06/10/1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 learn from the past so that the same mistakes are not made again. She explained that the problem in the Clearwater Creek area occurred when the model homes were on display and before any houses were occupied. There was no one else in the audience to speak on this issue. Council Member Bergeson said that when the City Council discussed this agreement with the City Attorney, the City. Council accepted the concept that anyone adjacent to the development who wanted a fence could have a fence. In regard to the Sue Walseth property, does the fact that the City has a separate fence agreement on her property take her property out of the group that has an option of getting this proposed fencing? Mr. Hawkins said yes, the fence agreement that is under discussion tonight does not involve Trapper's Crossing, Phase 1. He reminded the City Council that the Walseth fence issue went to arbitration and the parties could not come to an agreement. There was a wide disparity of what the Walseth's wanted and what the developer wanted. The staff made a decision to issue a permit for a board on board fencing on one side of the Walseth property and put landscaping at the bottom of the fence already on the Walseth property. Staff felt that this decision met the intent of the Council's approval to deter trespassing. Somebody had to make a decision because the two (2) parties involved could not come to an agreement. Mr. Hawkins said that normally, these types of disputes are decided by a staff decision. Council Member Bergeson said that he thought that the City Council was still dealing with the Jensen's and the LaMotte's whose property border Phase 1. Mr. Hawkins said that these property owners indicated that they did not want fencing. Council Member Bergeson said that he has had a fence of the same design that is being proposed for the southern part of Trapper's Crossing. He said he did not think that the posts were particularly dangerous however he did share the concern with the wire sticking up. Council Member Bergeson suggested that the Council approve the fence subject to the wire being turned down. He felt that this is a security issue but felt that the safety issue should also be addressed. Council Member Bergeson suggested that the fence be approved subject to the fact that there not be any sharp edges. He asked if this would be a small enough detail that would not violate the contract signed by the developer. Mr. Hawkins said that this is a cost issue and did not know if there is much difference in cost. Council Member Kuether said that safety is an issue that this Council must deal with. Mr. Hawkins said that the City Council do anything they want with the fence proposal. He did not know whether or not the developer would accept any changes. Council Member Neal moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Council Member Lyden said that he felt that the City Council is no farther along than last Council meeting. There is no signed agreement. There is no agreement on the fence only ideas of what the fence should or should not be. He said he did not feel it is the Council's PAGE 21