Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />March 4, 1987 <br />Fahey replied that McGough has indicated previously that they are <br />opposed to the road. <br />Fahey asked if Donovan and Deeb were considering sprinklering their <br />buildings as part of their additions. <br />Donovan replied that he was. <br />Fahey asked the Engineer if he has looked at the existing road. <br />The Engineer replied that he has and the road is adequate for <br />access. <br />Scalze pointed out that the City does not have the necessary <br />easements to put in watermain. <br />Fahey noted that easements would have to be granted. Fahey also <br />suggested that as a condition of any building permits issued, that <br />the City require the buildings to be sprinklered. Part of the <br />reason for this would be public safety and the limited access of <br />fire trucks without a road. <br />Donovan explained the current access to the property. <br />Fahey asked if there have been similar situations in the City where <br />only one side of the street could be assessed, so the City participated <br />in the cost of an improvement. <br />The Engineer and City Clerk replied that the City has done this in <br />the past. <br />Fahey stated that he was concerned about building on a substandard <br />lot, and suggested that the City participate in half the cost of <br />the road assessment. <br />Scalze pointed out that in the past such projects have been included <br />with other projects and the assessments spread out over all the <br />projects. <br />The Engineer noted that there are no other projects pending that <br />this could be included with. <br />Fahey suggested that the project could be held up until there is <br />another one to include it with, and the property owners could enter <br />into a development agreement stating that they were in favor of the <br />project. <br />It was the Engineer's opinion that in the future Soo Lane should <br />be extended all the way through. <br />Page 9 <br />