Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 5 <br /> January 20,2015 <br /> 9.2 Fencing and Agricultural Animals <br /> Mr. Carlton presented the staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation. He <br /> provided handouts of the current state statute,the city's ordinance amendment <br /> adopted in October 2014, and the current ordinance as shown in the city's code. He <br /> requested council direction regarding the two separate issues requiring discussion: <br /> regulating fencing setbacks, and the use of keeping of agricultural animals in the R1a, <br /> b, c,and d districts. <br /> Councilmember Burandt explained the section of the state statute that she felt was <br /> being ignored, regarding the requirement of a partition fence on properties that, <br /> when combined,totaled 20 acres or more (in any area, rural or closer to city limits). <br /> She felt if smaller properties didn't fit state statute requirements, cities could then <br /> have ordinances controlling where fences are required. But if properties are <br /> combined and meet state statute requirements for a partition fence, a fence is already <br /> in place and located on a property line, cities shouldn't require property owners to <br /> install a second fence to comply with ordinance setbacks (5' or 100' from the <br /> property line). She felt this was unnecessary, expensive, and in her opinion,not a <br /> situation requiring a concern for public safety, expressing her experience as a farmer <br /> of animals. <br /> Councilmember Wagner asked and received clarification of what is required if a <br /> property owner wants to establish a new use of the property by keeping animals. <br /> Counselor Beck explained that the city's zoning ordinance,written by him in 1980, <br /> was modeled around other community's ordinances in an attempt to reconcile the <br /> juxtaposition of urban and rural development. He stated the statute outlines what is <br /> used for a partition fence,which does allow barbed wire. He explained the setback <br /> requirements are a separate issue that has been in place for a long time and didn't <br /> find it unusual to see this challenge as rural and residential areas begin to blend. He <br /> stated the council can develop a policy change and not require a 5' or 100' setback. <br /> He stated ordinances are put in place to achieve public health, safety, and welfare <br /> standards of its residents. <br /> Councilmember Olsen felt the setback was overkill. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard asked if there was a good,logical reason to keep animals <br /> back from a fence and why a distance was established. He asked when a new <br /> development comes in for small hobby farmers, does the city take into consideration <br /> the setback when determining lot sizes, and does the city currently have non- <br /> conforming lots? He stated he represents this area of the city and most residents he <br /> spoke to either didn't know the requirements of the ordinance,and were fearful the <br /> city would suddenly begin enforcing it. He didn't feel it was necessary to require a <br /> setback. <br /> Counselor Beck recalled setbacks for agricultural buildings were somewhat of a <br /> subject back in the past,but doesn't recall if fencing setbacks were discussed much. <br /> P 0 W I R I D 9 Y <br /> 1`4M UREI <br />