[3:21] Good evening everyone. I'd like to call
[3:23] to order this meeting of the planning
[3:24] and land use committee for Monday, May
[3:27] 5th, 2025 at 6:30
[3:30] p.m. First, I'd like to acknowledge with
[3:32] respect that we are meeting on the
[3:34] traditional territory of the Lquangan
[3:36] speaking peoples and we are honored to
[3:37] have the opportunity to build strong
[3:39] working relationships with the people of
[3:41] the Sanghes and Casspsum
[3:44] nations. I'd seek uh approval of the
[3:46] agenda for this
[3:49] evening. Thank you. All those
[3:53] opposed? Seeing none, we'll move on to
[3:56] adoption of the minutes. Uh we have the
[3:59] planning and land use committee minutes,
[4:00] meeting minutes from April 7th,
[4:03] 2025. Um if I can get uh a motion to
[4:08] approve, if I can just interrupt, um I
[4:11] just need an amendment to the agenda
[4:12] before you that late item that came in
[4:15] for the committee. Absolutely. Report.
[4:19] Yes. Okay. Okay. So, on the uh going
[4:21] back to the agenda, um we need an
[4:25] amendment to add in the uh report that
[4:29] came through uh city staff. I'm just
[4:32] looking for
[4:36] the effective today, May 5th, um around
[4:39] tenant displacement information for
[4:41] resoning. Um can I have a motion to
[4:45] amend the agenda to include that report?
[4:49] So moved. All those
[4:52] opposed? Seeing none. Um and then we'll
[4:54] vote again on the
[4:56] agenda. All those opposed? Seeing none.
[5:00] Motion carried. Thank
[5:02] you. So we will move on again to
[5:04] adoption of the minutes for April 7th,
[5:06] 2025. Do I have a mover to adopt those
[5:09] minutes? Seeing a mover. Okay. Thank
[5:11] you. All those opposed? Seeing none, uh
[5:15] we will move on to item four, public
[5:18] participation. So members of the public
[5:20] will be provided an opportunity to
[5:22] present concerns or ask questions to the
[5:24] committee. Um comments pertaining to the
[5:27] following matters that have been subject
[5:28] to a public hearing are prohibited at
[5:30] this meeting. By law number
[5:32] 1700-10, Callwood Official Community
[5:34] Plan 1700 2018, amendment number 10,
[5:37] environmental development permit area.
[5:40] Uh for any of those looking to um speak
[5:42] this evening, uh the podium there, uh
[5:45] you just have to press the little silver
[5:46] button at the base of the microphone
[5:48] that has a a talking face on it and you
[5:51] have uh two minutes. So I would invite
[5:53] any members of the public that would
[5:54] wish to address the committee to please
[5:56] do so.
[6:06] Just at the base of the microphone
[6:07] there, you'll see a little silver. There
[6:09] you go.
[6:10] Hello. Hi. Thank you for allowing me to
[6:13] uh talk today. Is that okay? Um my name
[6:16] is Allison Dean. I have sent a long
[6:19] overly wordy email earlier today and I
[6:22] apologize for that. Um this kind of came
[6:24] to my attention last minute and I've
[6:27] been dealing with a lot. Um I'm not
[6:29] going to go over the contents as to what
[6:31] I've already mentioned in the email. Um,
[6:34] but some other information has come to
[6:36] light that I just wanted to bring up and
[6:39] get maybe some further information
[6:41] regarding that. Um, and how this project
[6:45] pertains to the OCP.
[6:48] Um, so it was initially my understanding
[6:52] that the request for the resoning at
[6:55] 3333 Mosen Road just applied to that
[6:59] property alone. Yet, when I looked at
[7:02] Oh, and I didn't bring it with me.
[7:04] Um, when I looked at the amendment, it
[7:08] applies to the exact quote was this the
[7:12] resoning to C9 zone is applied within
[7:15] 200 meters of real travel distance from
[7:19] the Machosen Road to Lagoon Road. So,
[7:22] it's not just specific to this property,
[7:24] but also encompasses
[7:27] um company air in the neighborhood. So,
[7:30] I've got two questions regarding that.
[7:33] The So, with that being Oh, shoot. I'm
[7:35] running out of time. So, with that being
[7:36] the case, why is such a large
[7:39] development being squeezed into such a
[7:41] large like a small piece of land when
[7:44] potentially my land could is part of the
[7:47] reasoning and I've never been contacted
[7:49] about that. And another question then it
[7:53] states that for properties to apply for
[7:56] the C9 zoning, they have to be a minimum
[7:58] of 1,000 meter squared. So what happens
[8:02] to properties that are less than that
[8:04] that are kind of stuck between
[8:06] properties that could be developed and
[8:08] how does that fit with the overall um
[8:11] plan of the neighborhood?
[8:14] Thank you. Appreciate the questions.
[8:17] Um it would just look to staff to see if
[8:20] you can answer on that zoning or did you
[8:21] want to wait to the staff presentation
[8:23] to address that or do you have a
[8:26] preference? Okay. Well, why don't we
[8:28] just uh answer the the resident's
[8:29] question now if we can. Thank you.
[8:33] Thank you Taran. Thank you for the
[8:35] question. The C9 zone um is uh intended
[8:40] to be a template zone. Um so if and when
[8:45] properties within 200 m um of the
[8:48] Machosen and Lagoon neighborhood hub
[8:50] wish to come forward for reasonzoning
[8:52] the intention would to be to reszone to
[8:54] C9. Today the applicant 3333 Machosen is
[8:59] um seeking to reszone to that C9. This
[9:01] does not um reszone any other
[9:06] properties. Um and
[9:10] the I apologize I forgot the other
[9:13] question.
[9:17] Yeah, I think the question was around a
[9:19] thousand square meters. Thank you. Sorry
[9:22] about that. So um yes thousand square
[9:24] meters is um is intended to uh
[9:29] consolidate a few lots. Um so instead of
[9:31] having single um properties come into
[9:34] reszone, we're trying to incentivize
[9:36] having smaller properties consolidate to
[9:38] create a more cohesive development.
[9:41] But my question was specifically about
[9:43] the Sorry, I think if I may interject, I
[9:46] think the specifics about the individual
[9:48] proposal we will leave to the the staff
[9:50] and applicant presentation. I think you
[9:52] you as to why they would want to do it
[9:54] the way they've done it. I I would have
[9:56] to leave it to the applicant to address
[9:58] that during their presentation. I
[10:00] understand that they're here and they
[10:01] are presenting. So I think you know
[10:02] they're aware of the question. I would
[10:04] ask ideally that you uh seek to to to
[10:07] provide clarification in your
[10:09] presentation if you may. Thank
[10:11] you. So thank you uh Kelsey for that. I
[10:14] appreciate that.
[10:16] Um is there anyone else in the public
[10:19] that would wish to speak?
[10:28] Wendy Wilson. Oh, sorry. If I could just
[10:30] get you to press the button again. It
[10:31] was still on. So, there you go. Thank
[10:33] you. Uh Oh, wow. I'm Wendy Wilson. I
[10:36] live on Wickham Road, which is directly
[10:39] across from the
[10:42] 333
[10:45] Machosen. I have one minute, two
[10:47] minutes. Okay, here we go. um very much
[10:51] concerned about the parking and the
[10:53] entrance and exits into that both
[10:56] commercial and residential property and
[10:59] the number of uh vehicles that will be
[11:01] going in and out of there. There's
[11:03] already been at least three
[11:07] children that have been hit by cars at
[11:10] that intersection, either bumped or hit
[11:14] involving ambulances. Anybody that would
[11:17] like to come out and stand at the corner
[11:18] of Lagoon Road and be chosen between
[11:20] 8:30 in the morning and 9:00 or two 2:30
[11:24] in the afternoon and 3:00 would be most
[11:26] welcome. Bring a counter. We have exits
[11:30] and entrances everywhere and there are
[11:34] three 400 children with their parents.
[11:37] Interestingly enough, almost every kid
[11:40] has at least one parent attending them.
