Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br />Mr. Zwirn stated either situation was workable for him. He then noted if Mr. Mezzenga wanted <br />to tear down his fence and put up an eight (8) foot fence on the cement, that would be okay with <br />him. But if there is to be both fences, the new fence would need to be located far enough away <br />from his exiting fence to allow for maintenance. <br />Mayor Sonterre asked Mr. Zwirn if he wanted an eight (8) foot fence like Staff had suggested or <br />an eight (8) foot replacement of his fence. <br />Mr. Zwirn clarified that if Mr. Mezzenga removes his fence and builds an eight (8) foot fence it <br />would then become his fence and maintenance would be his responsibility. Mr. Zwirn stated he <br />did not have a problem with that scenario. <br />Mayor Sonterre stated he understands the concern for the setback and asked Director Ericson if <br />there was a reason that the building could not be shifted 90 degrees. <br />Director Ericson explained he, Mr. Mezzenga, and Mr. Gustafson spent many hours drawing and <br />redrawing the building on the property in an attempt to orient the building in a way that best <br />suited all parties involved. The Planning Commission did not say the building had to go in this <br />spot on the lot but did approve a variance for the 10-foot setback. There is an issue as to parking <br />if the building is not oriented in this fashion but noted if Mr. Mezzenga were able to prepare <br />another plan for the building that worked and met ali City requirements; Staff would be fine with <br />that. <br />Council Member Thomas stated her biggest issue was that she would have preferred another <br />orientation for the building but noted there was an issue concerning parking. She felt it was not <br />acceptable to allow the overflow of parking out into the neighborhood. <br />Director Ericson stated there is no reason why the building and parking lot cannot be switched <br />but that would mean another access that much closer to the Tom Thumb parking lot and code <br />requires a 40-foot separation between driveways. So there would need to be a variance to <br />approve that scenario and the Planning Commission attempted to go with the plan that needed <br />the fewest variances possible. <br />Council Member Marty noted Mr. Zwirn, in a matter of a few years, would be looking at lilacs <br />rather than the concrete building. <br />Mr. Mezzenga clarified he does not feel like the plan for the building was forced on him from the <br />Planning Commission. He stated he did not feel forced but merely felt this was an issue to be <br />dealt with. He also clarified he had told Mr. Zwirn he would have preferred to put the building <br />out on County Road I but stated a person does not always get what they want. He stated he is <br />fine with the plan for the building. <br />Mr. Mezzenga stated he came to the meeting tonight with the impression there would be <br />discussion of the fence and the fence only. He stated he believed all the other issues were heard <br />and addressed. He stated he felt the City and Mr. Zwirn needed to have a bit of faith in his <br />