06-02-86 Annexation CommitteeJune 2, 1986 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE 3:30 P.M.
Chairman Hafferman and Councilman Manning in attendance. Mayor Kennedy,
DPW Hammer, Surveyor Zavodny, Don Frownfelter and Tom Sederstrom from TD&H also
present.
ROYAL PINES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT - The discussion followed the points
listed in the Staff report (PW-0338-86)and included the following comments:
lit - Stub 5' of 8" pipe west from the manhole and cap, then 4" service line
from that. Developer had no problem but questioned having to extend
the 8" main the approximately 65' to the property line. City will
require it.
#3 - Tom S. felt it would be better to put the water main on the south side
of the properties for future service to the lots to the south. Surveyor
Zavodny explained that as the years go by rear -lot easements cause
a lot of problems because of accumulated fences, shrubs, gardens, etc.
The City has learned from experience to get easements along roadways.
It will be crowding alot of utilities into a small area but the line
must be to the north, anywhere it can be fit in.
#6 - There is only 1$' - 2' between the fence and the pavement now. The
concern was that a buffer was needed to block the view of the City
Shop and hot mix plant now, before there was trouble. Mr. Frownfelter
pointed out that the apartments faced the east and there were no windows
looking out over the shop area. If a hedge was planted there would
be a maintenance problem. Surveyor Zavodny stated that the hot mix
plant was an asset to every taxpayer in the City and it needed to be
protected. C. Manning suggested that maybe the City had some responsibility
to screen the Street Department and ask that Pieter be asked about
shrubbery for this area.
#4 - Distance between hydrants was discussed. If only the existing hydrant
is available then it is over 400' by the lay of the hose to get to
the west end of the property. The Fire Department requires 320' between
hydrants. The City will sell the developer a hydrant at cost.
#5 - No problem.
#8 - No problem.
#7 - There was extended discussion of the cul-de-sac. It is a requirement
that a temporary cul-de-sac be provided either on the developers own
land or upon land where the developer has an easement for the purpose.
-
Putting it on City land that is now unused could cause fire protection
problems during football games when the cul-de-sac would be parked
full. Requiring it on Royal Pines land would reduce the useable lots
from 5 to 4. DPW Hammer stated that the City has to look 15 years
down the road when the Street Department expands and possibly builds
and if this cul-de-sac were allowed the City would have in essence
given away a 45' radius of City property. Relocating the fence and
putting half on Royal Pines and half on City property was also discussed.
The developer was willing to move the fence at his expense, and if
the road eventually went through it oould be moved back to it's original
position. In the end it boiled down to either Council approval of
putting it on City land or the developer would have to change his plans
to accomodate the cul-de-sac.