[11:42] Why? because it's such an unsafe trip
[11:46] from their houses to their
[11:48] school. Um, so we're very concerned
[11:51] about the parking. We're very concerned
[11:53] about where are the entrances going to
[11:55] be. They can't be on Machosen. The
[11:57] people that are currently renting there
[11:59] can't get out of their property onto
[12:02] Machosen. We need a crossing light.
[12:06] Either pedestrian operated or a crossing
[12:09] guard or both would be nice. and perhaps
[12:12] a crosswalk further down the street
[12:14] where it's a little bit safer to do. I'm
[12:16] talking lagoon, not machosen. There's
[12:18] nothing safe on Machosen.
[12:24] Um, can't even read my own writing. Oh,
[12:26] there's a bicycle lane that has been put
[12:28] in across chosen to take people from
[12:30] Royal Bay to
[12:35] you just want to finish your your um to
[12:38] uh Galloping Goose because they're
[12:40] trying to get to work on their bicycles
[12:42] which is a good thing to
[12:44] encourage people. There's no parking.
[12:48] There's unbelievable traffic and the con
[12:51] the concept of having 10 residential
[12:54] units and whatever is going to be
[12:56] commercial on the bottom. Are they going
[12:58] to dig a hole in the ground to park
[13:00] people and how are they going to get in
[13:02] and out because there are children
[13:04] everywhere. Thank you.
[13:08] Thank you. Thank you for taking the time
[13:10] to speak. Is there anyone else who'd
[13:11] like to address the committee? Thank
[13:13] you.
[13:17] Oh, sorry. You just hit it again and
[13:19] it'll come back on for you. There you
[13:20] go. Hello. Okay. My name is Ola Carpick
[13:23] and I live on Wickim Road at the end of
[13:25] the road. I was not notified of a
[13:27] meeting, but if I had been, I would have
[13:29] emailed you guys sooner. I vote no. I
[13:33] have two children. I cross that
[13:35] crosswalk almost every day, and almost
[13:38] every day, we are hit. We are almost
[13:40] hit. I've been walking that crosswalk
[13:42] with my four-year-old and I can feel the
[13:44] wind of cars going by me. I'm concerned
[13:48] about safety. Number one, I don't know
[13:50] if you were there or heard about the
[13:52] accident that happened this weekend on
[13:54] the corner on Saturday. A mom with a
[13:57] baby in a stroller and a six-year-old
[13:59] were hit on that corner. This almost
[14:02] happens every day. It was bound to
[14:05] happen. So, if you haven't heard about
[14:07] these issues of safety before, you need
[14:10] to know that they're constant and
[14:12] there's so many kids there. Um, the
[14:14] other issue is parking. Obviously, the
[14:17] people who live there barely have room
[14:19] to be able to have guests and friends
[14:22] over. We understand that people from the
[14:24] school need to pick up their kids, so
[14:26] they're constantly parking on way. Okay.
[14:29] But this situation is just going to get
[14:31] worse with um more development and
[14:33] density in that area. I don't know how
[14:36] the people who live in that current
[14:38] house get in and out. Uh parking safety
[14:41] traffic light. If there's not speeding
[14:44] in that area and people going in and out
[14:46] using it as a highway, then there's
[14:48] congestion in the morning when people
[14:50] try to take their kids to school and in
[14:53] the afternoon when they pick them up.
[14:55] It's a disaster. There's a reason that
[14:57] police have started to come there.
[14:59] Great. But when they're not there, bad
[15:01] things happen. Uh
[15:05] speeding, traffic,
[15:09] parking, and then I would just like to
[15:11] say that um with the bicycles on Mosen,
[15:17] that's not safe either. No dedicated
[15:20] safe bike lanes. Thank you.
[15:23] Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there
[15:25] anyone else in the public that would
[15:26] like to speak? I see another Hi, please.
[15:30] Yeah, the mic's on for you, so you don't
[15:31] need to hit a button there.
[15:34] I don't have a speech, but I came at the
[15:37] last minute cuz I just heard about this
[15:39] and my name is Trudy Lockhart and I live
[15:42] on Joyy's Place and I bring my uh two
[15:46] grandchildren to school every day. I
[15:49] bring them to school and I pick them up
[15:51] every day. So, I see the traffic every
[15:54] day and and I've bought brought my own
[15:57] two children who are now in their 30s to
[16:00] school that long ago. And so, I see the
[16:02] difference in the traffic then and now.
[16:05] Originally, when I started taking my
[16:07] grandkids, I parked on the chosen road.
[16:09] I stopped doing that because I could get
[16:12] clipped when I opened my door. The cars
[16:15] just speed by. You can't get in and
[16:17] can't get out and there's no parking. So
[16:20] now I park on Tipton. That's my
[16:23] secret. And um walk the kids to school.
[16:28] And uh the other thing I do is I park I
[16:32] try I let one off at Dunmeir and then I
[16:36] keep going and if there's three cars on
[16:39] painter trying to turn right on
[16:41] Machosen, I know I won't get the other
[16:44] one to school on time because nobody can
[16:46] get on to Machosen. So I I'll take one
[16:49] wherever I can and if I can then I'll
[16:52] zip to the right and then I'll zip into
[16:54] L Sangster Lane which says resident
[16:56] resident resident but I know one of the
[16:59] mothers on that street she said Trudy
[17:01] you can you can park there. So it's like
[17:03] it's stressful there's no parking for
[17:05] school and this will just make it more
[17:08] problematic. So that it sounds like a
[17:10] minor but this is what all the parents
[17:12] have to deal with thanks to every day
[17:15] and it is it is a worry. It's just a big
[17:18] worry. So, I don't know how this complex
[17:21] adding people to a corner
[17:23] that's super busy, how you're going to
[17:26] deal with that. But, so that's my
[17:29] concern. Thank you for listening to me.
[17:35] Thank you. Without rehearsal, right on
[17:37] two minutes. So, congratulations. I
[17:39] understand someone else would like to
[17:40] come speak. Welcome. Hi.
[17:45] Oh, you'll have to hit the button again.
[17:47] Yeah. When the light comes on. There you
[17:48] There we go. Hi, I'm Lori Pater. I live
[17:51] on Maywell and I did attend the initial
[17:57] um public meeting about this
[18:00] development.
[18:02] And um my primary concerns are around
[18:07] the entrance to the property being so
[18:12] close to a busy intersection on an
[18:15] access road. So Lagoon is not
[18:20] a primary road like Machosen, but it is
[18:24] an access road for all of the other
[18:28] streets in the neighborhood.
[18:30] And being on
[18:32] Maywell, our issue will be that even if
[18:36] as the developers have indicated there
[18:40] will be um no left turning into that
[18:44] property, that would push by human
[18:47] nature people to turn into
[18:51] Wickheim, turn around in that our
[18:56] culde-sac which is also busy with
[18:59] children and the residents being in the
[19:02] neighborhood. So, you're forcing more
[19:06] people, including the chiropractor
[19:10] um patients and all of the like I've
[19:14] seen city of Cowwood vehicles parked in
[19:17] that area
[19:19] frequently. We're concerned that with
[19:22] the additional traffic and the distance
[19:26] to the main intersection of Machosen and
[19:30] Lagoon that something will need to
[19:33] happen in order to make it safe and to
[19:38] make
[19:39] it more convenient for people that could
[19:43] potentially live in that development. I
[19:45] do believe it is
[19:47] also too high a density for the spot.
[19:51] Thank you. Great. Thank you very
[19:54] much. Is there anyone else in the
[19:56] gallery that would wish to speak this
[19:58] evening? Anybody else? No.
[20:02] So, oh, we do have one more person.
[20:04] Welcome.
[20:07] That's okay. There's no requirement to
[20:09] be prepared.
[20:12] Um, my name is Darling Morgan. I live on
[20:15] Matilda down towards the lagoon. Um, one
[20:19] thing that may not have been raised is
[20:22] uh the noise and the impact on children
[20:24] trying to learn in school. I lived next
[20:26] to a construction site in Souk for
[20:29] almost two years and I will tell you it
[20:32] is unreal.
