does not require that the entire site is <br />paved; only the area being used for display of merchandise. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig commented on the need to come to a compromise. The transition of this <br />area is a huge element. The EDA has been discussing what might happen with some of the <br />properties to the south of Highway 10. They would like to be able to develop a plan, but it has <br />not been determined where the roads will come in. Without direction from the City the business <br />owners cannot determine how to buy, sell and improve their property. He has a difficult time <br />enforcing rules to improve property when the City cannot provide the businesses with <br />information. Some of these lots are small and a simple paving will not be a big deal, but the <br />paving on other lots will be major. There should be zero tolerance with clean up, which will be <br />simple. He suggested the possibility of an improved surface, such as crushed concrete, that will <br />not require the investment of blacktop that will be ripped out some day. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated a couple of years ago the City created an inequity on Highway 10 <br />by enacting an ordinance on the north side of Highway 10 that will not allow certain types of use <br />or buildings of a certain size to be built. The City created this inequity on the north side, as <br />opposed to the south side, because they know they want to purchase those properties. He agrees <br />with the clean up, but they need to take a step back and compromise. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson expressed her agreement with a compromise. She indicated she likes the <br />idea of crushed concrete, and Council had talked before about making some compromise <br />regarding the curbing requirement. There are many different ways they could make this easier <br />on people that own land along the corridor, and yet still have an attractive corridor for people to <br />pass through. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / January 23, 2007 <br />Page 3 of8 <br />