|
2
<br />C)( not suggest a 1 -inch gap, but the 10% minimum.•••••On. a 6-inch,wide board,
<br />would be slightly more than 1/2 inch (.6 inches).
<br />On 12/1/95, 1 had been told by both Dave Ahrens, the city engineer, and the city
<br />building department, that Hokanson Development wilt be installing the fence about
<br />one foot from the property line, on _"his side. FOR THE. RECORD, 1;hatis acceptable
<br />to me, sifiee I am no longer 'a party of it.
<br />had asked you in the phone.conversation on .12/6/95, about the height of the
<br />privacy fence, of (if the ground. You had .aid that there were no documented
<br />specifieations on this detail. FOR THE. RECORD, 1 refer it to be positioned, cloSe
<br />to the ground level, instead of 12 inches above, for maximum privacy. -
<br />In this sathe phone conversation, you had also stated that Hokanson Development
<br />will be installing alternating 10 -foot posts without concrete, and 8 -foot posts
<br />with concrete -- to adequately support the fence in this sandy soil, on the.
<br />As 1 already told you, that is acceptable to me, FOR THE RECORD.
<br />This privacy fence on the east side of my property has heyeL been the •major
<br />point of contefition between Hokanson and myself -- it was the suggested material
<br />used for tfie north fence, that we couldn't agree on.
<br />For the City's record". 1 want it stated that the complete omission of a fence
<br />on the north boundary of my property is totally unacceptable to we. I still
<br />strongly feel -that I need that .5 or 6 -foot chain-link fence there. As 1 understand
<br />it, you had "dusted the cobwebs" off of some obsolete "pool" fence ordinance, that
<br />you unexpectedly discovered,• about a 4 -foot unclimbable" fence, being adequate
<br />against trespassing for. pools. This is a hobby far -m, not a pool! The "key word"
<br />here that is being over -looked, is "onclimbable. With the two horizontal 2x4
<br />rails on my 4 -foot fence, it is very convenient and sturdy to hop from Ode to
<br />side. Of course, this now supports t!it • Hokanson will•not be required, to install
<br />a fence on that north side. 111 wish the staff would work as diligently on my
<br />behalf, as a resident and a taxpayer, as they do for helping the developer,
<br />finding loopholes" to benefit Ii!!1
<br />We had talked about that steep slope along this north fence line. I was tfie one
<br />who had stated that it is so steep, it will be difficult for anyofie to mow i. And
<br />you had then replied, that the steep slope, along with -my fence at; the top, will
<br />both work at deterring trespassing together. Well, at the top of that slope, there
<br />a few feet of flat. area, which will support anyone, wishing to climb over: And
<br />as you move west, along that fence line, the slope drastically decreases to level
<br />ground, which makes my property back there, even more accessible to trespass. The
<br />existence of that slope and my fence are irrelevant issues --. and neither are
<br />• aeceptable to deter trespass.
<br />Your 11/30/95 letter says that "my fence in addition to the plantings, should
<br />adequately deter trespassing".1 disagree that these trees-havethat function,
<br />because people will easily walk between them. The trees are only a visual buffer,
<br />JI(A, a deterrent.
<br />The landscape plan that you enclosed indicates only '7 trees on that first row .• . .
<br />. . . • • • • .•• • . • • . . . ,
<br />• near my north fence. From my estimate, to where the pond is located, that is ahoit
<br />. • . • • • . .
<br />250 feet or so 7- roughly 35 feet between trees. As 1 mentioned to you on the ...
<br />phone about this, 1 don't wafit to wait 10-20 years 1or these trees to mature, to
<br />
|