Minutes - Council - 02/10/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Attorney, indicating that he was in violation. Mr. Anderson came out again and at that point they had a more solid agreement, which was to cross no less than three wires on the outside that would be barriers. Community Development Assistant Anderson explained the concern was for each electric wire there would be a non-live wire on the outside. Council consensus was to allow two live wires and two barrier wires. Motion by Councihnember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Pearson, based on the 23 Findings of Fact, that the City Council of the City of Ramsey herein declares affirmation of the ruling as described in the Zoning Administrator letter dated November 20, 2003, as the decision relating to a request for appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Interpretation of Ramsey city Code relating to pemqitted fence materials in an R-1 Residential zoning district on the property owned by Bruce and Karen Konzack. Further discussion: Councilmember Strommen clarified approval of this motion would affinr~ the current location of the fence on the property. City Attorney Goodrich responded in the affirmative. Mayor Gamec stated he disagrees with this motion and will be voting negatively. Councilmember Elvig expressed concern that the City has a less than adequate ordinance for fencing and it leaves staff exposed in trying to play God in hot issues between neighbors. In the discussions with neighbors and this property owner there was a good suggestion to move this electric fence back a couple of feet. Some of the findings support this. Some of the other City ordinances in fi'ont of the Council tonight have very much the same language as that. He sees rationale in doing this and had tried to press for it originally. He would like to press for it at this point also. Councihnember Cook stated he would be very glad to look at changing the ordinance, but tonight the gentleman putting the fence in obeyed the present ordinance. He did everything asked of the ordinance, including coming to staff and asking for approval of an optional fencing material. The ordinance does not state any setbacks. It is wrong to have someone go through that procedure that the City ordinance sets down, and have a ruling to put a fence in, and then to require him to move the fence. The current ordinance states he can have it there. If the Council adopts one of the other two conclusions he will be recommending the City pay for the moving of the fence, since the property owner did not break any ordinances. Councilmember Strommen stated there was an agreement, either verbally or earlier in writing, and an attempt was made to include a one to two foot setback. The property owner was not able to do that, but he did not contact staff to say he could not do it. Instead, he put the fence in just six inches off of the property line. That is the problem she has, instead of being upfront the fence was just put in the current location. City Council/February 10, 2004 Page 13 of 18