CCP 09-26-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. public process, all lake shore property owners were notified of the proposed amendment and were allowed to submit written comments and attend a public hearing on the matter. On July 18th the Planning Commission help the public hearing, but ultimately tabled the proposal and requested that staff conduct additional research. After closing the public hearing the Planning Commission directed staff to draft an amendment that allows certain types of fences that would minimally impact views. This direction aimed to find a common ground between preserving a view while addressing safety issues and narrowing the field of potential Special Use Permits. Staff took this direction to mean that certain types of fences that should be considered as allowed, if for example, they could be opaque and/or with height limitations. . Since the July 25th public hearing, staff has heard from a majority of the Council that there is waning interest in considering this legislation. As a result, staff has not prepared any additional information or re-drafted the proposed code amendment. On August 9th, the City Planner conferred with the Commission Chair about a proposed strategy for completing the discussion. Those options are to make no formal recommendation, recommend that the Council consider the code amendment with suggested changes, recommend that the Council simply deny the proposed code amendment, some other recommendation not noted. Baker stated that he would agree to deny the ordinance, but it is worth while to consider a shore land ordinance in the future. Joyce Danger, 1532 16th Terrace NW, stated that she has a letter from Bob Nichols, the Ramsey County Tax Assessor, that states a fence on an adjoining property would significantly reduce the property values of several homes in the area. She has also researched the surrounding communities and found that there are several shore land ordinances that regulate fences that would inhibit a lake view. She strongly supports management of the lake shore properties and suggested that if the Commission is uncomfortable with the fencing ordinance that another option would be to allow neighbors to sign document stating that they agree to the fence going up on a neighboring property. Motion by Baker, Second by Schiferl to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Baker stated that he would recommend the Commission to deny the ordinance and suggest that the Council direct staff to create a shore land ordinance some time in the future. O'Keefe replied that he agrees with Baker's recommendation. Motion by Baker, Second by Schiferl to DENY THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT, BUT RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO RESEARCH SHORELAND . MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES IN THE FUTURE. Page 5 ofl4