Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />3) Require the applicant to dedicate the additional 30 foot easement proposed by staff with the <br />understanding that the new easement (or all 60 feet) would be vacated in the future if any of <br />the following occur: <br />a. An alternative and useable roadway access to Old Highway 8 is established elsewhere on <br />the property <br />b. Right of way for Mustang Circle in Mounds View is extended southward to the municipal <br />boundary thereby creating a new northern roadway access for 2200 Old Highway 8. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti asked if the extra 30 feet was required on Lot 2. Assistant Director of <br />Community Assets and Development Gozola explained the extra 30 feet was only required on Lot <br />1 in order to gain access to Lot 2. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti questioned if the roadway were put in place, and the 30-foot easement <br />were used, would the building become non-conforming. Assistant Director of Community Assets <br />and Development Gozola reported this was the case. He explained the property owner would <br />then be required to seek City approval if changes were made to the building. <br />Commissioner McQuillan inquired how wide City streets were. Assistant Director of Community <br />Assets and Development Gozola commented City right-of-way was typically 60 feet, and the <br />roadway would be somewhere between 20 to 30 feet. <br />Commissioner McQuillan asked if the roadway was Class 5 at this time. Assistant Director of <br />Community Assets and Development Gozola reported this was a private roadway and it was <br />paved. <br />Mike Murlowski, 2200 Old Highway 8, explained there were a number of things going on with this <br />request. He stated he could not work with uncertainties, especially given the fact he would be <br />selling the building on Lot 1 to Mario Mario Cocchiarella. He discussed how the requested 30- <br />foot easement would make the building on Lot 1 non-conforming. He indicated this shouldn’t be <br />a problem, but stated this could be a hardship for the new owner. <br />Mr. Murlowski commented on the location of the truck scale. He reported this truck scale would <br />be located right in the middle of the easement. He stated he feared how his business would be <br />impacted if he had to remove the truck scale three, five or ten years down the road. He explained <br />he started this process to clear up gaps and overlaps. He indicated he has spent over two years <br />working with attorneys, surveyors, title companies and the City try and get this matter cleaned <br />up. He expressed frustration with the fact the City was now requiring an easement on his <br />property. <br />Mr. Murlowski stated this property would be coming back before the City for redevelopment at <br />some point in the future. He indicated there was zero to be gained by requiring him to provide a <br />60-foot easement when a 30-foot private drive was already in place. He commented further on <br />how he was working to clear up the gaps and overlaps on his property and requested the 30 -foot <br />easement not be required on Lot 1. <br />