02/12/1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 1996 through nine (9) months of unnecessary stress beginning in March, 1995. She had been informed by everyone there (at city hall) time and time again that the City would not support her regarding the fence issue between herself and Hokanson Development and that she was entirely on her own. Then without warning, the rules changed. Staff re- evaluated the fencing buffer motion from August 8, 1994 and decided'that she was no longer a participant regarding the fence. She said she received this little news flash from Ms. Wyland who informed her that on the following day the City would be issuing Hokanson's fencing permit. Ms. Walseth said she asked Ms. Wyland if this could be possible since there had never been a mutual agreement between herself and Hokanson. Ms. Wyland explained that staff and Mr. Hokanson had arrived at a decision themselves. She asked why the City wasted her time for all of those months and subjected her to all that stress. It was a waste of her time to re -arrange her personal schedule to attend mediation services and other meetings, doing all the senseless research and doing fence price comparisons with 10 different companies and had to waste her time calculating all the fence prices and linear footage's for total estimated cost. Ms. Walseth thank the staff for being so inconsiderate of her feelings and her time. Why didn't the City competently decide this matter from its conception instead of making a 180 degree switch act like this at the end. Ms. Walseth said in telephone conversations with Ms. Wyland, she questioned the timing of the fence permit with winter in full force and the ground being frozen. Ms. Wyland explained that there was a warm spell forecasted for the coming week of December 1st through the 3rd and that Hokanson was quite anxious to begin installation of the fence at this time. Ms. Walseth said for the record, the warm spell during that week came and went and not one person was there to do any installation work on the fence. Ms. Walseth continued, the privacy fence on the east side of her property has never been a major point of contention between herself and Hokanson Development. It was the suggested material used for the north fence that was never agreed upon. For the record, Ms. Walseth stated that the complete omission of a fence on the north boundary of her property is totally unacceptable. She said that she feels strongly that a chain link fence is needed in this area. Ms. Walseth said that, as she understands it, the. staff had dusted the cob webs off of some obsolete pool ordinance that was unexpectedly discovered about a four (4) foot unclimbable fence being adequate for trespassing for pools. Ms. Walseth said this is a hobby farm, not a pool. The key word being overlooked here is "unclimbable". With two (2) 2 X 4 horizontal rails on the four (4) foot fence, it is very convenient and sturdy to hop from side to side. She said that, of course, Hokanson will not be required to install a fence buffer on the north side. Ms. Walseth said that she wished the staff would work as diligently on her behalf as a resident and tax payer as they do in helping a developer find loop holes to benefit him. Ms. Walseth said that in the August 28, 1995 Council minutes, page 2, Mayor Reinert instructed Ms. Wyland to work with the City Engineer to inform the other property owners living on the north side of Holly Drive, by letter, letting them know that they had a right to a fence buffer also. This action was necessary because at a July 1995 meeting at her home, with the developer and neighbors, Ms. Wyland had discouraged the other property owners from having an opportunity to receive a fence. Ms Walseth said for review, one of the conditions stated in the approval of Trapper's Crossing, was that the PAGE 8