Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br /> from the lake and using the high water mark,rather than from the house to help form a <br /> more consistent setback. Gundlach replied that could be an option; while the City does <br /> not have a shore land ordinance the Watershed District does enforce a fifty foot structure <br /> setback from the high water mark, but they do not include fences in that ordinance. <br /> Gundlach added that staff was concerned that since the City does not have a shore land <br /> ordinance it would have difficulty enforcing the Watershed District setback and was <br /> trying to avoid drafting Shoreland Ordinance. <br /> Zisla inquired if the City knows of the number of the properties with existing fences and <br /> can the issue of visibility be addressed while being sensitive to safety concerns. <br /> Gundlach replied that the City does not know how many properties currently have fences. <br /> Gundlach continued that the existing special use option within the fence code could allow <br /> establishment of clearly defined conditions of what type of fence could be allowed and <br /> while still meeting the intent of the code. Gundlach added this process would be specific <br /> to each property. <br /> Mann inquired if other cities have a similar ordinance or is this unique situation for our <br /> City. Gundlach replied that this is a common ordinance in lake communities and is <br /> regulated with established Shoreland Ordinances. Schiferl inquired if staff knew the <br /> genesis of the Watershed District's set back of fifty feet. Gundlach replied that the fifty <br /> foot setback is the DNR standard for a general development lake. She added that the <br /> Watershed District does not address visibility and would allow a fence within the fifty <br /> foot setback. Schiferl inquired if staff knew why the City does not have a shore land <br /> ordinance, and if it should be considered. Fernelius replied that previous planners and <br /> staff had discussed creating a shore land ordinance, but does not know why it was not <br /> created or why the City has not adopted one. <br /> Phil Herbert, resident, stated that he does not support the fence ordinance because it is not <br /> a universal code; it addresses and regulates only lake shore property owners. He does not <br /> agree with ordinances that are generated by one person's complaint and is afraid that this <br /> could lead to other restrictive ordinances. He believes that within reason,property <br /> owners should be allowed to do what they want with their property. <br /> Leon Kline, 1748 14th Ave, stated that he does not have an opinion in regards to the <br /> fencing ordinance,but is concerned that lake shore owners may be required to pull a <br /> special use permit, which would mean additional fees. He feels it would be <br /> discriminatory to force lake shore owners to pull a special use permit to put up a fence. <br /> Truman Jeffers, 2178 Lake Brook, stated that having one person complain about fencing <br /> that may obstruct their view is not enough of a reason to generate an ordinance. He <br /> added that he currently has a fence and does not know of any complaints that may have <br /> been generated. He stated that in the presentation by staff there was a reference that all <br /> existing fences would be grandfathered, but he did not see it in the proposed ordinance. <br /> C:`,Documents and Settings\Igoepe 1 ocal Settings Tcmpoialy Intel net Filcti\OI.K28V07-18-2006(2).doc Page 5 of 13 <br />