10-26-94 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 26, 1994 Hanson pointed out that one foot is a very restricted area in order to maintain the opposite side of the fence. Waite pointed out that under the proposed ordinance if there was a fence on a property line, and an adjacent neighbor wanted to fence his property, that fence would have to be placed 6 feet back. The neighbor is allowed full use of his or her property, while the other neighbor loses 6 feet. Morelan pointed out that a fence on a property line could be used as a common separation. Scalze suggested that 2. a. in the ordinance amendment be amended to require the 6 foot separation unless there is an existing fence on the property line. Morelan pointed out that the intent of the ordinance amendment is to make sure there is maintainable area on the opposite side of a fence. Waite felt that the Council was spending a lot of time on an issue that seems to be affecting only one property owner. Waite stated that there are ways to place a fence on a property line and construct that fence from one side of the property. Pre-treated lumber eliminates the need for maintenance of the side of the fence facing away from the property. The City Administrator pointed out that the fence could be damaged and sections could fall into the neighboring property. The Administrator also stated that the situation that has come up is not an isolated incident, and similar situations have occurred in the past. The City Planner pointed out that the original draft of the ordinance called for a 5 foot setback from a property line and a 10 foot separation between fences. However, the Planning Commission recommended that those distances be reduced to 3 feet and 6 feet, respectively. Scalze suggested that if item 2.a. in the ordinance amendment were deleted, a property owner would not be penalized by having to place a fence 6 feet from his property line. 12