Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 <br />the State as to what is a safe distance for construction from a pipeline. <br />Fahey pointed out that if a major mishap occurred, there would not be <br />much difference between a 50-foot setback and a 150-foot setback. Fahey <br />felt that the focus should be on what is a safe setback from a pipeline <br />under the normal operation of that pipeline. <br />LaValle expressed concern for the setback from the pipeline for <br />construction activities. Fahey noted that Williams will not allow heavy <br />construction equipment to operate within their easement. Fahey further <br />noted that Williams bas indicated that they will allow a road within their <br />easement, but if they need to tear up the road to access their pipes, they are <br />not responsible for reconstruction. Fahey stated that he did not feel there <br />was a taking issue relative to not allowing the road within the pipeline <br />easement when there is the expectation that the City would have to pay for <br />reconstruction of that road if Williams needed to tear it up to access their <br />pipeline. Fahey also noted that not allowing the road within the easement <br />provides for a larger margin of safety. <br />Scalze suggested that no road be allowed within the pipeline easement. <br />Fahey stated that his position was that only road crossings should be <br />allowed and that construction of roads on the easement in a parallel <br />fashion not be allowed. Fahey pointed out that the difference is that a road <br />crossing involves a smaller area of road on the easement, therefore, the <br />impact to the City is significantly less. Fahey also noted that a road <br />crossing is typically essential in terms of access. In the case of The <br />Preserve, Fahey noted that the City's position was that there should be two <br />accesses into the area and the City would not support a variance allowing <br />a 1,000-foot cul-de-sac. Fahey noted that as a result of this position, the <br />developer obtained property that would allow them to access Viking <br />Drive. Fahey indicated that he supported that access as long as it meets <br />the City's standards. <br />Scalze noted that the property owners along Viking Drive purchased their <br />properties relying on the way the area was platted and the fact that these <br />properties were not corner lots. Scalze expressed concern that now the <br />proposal is to bring a road through to Viking Drive and create corner lots <br />of two of the Viking Drive properties. Scalze felt that this would be a <br />taking for these property owners, noting that the action of the City in <br />approving a road through to Viking Drive changes the area and the <br />expectations of these property owners From what they were at the time <br />they purchased their property. <br />Fahey pointed out that anyone owning property adjacent to a large <br />undeveloped tract of property is open to the risk of an impact on their <br />property at the time of development. Fahey noted that property owners <br />