Laserfiche WebLink
-i <br />Mounds View PIanning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />8. Planning Case No. DE00-002 <br />: _______ <br />i: ' <br />June 4, 2001 <br />Page 7 <br />Community Development Director Ericson noted that Mr. Mezzenga had applied for and <br />received approval to construct a one and a half story office building lot at 7664 Greenfield <br />Avenue. The building official reviewed the plans and determined they did not compl.y. with the <br />the State's Accessibility Requirements. Mr. Mezzenga's options are to either add an'elevatar or ,, �' <br />construct the building differently. The new proposal is to build a two-stary building and�ra�se it <br />four and a half feet over what was originally proposed. Dir�ct'c� ErFC�on noted that as long as -;� �� <br />� �, <br />one floor is accessible, that would meet code. He added that according to the City Code, a <br />building can be three stories high. Staff recommended that if�this ��plan is approved, there should <br />be no upper story windows on the south end. Director Encson reported the.applicant was in <br />�.: <br />agreement with this stipulation. �.�` <br />Director Ericson stated that notices had been sent to the resrdents, even tfiough if was not <br />required. � ` • _ �` y`= � <br />x:�. � �'�� <br />�ar.:� <br />Commissioner Zwirn stated he had a conflict of interest and rernoved himself from discussion. <br />Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing. <br />Herb Zwirn, 7b60 Greenfield Avenue, stated lie lives south.o#'the proposed site and has an issue <br />with privacy. He explained, �s off ce building {would look directly into his house. He suggested <br />it would have-an extremely negativ.e impact �oQlus�pr�vacy. Mr. Zwirn stated that a privacy fence <br />;��.� <br />would mot be �unctional wi�h the ��fice buildiug-being tailer. He noted that even with no <br />windovvs on �the �6uth of the offia� �building, the windows on the east would look into his back <br />yard. Mr �Wirn saaid::that he feit thts offi�e.:building would be built, and iherefoze he would be <br />seeking a variance to build a privacy %nce �fwo feet above code. He also expressed concern with <br />the upkeep, of this propezty ;�Ie remar�Ceii tiiat the grass hadn't been mowed. Some neighbors <br />have call�d'him, since he 7s a Gommissioner, regarding this property. Mr. Zwirn stated he has <br />< ; � �_ �.. <br />picked up papers and wrappings on the prope�rty. He cantinued that it has developed into an <br />acnmonious situation � ':= '��` � <br />, � , y; . <br />�I'�' Zwirn reported he h�d two realtors to his home and showed them the plans for this office <br />b�iild.ing and explained it would be another four and a half feet higher. Both realtors told him it <br />v��i�ld have a negatrve` impact on his property. He requested the Planning Commissian deny this <br />request for an addikional four and a half feet, or allow his fence to be two feet higher. <br />Chair Stevenson asked if we have a precedence for a 10-foot high fence. Director Ericson <br />replied the City Code allows only 8 feet for a fence. <br />The applicant, Tony Mezzenga, stated he has no responsibility for this land; he does not own it. <br />He stated he did reimburse someone to cut the grass. Mr. Mezzenga explained the trajectory of <br />the two-story would go over a 10-foot fence. Mr. Mezzenga noted he had committed �o building <br />an 8-foot fence for Mr. Zwirn, though he �ew it wouldn't be much help. He stated it would not <br />