Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCTT, <br />OCTOBER 23, 2002 <br />personal opinion that given the value of the homes proposed there will be a <br />significant increase in property values for the neighborhood. <br />Brausen stated that his preference is for no road connection to Viking Drive. <br />However, if it is necessary to have this connection, he would prefer the road to be <br />straight. <br />Scalze pointed out that the road is not necessary in order to loop utilities, and she <br />noted that there are other long cul -de -sacs in the City. Fahey felt the road connection <br />was necessary from a public safety standpoint. He noted the previous Council action <br />requiring that Payne Avenue connect through to LaBore Road rather than having a <br />long cul -de -sac situation. Scalze noted that while the City may prefer the second <br />access rather than a long cul -de -sac, it is not always required. Scalze noted that a <br />reason not to require the second access is the creation of corner lots from what <br />currently existing interior lots. She noted that Keller Parkway is an example of this. <br />Anderson pointed out the extensive discussions that have occurred on pipeline safety, <br />and the fact that the Fire Department prefers looped road connections to cul -de -sacs <br />for access from a public safety standpoint. Scalze asked if the Fire Department has <br />been asked to comment on The Preserve plat. Fahey noted that from his years of <br />service on the Fire Department, he knows that through streets are preferred to cul-de- <br />sacs from a public safety standpoint. <br />Glen Hageman noted statements made about the Office of Pipeline Safety and <br />Williams Pipeline supporting the preliminary plat as proposed. Hageman felt that <br />that issue was open for interpretation. He noted that the residents of the area have <br />met with both organizations and know their desires relative to this proposed plat. <br />Tom Hartigan felt there were discrepancies with some ofMcDonell's representations. <br />He noted that at the Planning Commission meeting McDonell estimated the cost of <br />repairing the road in the event that Williams has to disturb it at $30,000. This <br />evening McDonnel is quoting that cost at $10,000. Fahey pointed out the reason for <br />the difference in cost is that McDonnel is now representing that less of the road <br />surface will be in the easement. McDonnel stated that he redid the math and <br />calculated a $10,000 replacement cost. Fahey noted that the developer is saying there <br />is a small impact to the road and that they would bond for this cost. <br />Hartigan noted that at the Planning Commission meeting McDonell made some <br />statements about case law. Hartigan indicated that he examined the case law and has <br />found nothing that would preclude the City's enforcement of its 50 -foot setback <br />policy on this proposed plat. <br />Fahey asked if there was any concern with case law relative to the application of the <br />City's moratorium and the setback policy. The City Attorney replied that his office <br />was not submitted with any information on applicable case law, but had received a <br />12 <br />- 1 7 - <br />