Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,March 20, 2023 <br /> Page 7 <br /> only applies to riparian lots. She personally did not think a "shall" needed to be <br /> added or needed to reference riparian. She would also get concerned about the <br /> DNR having questions about what the City is doing with that language because this <br /> is language the City staff specifically negotiated with the DNR on. <br /> Councilmember Etten explained the word "shall" is already in the language so for <br /> him, a phrase that starts "Variances for riparian lots that allow a structure to...". <br /> He thought the only wording that needed to be added was"for riparian lots"which <br /> is really what this is addressing. He thought adding that wording clarifies that. He <br /> indicated the second clause could be removed but he thought that needs to be in <br /> there for riparian lots that go over twenty-five percent. <br /> Mayor Roe thought it appeared that the three conditions or requirements apply to <br /> either variances allowing a structure within the ordinary high-water level or <br /> variances that allow more impervious coverage. It does apply to both of those <br /> situations, and he thought Councilmember Etten's point being was the more <br /> impervious coverage could be on a non-riparian lot. <br /> Councilmember Etten indicated that was not correct. His concern was that no lot <br /> that is not riparian could satisfy these clauses, but the City is not separating those <br /> out, the wording just indicates that the City"shall include the following minimum <br /> conditions", and no one can do these conditions if they do not have a lake lot. <br /> Ms. Gundlach explained the reason she did not think a clarification is needed is that <br /> the conditions that fall under paragraph B can only be met by a riparian lot. It does <br /> not need to be clarified in the language there. She hated to speak for the DNR <br /> without having a conversation, but she could not imagine the DNR would be con- <br /> cerned about it. She did not think it changed how this actually get implemented <br /> and does not change the meaning of it. <br /> Councilmember Etten wondered if the City would run into problems because it does <br /> not separate out that this is only for riparian lots by the little letters 1-3. The City <br /> understands it has to be but the language above it does not separate that out, leaving <br /> all of the properties in the same boat. <br /> Ms. Gundlach explained a non-riparian lot cannot restore twenty percent of their <br /> contiguous shoreline because they do not have any. <br /> Councilmember Etten explained a non-riparian lot can allow more impervious <br /> surface coverage than the standards and then the City is saying the property owner <br /> shall do this, they shall plant natural vegetation on the shoreline. That is why he <br /> wanted the change. He thought it was unclear in the sense that the City is trying to <br /> lump in both groups and separated out and it is clearly for riparian lots. He <br />