5.5. SR 09-20-1993
A.( ~(
( iI
-II'
EJ fi. River
ITEM 5.5.
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
STEVEN B. ACH, CITY PLANNER~~
DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE (DAVE
PATENAUDE, 19275 LANDER STREET)
ISSUE
Whether
refused
or amend
allowing
to pursue legal action against a resident
to removed a non-conforming fence from their
the amortization section of the Zoning
the fence to continue in existence.
who has
property,
Ordinance
BACKGROUND
This issue has been ongoing and unresolved since August, 1991.
The City Council has previously taken action relative to this
matter and staff has diligently tried to resolve the issue.
The following is a chronological list of events to this point:
e
August 16, 1991: Letter sent to Mr. Patenaude from
staff stating barbed wire fence is a nuisance and
should be removed by August 31, 1991.
August 26, 1991: Mr. Patenaude agrees to remove barbs
from fence. Staff and City Attorney believe this
makes the fence "less" of nuisance.
September 23, 1991: Mr. Patenaude's neighbor appears
before the City Council to express concern regarding
wire fence and safety issues. City Council agrees
the fence is not a dangerous situation since the
barbs have been removed.
April 20, 1992: City Council passes a fence ordinance
which prohibits electric, barbed, and barbless wire
fences as boundary fences, however, these fences are
allowed in the Al and RIa zoning districts for
agricultural purposes only (Mr. Patenaude's fence is
a boundary fence).
May 5, 1992: Mr. Patenaude is contacted by staff
informing him that his fence is non-conforming, and
because it has a value of less than $2,000, must be
removed within one year pursuant to the zoning
ordinance amortization criteria for non-conforming
structures.
e
May 24, 1993: Letter sent to Mr. Patenaude reminding
him the amortization period has expired and the fence
must be removed by June 14, 1993.
P.O. Box 490 · 13065 Orono Parkway · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
e
e
e
Code Enforcement
September 20, 1993
Page 2
June 30, 1993: Another letter is sent to Mr.
Patenaude asking for removal of the non-conforming
fence by July 15, 1993, or legal action will be taken.
Throughout this time, staff continues to receive complaints
from adjacent neighbors regarding dangerous aspects of the
fence and are requesting removal of the fence according to
ordinance.
CURRENT FENCE ORDINANCE
Staff is not asking the Council to consider amending the
fence ordinance. The fence standards as previously adopted are
appropriate. Unfortunately, Mr. Patenaude's case initiated the
code amendment which made his fence non-conforming.
COUNCIL ACTION
This issue is brought before the City Council at the request of
the City Attorney because any legal action against Mr.
Patenaude will involve the Attorney's assistance, therefore,
additional legal costs to the City. At this time, normal
operating procedures would be to pursue legal action to remove
the fence in violation of City ordinance.
OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
1. Direct staff and City Attorney to proceed with legal
action to remove the fence.
2. Amend the non-conforming section of the ordinance
removing the amortization period for buildings and
structures that have a value of less than $2,000.
These non-conforming buildings and structures would
be treated as others in a similar situation that are
phased out over time or at the time of development.