[20:34] So, um I can't imagine little kids
[20:37] trying to focus on what they're doing
[20:39] with a major construction site literally
[20:41] next door. Um factor in the developments
[20:44] that are already, I believe,
[20:45] pre-approved at for some point in time
[20:47] at Heatherbell down towards uh Seaffield
[20:50] and at the end of Heatherbell. That's
[20:52] going to put another huge traffic load
[20:54] onto Lagoon Road when they take place uh
[20:56] looking forward into the future. It is,
[20:59] as somebody mentioned, an access road.
[21:01] It's also I noticed today the sign. It's
[21:03] also a tsunami evacuation route road up.
[21:07] Um, this corner is not a place to put
[21:10] any highdensity building. As mentioned,
[21:13] it's busy. It's full of children. It's
[21:16] full of traffic. There are proposed
[21:19] hundreds of more residents within the
[21:21] next decade or sooner that are going to
[21:23] be using that corner. Um, it's it's just
[21:26] not the place for this type of
[21:28] development. It's literally on top of
[21:30] the corner. Thank you.
[21:34] Thank you. Is there anyone else that
[21:37] would like to come speak? I can't see
[21:39] the back row, but just in case, I'll
[21:42] make a last call for public
[21:44] participation. No, seeing none. Okay.
[21:46] Well, first of all, thank you to to
[21:48] everyone who's taken the time to show up
[21:50] this evening and um you know, and share
[21:52] your thoughts with the committee. Um I
[21:54] speak from experience and being on the
[21:56] other side of the podium can be a little
[21:57] intimidating if you're not familiar with
[21:59] the process and you know you show up out
[22:01] of the blue to um just to be told time
[22:04] and again where the microphone button
[22:05] is. So um you know thank you for for
[22:07] sharing um resident input is valuable
[22:10] both to the committee and to to the
[22:12] council. So what we will do now is um is
[22:16] move on to item five new business. Uh
[22:18] item 5.1 the resoning application for
[22:21] 3333 Machosen Road. and I'll call on uh
[22:24] Kelsey Field and uh city planner to uh
[22:27] give a staff presentation and then I
[22:29] believe following that we will have an
[22:30] applicant presentation. Over to
[22:34] you. Thank you chair and committee
[22:36] members. I will be giving a brief
[22:38] presentation on the resoning application
[22:40] for 3333 Matosen Road.
[22:45] The applicant is requesting an amendment
[22:47] from the existing R1 zone to a new C9
[22:51] zone to enable a 10-unit three-story
[22:54] apartment building with nine residential
[22:56] units and one convertible live work
[22:58] studio or commercial unit at the
[23:02] corner. The property is a flat square
[23:05] lot located at the corner of Lagoon and
[23:07] Machosen Road with an existing single
[23:09] family dwelling with vehicle access off
[23:11] Machosen Road. It is across the street
[23:14] from the commercial hub which includes
[23:16] Royal Bay Bakery. The property neighbors
[23:19] Sangster Elementary to the north and is
[23:22] designated as neighborhood center in the
[23:23] OCP and more specifically the Machosen
[23:26] and Lagoon neighborhood hub
[23:29] designation. The neighborhood center
[23:31] designation envisions smallcale mixeduse
[23:34] centers with an F ranging up to 1.75.
[23:38] The more specific Machosen Lagoon
[23:40] neighborhood hub outlines a maximum
[23:42] height of three stories and encourages
[23:44] uses geared to geared to neighborhood
[23:47] retail and services within a 200 meter
[23:50] uh of the
[23:52] intersection. Staff have created a new
[23:55] C9 zone which enables the density
[23:58] envisioned for the Machosen Lagoon
[24:00] neighborhood hub. The creation of a new
[24:02] C zone is consistent with other mixed
[24:04] use centers including the Royal Bay
[24:06] Bakery Complex.
[24:08] A CZ zone is intended to encourage
[24:10] small-scale neighborhoods serving
[24:12] commercial uses as opposed to just
[24:13] residential
[24:15] use. It is expected that properties
[24:17] within 200 meters of the OCP designation
[24:20] will reszone to C9 if and when they come
[24:23] forward. Permitted uses include
[24:25] apartment, bakery, personal service,
[24:27] retail store, and live work studio.
[24:32] The development agreement includes road
[24:33] dedication in the amount of 2.5 meters
[24:36] along Machosen Road to meet a 25 meter
[24:38] ride ofway to achieve active
[24:40] transportation goals. No road dedication
[24:43] is required along Lagoon Road as it
[24:45] currently meets the 20 m ride
[24:47] ofway. The proposal as is provides right
[24:50] in right out access off Lagoon Road.
[24:53] Staff did encourage the applicant to
[24:55] consolidate with neighboring properties
[24:56] to push the access further down Lagoon
[24:58] Road. However, they noted it was not
[25:00] feasible at this time. The
[25:02] transportation impact assessment or TIA
[25:05] notes that no intersection upgrades at
[25:07] Machosen and Lagoon Road are needed for
[25:09] this
[25:11] development. There is a mature tree
[25:13] fronting the property along Machosen
[25:15] Road that is currently tagged for
[25:16] removal for city infrastructure. The
[25:19] tree as it sits today is on private
[25:21] property, however, will be considered a
[25:23] city tree once the 2.5 meters of road
[25:25] dedication is complete.
[25:28] A development notification sign was
[25:30] posted on both frontages and the
[25:32] applicant hosted a neighborhood
[25:33] consultation meeting earlier this year.
[25:36] Notification postcards will be sent to
[25:38] properties within 100 meters of the site
[25:40] prior to considering considering
[25:42] readings of the amending bylaw scheduled
[25:44] for May
[25:45] 26th. Notification will also be posted
[25:48] in the newspaper and highlighted on the
[25:49] website.
[25:52] committee may wish to consider
[25:54] recommending the staff recommendation or
[25:56] any of the alternatives seen above. I
[25:59] also wanted to note that an additional
[26:00] staff report has been provided to you
[26:02] and will be appended to the agenda
[26:04] tomorrow providing clarity on tenant
[26:06] displacement policies as there were
[26:08] concerns brought forward by one of the
[26:09] existing
[26:10] tenants. Uh an additional development
[26:13] agreement condition is recommended that
[26:15] a demolition permit will not be issued
[26:17] until a development permit has been
[26:19] submitted to the city. This conditions
[26:21] should alleviate some concerns of the
[26:23] timing of
[26:25] displacement. Thank you. I'm happy to
[26:27] answer questions you may have. The
[26:29] applicant is also prepared to speak and
[26:30] will speak next.
[26:34] Thank you, Kelsey. Um, I'd look for the
[26:36] uh committee to see if there's any
[26:38] questions and and just for
[26:39] clarification, sorry, the questions are
[26:40] limited to the committee at this stage.
[26:42] Um, is there any questions from the
[26:44] committee to
[26:46] staff? We're seeing none. Let's proceed
[26:49] to the applicant presentation and that
[26:51] might uh lead to a more wholesome
[27:02] picture. Thank you. Uh Peter Hart Castle
[27:05] on behalf of Hill Architecture and on
[27:08] behalf of a group of individuals that
[27:10] got together to purchase this property
[27:12] some time ago. They are not a
[27:14] development company. They're just a
[27:15] series of individuals who happen to own
[27:17] this investment
[27:19] property. And as you heard uh in the
[27:21] official community plan, this is a
[27:24] neighborhood hub and planning uh
[27:26] emphasizes that this is a mixeduse
[27:28] building where mixeduse buildings are
[27:30] encouraged. A commercial presence on on
[27:32] the ground floor is encouraged and
[27:34] multif family residential uses in the
[27:37] remaining area on those floors and
[27:39] floors above are also encouraged. and
[27:41] the existing property contains an
[27:43] original single family home and it's
[27:45] unable to meet some of those
[27:47] requirements of the the official
[27:49] communic community plan or the or the
[27:52] neighborhood plan. So it began a design
[27:55] process to come up with a with a pro
[27:57] with a with an outcome that would be
[27:59] respectful not only of the community and
[28:02] neighborhood planning but respectful of
[28:04] the existing neighbors and the
[28:06] neighborhood as this is a gateway to
[28:08] Lagoon Road. a desire for a mixeduse
[28:11] building. It was advocated by planning.
