Minutes - Public Works Committee - 10/19/2021

Home

City Engineer Westby provided clarification on the width of the road and right-of-way. He noted that segment is extremely wide and is the only street of that width in the area. Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the additional information could be a part of the recommendation to the Council, rather than bringing this back to the Committee and causing a delay. He stated that he is personally comfortable with the project as outlined but if there is a desire to see the other option, that should be presented at the Council to continue the timeline. Councilmember Musgrove confirmed that she would be comfortable with the additional information being provided to the Council. Motion by Councilmember Musgrove, seconded by Councilmember Woestehoff, to recommend City Council authorization to prepare plans and specifications for 2022 Pavement Management Program projects, along with alternative options for Waco Street. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Riley, Councilmembers Musgrove and Woestehoff. Voting No: None. 6. COMMITTEE / STAFF INPUT 6.01: Receive Staff Updates on 148th Lane NW Cul-de-Sac and Easement Vacations City Engineer Westby provided an update on the 148th Lane NW cul-de-sac and easement vacations. Mr. St. Claire stated that their home was built before the easement was placed on the property and before the other neighbor constructed a home and moved into the property. He stated that when they had to obtain the variance there were some misleading things. He commented that they had to sign something, which they should not have had to. He explained that the current detached garage is 11 feet from the easement. He stated that when they wanted to construct the pole building, the opinion of City staff changed on where the front yard was for their property. He stated that the variance was based off the interpretation that the front yard was now their side yard. He stated that when they were going through the variance process, City staff encouraged them to pursue vacation of the easement as that would negate the need for a variance. He stated that when they spoke with the neighbor, they stated that they were not planning to develop but wanted the option to sell for development in the future, which is why they moved forward with the variance. He stated that they continued to do what staff said was necessary in order to move forward. He stated that if the City wants to make a turnaround, they do not have a problem with that,but if they plan to extend further, he would have an issue. He stated that the interpretation of City staff on where his side yard and front yard are located have complicated things. He identified where his garage and pole building are located. He commented that they are okay with whatever has to be done, they just want to be able to pave their driveway at some time and plan for what will be done in the future. Councilmember Musgrove stated that the case mentions that public works would like a cul-de-sac or turnaround before winter. She stated that the St. Claires have been working on their variance Public Works Committee/ October 19, 2021 Page 10 of 18