My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-08-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
08-08-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2008 12:05:00 PM
Creation date
7/23/2008 11:52:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTF,S <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />ALIGLIST 8, 2002 <br />Jensen responded that construction standards have changed since then, and <br />under today's standards a D-9 Caterpillar would not be allowed over a <br />pipeline. Jensen reported that the Williams Pipeline engineers have not <br />reviewed the development plans, therefore, no recommendations have <br />been developed at this point. <br />Barbara Allan reported that Dan Jensen sketched out the Williams Pipeline <br />easement that runs through the area back in February or March of this <br />year. Allan reported that the easement at the back of Sieve Brausen's <br />property extends into the Palman property. Steve Brausen estimated that <br />the easement extends 13.5 feet into the Palman property at that location. <br />McDonald reported that a registered land surveyor checked the records <br />and did not locate that information. McDonald also reported that when <br />they get the Williams Pipeline report on this development, they will go <br />through the list and report their response to each point made. <br />Barbara Allan felt that the report from Williams Pipeline should have been <br />received prior Co preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission. <br />Allan reported that Charles I<enow, Administrator for the Oftice of <br />Pipeline Safety is not very excited about the development plan. She noted <br />that the cities of Woodbury and Maplewood have adopted a'dinauces that <br />require an additional 50 feet of setback from pipelines over what is <br />requirement in State Statute. Allan reported that as long as the City has <br />not approved any development plans, the City can adopt an ordinance <br />requiring greater setbacks than those required by the State. Allan <br />indicated that she intends to ask the City Council to consider adopting an <br />ordinance that adds 50 feet to the required pipeline setback. <br />Allan pointed out that no one has been able to assure her that an accident <br />will not happen during or after construction. She Doted that Williams will <br />do their best to keep their pipe sate, but there are no assurances. Allan <br />also pointed out that there are quite a few large trees that will be uprooted <br />as part of the construction project, and pointed out that uprooting trees <br />could cause problems with the pipe. <br />Allan pointed out the improved fire rating that the City recently obtained, <br />and suggested the City take public safety another step forward and adopt <br />an ordinance adding SO feet to the required setback for pipelines. <br />Roycraft indicated that he has concerns about the environment and water <br />quality. However, if the development proposal meets requirements as they <br />currently exist, the Commission will have to make decisions. Roycraft <br />questioned changing ordinances for one particular area of the City versus <br />the City overall. <br />9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.