January ath, 1974. would be added o lot 77, F Plan 42687 and that in the consolidation plan re- quired suitable arrangements: would be made. for a ‘inning circle at the West end of the lane to the North of the = property. The City clerk, in his report, further advised that whea_ ‘the owner consulted the city Engineer te receive details ‘of the turning circle that was 5 required, “it was the Engineer! Ss opi- nion, substantiated by the Publ ic Works Comittee, that a turn-around requires —taent was not feasible and in: a ‘nenorandum from the city 5 Engineer, December dist, 1973, he stated that "such a turn-around requirement - is not “feasible because such : a ‘substantial « amount of property would be required in order to provide a proper turn-around. tt is also felt there is no need for ‘such a turn-around." and the Departnent < of Municipal Affairs was immediately acvised of this changed ‘requirement in a letter dated December 24th, 1973, to which a i Teply | was ; received, dated January 2nd, 1974, stating. that "It is the Department 3 view that the parcel concerned should be offered for sale at a - fair market value" ‘and that it. “would appreciate ree eiving notice of Council’ s intentions as ‘expressed at the meeting of January 14, 1974, before any final action is taken in regard to » disposal of ‘this property." Moved by Alderman Banger: "Seconded: by Alderman Keryluk: That the City Assessor ‘appraise the fair market value of the portion of lane North of the Lougheed: Highway and adjoining Lot 77, Plan 42867 to the _ East, and ‘that ‘the same be offered for sale at the appraised fair market ‘value price, : we Carvied. Alderman Thompson voted against the resolution. The applicant, Mr. r. PhiLippon, was ; present at the meeting and sta~ ted his: view that. it vould not be fal r to ask a price of more than $1.90 for the property, and pointed out “that there has been no cost to the » City with respect to © up-keeps however, ‘Alderman Ranger pointed « out that a closed - lane - in. a residential area was 5 recently sold for the market value of ‘City Eng. re Min. Frtg.Exempt.: Ptn.sLot 2,Pt. BIk.J,Lot 466, ~ PL.9402 Council: Resolution of June Th, 197 2 dealing with minimum parcel width, Act or ‘the city! s | Subdivision of Land By-lau, but does.comply with the aa $2 2,500. 00, and stated he does not endorse the policy of giving away City land. Fron the city Engineer, January 8th, 1974, advising that the proposed Subdivision of a Portion of Lot 2 of Part of Block J, District Lot 466, Group One, Plan 9402 does not. t comply with Section 712(1) of ‘the Municipal and requesting that the necessary, y exemption be provided « as outlined in Section 7122) of the Manip Act. Moved by Alderman baking: ‘Seconded by Alderman vabbett: