October 21st, 1974

Moved by Alderman Laking:

Seconded by Alderman Keryluk:

That the City's Sign By-law be amended to permit the Commercial

Hotel to retain its roof top and neon signs as stated in its letter
dated October 17th, 1974.

Prior to the question being called on the foregoing resolution, a
discussion ensued. Alderman Laking pointed out that the roof top sign
does not obstruct anything and if the sign at the rear is raised it will
be a nuisance to apartment residents in the area.

Alderman Ranger stated he felt that to amend the By-law would set a
precedent for similar requests. Alderman Thompson pointed out that the
service station adjacent to the hotel has an illuminated sign on a free-
standing pole; therefore, he stated he feels the request is a resonable
one. The City Administrator commented that the service station is in a
CS-1 zone, while the Hotel is zoned C-3, and the regulations concerning
signs are different for each zone.

Moved by Alderman Traboulay:

Seconded by Alderman Keryluk:

That the request of the Commercial Hotel for permission to keep its
roof sign and neon sign at the rear of the hotel be referred to the City
Administrator and the Building & Protection Committee for review and

report back to Council. Carried.
Aldermen Laking and Thompson voted against the resolution.

N.Foulds re From Mr. Nels Foulds, October 16th, 1974, enclosing two parking
parking-Whyte Ave.,

etc. tickets he had received for parking in a residential area immediately in

front of his house, and stating that since receiving these tickets he

was informed that he could have applied for stickers for his car that

would have enabled him to park in that area, and for which he was now
applying for three. In his letter, Mr. Foulds also submitted the signatures
of other residents in the area who do not think they should be ticketed

for parking in front of their homes.

In speaking to the letter, Alderman Mabbett pointed out that a goad
number of the residents on Whyte Avenue have good access to their carports;
however, the majority on the south side did not want the lane at the
rear of their properties developed when this was requested by one or two
some time ago.

Moved by Alderman Mabbett:

Seconded by Alderman Laking: