Minutes - Council - 01/13/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

fence on as needed (such as a horse rubbing against the fence for example). Also, if feasible, the Konzaks would attempt to install the fence one to two (1-2) feet inside their property line to further distance the live wires from the adjoining properties. In early October, staff received a couple of phone calls from surrounding neighbors stating that the fence was being installed but that it was not in accordance with what the City had approved. An inspection of the fence was conducted and it was apparent that all five (5) wires were being installed on the inside of the fence. This, in fact, was not in accordance with Staff's guidelines for the electric fence. On October 9, 2003, a fourth letter was drafted and sent to the Konzaks regarding the installation of the fence. This letter stated that the guidelines established in the letter dated August 6, 2003, must be followed when installing the fence and if they were not., this matter would be forwarded to the City Attorney for court action. This did prompt Bruce Konzak to contact the City and set up a meeting on site. On November 14, 2003, Staff met Mr. Konzak on site to view the portion of the fence that had already been installed and to review the situation overall. Mr. Konzak explained that the wires needed to be on the inside of the posts to withstand pressure from the animals if they were to lean against it. This seemed to be a reasonable explanation, but it did not relieve them of the requirement to have strands on the outside of the posts to create the separation discussed earlier. Mr. Konzak agreed to install three (3) strands on the outside of each post. Since these would not have to be as taught as the inner lines, he would affix them to five (5) inch "arms" in an effort to provide a greater barrier between the potentially live wires and the adjoining properties. Mr. Konzak agreed not to turn on the fence until construction was 100% completed. This included the three (3) non-live strands that would be installed on the outside of the posts. Also, he reiterated the fact that the fence would only be turned on if/when necessary. After this meeting, Staff drafted a final letter to the Konzaks reiterating what was discussed at the meeting. The letter was sent out on November 20, 2003. Once an agreement had been reached, Staff also sent out a notice to each of the surrounding properties updating them on the matter. These letters were sent out on November 24, 2003. On December 23, 2003, Staff received two appeals regarding Staff's ruling on the electric fence. According to section 9.03.09 (Administrative Appeals) of City Code, appeals received within thirty (30) days of the ruling of the Zoning Administrator shall be valid and presented to the Board of Appeals (City Council) for a ruling on the matter. Bruce Konzak, 16620 Zirconium Street NW, Ramsey, stated that he was not sure if the appeal was because of the fencing material or because the fence is electric. Community Development Director Frolik replied that it is an appeal based on the type of fencing material, but the fact that the fence is electric is probably a concern of the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Konzak explained that the purpose of the electric fence is to contain the animals within the fenced area onhis property. A couple of years ago they had an issue where the existing fence was cut and his horses got out. When they started installing the new fence he felt that he was quite reasonable with asking the surrounding property owners to remove their items that were encroaching on his property. After realizing just how much encroachment was happening on his property it became important to them to better identify their property lines. A lot of stuff has been dumped on their property and they also have a drainfield that has encroached onto their property. As it relates to the trees, they had the City of Ramsey Environmental Specialist Bruce Bacon come out to look at the trees on the property and he recommended that the trees be thinned out, which they are doing. City Council/January 13, 2004 Page 9 of 24