Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 02 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 10, 2019 Page 14 of 16 Brauneis added that the application also grandfathered in the shed. Hoefner addressed criteria 1, 2, and 5. He noted that for criterion 1, the road and the lot line did not match and that was a unique physical circumstance. For criterion 2, straight roads were important for public safety. Finally, for criterion 5, he noted that the language did not say no alternatives, it said no reasonable alternatives, and in this case it was much more reasonable to move a line on a piece of paper than to move the road to the line. Brauneis agreed with Hoefner's assessment. Ritchie responded to Commissioner Hsu's earlier question, stating that there was another shed further to the west of the proposed property line. Moline appreciated the perspective from staff about taking the opportunity to work with an amenable property owner to make a huge improvement to trail infrastructure. Hsu asked what the process would be if the City extended the right-of-way right now. Zuccaro replied that there were a number of scenarios. It would be difficult to extend the road without a request for redevelopment. The City would have to negotiate to purchase the right-of-way. He could not imagine a scenario where they would not be applying to replat, anyway, since the right-of-way process would create a remnant lot. Howe stated that the proposal had benefits as part of the Commission's goals for land use in the city and that the Comprehensive Plan supported it, as well. Brauneis noted that the benefits were significant. Not doing this now, the City ran the risk of the lot getting sold off to someone else who was not amenable to the City's plan. Hsu stated that regarding criterion 1 that he was not convinced that having a road somewhere outside the property met criterion 1. He agreed that there were benefits to the application, but the benefits were not part of his evaluation of the criteria. Making it easier for the property owner to sell property was not a reason to approve the application. He thought moving the lot line somewhere else was a reasonable alternative option. Brauneis stated that if the proposal set off alarm bells or red flags, he would be concerned. He appreciated Commissioner Hsu's attention to procedure. Williams stated that process was important to her. She did not think the criteria were met and she would have preferred to have the property owner present the proposal. She also did not think that the lot line had anything to do with the underpass. She felt that criterion 1 was absolutely not met, which negated the other criteria. Moline noted a property created in 1990 well before the street was laid out and the lots were laid out around it. He wondered if there was some reasonableness that the City should accommodate the property owner's request to update the lot lines to be more in step with what is around it. 16