Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 <br />Special Meeting Page 11 <br /> <br /> <br />John Houle of 7643 Edgewood Drive said his backyard and Tom Thumb’s backyard touch. Mr. <br />Houle said he has been there since the 1960’s and he doesn’t know why the Tom Thumb lot was <br />ever rezoned to commercial. He believes the lot in question should be zoned residential, not <br />commercial, for the simple reason it would do away with a driveway onto County Road I. He <br />feels there is a real demand for residential and a house belongs there, not commercial. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson said if Tom Thumb were not there the whole block would have been zoned <br />residential but since it is there, it is less desirable now for a residential development. <br /> <br />Mr. Houle said he feels a house belongs there and he would like to see it rezoned. He expressed <br />his concern for accidents because of the traffic on County Road I. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated the current zoning for the piece of property in question is <br />commercial and it would be up to the property owner or the City to request a zoning change <br />which, in this case, neither are willing to do. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson said once a property is zoned commercial in an area where commercial <br />works for the City, it is difficult to change the zoning. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated if the property were in high demand for residential use a <br />builder would have purchased the lot, asked to have it down zoned to residential, and built an <br />apartment building or duplex. But, that has not happened which indicates to him there really <br />isn’t a demand for residential use for the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas indicated at this point a rezoning would be at the request of the property <br />owner, he hasn’t requested a rezoning, and the City is not inclined to make him rezone it. It is <br />zoned commercial and he is within his rights to develop it commercially. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller asked if the Commission had decided what the driveway separation would <br />be. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated the Commission had determined it wasn’t necessary for the resolution <br />as long as the parking lot and the building were going to switch places. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated the driveway separation could be dropped from the resolution. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas indicated any further changes could be worked in as process moves <br />along. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson summarized what the Commission had agreed upon to be 25 feet from <br />Greenfield Avenue, 15 feet from the side fronting the property on Greenfield Avenue, five feet <br />from Tom Thumb, 10 feet from the front on County Road I with a building setback of 10 feet <br />from the side and the rear which maintains the 30 foot required front setback, the variance for the <br />one space for 200 square feet parking, and the variance for the 61 foot parking lot instead of the <br />63 foot as per City Code. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson asked if he had included the five-foot from the Tom Thumb side.