Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether Council can approve with the stipulation that no <br />building permits be issued until the fence issue is resolved. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated he is fine with Council suggestion to approve <br />and hold the building permits provided the City Attorney approves. He also noted building <br />permits ordinarily are not issued unless all requirements of the site plan approval are met. He <br />then suggested changing Item 7 to read applicant shall install an eight (8) foot fence along the <br />south property line with the location to be determined. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To table Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a <br />Development Review Request for an Office Building located at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, to <br />February 26, 2001 to give the Applicant Time to Contact the Neighbor to the South to Attempt to <br />Resolve the Fence Issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Mezzenga indicated he was fine with tabling it but asked that Council not allow Mr. Zwirn <br />much more input other than what his concerns for the fencing are. If so, this could be dragged <br />out for weeks. The building is a story and a half building. He has proposed to put a six (6) foot <br />fence along the whole back of the property. However, he feels an eight (8) foot fence is too tall <br />and offers no more screening than the six (6) foot fence. The six (6) foot fence blocks all views <br />from the main level and an eight (8) foot fence will not block views from the second level of the <br />building. He suggested Council dictate a six (6) foot fence along the whole southern property <br />line. The matter has gotten to the point where he has suggested attaching to Mr. Zwirn’s fence to <br />eliminate the issue of maintenance and appears to be getting nowhere with the resident. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission was comfortable with a <br />six (6) foot fence. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson said the Planning and Zoning Commission was <br />leaning toward the eight (8) foot fence. However, Staff agrees with Mr. Mezzenga’s argument <br />that a six (6) foot fence would sufficiently screen the property from the office building. The <br />Planning and Zoning Commission agreed to defer to Council assuming the fencing issue would <br />be resolved between the applicant and the resident. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated he did not want to stipulate a six (6) foot fence as the issue <br />seems unresolved at this point. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson said he did not believe Mr. Zwirn’s concerns could <br />be addressed. He did not mean this statement as an insult to Mr. Zwirn but Mr. Zwirn has a lot <br />of issues with his property, the property to be developed, and the Tom Thumb property. He does <br />not appear to be happy to have a commercial lot next to him. The City is attempting to satisfy his <br />concerns to the best of its ability. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas stated she is comfortable with tabling the matter until the next meeting <br />but does not want to put it off any longer. She normally is a huge proponent of public input but <br />feels Mr. Zwirn has had ample opportunity for public input.