Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 26, 1994 <br />Peckman felt that the ordinance as written would <br />penalize property owners who want to erect a fence when <br />a boundary line fence already exists. Peckman <br />indicated that this amendment requires a separation <br />between fences. <br />The Administrator pointed out that the existing <br />ordinance requires a 3 foot separation between £ences. <br />Hanson was concerned that should a neighbor give <br />permission for a fence to be constructed on the <br />property line, and that neighbor sells his property to <br />someone who does not like the fence, there could be a <br />problem. <br />The City Attorney pointed out that the agreement could <br />be recorded which would serve as notice to the new <br />property owner. <br />Pedersen pointed out that there is the requirement for <br />a separation between fences no matter what happens <br />tonight. <br />Peckman stated that he preferred the ordinance not be <br />changed at this point until he decides what he wants to <br />do with his situation. <br />Hanson suggested that the City obtain the fence <br />ordinances of adjacent cities to determine what their <br />requirements are. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 94-10-372 - CONTINUING THE PUBLIC <br />FIEARING ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO BOUNDARY <br />LINE FENCES FOR TWO SEEKS AND INSTRUCTING CITY STAFF TO <br />DETERMINE WHAT THE ADJACENT CITIES REQUIRE IN THIS <br />REGARD <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Scalze, Hanson, Pedersen, Morelan. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />TEMPORARY Hanson opened the public hearing to consider an <br />oFF-SITE ordinance regarding temporary off-site signs as <br />SIGNS AS prohibited signs. Hanson pointed out that this matter <br />13 <br />