Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />Commissioner Biedenfeld asked if staff has had any conversations with the City of Mounds View <br />regarding potential future access to Lot 2 from the north. Assistant Director of Community <br />Assets and Development Gozola explained he had reached out to the City of Mounds View to see <br />if an easement was in place. He reported an easement was not in place and noted Mounds View <br />did not have plans to provide access. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti inquired how the Commission wanted to proceed. She asked if the <br />Commission believed having the 30-foot easement protected the City’s interests with future <br />development. <br />Commissioner Biedenfeld stated the burden would fall on the owner of Lot 2 to provide an access <br />point if the property were to develop at some point in the future. He did not believe the <br />“chimney” portion of the property was an option. He anticipated access would have to be g ained <br />from the City of Mounds View. However, he believed, at the end of the day this problem would <br />have to be resolved by the applicant. <br />Mayor Johnson explained the final decision on this matter would be made by the City Council. <br />She indicated the Planning Commission could move forward with the original recommendation <br />and require the extra 30-foot easement, or a new recommendation could be made to the <br />Council. <br />Commissioner McQuillan stated the applicant keeps referring to now not being the right time. <br />He questioned what the applicant meant by this statement. Mr. Murlowski explained he <br />believed now was not the right time because the site was not being redeveloped. Rather, the site <br />was being cleaned up of gaps and overlaps. He was of the opinion the City was putting the cart <br />before the horse. He indicated the City was putting a hardship on him that was not necessary. <br />He stated putting his building and truck scale into a non -conforming status was not acceptable to <br />him. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti requested feedback from the Commission on how to proceed. <br />Commissioner Frischman indicated she was conflicted with how the City would be impacted if the <br />can were kicked down the road. She commented, in the end, the decision would b e made by the <br />City Council. She stated ultimately the Planning Commission was tasked to focus on City Code. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti agreed the Planning Commission should focus on City Code as this was to <br />guide the groups decisions. For this reason, she was in favor of sticking to the original <br />recommendation made by the Planning Commission. <br />Commissioner McQuillan agreed. <br />Mr. Murlowski stated he did not support the application going forward in such a manner that his <br />building and the truck scale would become non-conforming. He asked if this request could be <br />withdrawn if the extra 30-foot easement were required. Assistant Director of Community Assets <br />and Development Gozola explained the applicant would have the option of not recording the <br />plat.