Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br /> yard. What has been proposed makes no sense to him, and he supports at least a special <br /> use permit for permitted fences. <br /> Howard inquired if staff had considered any compromises to the ordinance. Gundlach <br /> replied that if directed by the Commission, staff could attempt to draft a proposal that <br /> allows for certain types of fences. Baker stated that he could see the need for a fence in <br /> certain situations, and he doesn't believe that a special use permit for each fence is <br /> reasonable. He added that there needs to be some criteria for what is acceptable for a <br /> fence so the Commission is not tied up with special use permits. Mann replied that the <br /> criteria for a special use permit states that it can not be harmful to neighboring properties <br /> so there may be a conflict. <br /> Schiferl stated that while lake shore owners don't want to be treated differently than non <br /> lake shore owners, the Council has already established a precedent when they passed the <br /> ordinance that allows accessory buildings in the front of their properties and there is <br /> additional history that supports that lake shore owners are treated differently. He stated <br /> that if the City decides to do something with the fence issue, then they should also look at <br /> the accessory building issue and landscaping issues that may also block a view of the <br /> lake. <br /> Baker stated to staff that the Commission feels that this should be delayed so that staff <br /> can address the issues that have been brought up at this meeting. Zisla replied that he <br /> would be willing to consider adding a special use permit, as long as there are guidelines <br /> and criteria to address them. Baker directed staff that there needs to additional standards <br /> added to the ordinance for what can occur on the lake shore in an attempt to have a fence <br /> ordinance that would meet everyone's needs. Fernelius replied that this ordinance was at <br /> the direction of the Council and if the Commission wishes to have a Shoreland <br /> Ordinance, then he recommends that proposal is included as part of the recommendation <br /> to the Council. The issue is that the Council directed a fencing ordinance, not a shore <br /> land ordinance which will take longer to put together than by the next Commission <br /> meeting. Zisla replied that the recommendation should be that there should be further <br /> analysis of how the fencing ordinance relates to other shore land restrictions. Schiferl <br /> stated that he would like additional information on what a shore land ordinance is and a <br /> few bullet points on how it would relate to the fencing ordinance. <br /> Gundlach replied that she understands that the Commission is looking for a relation <br /> between the fence issue and a shore land ordinance, generally what a shore land <br /> ordinance would mean to the City, establish a clear set of conditions that would allow a <br /> fence, address the health, safety, and welfare issue,plus conditions specifically related to <br /> lake shore lots. Schiferl added that a set of options with the pro and con attributes of <br /> each should also be included. Baker stated he would like to see what would be included <br /> in a Shoreland Ordinance. <br /> C:ADocuments and Settings goepe local Settings Temporal Internet Files\O1 K28\07-18-2006(2).doc Page 7 of 13 <br />