Laserfiche WebLink
that they will end up in his pasture. He stated he has talked with Mr. Peterson who is willing to <br />leave the existing trees as a barrier and the existing barbed wire fence and cedar post wire mesh <br />Elk fence that is around part of his property. Mr. Weichet asked the Planning Commission to <br />consider something adequate to keep the kids out of his pasture. He noted that the other <br />neighbor, Mr. Mott, has pastureland and shares the same concern. He stated it appears that Mr. <br />Peterson is willing to take care of this problem so he wants that included in the consideration to <br />assure it happens. <br /> <br />David Mott, 15425 County Road 5, stated he has a mutual agreement for pasture land with Mr. <br />Weichett and shares the concerns he expressed to protect the children and his property as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson, Oakwood Land Development, stated he has had conversations at the home of Mr. <br />Weichet and they have spoken more tonight. He stated that at the concept review he mentioned <br />the eight-foot high Elk fence that does not have barbed wire and is not visually offensive, so he is <br />willing leave that fence. He displayed a picture and stated the property line is through the middle <br />of a thicket and that is where the barbed wire fence is located. He stated he would prefer putting <br />in a shorter fence than an eight-foot high fence. He stated he would not want to be required to <br />install a fence through the wetland due to DNR restrictions. Also he does not think children will <br />walk through that wetland area. Mr. Peterson asked that he be allowed to work out a mutually <br />agreeable fencing arrangement with these neighbors. He stated they can then also decide where <br />it would be located with possible limitations. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak asked who would maintain the fence. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated it would be located on the property line and be a low or no maintenance <br />fence. He stated it would be on their lots so, theoretically, the residents of Wildlife 3rd would be <br />able to take it down. He stated he is being asked to address the movement of the community's <br />children and there are limitations in doing that. He stated that he would be willing to place the <br />fence on their (Wilsheilt and Mott) land so they would then be responsible to maintain it. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that under these circumstances, where they are making the request and <br />the applicant is willing to do so, then locating the fence on their lot would address the concern <br />about the fence coming down. He stated he would not want to consider a location that involves <br />maintenance issues for the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if they could reach that agreement prior to Council consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Weichett stated he would be willing to have the fence located on his property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated it would be better to have that issue resolved prior to Council <br />consideration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve asked if a fence exists along that property line now. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 7, 2002 <br /> Page 7 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />