01-20-2015 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Afinutes January 20, 2015 ------------------- - - - - -- 9.2 Fencing and Agricultural Animals Page 5 Mr. Carlton presented the staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation. He provided handouts of the current state statute, the city's ordinance amendment adopted in October 2014, and the current ordinance as shown in the city's code. He requested council direction regarding the two separate issues requiring discussion: regulating fencing setbacks, and the use of keeping of agricultural animals in the R1 a, b, c, and d districts. Councilmember Burandt explained the section of the state statute that she felt was being ignored, regarding the requirement of a partition fence on properties that, when combined, totaled 20 acres or more (in any area, rural or closer to city limits). She felt if smaller properties didn't fit state statute requirements, cities could then have ordinances controlling where fences are required. But if properties are combined and meet state statute requirements for a partition fence, a fence is already in place and located on a property line, cities shouldn't require property owners to install a second fence to comply with ordinance setbacks (5' or 100' from the property line). She felt this was unnecessary, expensive, and in her opinion, not a situation requiting a concern for public safety, expressing her experience as a farmer of animals. Councilmember Wagner asked and received clarification of what is required if a property owner wants to establish a new use of the property by keeping animals. Counselor Beck explained that the city's zoning ordinance, written by him in 1980, was modeled around other community's ordinances in an attempt to reconcile the juxtaposition of urban and rural development. He stated the statute outlines what is used for a partition fence, which does allow barbed wire. He explained the setback requirements are a separate issue that has been in place for a long time and didn't find it unusual to see this challenge as rural and residential areas begin to blend. He stated the council can develop a policy change and not require a 5' or 100' setback. He stated ordinances are put in place to achieve public health, safety, and welfare standards of its residents. Councilmember Olsen felt the setback was overkill. Councilmember Westgaard asked if there was a good, logical reason to keep animals back from a fence and why a distance was established. He asked when a new development comes in for small hobby farmers, does the city take into consideration the setback when determining lot sizes, and does the city currently have non- conforming lots? He stated he represents this area of the city and most residents he spoke to either didn't know the requirements of the ordinance, and were fearful the city would suddenly begin enforcing it. He didn't feel it was necessary to require a setback. Counselor Beck recalled setbacks for agricultural buildings were somewhat of a subject back in the past, but doesn't recall if fencing setbacks were discussed much. IiNATUR