[28:13] We're certainly happy to entertain that
[28:15] and we have designed an outcome that
[28:17] with the input of planning actually is
[28:19] far better than the original one I think
[28:21] that was was presented. There is a need
[28:24] for a mix of residential units which we
[28:26] are we are providing and and without
[28:29] compromising the uh the the parking
[28:32] there is no parking variance being
[28:33] submitted with this and yes respecting
[28:36] where we can the existing trees and
[28:38] planting significant new trees as well.
[28:41] The official community plan we are
[28:43] consistent with. We are providing nine
[28:47] residential units and one live work unit
[28:49] that could actually be retained for a
[28:51] full commercial teny. The owners would
[28:54] like to keep it as a live work unit.
[28:56] Seems most appropriate and it's a very
[28:59] uh almost a subtle location compared to
[29:02] other businesses in the community. The
[29:05] building design has a density less than
[29:07] than that was permitted that was just
[29:09] outlined. We are at 76 to one whereas
[29:12] the maximum advocated is
[29:15] 1.75. Uh and we have a height of only
[29:18] three stories so as not to impose on on
[29:20] adjacent properties but also consistent
[29:23] with other properties that have been
[29:24] developed along the chosen road. And we
[29:27] are offering a mix of housing options
[29:29] and we do have a housing issue at the
[29:32] moment. So bringing forth with three
[29:34] bedrooms, two bedrooms and one-bedroom
[29:36] outcomes is quite appropriate. And yes,
[29:39] we did uh we did have an engagement
[29:41] process with the community. We sent uh
[29:44] as you can see from the map here, we
[29:46] sent out uh invitations to 70 different
[29:49] addresses. We had uh roughly 10 people
[29:52] attend that evening. Uh five comment
[29:54] cards were received and we have all
[29:56] received more correspondents up until
[29:59] noon today. uh and we think this this
[30:02] reflects well uh on the on the project.
[30:05] We also appreciate that this project
[30:07] outcome has been drawn into a a larger
[30:10] discussion is can this be an appropriate
[30:12] zoning that could be applied elsewhere.
[30:15] We are only of course applying for
[30:17] zoning on this particular property. our
[30:20] architectural program that we achieved.
[30:22] Uh the upper two stories um host two and
[30:25] threebedroom units. Um with those
[30:28] primary living spaces and balconies on
[30:30] their lowest floor, internal stairs
[30:32] going up to a traditional second floor
[30:35] of bedrooms and washrooms for those.
[30:38] These are placed over five units on the
[30:41] ground floor. Four singlebedroom
[30:44] residential units which are walk-in and
[30:47] walk out will be very appropriate for
[30:49] adaptable housing uses and capable of
[30:52] accommodating the new building code
[30:54] requirements for adaptable
[30:56] housing with a corner unit which is
[30:58] designed as a live work unit. So it can
[31:00] be both a homebased business uh and a
[31:04] and a residence. It is 55 square meters
[31:07] or 600 square ft. Below all of this,
[31:11] there is only the center unit itself
[31:13] that is excavated to a full height
[31:15] basement. That's all that's required in
[31:17] order to accommodate bicycle and
[31:19] residential um uh storage units, uh
[31:22] sprinkler uh valves and and things like
[31:24] this. It is not a full excavation for
[31:26] the entire property.
[31:29] We did go through a process uh reviewing
[31:32] uh the the parking for the property.
[31:34] Both parking as it would be configured
[31:36] for a live work unit, parking as it
[31:39] would be configured according to your
[31:41] bylaw if this was a full commercial unit
[31:44] perhaps if a tenant was found for that.
[31:46] And we meet both of those requirements.
[31:49] These are reviewed by our engineers
[31:52] working on behalf of the owners, part of
[31:54] our consulting team. They're also
[31:55] reviewed by planning. They're also
[31:57] reviewed by Coldwood engineers as well.
[31:59] And we are not seeking any parking
[32:01] variance and in this location under the
[32:04] neighborhood hub. You could but it's
[32:07] quite clear as you have heard and read
[32:09] in correspondence there is a concern for
[32:11] parking in this neighborhood. So we are
[32:13] honoring the parking requirements. That
[32:15] will also mean that during the
[32:17] construction as well there might be
[32:19] sufficient room for the trades to
[32:21] actually park on the on the property
[32:23] itself.
[32:25] Electrical connections will be provided
[32:26] for all of those cars and all of the
[32:28] bicycles within the
[32:31] building. The site planning com
[32:33] considerations, we're in a building
[32:35] footprint quite similar to the existing
[32:38] um uh home that is there. Now, we have
[32:40] an attractive outdoor patio space at the
[32:43] corner of the ground oriented live live
[32:45] work unit. It specifically deals with
[32:48] its approach and and its visibility from
[32:51] that uh from that intersection. animates
[32:54] that that
[32:55] intersection. There are new engineering
[32:58] uh both recognizing the concern for
[33:01] traffic in the community. City Hall and
[33:03] Engineering has previously approved new
[33:06] design requirements for Lagoon Road and
[33:09] Machosen. We honor both of these in the
[33:11] design that's here. So, this is a design
[33:14] consistent with the ongoing development
[33:16] of those two
[33:18] roads. We offer on the upper uh upper
[33:21] portion of the property, there is two
[33:23] three-bedroom units, there are three
[33:26] two-bedroom units, and there are four
[33:28] one-bedroom units on on the ground
[33:30] floor. That's a diversity of housing
[33:33] options, quite appropriate for the
[33:34] schools in the neighborhood, quite
[33:36] appropriate for the family oriented
[33:38] neighborhood that is around this
[33:40] intersection.
[33:42] There is uh one groundf flooror live
[33:44] work unit as I said that's about 600
[33:46] square feet and there is 15 um surface
[33:50] stalls on this location screen from
[33:53] direct view from from the road and the
[33:56] design has achieved 16.2 m of effective
[34:00] distance from windows and entranceways
[34:03] to the to the units to the closest
[34:05] neighbor which is 380 Lagoon
[34:09] Road. We did not hear their concerns
[34:12] originally, but we knew because of the
[34:14] proximity of that building, what could
[34:16] we do? So, you'll see in this diagram,
[34:19] we have respected as great a distance as
[34:22] we can, and those uh uh both in planning
[34:24] and in the land use committee must
[34:27] recognize 16.2 m is a substantial
[34:30] setback and hopefully reassures uh
[34:33] everybody that every effort has been
[34:36] made to uh to respect the privacy of the
[34:38] neighbors.
[34:41] with respect to the to the roads that we
[34:43] we have worked around the engineering
[34:45] that was approved by um by co engineers
[34:49] but also by city council the road
[34:52] engineering that is coming we are
[34:54] respecting today. So those who have
[34:57] advocated for um for changes to the
[35:00] road, they are coming. Those tonight who
[35:03] have expressed concern over the the the
[35:06] busyiness of the road, the busyiness of
[35:08] it, this intersection, we understand and
[35:11] we have designed accordingly. And the
[35:14] driveway has been moved from the busier
[35:16] Machosen Road purposefully to Lagoon
[35:19] Road and as far from the intersection as
[35:21] we can.
[35:24] uh the design has achieved its nine
[35:26] units uh over three stories. We have
[35:28] purposefully done so in in a manner with
[35:31] contrasting finishes and colors so that
[35:34] even in
[35:35] our mid winter poorly lit nature that we
[35:38] have. Um there's something about the the
[35:41] building that will be rich and dark and
[35:43] contrasty with bright cleaner outcomes.
