Laserfiche WebLink
Member Seigler noted differences in bringing a parking lot up to its original <br />condition, while at some point mill and overlay would no longer be sufficient if and <br />when some parts were worn away and gravel was showing. <br />Mr. Culver spoke in support of that point noting, as an example, the strip mall at <br />Lincoln and Terrace Drives and parking lot condition. From staff's perspective, <br />Mr. Culver noted the difficulty in determining whether to require regarding based <br />on varying conditions of the pavement in that one situation, and therefore, <br />supporting the need to better define the trigger for when regarding was required and <br />whether it was considered maintenance or an improvement. <br />Member Seigler questioned if smaller strip mall lots had sufficient money for maj or <br />parking lot improvements if the threshold is lowered; suggesting a commercial <br />property owner in that situation may choose to simply let their parking lot fall apart <br />completely versus maintaining it. From his personal perspective, Member Seigler <br />opined that if they went to the gravel base and returned the lot to its original <br />condition, there should be no mitigation required. <br />Member Thumau asked staff for their annual estimate of parking lot permits for <br />each given scenario and those property owners not seeking permit, but simply doing <br />the work unknown to the city until after the fact. <br />Mr. Culver estimated that the annual number of parking lot improvement permits <br />could range from two to twenty. <br />Mr. Freihammer opined that those permits generally related to a limited mill and <br />overlay, while others may be striping or restriping their lots; with some involving <br />a full reconstruction and pulling up the gravel, but also noted that those full <br />reconstruct permits were few and far between and usually involved a <br />redevelopment project or poor parking lot design needing redesign. <br />Without hearing any justification to support changing it, Member Heimerl stated <br />his continued supportfor retaining the current requirements in a consistent manner. <br />While recognizing that the current language wasn't clear, Member Heimerl noted <br />his preference for staff to formalize that language and what had been required of <br />commercial properties to -date rather than increasing or reducing those <br />requirements, but keeping all at the same level. For lots exceeding 5,000 square <br />feet, Member Heimerl spoke in support of the city working with the property owner <br />or developer on stormwater management. Member Heimerl stated his preference <br />to see the wording better defined to cover that option and keep the policy consistent, <br />unless staff could justify the need to become more aggressive than that current <br />policy. <br />Member Wozniak opined that staff had already provided examples of the need for <br />the city to be more aggressive to address citywide flooding and drainage concerns. <br />Page 16 of 17 <br />