Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Garnec, Councilmembers Elvig, Kurak, Cook, Pearson, <br />Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if the property owner had indicated he only wanted one strand that would <br />be put out on a five inch extension on the outer post. <br /> <br />Ivh-. Konzack stated when he and Chris Anderson worked out an agreement on the fence Mr. <br />Anderson said that the electric wires would be on the inside and a brazier wire would be on the <br />outside. The first section of the fence would put one strand off halfway down all the way- across <br />and on the inside there would be three live wires and two non-live wires. When Mr. Anderson <br />inspected the fence and saw the two non-live wires he sent him a letter proposing action for the <br />City Attorney, indicating that he was in violation. Mr. Anderson came out again and at that point <br />they had a more solid a~eement, which was to cross no less than three wires on the outside that <br />would be barriers. <br /> <br />Community Development Assistant Anderson explained the concern was for each electric wire <br />there would be a non-live wire on the outside. <br /> <br />Council consensus was .to allow two live wires and two barrier wires. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Pearson, based on the 23 <br />Findings of Fact, that the City Council of the City of Ramsey herein declares affirmation of the <br />ruling as described in the Zoning Administrator letter dated November 20, 2003, as the decision <br />relating to a request for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Interpretation of Ramsey city Code <br />relating to permitted fence mater/als in an R-1 Residential zoning district on the property o.wned <br />by Bruce and Karen Konzack. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Strommen clarified approval of this motion would affirm <br />the current location of the fence on the property. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich responded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated he disa~ees with this motion and will be voting negatively. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig expressed concern that the City has a less-than adequate ordinance for <br />fencing and it leaves staff exposed in trying to play God in hot issues between neighbors. In the <br />discussions with neighbors and this property owner there was a good suggestion to move this <br />electric fence back a couple of feet. Some of the findings support this. Some of the other City <br />ordinances in front of the Council tonight have very much the same language as that. He sees <br />rationale in doing this and had tried to press for it originally. He would like to press for it at this <br />point also. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated he would be very glad to look at changing the ordinance, but <br />tonight the gentleman putting the fence in obeyed the present ordinance. He did everything <br />asked of the ordinance, including coining to staff and asking for approval of an optional fencing <br />material. The ordinance does not state any setbacks. It is wrong to have someone go through <br />that procedure that the City ordinance sets down, and have a ruling to put a fence in, and then to <br />require him to move the fence. The current ordinance states he can have it there. If the Council <br />adopts one of the other two conclusions he will be recommending the City pay for the moving of <br />the fence, since the property owner did not break any ordinances. <br /> <br />P40 <br /> <br />City Council/February 10, 2004 <br /> Page t2 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />