Business owner seeks to pave city parcel for parking; staff recommends revocable parking license only

City staff brought a request from a local business owner, identified in the staff report as Mr. Peterson, to use city-owned property at 637 Sixteenth Street for employee and client parking. Nicole (city staff) told council Mr. Peterson owns an adjacent business and seeks roughly 12 additional paved spaces to relieve parking shortages during his busy season (October'December). He also raised the possibility of constructing a 5'x20' deck that would partially encroach on city property.

Staff presented four options: draft an agreement allowing both paving and the deck; allow only paving; allow only the deck; or deny the request. Staff recommended proceeding with option 2 (paving only) because including the deck would create legal/ownership complications and could inhibit future redevelopment options.

Council members discussed terms: several members supported a revocable license (no property interest conveyed) with a clear reversion or reclaim clause that would allow the city to take back the parcel for redevelopment; one councilmember suggested exploring a sale or lease if the owner will invest substantially. Mr. Peterson reportedly offered to pay paving costs and to prepay an estimated future tear-out cost with an inflation buffer and to maintain the parcel while in use.

Legal counsel noted a license avoids creating a property interest and preserves city control; staff said they will evaluate lease vs. license and look into real-estate options if council wants to explore a sale. Council did not adopt a final agreement at the work session and directed staff to return with options.

Why it matters: The decision affects use of city-owned land in a redevelopment area and must balance supporting a local business against preserving city control over public property and future development opportunities.