[35:46] Always hoping to make sure this building
[35:48] looks engaging, clean, and presentable
[35:51] for the life of the building.
[35:53] Here we have an introduction to uh uh
[35:56] the detail of the machosen road
[35:58] elevation where we can see a live work
[36:01] unit. If this is occupied by a
[36:03] counseling office uh uh a a jewelry
[36:07] studio, it is only appropriate for a
[36:10] very small endeavor. And so the the the
[36:13] canopy around it, some bu some building
[36:16] uses, some unit uses might be more
[36:18] subtle. if there is a marriage counselor
[36:20] there, perhaps that won't be in in
[36:22] signage on the outside of the building.
[36:24] So, that canopy is designed to look
[36:26] appropriate with or without um the live
[36:30] work unit disclosing its business on on
[36:32] that on that sign. Around the corner on
[36:35] Lagoon Road, the same finishes continue
[36:38] around the corner. The same canopy on
[36:40] that live work unit continue around the
[36:42] corner. The stone wall continues around
[36:44] the corner to make that intersection
[36:46] look balanced and complete.
[36:49] This is the gateway to Lagoon Road.
[36:52] Lagoon Road should be thought of as a
[36:54] quieter, more residential neighborhood.
[36:57] And and so we have only residential
[36:59] entranceways, only residential windows
[37:02] on that side, separating the live work
[37:04] unit from the residential nature of
[37:06] Lagoon Road. Further around the corner,
[37:09] we can see an insert here for for 380
[37:13] Lagoon Road, which is our immediate
[37:15] neighbor. and their outline of of that
[37:17] property is shown on on the three-story
[37:19] building elevation that we have
[37:22] here. And as we say, recognizing this
[37:25] issue, we have removed the building as
[37:28] far as we possibly can from them and are
[37:30] proud of achieving 16.2 meters. That is
[37:33] a very substantial
[37:35] setback. The interior sideyard now
[37:38] facing Sangster School, elevations are
[37:41] treated equally, materials are treated
[37:43] equally. um the building is resolved
[37:45] equally on on all
[37:48] sides. And what we have achieved uh
[37:51] throughout this the the request for a
[37:54] zoning specific to this property of
[37:56] those key setback recommendations that
[37:58] are part of community planning there is
[38:01] a recommendation that a setback from the
[38:03] Machosen Road would be between 2 and 4.5
[38:06] meters. We achieved three. Uh the
[38:09] setback from Lagoon Road, the sideyard
[38:11] recommended between two and 4.5 meters.
[38:14] We achieved
[38:17] 3.6. The sideyard setback to Sangster
[38:20] School. Yes, we have achieved the
[38:22] minimum of 3 mters, but these are
[38:24] corners only. The building is sawd along
[38:26] that edge to give a little bit more
[38:28] setback.
[38:30] and the rear yard sat back choosing
[38:33] purposefully to put a a a low height
[38:36] portion of this property development
[38:38] against the neighbor. The roaded on that
[38:41] side means when uh a recommended setback
[38:44] is between three and 10 mters well we
[38:47] have achieved
[38:49] 13.025 m to building faces but as I was
[38:54] saying to the actual uh uh building 16.2
[38:57] 2 meters from the corner of the of the
[38:59] property immediately beside us. Uh which
[39:02] is an excellent
[39:03] outcome. Thank you. We're certainly
[39:05] available for any questions. Um and
[39:08] we'll gladly respond to any of the
[39:10] correspondence that's come up that we
[39:12] have all read through in preparation for
[39:14] tonight. Thank you.
[39:17] Thank you. Appreciate the presentation.
[39:20] Um I would now look to the committee to
[39:23] see if we have any questions either for
[39:24] the applicant or for staff.
[39:30] Kathleen,
[39:32] this question is directed at both the
[39:35] developer and the city. Um, it's been
[39:39] made clear to me that traffic is an
[39:41] issue. I have to say from the outset,
[39:43] I'm not necessarily convinced that the
[39:46] development itself is ne going to
[39:49] be to exacerbate it to a significant
[39:52] extent. However, I need to understand
[39:56] this better. Um, I hear the citizens
[40:00] talking about their concerns and I think
[40:02] they're legitimate. My own view so far
[40:05] is that it has been a very hectic area
[40:10] at this the elementary school in the
[40:12] first place. So, it's problematic. So my
[40:16] first question is does the proposed
[40:20] re-engineered
[40:23] streetscape remedy any of the citizens
[40:27] concern to this extent that it can.
[40:31] um and comments perhaps also on my
[40:35] perception. Um that this incremental
[40:39] line nine units is going
[40:42] to truly exacerbate it. Um I just I I'm
[40:47] looking for input. I'm looking, you
[40:50] know, I hear what the community is
[40:52] saying. I now want to hear from the city
[40:54] and in particular um the developer. I
[40:57] think I I understand where you stand,
[40:59] but just I need some more clarity on
[41:02] that traffic issue.
[41:04] I'll look to staff maybe to speak to the
[41:07] traffic issue. U perhaps John, that's uh
[41:11] that's
[41:13] you. I thought this might come up.
[41:19] You know, I'm not a traffic engineer. I
[41:20] want to start there. Uh you know, if we
[41:22] get into this deep enough, I don't know.
[41:25] Does the applicant have a traffic
[41:26] engineer
[41:27] tonight? Okay. So, Watt's um a good
[41:31] company. We've seen lots of their work.
[41:33] We've dealt with them lots. So, I'm I'm
[41:34] confident in what we saw in the TIA. I
[41:37] think when it comes to traffic, there's
[41:39] there's the technical aspect and then
[41:41] there's the social aspect, right? And
[41:44] the technical aspect of of nine units,
[41:47] it it's going to be imperceptible.
[41:51] You're not going to see I mean there's
[41:54] 10,000 cars a day on Mosen. There's
[41:56] 5,000 cars a day on Lagoon. Peak hour of
[41:59] this development is going to add five
[42:01] cars. You're not going to see them.
[42:03] You're not going to notice them. Where
[42:05] you might notice them is where the
[42:06] developer suggested that we put a left
[42:08] turn lane going into the units so that
[42:12] they can have a place to go. It that
[42:14] doesn't make sense to me. Lagoon, that
[42:16] right turn coming down. It could get
[42:18] backed up. There's no room in the
[42:19] intersection to make that happen. we'd
[42:20] have to get rid of the left turn coming
[42:22] up lagoon onto Machosen. So they also
[42:26] suggest through the TIA that uh it would
[42:28] be appropriate to have a left turn in
[42:29] crossing over the left turn lane.
[42:31] Technically possible socially I don't
[42:34] believe that's something we want because
[42:36] my concern there is when two cars are
[42:38] sitting in the lagoon turn up onto
[42:41] Machosen there'll be cars waiting to
[42:43] turn left into the development which
[42:45] will cause us problems with a right turn
[42:47] quickly having to notice that there's a
[42:49] vehicle right there. It's already
[42:51] significantly problematic with regards
[42:52] to entrances because of the Royal Bay
[42:54] bakery site. That is really what
[42:57] exacerbates it besides the school,
[42:59] right? And that's a legitimate use right
[43:01] now. So from a development point of
[43:03] view, I don't see any reason to say no
[43:05] based on traffic. From a social aspect,
[43:08] I understand completely why it's
[43:09] concerning because this doesn't fix it,
[43:12] but I don't believe it makes it worse. I
[43:14] mean,
[43:15] by.1% whatever percent, I don't know the
[43:17] number. It's not different for the city.
[43:20] It's one of our problem areas. There
[43:22] will be a light at Lagoon someday. We're
[43:24] going through the traffic master plan
[43:26] now. This may elevate this intersection
[43:29] through that process and say, "Let's do
[43:31] this sooner rather than later."
