09-22-82 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~IINUTPS Ci.ty Counci.l Sept. 22, 1982 4doodlyn Ave. Mr< '7,:i.lge aslced the Council. i.f. a bus~iness wanted Co expand, :i.I that (ConC.) business would be denied a bui.ld'zn~; per.mi.t because of the road s:i.tuati.on. C4r. fianson replied that the Counci.l. would be hard pressecl to deny i.C because the business oroul.d be served by an exi.sCing road, ~r, McGough aslced i.f: Che City was inCerested ~in a rold or just an easement. Mr. Fahey repl.i.ed that P. ~~ S must have an adequaCe blaclctop road to serve the new busi.ness. D1r. hScGough commented tha[ the busi.nesses would be wi.llin~; to ;ranC an easernent. iKr. Porsber.g stlted that i.t does not ma!<e sense to just draw up an easemenC and not Itave the road. Mr. Pahey commented t11at if a developer. came :in i.n a res:idential area the C:i.Cy would noC allow homes on di.rt road>. P'ahey ,tated that tk~e Cowlci.l cannot treat people di_LferenC].y. The Planner ,Cated that i[ the two lots wer.~-~ combineR& S could apply f:or a condi.C~i.onal us~ permi.C. The C:i.ty Cl.erlc aslced how wide the NSP easement was, The Engi.neer repli.ed Chat t:he easement is 17_0 feet. The Clert< then asked iL a road coulcl be puC over the easement. Mr. 7.,i.lge stated [hat. tit coul.d not as there was al.so a pipeli.ne i.n Chat easement:. P4r. (;ervais asked tlte cost difEerential. between buildi.ng a 1ifC stati.on and bui.ldi.ng a br.i_dge f:or e~tending Sloodlyn to Spruce. The i;ngi.neer stated that he thought Chere aer.e bu:tldings i.n the way so thaC the two parl<s could noC he connected. TQr. Pahey also questioned wl~o would pay f:or connecti.nF tt~ tcao:industrial. parks< Nir.s. t~'ar.di.ni. stated that the di_scussi.on st~ill does noC center on it & S's problem. Kr. Fahey commented that he did not think the Council was going to get anywhere w:i.th the development oE a thorout;hfare plan toni.p;ht. P1rs< Scal.ze stated that she was not in £avor of: doi.ng anyth:i_ng on the R& S request unLess the Ci.t:y vacated its present ~asement and was gi.ven a new easement. P4r.. Dohr stated that there was no wherc Co ni.ve another easement. Dohr commentect that R&:i has a landlocked pi~ce of. property that the C:i.ty ~vilt not all.ow them to use. Mr. I~'ahey staCed th~t the C:i.ty wi.11 I.eC R& S use it if: they put a road in. i~(rs. Nardini. agreed< Ntr. 'l,il.ge aslced if the oCher busi.nesses could geC buildi.ng per.mits f:or expansion. Fahey replied that Chey coutd i.f i.t wer.e a l.e~;iti.mate expansi.on of the Uusi.ne-ss. Pap,e -7-