Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Palmatier indicated that the setbacks and variances in effect for the property would prohibit <br />any commercial development. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated that changes to the Zoning Code pertaining to setbacks and the <br />taking of some of the property posed some practical difficulties in terms of development. <br /> <br />Mr. Palmatier asked if the four feet is from the curb or from the sidewalk. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated that the setback is from the property line. He then asked Mr. <br />Gustafson how much space is between the sidewalk and property line. Mr. Gustafson indicated <br />that it was approximately five feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Palmatier asked how far the parking lot would be from the street. Chairperson Peterson <br />indicated that it was approximately 20 feet from the parking lot to the street. <br /> <br />Mr. Palmatier indicated that he feels there would be congestion and traffic tie-ups as a result of <br />having an entrance on County Road I. He indicated that they had a similar problem with <br />Highway 10, now County Road 10, and a stoplight had to be installed to alleviate the situation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated that the traffic on County I is heavy and in that context he feels that <br />residential would not be desirable. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated that rezoning the lot to residential would not benefit the City <br />and it is not being considered at this time. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated that while the lot is zoned commercial, there is a limit to the volume of <br />traffic that could be generated from this site. He said that Staff is not concerned with potential <br />traffic congestion because a small office building would not generate a large volume of traffic. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson also indicated that the property owner would have the right to request a change <br />of zoning but as of now, it is zoned commercial. In terms of single family homes or duplex, he is <br />not sure anyone would want to live there due to the location and based on the volume of traffic. <br /> <br />Tony Mezzenga addressed the pedestrian traffic issue by stating that cedar fences around the <br />property should tidy up the vacant lot and cut down on foot traffic. He said that he and his father <br />have some property in Spring Lake Park and he invited neighbors to check that property to see <br />that they keep things nice. He indicated that he will establish a relationship with his tenants and <br />assured the Planning Commission that the building would not sit vacant. Mr. Mezzenga stated <br />his opinion that once the lot is improved the people in the community will treat the property <br />better and not drop the trash. He stated that it does not make economic sense to build what is <br />allowed without the variance based on the cost to develop the lot. Mr. Mezzenga stated that he <br />and his father have a reputation for keeping their properties neat and clean. <br /> <br />Mr. Gustafson cited several other locations where the parking areas have no grass in between <br />parking areas adjacent to them. He said there is 18 feet of grass between the tar and curb on <br />Greenfield Avenue. Mr. Gustafson indicated, in regard to the driveway, the City Code says there