[43:33] Currently, it's not in the city's 5-year
[43:35] plan. And I get for this neighborhood,
[43:37] this is the most important project, but
[43:40] we have an entire city and we've got
[43:42] many, many intersections where there's
[43:44] many, many areas that I'm quite certain
[43:46] whenever the development shows up to the
[43:48] next intersection, we'll have a lot of
[43:49] people concerned there. And and this is
[43:51] legitimate concerns that the residents
[43:53] have. It is a very busy and I have been
[43:55] out there at 8 and I have been out there
[43:57] at 2:30. It's crazy. It truly is. Um
[44:02] it's it's a poor location. the school
[44:05] itself is is um congested in there with
[44:08] regards to their parking. They actually
[44:09] currently have some of their parking
[44:11] stalls are on the city right ofway. And
[44:13] when we try to build our ultimate
[44:15] rightway, we will be taking away
[44:17] significant school parking. So, the
[44:20] school has an issue that at some point
[44:21] they're going to have to figure out a
[44:22] driver to get into the back and take the
[44:24] playground away from the kids. Um, there
[44:27] are issues there, but from a technical
[44:30] point of view, I can't tell you that the
[44:32] the traffic is really that concerning
[44:34] from the staff perspective. We did ask
[44:36] them to try to push the entrance as far
[44:38] down to Lagoon Road as they could down
[44:40] Lagoon Road towards uh WAM as they
[44:43] could. We did suggest, as Kelsey
[44:45] suggested, if you could buy a few more
[44:47] lots, we could get down to that
[44:49] intersection. But, you know, buying
[44:51] those lots is a lot more difficult than
[44:52] it sounds. Um, you know, once people
[44:55] know that their lots for sale, they're
[44:56] not going to sell it at a rate probably
[44:58] that allows them to develop that lot in
[45:00] a way. And if they did, there wouldn't
[45:02] be 10 units here, there'd be 50 units
[45:03] here. So, again, that's your tradeoff.
[45:06] So, I can't really say technically it's
[45:08] a problem, but I understand completely
[45:10] why social is a problem. I hope that
[45:11] helps. That's very helpful. Thank you.
[45:16] Thank you, John. I appreciate that.
[45:17] Thank you, Kathleen. I'll go now to uh
[45:20] are you sorry did you have more
[45:21] questions or no but I think uh oh sorry
[45:24] did you want to speak to her question
[45:25] apologies I didn't see you there
[45:28] no and that's okay I I certainly want to
[45:30] reiterate that from a mathematical point
[45:32] of view yes the number of trips per day
[45:35] on machosen or on lagoon are not going
[45:38] to change in any way because of nine
[45:40] units and one live work unit the social
[45:43] aspects yes absolutely we understand the
[45:46] pressures that are on that to that uh
[45:48] that that intersection at the moment and
[45:52] it has been uh quite discussed with the
[45:54] co engineering and the project will be
[45:58] developed only in a manner that is
[45:59] acceptable to the co engineers uh and we
[46:03] have certainly discussed it with the
[46:05] with the owner group uh we're not
[46:07] requesting a a left turn lane
[46:10] in it was a part of perhaps those those
[46:13] discussions and in the report that goes
[46:15] back to those numbers
[46:17] The owners are perfectly willing to
[46:19] allow right in and only right out to
[46:23] minimize that interruption of of
[46:25] traffic. And it's an interruption of
[46:27] traffic that as was stated, it's there
[46:30] now. Part of which has been recognized
[46:33] by engineering and recognized by city
[46:35] council, which is why those both of
[46:38] those roads are are being redeveloped.
[46:40] And it certainly brings that priority to
[46:42] that to that intersection.
[46:45] nine units doesn't change that. But I
[46:48] certainly understand as a parent myself
[46:50] taking kids to a school, I would want
[46:52] that intersection to be as safe as
[46:54] possible. And we're just moving our
[46:56] driveway off of Machosen, which is
[46:59] helpful, and putting it on the
[47:01] theoretically quieter Lagoon Road, but
[47:04] those are the only two faces we have on
[47:07] the property. Thank you.
[47:11] Thank you. Anything else for me, Kevin?
[47:14] No. Okay, I'll um I'll go to James.
[47:20] Good evening. Uh lots to unpack here, so
[47:23] bear with me. I might be jumping around
[47:25] a little bit. Um one of the visuals that
[47:29] was provided in the report had a uh
[47:32] top-down view of the property, including
[47:36] the uh consumed setback for sidewalk and
[47:41] bicycle lane. and what also looked like
[47:43] a clamshell pull out parking bay for for
[47:47] cars. Was I mistaken in my
[47:51] interpretation of that? Specifically,
[47:53] what I'm driving towards is this could
[47:56] be providing at least
[47:59] additional spots to roadside parking
[48:02] along
[48:03] Sangster or for Sangster School.
[48:08] Sorry, James. Was that in the applicant
[48:09] presentation or the uh it was in in
[48:13] both, but it was definitely in the
[48:14] applicant presentation.
[48:16] Maybe we could pull that up again and
[48:18] see that overhead view. Uh no, if you
[48:22] could cycle forward a little perhaps.
[48:27] Yes.
[48:29] Uh so what you can see is on Lagoon Road
[48:32] uh at the conclusion of the driving
[48:34] lanes there is a a boulevard and then a
[48:38] sidewalk. And on Lagoon Road the bicycle
[48:41] lane is incorporated beside the traffic
[48:44] lanes. On Machosen Road, both the
[48:47] bicycle lane and the pedestrian walkway
[48:50] is pulled away from Machosen and there
[48:52] is a landscape boulevard separating
[48:55] traffic from uh um from the bicycle and
[48:59] p pedestrian pathway. There is no
[49:01] additional parking being provided.
[49:03] There's parking there now, but that
[49:06] parking is removed with the
[49:07] redevelopment of the road.
[49:10] Thank you.
[49:12] Uh so something that I think is perhaps
[49:15] worth considering is if the boulevard is
[49:18] worth it at this point or if some form
[49:20] of pull out parking uh could elim
[49:22] alleviate some of the concerns there. Um
[49:27] first and foremost, thank you so much to
[49:29] the public for providing such valuable
[49:31] feedback. It is incredible to see such
[49:34] turnout and such uh concern because not
[49:37] only do I hear very strong messages for
[49:40] the developer, but I also hear very
[49:42] strong messages for the city. Um
[49:44] particularly around the traffic, it's
[49:47] all well heard uh the concerns here. Um,
[49:51] the first thing that came to my mind
[49:52] when reading
[49:54] this agenda here is the fact that Royal
[49:58] Bay is being built out and we have
[50:00] thousands of residents being uh
[50:03] introduced to the city of Cwood just
[50:06] further down the road. So yeah, I agree
[50:09] that even the imperceptible blip of
[50:12] volume introduced through eight new lots
[50:15] is going to be even more uh um uh
[50:20] diminished through all these new lots
[50:22] and the city's plans for Mosen Road is
[50:26] becoming a paramount issue. the the
[50:28] mother and children being hit being a
[50:30] clear issue and exemplifying the the
[50:34] problem that's present regardless of
[50:35] what is built along that
[50:38] corner. To the developer, uh the mix of
[50:41] units, I love it. Three unit, two unit,
[50:43] one, one unit, uh sorry, bedrooms and
[50:45] that being one of which being a
[50:47] commercial flexible space. I think
[50:48] that's incredible use of the space. I
[50:51] think that there's a good opportunity
[50:52] for those homes to be families with kids
[50:55] that go to that school potentially live
[50:57] eliminating some of the the volume of
[51:00] traffic there. Um the other things uh
[51:05] that sorry back to the the city um the
[51:08] necessity for a new school within Royal
[51:10] Bay, pulling those people out of
[51:11] Sangster, putting them in uh the other
[51:14] school that is anticipated in Royal Bay,
[51:16] I believe uh could also help with this
[51:18] massive congestion problem in that area.
[51:22] Um
[51:25] the one of the residents provided uh
[51:28] insight as to installing solar panels
[51:31] with the installation. That is something
[51:34] I definitely endorse. I think that's a a
[51:37] really good way about being cognizant of
[51:39] uh the world that we're in and uh
[51:41] minimizing the impact that space would
[51:44] uh result in causing.
