Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 8, 1999 <br />Page 3 <br />the Zoning Ordinance and explained the Ordinance prohibits the construction of a six foot <br />fence from the setback line of the adjoining home on Holly Drive and also along Holly <br />Drive to the front of the house. The Ordinance would allow a fence of no more than four <br />feet in height. <br />Ms. Wyland explained that in reviewing this variance request, staff reviewed the Anoka <br />County site /distance guidelines which, if used in considering this request, would support <br />the intent of the Ordinance requirement limiting the fence height to four feet. She stated <br />staff also considered the variance requirements and have concluded that a variance to <br />allow a six -foot privacy fence in this location would not meet the required Findings of <br />Fact. <br />Ms. Wyland noted the adjoining hobby farm and possible compromise to allow the <br />construction of a six foot high fence on the rear property line to match the existing six <br />foot fence on the east side of 1101 Holly Drive which was co red to screen the <br />Trappers Crossing Development from 1101 Holly Drive. staff would not <br />support a six -foot fence within the County site /distance <br />Ms. Wyland presented pictures submitted by the ap er fences and clarified <br />that in all cases, the fences depicted meet Cod- �� i en She advised that Chair <br />Schaps was unable to attend tonight but di orandum indicating his support <br />for staff's recommendation of denial base • ationale the request does not meet the <br />five criteria necessary for a variance. . also indicated in his memorandum <br />that granting a variance would con . `�4 :` seth a privilege which has been denied <br />to other landowners similarly si a <br />Upon inquiry, Ms. Wylan <br />Mr. Schilling asked if <br />fence. Ms. Wyl <br />within that locatio <br />e pool is above ground and does not require fencing. <br />ommendation within the site triangle was a four -foot high <br />t would be an option since it would not restrict visibility <br />Ms. Carlson asked a'`.ut the location of the trail. Ms. Wyland stated it was within the <br />right -of -way of Holly Drive and remains debatable as to which side it would be <br />constructed. <br />Acting Chair Lane stated she sees some privacy issues depending on the location of the <br />trail. <br />Sue Walseth, applicant, presented a site plan of her property and proposed fence location. <br />She noted the distance of that location to the traffic is 70 feet and the fence location is not <br />abutting the corner of the property. She stated that the intersection contains a stop sign <br />and a clear view would be present with a six -foot high fence. Ms. Walseth stated the <br />adjoining property is at an elevation of 914 feet with a large ditch. She stated her fence <br />would be one foot lower than the hill and she would prefer the side fence, if she had to <br />