10/04/1999 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 4 make a choice. Ms. Walseth noted the traffic direction and that her windows face eastward which provides a view of traffic and vehicle lights. Thus, the request for a six - foot privacy fence in the front yard. Ms. Walseth stated there is only about 200 feet of straight roadway when coming from the cul -de -sac so the speed of vehicles would not be that great when approaching this intersection. She presented statistics she found on the Mn/DOT website regarding sight distances and sight triangles. She presented this information with colored graphs depicting sight triangles required for various vehicle speeds. Ms. Walseth stated the rear elevation results in a pool location near the front, by Holly Drive. She stated that with the vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a privacy fence is needed. Ms. Walseth commented on the anticipated increase in traffic based on surrounding development and stated there is a need for a buffer. She explained she purchased this corner lot due to the lower cost and had always planned to fence along Holly Drive. Ms. Walseth stated she was surprised when she learned of the fence restriction. She presented colored pictures of other fences in Lino Lakes (as previously reviewed by Ms. Wyland). Ms. Walseth stated the person buying the existing request. She stated there are only eight houses and responsible drivers so they would not spe does not believe the proposed fence woul s ,fie the elevations of the property. ead has no objection to her ne orhood, all with families, gh this intersection. She stated she e of an obstruction, given the Mr. Schilling asked if it would be p <s than the property. Ms. Walseth stated_ s afford. Mr. Schilling noted t would close just the pool with a fence rather e uld prefer more privacy than that would an option. Mr. Schilling asked if the ordi `` '' akes reference to elevations. Ms. Wyland stated the ordinance does regulate planti gs with reference to elevations and the area that cannot be impeded. However, that would not apply to this property. Ms. Wyland noted the setback requirement from the pool requiring it not be located within any required front or side yard setback. On this lot, the setback on Holly Drive is 40 feet. Ms. Walseth stated she was not supported in her efforts to have the site graded to eliminate the hill or to save the trees that existed. Ms. Carlson stated she believed the trail was the main issue for invasion of privacy and asked how far it would be from the property line. Ms. Walseth stated the trail had been approved at the park level and would be located in the right -of -way. Ms. Wyland stated the Building Inspector had agreed to an encroachment to allow the fence to be placed up to the property line so a future trail may be one to two feet from the fence, if so located.