Agenda - Council - 01/13/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-192- letter was sent out, Staff contacted one of the members of the HorSe Care Board, Dorothy Breu, for her opinion on the situation. ~[rs. Breu reviewed the letter that had been sent to the Konzaks and informed Staff that one (i) foot "arms", which were called out in the letter, did not exist. She did inform Staff that there were five (5) inch "arms" that were available and this might be an option (arms provide an opportunity to offset the live wire(s) inside the fence). M_rs. Breu did not find the request for an electric fence to be unusual. In fact, it is a common practice for electric fences to be used in conjunction with horses. When these five (5) inch "arms" were suggested to the Konzaks, they stated that the "arms" could not withstand the tens/on that would be required to maintain a taught fence over some of the uneven terrain. They were certain that the "arms" would snap off from the pressure. On August 6, 2003, another letter was drafted with a revised proposal for the electric fence. This letter included input fi.om Councilmember Elvig, who had been contacted by both the property owners and some of the surrounding neighbors. The proposal stated that the live wires of the fence were to be affixed to insulators on the inside of the posts while the non-live wires would be affixed to the outside of the posts, which would provide some separation between adjoining properties and the live wires. Furthermore, the Konzaks had agreed to only turn the fence on as needed (such as a horse rubbing against the fence for example). Also, if feasible, the Konzaks would attempt to install the fence one to two (1-2) feet inside their property line to further distance the live wires fi.om the adjoining properties. In early October, Staff received a couple of phone calls from surrounding neighbors stating that the fence was being installed but that it was not in accordance with what the City had approved. An inspection of the fence was conducted and it was apparent that all five (5) wires were being installed on the inside of the fence. This, in fact, was not in accordance with Staff's guidelines for the electric fence. On October 9, 2003, a tburth letter was drafted and sent to the Konzaks regarding the installation of the fence. This letter stated that the guidelines established in the letter dated August 6, 2003, must be followed when installing the fence and if they were not, this matter would be forwarded to the City Attorney for court action. This did prompt Bruce to contact the City and set up a meeting on site. On November 14, 2003, Staff met Mr. Konzak on site to view the portion of the fence that had already been installed and to review the situation overall. Mr. Konzak explained that the wires needed to be on the inside of the posts to withstand pressure from the animals if they were to lean against it. This seemed to be a reasonable explanation, but it did not relieve them of the requirement to have strands on the outside of the posts to create the separation discussed earlier. Mr. Konzak agreed to install three (3) strands on the outside of each post. Since these would not have to be as taught as the inner lines, he would affix them to five (5) inch "arms" in an effort to provide a greater barrier between the potentially live wires and the adjoining properties. Mr. Konzak agreed not to turn on the fence until construction was 100% completed. This included the three (3) non-live strands that would be installed on the outside of the posts. Also, he reiterated the fact that the fence would only be turned on if/when necessary. After this meeting, Staff drafted a final letter to the Konzaks reiterating what was discussed at the meeting. The letter was sent out on November 20, 2003. Once an agreement had been reached,