07-18-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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