09-25-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 Fahey pointed out that the question is what ordinance with the neighbors like the City to adopt given the recommended standards. Fahey noted that Maplewood has adopted a setback of 100 feet. He also noted that the standard in the State Statute is the edge of the easement. City staff is recommending a policy be adopted establishing a 50 foot setback from the edge of the easement. Fahey felt that the focus should be requiring the appropriate safety standards during construction as well as including design standards as part of the plat that would minimize impacts should a rupture occur. Mrs. Kelly noted that the Office of Pipeline Safety has indicated that 2/3rds of the damage occurs within 150 feet of the pipe. Mrs. Kelly felt that the 150 foot standards was reasonable one for the City to consider. Fahey agreed that while a 150-foot standard appeared reasonable, he did not believe it would impact safety. Fahey also noted the City Attorney's position that depending on the size of the setback the City adopts, it could be subject to a taking and would have to buy the property. Fahey stated that he was not prepared to adopt a standards that would result in the City having to buy the property, especially with the State standard is that there should be no construction in the easement area. Fahey again stated that the way to impact safety would be during the construction phase of the project. Mrs. Kelly stated that she wanted to see the end result awin/win situation for both the property owners in being able to develop their property and the neighbors in terms of public safety. Scalze suggested that the Council consider the policy of a 50-foot setback from the edge of the easement. Montour suggested that prior to adopting the policy, all impacted property owners be invited to provide their input. Scalze suggested that the 50-foot policy be considered for future subdivisions, and noted that this would involve the Palmen property, the Heinel property, and the Mackin property. She did not feel the policy should be applied to existing development, even in those instances where a building maybe damaged and would have to be rebuilt. Fahey stated that he did not believe a policy was needed, and suggested that the City follow the State Statute of no development within the easement area. Anderson pointed out that the impact of a 50-foot policy on the Palmen property would be the loss of one lot. Anderson suggested that rather than adopt a policy, perhaps the City could have discussions with the developer 15