Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 <br />BOUNDARY <br />LINE FENCES <br />The City Planner presented an ordinance amendment <br />relating to boundary line fencing. The Planner <br />indicated that this amendment is the result of a <br />request by the City Administrator to make the ordinance <br />clearer with regard to this type of fencing. <br />Garske questioned requiring placement of boundary line <br />fences five feet from the property line, pointing out <br />that if two adjacent properties were fenced, there <br />would be ten feet of "no man's land" between the <br />fences. <br />The City Planner reported that with written permission <br />of the adjacent property owner, boundary line fencing <br />could be right up to the property line. <br />DeLonais asked how other cities address boundary line <br />fencing. <br />The City Planner replied that this issue comes up in <br />every other city and it is a difficult one. However, <br />the Planner felt the less technical the ordinance the <br />better. The Planner reported that some cities require <br />a recordable document spelling out responsibility for <br />maintenance of the area along the backside of the <br />fence. <br />The Commission discussed the distance which should be <br />required between boundary line fences and property <br />lines and felt a three -foot separation was preferable <br />to five. <br />Mr. Garske recommended adoption of the ordinance <br />amending the municipal code of the City of Little <br />Canada, regarding boundary line fences with an <br />amendment to paragraph 2. Location. from "five" feet to <br />"three" feet, and an amendment to paragraph 2. a. from <br />"ten" feet to "six" feet. <br />Motion was seconded by Knudsen. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />WILDLIFE The City Planner presented a proposed ordinance <br />FENCING amendment addressing temporary special purpose fences <br />which provide protection from natural elements. <br />9 <br />Page 12 <br />