December 9th, 15974

Prior to the question being called on the foregoing resolution, Alderman
Traboulay referred to pages 4 and 5 of the November 4th, 1974 Council
minutes wherein a similar application was approved due to extenuating
circumstances, and stated he felt the Committee was being totally inconsistent
in recommending approval of the application now under consideration.
The tenant of 3320 Edinburgh Street was in attendance and speaking in
support of the application, advised of the difficulty in buying a home
within the price range she could afford. Alderman Ranger, also speaking
in support of the application, pointed out that the tenants will now
have the opportunity of purchasing a home as the down payment is within

their means.

From the Planning & Zoning Committee, December 6th, 1974 advising Plan. & Zon.

Comm. re
that at the request of Alderman Laking, certain aspects of the new M-3 let width-

zoning regulations were reviewed at a meeting of the Planning & Zoning "9 zone
Committee and Industrial Development Committee held on December 4th,
1974. In its report, the Committee stated that one of Alderman Laking's
concerns was the 100 foot lot vidth requirement which he felt was over-
restrictive resulting in forcing new M-3 lots created by subdivision or
re-subdivision to exceed 10,000 square feet in site area if the depth
happened to be greater than 100 feet; however, Aldermen Ranger, Mabbett,
and Keryluk felt that if such situation did arise and warranted reduction
in lot width, a land use contract could be applied and that the Committees,
with the exception of Alderman Laking, agreed that no change to the M-3
lot width requirement was to be made.
A brief discussion ensued during which Alderman Laking reiterated
his concern that the 100 foot lot width was over~rastrictive; however,
members of Council generally agreed with the recommendation of the
Committees and the report was received for information.
From the Public Works Committee, December 3rd, 1974, advising for Pub.Wks. Comm,
pedestrian
information that the approximate cost of a pedestrian bridge across the bridge~Coq.R.
Coquitlam River South of the Lougheed Highway would be $30,000.00 to

$40, 000.00.

Alderman Thompson, in speaking to the report, advised that a definite

cost cannot be obtained unless footings are drilled; al3o, that a reply

is still being awaited from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as to

whether it will allow footpath crossings on the railroad.