08/08/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

r • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 8 Chair Schaps asked if there were insurance issues requiring a six -foot high fence, or if a six-foot high fence was simply a desire. Ms. Ramsay stated she wished to construct a six -foot high fence for the safety of the children in her neighborhood, but her homeowner's insurance did not require a fence of this height. She simply did not want something tragic to happen to a neighborhood child. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if any of her adjacent neighbors were opposed to a six - foot high fence. Ms. Ramsay was not certain. She stated she would be willing to obtain signatures from her neighbors in support of the fence and noted her neighbors across the street want the fence to be constructed. Chair Schaps asked if there was currently a fence in the proposed location. Ms. Ramsay stated she currently has a split rail fence. Mr. Corson noted many communities allow a 20 -foot setback for corner lots and asked if the City of Lino Lakes has looked into this. Mr. Smyser ted that the current ordinance had been adopted in 1997 and he jointed the City in 19 and was therefore unaware of the discussions that took place regarding setbacks. Mr. Brixius stated the City had not considered it was felt that the side of a property abutting a pu yard. Mr. Lyden acknowledged that a pool. He asked, if Ms. Ramsay provided her with bad information, the pool. the setback requirements because street would be considered a front had ccurred in approving the location of the uired move the pool because the City had e City be responsible for the cost to relocate Mr. Smyser stated it was hi :'F , de tanding that because the City approved the building permit, the applicant has the n "«` ' to leave the pool in its current location. He did not believe the City would have the right to rescind the building permit and require the pool to be moved. Mr. Lyden asked why a variance was being requested for a pool that has already been constructed. He also asked if the location of the pool would devalue the adjacent property and whether the City would be responsible for this devaluation. Chair Schaps stated the requested variance was simply a matter of formalities since the pool was allowed to be constructed less than the setback requirement. He stated he was not certain whether the location of the pool would devalue the adjacent property. Mr. Smyser indicated that the adjacent property owner was in attendance this evening. Chair Schaps invited the applicant's adjacent property owner to make comment. Bob Ranallo, 6643 Ruffed Grouse Court, stated he has lived at this address since January