Laserfiche WebLink
~;TVU7~r;s <br />Ci.Cy Counci.l <br />Oct. 24~, 1984 <br />i~loodl.yn Ave, The En~;i.neer sCated that the devel.opment of t.he road along Che rai.7.roacl <br />Circul.ation was one Lhing, 6md the Gervais property was anoCher. 'Che Lngi.neor <br />(Cont.) staT.ed that the Gerv<ai.s propFrty could cteve.l.op wi.ChouC a road< <br />}towever, i.f the Ci.tq wants to put: :i.n s~~~wcr anclcvaCer wtien the oeher <br />properCy devel.ops, t:hen the easements should be ~;otlen now. <br />Krs. Sc~lze poinCed out that ttie I~icGou~)ts agreed to give the City a <br />road EasemenC when Chei.r conditiorial use permi.t was approved i.n ~1981 <br />and they never did. Mrs. NaircH ni sCated thnt she £eets the ~ttorney <br />,hould pursue th:i.s noca. <br />'C'he ;:np,ioeer sCaeed Chat t~e. was on the site with Mr. 731ack and showed <br />him tiahere the proposed coad cuoulcl come in conjunction wit.h his property, <br />The Eng:i.neer sCated that the road wi.l.l. come cl.ose to the bui.l.din~. <br />N(rc. Deeb stated that he undersCOOd t:hat the properCy owners i.n tlle <br />are~a do not orant the roeicl. <br />Mr. C'orsber~, su~gested that Che matter be tabled and that R& S pursue <br />the rond matter wiC}a i.ts nei.~;hbors. <br />Mrs. Nardini pointed out ttiat tl~iere can be no further developroenl in <br />the area wi.ChouC the road. <br />T^'orsberg poi.ntecl out tnat R& S does not have i.ts cond:i.tional use. <br />permi.C for a salvage y~ir.d i.int~il. the seconcl access -is gravcled i.n< <br />Forsberg stated Chat the City cannot grant buil.cl:ing permit:s ,f.'or <br />develop~ne.nC without road f.roniage. 7'his i.s requi.red bq C:ity orcii.nance. <br />P1rs. Scalze pointed out that t:he Ci.ty i.s no di.fferent Irom ~my oChe.r <br />ciCy in th~i_s respect. <br />Mr. I)eeb stated t:hat a fire [rudc can sti.11 get into thc area withouC <br />the second road bei.ng developect. <br />i1rs. Scalze stated t:l~at. i.t ~aas not f~ai.r to other developer, to require <br />them to develop with b1ad.<top roads and not reqi.ii.re i.t :in this are~, <br />rir. D~eb sta[ed tkiat he thought 'Ch,is area was pr~ndfaCnerFd in. NLrs. <br />Nard~ini repli.ed that i.t J.s ,randf.atherecl i.n as i.t stands now. <br />Mr. lianson as!ced for the At:torney's i.nterqretation of Resolut~ion No. <br />g[,-10,i~7C~, The At:.torney repli.ed that the R t4 S condiCional use n~rmit <br />was approved by that resolution subject to the Planner's r.eport and <br />subjecC eo R& S's par.ti.ci.pation -in a r.oad elternative f.or the Woodlyn <br />Avent.ie arca ancl no more~ t$an si.n~;le--stack~d cars and a one year duraCion <br />of the permit. <br />Mr., 1d~nson po~inted out ehaC ~it tkiis poi.nt there ~i.s no plan for the <br />Yloodlyn Avenue ci.rculaCi.on and i.t .is lef.C i.n a pencl:iny~ situat:i.on, <br />I'ane -3- <br />