Laserfiche WebLink
5. COMMITTEE BUSINESS <br />5.01: Consideration of Permitting Fence Encroachments across Private Property Lines <br />City Engineer Westby reviewed the staff report, noting the City' s policy requires landowners to <br />install fences a foot or more inside their property line in areas where a potential infrastructure <br />conflict exists. He advised of the City' s current policy and displayed pictures depicting this <br />situation. As a result, within the Ramsey Town Center 10 Addition, fences are staggered along <br />rear property lines to avoid damaging an existing underground storm sewer system, resulting in <br />the unintended consequence of creating remnant strips of land two or more feet in width between <br />rear fence lines in which property owners are not able to easily maintain their properties so there <br />are blight and nuisance issues. It was noted the resident's request is to extend their side lot line <br />fencing across their rear property line to connect to their neighbor' s fence, thereby allowing a <br />shared common rear fence line that would eliminate the remnant strips of property between <br />fences. City Engineer Westby presented staff's recommendation to change the policy to allow <br />neighbors to extend fences across private property lines to connect to neighbor's fences <br />contingent on language being added to the building fence permit to ensure that: City <br />infrastructure will be protected during fence construction activities; access to City infrastructure <br />will be maintained on an on -going basis; property owners will not lose property rights as related <br />to adverse possession laws; and, property owners are reminded to obtain permission from <br />neighbors via a written agreement. He presented the draft language as detailed in the staff report <br />and explained the statute relating to adverse possession. City Engineer Westby stated staff is <br />able to revise the permit language, if so directed. <br />Chairperson Backous stated the Public Works Committee is familiar with this request, noting it <br />had been misunderstood that the request was to construct fences on the property line. However, <br />the request is to stretch a fence to the property line to connect with those posts. He noted the <br />property owners will have to decide who will have the posts on their property and who will have <br />to stretch their fence to attach to the posts. <br />City Engineer Westby stated that is a civil matter between two private property owners. Staff <br />recommends having a written agreement and working with the City Attorney to prepare a draft <br />template that property owners could expand upon. <br />Chairperson Backous stated this would provide more flexibility and not be a requirement, but an <br />option, so he would not object. <br />Motion by Chairperson Backous, seconded by Councilmember Kuzma, to recommend that the <br />City Council change the City policy allowing fences to be extended across property lines, <br />contingent on the draft (building) fence permit language being reviewed and approved by the <br />City Attorney and subsequently added to all (building) fence permits issued in the future. <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Riley asked if fences will be allowed side -to -side and also <br />front -to -back and across the utility easements, limiting the City' s ability for access of the <br />easement. He felt some day in the future the City will need to remove someone's fence and <br />Public Works Committee / July 16, 2013 <br />Page 2 of 9 <br />