Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Commissioner McQuillan asked if the truck scale on this property was public or private. Mr. <br />Murlowski reported the truck scale was privately owned. <br />Commissioner Melquist questioned who has been responsible for ma intaining the private <br />roadway. Mr. Murlowski indicated he has paid to maintain the roadway and noted the entire <br />private drive would be torn up and repaved in the summer of 2020. <br />Mr. Murlowski commented further on his property noting the site could be replatted in the <br />future and the easement should be considered at that time. <br />Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola explained staff has a different <br />opinion on this matter and believed it was in the City’s best interest to secure the easement at <br />this time given the fact the property was being replatted. <br />Mr. Murlowski indicated his 35-acre property would be replatted in the future and he believed <br />the City was putting a very serious hardship on his property by requiring the 30 -foot easement <br />through Lot 1. He stated the non-conforming limitations on Building 1 could restrict the future <br />owner from putting on an addition. <br />Mario Cocchiarella, Bel Air Site Work Services, stated the truck scale would also be located right <br />in the middle of the easement. He explained the City was requesting this easement to protect <br />their interests. He recommended the City allow the property to remain as is and that he be <br />required to prove to the City the site has sufficient access. He feared how Lot 1 would be <br />impacted if the truck scale had to be removed and the building would become non-conforming. <br />He stated the real issue with this property was the separation between his driveway and Mustang <br />Drive. He requested the future development capabilities be incumbent upon the property <br />owners and not be a requirement of the City. <br />Commissioner Biedenfeld questioned if the railroad had an easement through the Murlowski <br />property. Mr. Murlowski stated this was the case and noted the railroad only serviced one <br />customer, Scherer Brothers. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti asked if this property did not have public access. Assistant Director of <br />Community Assets and Development Gozola explained Lot 2, as currently proposed, had frontage <br />on Old Highway 8. He stated Lot 1 did not have public access but rather was serviced by a 30 -foot <br />private roadway which was why the City was requiring an expanded easement. He commented <br />further on how the City could pursue an encroachment agreement with the property owner if a <br />roadway were required in the future. He noted the City would not have a lot of incentive <br />relocate the truck scale as the City would need to incur the cost. <br />Commissioner McQuillan indicated the current location of the truck scale was very easy for trucks <br />to access and a relocation of the scale would be inconvenient for the business. He explained he <br />had been a business owner and he understood the expense of maintaining a property. He agreed <br />it would be a hardship to have the easement in place on Lot 1. He stated if the City were to allow <br />the applicant to the roll the dice, the applicant would be responsible for providing access to the <br />site in the future if it were to redevelop.