[51:48] And yeah, I guess the the sort of final
[51:51] question that I really have is like to
[51:52] the city like what do we know about the
[51:55] school that's coming along? I know that
[51:57] things are moving. What are the plans
[51:59] for Machosen Road? Like the real issue
[52:01] here being brought forward by the
[52:02] residents is the traffic, not not this
[52:05] particular uh property. It's their this
[52:08] this is this is their chance to voice
[52:10] the concerns that have always been
[52:11] present.
[52:20] the M
[52:21] chosen, excuse me, the M chosen piece um
[52:25] should be addressed to some form with
[52:28] regards to um timing. Um we are going
[52:33] through the the TMP process,
[52:35] transportation master plan process,
[52:36] which is a complete public engagement
[52:38] piece. We'll be reaching out to
[52:40] neighborhoods. Um this is the kind of
[52:42] intersection where we would anticipate
[52:44] people in that area coming out and
[52:45] saying, "Hey, we need that traffic light
[52:47] and we need it now." Um there's
[52:49] certainly u many other areas. One of the
[52:52] things that council has endorsed the
[52:53] last several years is a traffic model
[52:55] which allows us to really
[52:56] comprehensively look at the impact of uh
[52:59] development and look at the impact of
[53:01] changing our intersections and what they
[53:03] look like with regards to lane widening
[53:05] and so on. So Mosen currently is planned
[53:08] as an arterial. It is an arterial road.
[53:10] Um and we are discussing um various
[53:13] treatments on that from three to four
[53:15] lanes of traffic in there with bike
[53:17] lanes with sidewalks. Um and that's what
[53:20] they talk to when they refer to that 25
[53:22] meter rideway. That rightway would have
[53:24] uh extra lanes of traffic with bike
[53:27] lanes and sidewalks all in there. So
[53:29] that development hasn't got a timing on
[53:31] it yet with regards to Mitchosen and
[53:33] obviously Mitchosen is se several
[53:34] kilometers long as is Latoria as is Souk
[53:37] as is Veterans Memorial all of those
[53:40] roads will be discussed with regards to
[53:42] treatments and timing of those
[53:43] treatments uh in the coming years. Thank
[53:46] you. And you know whether or not this
[53:48] development proceeds I I truly feel that
[53:51] the problem's only going to get worse
[53:52] due to how much we are building out
[53:54] further south along the Chosen. So it's
[53:57] it's it's just a whole separate
[53:58] conversation that is pressing. Um the
[54:01] final thing that was uh a a big point of
[54:04] concern for me right now. Um and this
[54:06] has been a topic previously is the
[54:08] notification distance for residents on
[54:10] development per uh like we had many of
[54:13] the people only find out at last minute.
[54:15] I know that we've talked about making
[54:17] improvements there. I know that was
[54:18] several months ago. I'm really
[54:19] interested to understand uh how far
[54:22] along the process we are to improving
[54:24] those uh standards.
[54:27] Thank you for the question and through
[54:29] the chair. Um so yes, bylaw amendments
[54:32] were passed to increase the notification
[54:34] radius to 100 meters. Um in this case,
[54:38] the city has not sent out notifications
[54:40] yet um as we will be notifying um prior
[54:43] to first reading which is on May 26. So
[54:46] our notices our notices haven't gone out
[54:48] yet, but yes, we we'll be within that
[54:49] 100 meter range with the caveat that if
[54:52] there's half a culde-sac, we will add
[54:54] the other half of the culdeac. So yes,
[54:56] we um those amendments have been made.
[54:58] We advise the applicant that um we will
[55:01] be setting notes within 100 meters. So
[55:03] that that's just what they chose to do.
[55:06] Thank you for that.
[55:08] And you know, I really appreciate
[55:10] getting uh to hear what the the the
[55:13] public want to say. and you know being
[55:15] on this committee helps me be a voice
[55:17] for the the public. So if there's a way
[55:19] to get notifications out such that
[55:21] they're able to provide voices at at at
[55:23] this forum as well um I would certainly
[55:25] appreciate that.
[55:27] Thank you.
[55:30] Thank you Mr. Perry. I will go to Trina.
[55:35] Thank you chair. Um, I would also like
[55:38] to thank all the public that came out
[55:41] today and uh presented your views. I
[55:45] live in that lagoon community, so I am
[55:47] well aware of the congestion that
[55:49] happens there. I happen to go to yoga
[55:51] class at the same time that school comes
[55:53] in and I try and I try and arrive at
[55:56] yoga class very zen, but getting through
[55:58] that intersection doesn't always achieve
[56:00] that. Um, so I do know what you speak
[56:04] of. Um and that's what I would like to
[56:07] speak to um mostly to the staff to
[56:10] really encourage um whatever can be done
[56:13] to um expedite that light being put in
[56:19] uh that traffic congestion being
[56:21] addressed in some way. I took a deep d
[56:23] knowing that this would happen. I took a
[56:25] deep dive into the transportation study
[56:28] and um was discouraged to see that um
[56:32] counts were used from 2019 that were um
[56:37] the quarter growth was from counts in
[56:42] 2023. I would suggest that uh new counts
[56:46] need to be done, new official counts
[56:48] need to be done if they if they haven't
[56:50] been um so that the city has the most
[56:55] up-to-date information and that our any
[56:58] of our transportation consultants like
[57:00] Watts have that information available to
[57:03] them.
[57:05] Um and then I would I would encourage at
[57:09] the next phase of if we go forward with
[57:12] this new development that the
[57:14] transportation study
[57:17] um
[57:19] address the anticipation of the
[57:22] difference that a light at that
[57:24] intersection would make. So that would
[57:28] be things that will be helpful to the
[57:30] committee to uh be able to help make her
[57:33] decisions in the future with regard to
[57:35] this corner.
[57:37] Thank you. Thank you, Trina. Um John, I
[57:39] may go to you in a moment, but maybe I
[57:40] just like to try to address that first.
[57:42] I think the most recent traffic modeling
[57:45] um isn't a static count. It's it's more
[57:47] of an incorporation of um you know
[57:50] what's what exists today but also what
[57:53] what is on the books in terms of
[57:54] development in this moment but also
[57:56] moving out well into the future. I think
[57:58] it was 40 years if I'm correct. So the
[58:01] traffic modeling that we have gives us a
[58:03] pretty good window you know going very
[58:05] far out and certainly I'll be very open
[58:08] um the the modeling demonstrates a lot
[58:11] of things. There's different ways to
[58:12] interpret it. there were different
[58:13] scenarios. Certainly widening Veterans
[58:16] Memorial to four lanes is is kind of
[58:18] consensus that that is something that
[58:19] would have to happen. Uh I personally am
[58:22] a proponent of widening the chosen to a
[58:24] minimum of three lanes. Um significant
[58:26] cost though associated with some of
[58:28] these things. I think it's beyond just
[58:29] putting a traffic light in. We you know
[58:31] we have to consider the the negative
[58:33] ramifications of that as well. I think
[58:35] what we're running up against here on
[58:37] Machosen Road is something we run up
[58:39] against elsewhere in Cwood and that
[58:41] Cwood was developed as a sleepy
[58:43] subdivision, right? A suburban
[58:45] neighborhood. It wasn't designed with
[58:47] arterial roads. Machosen Road is an
[58:49] arterial road today. It wasn't when
[58:51] Sangster Elementary was built. No one in
[58:53] their right mind would put an elementary
[58:55] school on an arterial road with a
[58:57] parking lot of that size. It It's
[58:59] ridiculous. Frankly, moving Sangster
[59:01] would be the most logical thing that
[59:03] anyone could do. But like us, the school
[59:06] board also doesn't have a bottomless pit
[59:07] of money. And uh it's not on their
[59:09] radar. I can tell you that. Um we get
[59:11] one new school approved provincewide
[59:15] annually in the entirety of British
[59:17] Columbia. That's directly from SD62. So,
[59:20] you know, relocating Sangster is not uh
[59:22] or or I should say one new replacement
[59:24] school to replace an existing school. So
[59:26] in an optimal scenario, we would remove
[59:28] Sangster. It would be a different story.
