Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C:\Documents and Settings\jgoepe\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK28\07-18-2006 (2).doc Page 4 of 13 <br />Approved <br /> <br />While the draft ordinance amendment will establish different fence standards for <br />lakeshore properties, there are a couple of additional issues worth noting. First, the City <br />does not require a building or zoning permit for a fence that is less than six feet in height. <br />As a practical matter, there would be no administrative process to ensure compliance, <br />unless the zoning code is changed to require a permit for any fence constructed on a <br />lakeshore lot (regardless of height). At a minimum, this would provide a zoning review <br />to ensure that the placement is consistent with the new code requirements. <br /> <br />Second, any existing fence on a lakeshore property that does not meet the new <br />requirement would be non-conforming. One option to address this issue would be to <br />establish an effective date, which essentially “grandfathers” pre-existing fences under the <br />code. The difficulty with this option is that it would be very difficult to determine the <br />date of construction, since the City has not required fence permits in the past. A more <br />realistic option would be to simply prohibit all fences within the setback area on <br />lakeshore lots and the non-conformities created by the proposed ordinance could be <br />addressed at the time an owner decides to either re-build the fence or a land use/building <br />permit action is triggered. In such circumstances, the owner could eliminate the non- <br />conformity or apply for a non-conforming use permit. <br /> <br />Lastly, under the existing fence regulations property owners would still have the ability to <br />apply for a Special Use Permit to erect a fence not meeting the requirements of the <br />Section. This may be important in that property owners may want to construct a pool <br />where a 6’ fence is required under the City Code. Under this scenario the Planning <br />Commission and Council would have the opportunity to review the proposed fence <br />location and fence height/materials in an effort to lessen any negative impacts that may <br />result. The Special Use Standards of Section 8-130 and Section 4-540 (3) (F) would <br />apply. <br /> <br />Schiferl inquired why this ordinance is directed only at fences and if this ordinance <br />includes accessory buildings. Gundlach replied that the specific concern was if a <br />neighbor were to put up a six foot tall fence then the view across the neighbor’s yard <br />would disappear and that the value of their property decreases. Gundlach continued that <br />staff was directed to approach the amendment only in terms of fence regulations, nothing <br />more. Therefore, accessory buildings are not addressed, however that was an issue <br />addressed in at least one letter that the City received. Gundlach stated that several years <br />ago a zoning code amendment was passed that allows lake shore property owners the <br />ability to put an accessory structure in their front yards, which is not allowed any other <br />residential zoning district. <br /> <br />Schiferl asked why this zoning change is addressing only DNR classified lakes. <br />Gundlach replied that those were chosen because they are easy to define, but it could be <br />opened up to any and all types of bodies of water. The issue becomes what types of <br />bodies of water should be regulated. Schiferl inquired if staff had considered starting