07/11/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 7 Chair Schap asked if the pool is above or below ground. Mr. Smyser stated the pool is a four feet deep above ground pool with a removable ladder. Because there is a removable ladder the applicant is not required to construct a fence around the pool. However, if the pool did not include a removable ladder, City ordinance would require a four -foot high fence. Mr. Zych requested the location of the adjacent neighbor's driveway and questioned whether a six -foot high fence as requested would create sight line issues from the driveway. Mr. Smyser showed the location of the adjancent neighbor's house, garage and driveway. He stated that at this time an application for the construction of a fence has not been submitted, therefore, he believed the exact location of the fence was flexible. Ms. Lane questioned why the pool was not proposed to be constructed in the opposite corner of the lot. Mr. Smyser was not certain and noted that the pool has already been cosntructed. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if she would like to make comment. Geri Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, applicant, stated when she first applied for a permit to construct the pool she had not been provided with specific guidelines on setbacks and, because she was granted the permit, she had assumed that the pool met all code requirements. Ms. Ramsay stated that because of the drainage of the lot there had been limited locations for the pool. However, she was not certain why her husband had chosen the specific site Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she was aware of any neighborhood concerns regarding the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she was not aware of any concerns. She indicated that many of her neighbors hope that a six -foot high fence will be constructed since there are approximately 72 small children in this development. She stated because Ruffed Grouse Court is not a through street, the local children play freely in the neighborhood and she did not feel that a four -foot high fence was sensible to prevent children from climbing the fence and gaining access to the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she has children involved in sports which requires her to be gone from her home a great deal in the early evenings. She expressed concern for the safety of the children and her liability if a six -foot high fence is not allowed. She stated that she was willing to construct the fence as far as 22 feet from the roadway in order to eliminate concerns about visibility for her adjacent neighbor. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she had investigated the limitations of a fence when she had been considering the construction of her pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she had not. She indicated that she recently moved to Minnesota from the East Coast where six -foot high fences are the law. Therefore, she had assumed that this would be the same requirement in Lino Lakes.