Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Dunaway introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION #21-313 <br />A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE BARRIER <br />TO A POOL FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16501 JARVIS STREET <br />NW <br />RECITALS <br />1. Allen and Alycia Skogquist, hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants", has properly <br />applied for a Variance to allow for a pool cover as an alternative barrier, an ASTM <br />F1346-91 pool cover, from the swimming pool fence requirement on the property <br />located at 16501 Jarvis Street NW and legally described as follows: <br />UNPLATTED RAMSEY TWP NW1/4 OF SW1/4 SEC 7-32-25, Anoka County, <br />Minnesota ("Subject Property") <br />2. That the Subject Property is zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District; the <br />surrounding parcels are also zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing). <br />3. That the Subject Property is approximately 127.11 acres in size. <br />4. That the existing swimming pool, in the Northeast side of the property, is twenty <br />(20) feet wide by fifty (50) feet long and without a fence surrounding the inground <br />pool. <br />5. That the alternative to the required permanent fencing of at least four (4) feet, per <br />City Code Section 105-55, requires a Variance approved by the Planning <br />Commission. <br />6. The in accordance with City Code Section 105-55, regarding accessory uses and <br />buildings, "all in ground swimming pools shall require that the area be secured by a <br />permanent fence at least four feet in height". <br />7. That the Applicants were issued a Building Permit for an accessory structure and <br />swimming pool on September 16, 2021, which provided a site plan containing a <br />fence surrounding the swimming pool. The fence was a correction that was added <br />after Planning Staff noticed an absence of during the initial permit review. <br />8. That the Planning Commission met and held a duly noticed public hearing on <br />November 18, 2021 and approved the request. <br />9. That the applicant expressly represented that the variance proposed would result in <br />safety at the site as good as or better than the existence of the required fence. <br />Specifically, that a child or animal would not be able to enter the pool while it was <br />