My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-2001 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
02-26-2001 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:36 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 9:25:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/26/2001
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/26/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> <br />fencing. In his opinion, Mr. Zwirn is attempting to slow this development down by refusing to <br />agree to the type of fencing he wants installed. Mr. Mezzenga explained he had tried to contact <br />Mr. Zwirn but did not bend over backwards to do so. Mr. Mezzenga suggested Council approve <br />the site plan at this point but hold the building permit until the fence issue is resolved. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty asked if Council could approve the Resolution without resolution of Item <br />7 which is fencing. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated he was split on the issue. He explained he has <br />had issues on another development area and it would have been nice if things were completely <br />taken care of before the project started. But, on the other hand, Mr. Mezzenga is right. How <br />long do you table the matter in hopes of reaching an agreement with Mr. Zwirn? Staff would be <br />comfortable with approval at this point and holding the building permit until the fence issue is <br />resolved. Staff does not question Mr. Mezzenga’s integrity on this issue and believes he is being <br />up front on his desire to resolve the fencing issue. Staff is comfortable provided legal counsel <br />approves of the suggestion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Vose asked if the issue would be coming back to Council for approval. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson explained the Resolution, as written, would approve <br />the site development as long as the fence is installed per City Council requirements. Staff <br />thought there would be something for Council to approve but as Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga <br />have not reached an agreement Council merely has Mr. Mezzenga’s assurances that he will <br />install whatever type fence the City requires. <br /> <br />City Attorney Vose inquired as to whether the statement “as required by Council” had meaning <br />to Staff. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson agreed that at this point, it is not clear what is to be <br />done concerning fencing. Staff was hoping that there would have been a clearly defined plan as <br />to what type of fencing was going to be required tonight. Staff is hesitant to have Council <br />approve the Resolution without knowing what the fencing would be. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty asked what the advantage of approving the Resolution now versus when <br />the fencing issue has been resolved. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson explained Mr. Zwirn has asked for a screening fence <br />to screen his backyard from the parking lot of the building. If the issue is tabled and brought <br />back before Council in two weeks whether or not the fencing issue has been resolved Staff is <br />comfortable with asking Council to approve the Resolution at that point. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas stated she is concerned that this may be dragged out if Mr. Zwirn and <br />Mr. Mezzenga cannot resolve the fencing issue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.