“

TO: Mayor and Aldermen April 26th, 1973

FROM: Planning & Zoning Committee

Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Meeting held on April 24th, 1973 at 9:00 a.m.

In Attendance: Alderman Ranger, Chairman

Alderman Thompson, Co-Chairman , 4
V.G. Borch, City Engineer f | ]
L.D. Pollock, City Administrator PRS fi BY & i
N. Chernoff, Senior Building Inspector

K.J. Stinson, Planning Officer. APR 30 1973

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

Iten I

Re: Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-law to Include Day Care Centre Uses,

; There was a brief discussion on this item but it has been tabled
until May 2nd, 1973 to gis. the Committee an Opportunity to read the report that
Was presented. ; , .

item If

Re: Telephone Building as Proposed by McCarter Nairn Architects.

Comments:

The meeting was attended by Mr. Smith, Mr. Moulder and Mr. James
of the Telephone Company, Mr. Kirkham and Mr. Waters of McCarter Nairn Architects.
The problems were outlined by the Planning Committee for the Telephone Company
which are the building setbacks as provided in the P-1 Zoning which the Telephone
Company falls within, restrict the construction of the building. There is some
question as to the parking requirements as well as the use proposed to be put on
that property. Mr. Smith outlined some of the history and background of the
original building which was constructed in 1957, Additional property was purchased
in 1961 and discussions with the City had taken place to the effect that the
Telephone Company could expand their operations as they grew. Relocation to a
more suitable site was discussed and it was pointed out by the B.C. Tel represen-
tatives-that a cost penalty to them in relocation would represent about $900,000.
They also foresaw other problems such as some phone number changes as a result
of retaining two exchanges in what would be a phaseover operation. In answering
the question as to the possibility of commercial development on the lower floor,
the Company responded with their policy to restrict commercial activities due to
safety as well as security reasons. It was pointed out that service vehicles
would not be used on this site and that storage would be taken elsewhere in the
City's industrial area. On the question of parking, it was pointed out that they
would not expect more than 12 employees upon completion of their mechanical equip-
ment being installed. On the question of relocating or supplying a retail operation
on the main floor, Mr. Smith replied that he was unable to answer the question as
it was above his level of jurisdiction.’ Mr. Moulder wondered if there was any
guarantee that the same problems would not occur should this company relocate into
the industrial area and it was pointed out that this Council of the day could rot
ensure that plans and concepts of the future might require further relocation if
it interfered with the plans of that particular Council. The Company basically
felt it was a question of economics and promised a suitably and architecturally
designed building which would fit into the downtown centre. The proposal ia to