2020.01.21 PC Minutes_finaled - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 Mr. Cocchiarella discussed how he and Mr. Murlowski would have to approach the surrounding landowners in order to gain access to the property in the future if a redevelopment we re to occur. He commented there were alternatives, but he believed now was not the time to resolve the access issues. Commissioner Melquist questioned when the public right -of-way would be required. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola stated the City can examine land during the platting process to determine if there are public interests in obtaining right-of-way. He noted there was a difference in opinion between the City and the applicant at this time on the right-of- way requirements. Commissioner Biedenfeld asked if the Lots could be combined through the platting in order to eliminate the need for the easement. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola reported this had been discussed, but noted Lot 1 was being sold to Mr. Cocchiarella which was the reason for the replatting. Commissioner McQuillan stated if the plat were approved as recommended by staff, the building and truck scale would become legal non-conforming. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola stated this was the case. Commissioner McQuillan questioned what would be lost if the plat were approved with only the existing 30 feet of right-of-way. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola indicated if there were different controlling interests between Lot 1 and Lot 2, it may be difficult to come to an agreement about how to access Lot 2 in the future. He understood that the property owners were willing to take the risk, but he asked if it was in the Cit y’s best interest to risk this property not being able to be developed in the future. Chair Nichols-Matkaiti inquired if there were any other properties in the City that did not have proper right-of-way or easements in place. She questioned if a precedent could be set if the City were to approve this request without the 60 feet of public right-of-way. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola reported the Commission did not need to worry about setting a precedent as every application has a unique set of facts. Commissioner Frischman asked if this item came back to the Planning Commission because new information was brought to the City from the applicant. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola reported this was the case noting the applicant verbally opposed the easement at the City Council meeting while no opposing the easement before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Frischman questioned if the applicant has opposed the easement for the past two years. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola commented there was no opposition originally because there was no proposal for the site. He indicated the opposition came about when the applicant brought forward a plat.