Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br />abilities and assertions that the building and property will be maintained. He then told Council if <br />he is required to install an eight (8) foot fence he may kill the project. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre asked if it is a cost issue in providing the eight (8) foot fence that would cause <br />him to want to kill the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Mezzenga explained it is financial and a concern for wind damage to a fence that high. He <br />then noted he usually makes it his business to be accommodating but in this instance does not <br />feel the eight (8) foot fence is warranted. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre stated he understood the increased cost to install the fence but noted Mr. Zwirn <br />would take ownership of the fence making any wind damage or other maintenance and repairs <br />the responsibility of Mr. Zwirn. He then asked Mr. Mezzenga to consider this possibility in the <br />interest of remedying the situation. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre suggested despite the increased cost to install the eight (8) foot fence in the <br />beginning that, in the interest of attempting to reach common ground with Mr. Zwirn, giving <br />ownership of the fence to Mr. Zwirn releases Mr. Mezzenga from maintenance, repair and <br />liability issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Mezzenga asked Council to decide if the trash issue is a serious enough concern to raise the <br />fence two feet. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre stated he was concerned for compromise and thinks, in order to alleviate Mr. <br />Zwirn’s concerns and free Mr. Mezzenga from the costs to maintain the fence and liability for the <br />fence, an eight (8) foot fence should be installed and ownership transferred to Mr. Zwirn. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated Mr. Zwirn had said he was not concerned for the placement of <br />the fence and then asked if Mr. Mezzenga was concerned for placement of the fence. <br /> <br />Mr. Mezzenga stated he did not care where the fence was placed. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas clarified there were two options for the fence being considered. Those <br />two options are either an eight (8) foot fence to replace the current chain link fence or a six (6) <br />foot fence that would be eight (8) inches from the existing fence and three (3) inches off of grade. <br /> <br />Mr. Mezzenga stated the ultimate third option for the fence would be a six (6) foot fence in <br />replacement of Mr. Zwirn’s fence. <br /> <br />Mr. Zwirn stated he has been in the home improvement business himself and does not believe an <br />eight (8) foot fence would be a problem and is what he wants for privacy, light deflection, and <br />garbage reduction. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick stated there were eight items in the Resolution as amended and <br />questioned how another item could be added to require a fence built on someone else’s property.