10-23-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 23, 2002 personal opinion that given the value of the homes proposed, there will be a significant increase in property values for the neighborhood. Brausen stated that his preference is for no road connection to Viking Drive. However, if it is necessary to have this connection, he would prefer the road to be straight. Scalze pointed out that the road is not necessary in order to loop utilities, and she noted that there are other long cul-de-sacs in the City. Fahey felt the road connection was necessary from a public safety standpoint. He noted the previous Council action requiring that Payne Avenue connect through to LaBore Road rather than having a long cul-de-sac situation. Scalze noted that while the City may prefer the second access rather than a long cul-de-sac, it is not always required. Scalze noted that a reason not to require the second access is the creation of corner lots from what currently existing interior lots. She noted that Keller Parkway is an example of this. Anderson pointed out the extensive discussions that have occurred on pipeline safety, and the fact that the Fire Department prefers looped road connections to cul-de-sacs for access from a public safety standpoint. Scalze asked if the Fire Department has been asked to comment on The Preserve plat. Fahey noted that from his years of service on the Fire Department, he knows that through streets are preferred to cul-de- sacs fi~an a public safety standpoint. Glen Hagema~r noted statements made about the Office of Pipeline Safety and Williams Pipeline supporting the preliminary plat as proposed. Hageman felt that that issue was open for interpretation. He noted that the residents of the area have met with both organizations and know their desires relative to this proposed plat. Tom Hartigan felt there were discrepancies with some of McDonelPs representations. He noted that at the Planning Commission meeting McDonell estimated the cost of repairing the road in the event that Williams has to disturb it at $30,000. This evening McDonnel is quoting that cost at $10,000, Fahey pointed out the reason for the difference in cost is that McDonnel is now representing that less of the road surface will be in the easement. McDonnel stated that he redid the math and calculated a $10,000 replacement cost. Fahey noted that the developer is saying there is a small impact to the road acrd that they would bond for this cost. Hartigan noted that at the Planning Commission meeting McDonell made some statements about case law. Hartigan indicated that he examined the case law and has found nothing that would preclude the City's enforcement of its 50-foot setback policy on this proposed plat. Fahey asked if there was any concern with case law relative to the application of the City's moratorium and the setback policy. The City Attorney replied that his office was not submitted with any information on applicable case law, but had received a 12