Laserfiche WebLink
HOPE L\FAYrrrTC <br />SnCIATION <br />nued) <br />RIA GRAIN CaiPA'^' <br />Oimi ARM DRRO: <br />PROPOSAL <br />) <br />4 <br />i <br />- I <br />i * <br />. MINUTES OF A PL/\NNI:;g Cn:t!ISSION MELTING in-LD OCTOBl-R 17, 1977 - PAGE 6 <br />After a lengthy discussion and review, tlie general concensus <br />^11 parties involved appeared to be locating a nooring <br />dock at tlie moutli of tlie cliannel with access from tiie <br />shortest point on Lot 4. <br />Guthrie moved, llassel seconded, tliat taking due notice of <br />Council’s resolution for our guidance we recommend approval <br />of tlie conceptual policy recommendations, and that Staff and <br />the applicants get togetlier on the exact location of the <br />alternatives to come to a solution that is acceptable not <br />only to Council, but to the DNE. Tliis plan will submit tlie <br />mooring dock located no greater tlian 180 ft. from the moutli <br />of the cliannel and no vridcr than 39” into the cliannel. .Any <br />extensions from that dock section to Lot 4 will be part of <br />that pl^. In no v/ay does tliis motion recognize tlie <br />navigability of the cliannel or access to the cliannel. <br />.Agreement to include stronger language regarding navigability <br />of the channel as suggested by Mr. Sjostrom and agreed unon <br />by all otlier parties. Subject to approval of all'other ‘ <br />agencies. Tliis makes no commitments as to maintenance or <br />other dredging. Construction of the dock to be done in <br />the winter to minimize tlie effect on environment and wildlife <br />Ifotion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). <br />The ironing Administrator advised that Council had requested <br />the applicant to submit a revised proposal to be reviewed by <br />the Planning Commission. <br />Mr. Earl Williams, representing tlie contiactor, and Mr. Stan <br />Jolinson were present. Tliere was some objection from tlie <br />neighbor to tlie west on tlie original pioposal and Council <br />suggested that the applicant submit a revised plan witli <br />equal setback as tliat of the neighbor to the west (Mr. <br />Ecklund).^ Tlie comer of the newly proiiosed building lias <br />been cut in order to have less vision obstruction. <br />The Commission discussed the design and location alternatives <br />of the pedestrian access from tlie parking lot to the street. <br />Such as: (1) continuing and matching existing stairix^ay of <br />t le neigluor (EcLlund), (2) constructing entire new stairi\'ay <br />L>y removing existing 4 ft. Lcklund steps and replacing with <br />new 8 ft. common staimvay for safety reasons, (3) keep exist­ <br />ing retaining wall and design separate 4 ft. stairiNray located <br />turtlier back on tlie property and near the municipal parkin^ <br />lot. This would require code compliance on the euard rail^t <br />the top of tlie retaining wall. <br />Ilurr moved, Ilaj^erel secoixled, to recommend approval of the <br />variance and site and building elevation plans subject to <br />code compliance and structural approval bv staff with an <br />easement on 4 ft. walkway for pedestrian traffic from the <br />municipal parking lot to County Road 15. Tliis is conditioned <br />on the entire stairs being replaced. '>vner would be resnon- <br />sible for snow rem.oval and maintenance of walk and stairs <br />'fotion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). -^airs. <br />VICTORIA GRAIN COl^lPANY <br />(continued) <br />(/r'zno) <br />:'IAA5\PTIE ILARDIVAPJ; <br />3400 SmrjlLINE DRIVE <br />RECONSIDER\Tia\’ OF RJA^ISED <br />PLAN <br />(/^329) <br />I <br />Cl <br />'i*.A-:: : s : <br />••■Cikg': <br />h ^ <br />'TMirrCS OF A PLAN <br />Tlie Zoning .Admini <br />requesting a vari <br />llOnio A A/’a-ri anrriionie. A variance <br />bet>.‘/een structure <br />to meet all requi <br />numerous trees ar <br />Mr. Doty and Mr. <br />present. Tlie Cos <br />of the Mil behii' <br />are sliowing noiv. <br />tliosc trees. Me <br />cablind tiie trees <br />Suliject property <br />south are under ‘ <br />is available. Aj <br />voiced no object: <br />After some discus <br />recoimend approve <br />that no addition <br />garage v/ould be c <br />.Applicant has tin <br />the residence be <br />protect against : <br />in no way address <br />that goes with tl <br />adjacent propert; <br />separate ownersh: <br />(2) - >fcDonald, 1 <br />Mr. and ?trs. Cla’ <br />advised that tlie <br />for construction <br />tlie applicant cu' <br />tlie natural shon <br />applicant came ii <br />with the present <br />Tlie Commission r< <br />importance of th <br />informed the Con <br />restrictions wit! <br />will be replacin; <br />bales of hay to ; <br />suggested substi <br />faster growing v; <br />would be necessa <br />that staff super <br />Tlie applicant <br />reiroved and cc <br />Restoration pi <br />of tlie other i