[59:30] But we can't do that. And then that's
[59:32] not by any means an attempt to bismerch
[59:34] the elementary school or the the great
[59:36] teachers that work there. It's just
[59:37] location. Mitchosen has developed into a
[59:40] major artery and it's how a lot of
[59:42] people will come and go from Cwood and
[59:44] that is a reality that we have to
[59:46] accept. That's that's not going to go
[59:48] away. So anyway, I think in terms of
[59:50] traffic modeling, there is much more
[59:51] updated information there and I think it
[59:53] gives us a really good picture of um of
[59:55] what's going to happen if we don't do
[59:57] anything and and with the various
[59:59] scenarios of what we do do. So I
[1:00:01] digress. I just wanted to answer that on
[1:00:02] behalf of staff and then maybe I will go
[1:00:04] to Katrina. Did you have a question?
[1:00:08] I thought I saw a light. Okay. Thank
[1:00:10] you. After you. Um thanks again. I
[1:00:13] reiterate what everyone said up here
[1:00:14] that I appreciate everyone coming out
[1:00:15] here and the presentation today. Um,
[1:00:18] something I'm just thinking about and
[1:00:21] I'm a community member as well and use
[1:00:24] Machosen Road regularly is not so much
[1:00:28] necessarily when the units are finished
[1:00:31] building, but as they're being built.
[1:00:34] So, like I can't imagine that whole
[1:00:37] corner um having a construction site
[1:00:42] where the road's going to have to be
[1:00:45] stopped or like what does that look like
[1:00:47] in terms of like building like how long
[1:00:50] is it going to take? Is it going to be
[1:00:53] 8:30 a.m. and the schools are going in
[1:00:55] and people are going to work and we're
[1:00:58] stopping traffic because we have an
[1:00:59] excavator in there? Like I'm just
[1:01:02] wondering I I'm I'm not a SME in this
[1:01:05] area for by any means. So I'm just
[1:01:07] curious what that looks like and that
[1:01:09] whole corner being constructed for 6
[1:01:12] months, 8 months, nine
[1:01:15] months. Does anyone have
[1:01:17] any like information on what that looks
[1:01:20] like? I'm pretty certain the site
[1:01:22] superintendent isn't here
[1:01:25] tonight. Um I can tell you that they
[1:01:27] will be constructing between school
[1:01:29] hours for certain. Um, what they'll try
[1:01:32] to avoid under best construction
[1:01:34] practices is not bringing traffic in
[1:01:36] when traffic's at its worst. It's it's,
[1:01:38] you know, it's it's a dollar some gain
[1:01:40] for for the developer at some point.
[1:01:42] They're going to be construction
[1:01:44] vehicles in, but they're not going to
[1:01:45] schedule a concrete pour, I would guess,
[1:01:47] if they're any kind of good site
[1:01:49] superintendent for 8:30 in the morning
[1:01:51] because they won't be able to get to the
[1:01:53] site for 8:30 because there's too many
[1:01:54] cars there. So, I think they'll do
[1:01:56] things like an early morning pour before
[1:01:58] school traffic starts. Get the concrete
[1:02:00] truck on site before that happens or
[1:02:03] just after that. There's a window there
[1:02:05] with school from like 9:30 to 1:30 where
[1:02:08] you've got 4 hours to bring in your
[1:02:10] concrete course. So, I'm quite certain
[1:02:12] with this site when they start looking
[1:02:14] at actually developing that site,
[1:02:15] they'll keep in mind that traffic
[1:02:17] because it's as problematic for them as
[1:02:19] it is for the people that are going
[1:02:21] there. But you're also going to deal
[1:02:22] with a lot of frustration because there
[1:02:24] will be times when if they bring a truck
[1:02:26] in or a truck shows up from somewhere up
[1:02:29] island that you know got late and shows
[1:02:31] up at 1:30 or 2:00, they're going to be
[1:02:34] in it and if they've got to unload or
[1:02:36] something like that, even if they're on
[1:02:37] the site, they'll still if it's a
[1:02:39] swinging crane or something, they'll
[1:02:41] have to stop traffic while the crane
[1:02:42] swings out and comes back in. So there
[1:02:45] will be issues for sure, but to speak to
[1:02:47] them specifically, it's very difficult
[1:02:48] to do at this time. Mhm. And does the
[1:02:52] city have any ability to say like oh you
[1:02:55] cannot do like you're saying I think and
[1:02:59] I and I assume and if they're a good
[1:03:02] superintendent then they were not going
[1:03:04] to do those things but that doesn't mean
[1:03:05] they're not going to do those things
[1:03:06] because I feel like I go places all the
[1:03:09] time and it's like rush hour traffic and
[1:03:11] I blows my mind that it's like really
[1:03:13] they're doing that right now. So that's
[1:03:15] the kind of thing like just as a
[1:03:17] concerned citizen as well that they're
[1:03:19] going to be like can the city impose
[1:03:22] rules like that where you currently
[1:03:24] staff cannot council could through a
[1:03:27] bylaw if they want to change it. So we
[1:03:28] have working hour bylaws we have um
[1:03:31] noise bylaws certain hours and so on but
[1:03:33] at this current time we have
[1:03:35] right-of-way permits with regards to
[1:03:37] what you can put on the right of way. Um
[1:03:39] so for instance parking a truck on the
[1:03:41] right of way those are the kinds of
[1:03:42] things they can't do. Um, but as far as
[1:03:45] telling them when they can deliver
[1:03:46] trucks to the site and when they can't
[1:03:48] and those types of things, we currently
[1:03:49] don't have tools at our disposal to do
[1:03:51] that. Okay. Thank you. And what is from
[1:03:54] like the builders owners perspective,
[1:03:58] what is the time frame like that you
[1:04:00] guys have to have this built?
[1:04:07] building of this scale um can be
[1:04:10] constructed between 18 and 20 months
[1:04:16] um relative to relative to the um uh
[1:04:20] sorry can I I just asked for quiet in
[1:04:22] the gallery I mean I I don't want to
[1:04:24] tamp down hushed conversation but we we
[1:04:27] do have to allow him a chance to answer
[1:04:28] the question please
[1:04:31] uh because of the concern over school
[1:04:33] one of the things that that that the
[1:04:34] owners can do is separate the
[1:04:38] construction of the building with hard
[1:04:40] panel boarding from the sidewalks so
[1:04:43] that when the building is constructed,
[1:04:45] it is independent of when those road
[1:04:48] changes are done. Is there a way ofuling
[1:04:51] the changes to the lane and the
[1:04:53] sidewalks so that that is done at a time
[1:04:56] when the school is least occupied? When
[1:04:58] when is the building shut down? when is
[1:05:00] the building in uh uh Sangster being
[1:05:03] used more uh during the summer with a
[1:05:06] less student body population than at
[1:05:08] other times so that we're not having the
[1:05:10] construction of the lanes um at a time
[1:05:14] when the school is in is in session. And
[1:05:17] hard boarding to separate the existing
[1:05:20] sidewalk and those existing conditions
[1:05:22] from the construction of a building
[1:05:25] means that there should be minimal or no
[1:05:27] impact other than it's those delivery
[1:05:30] vehicles coming and going. But we can
[1:05:32] certainly make it uh quite safe during
[1:05:35] regular items. And as was said and any
[1:05:38] any good construction manager should be
[1:05:41] aware that they won't be able to plan
[1:05:44] something if they're having materials
[1:05:46] delivered during the very busy times
[1:05:49] that we know as parents. That's when
[1:05:51] schools have the biggest exchange of
[1:05:53] cars and people and students and
[1:05:56] parents. Um
[1:05:59] thank
[1:06:01] you. I think that's all my questions.
[1:06:04] Thanks. Great. Thank you. Are there any
[1:06:06] other questions from
[1:06:08] committee Kathleen? This is not a
[1:06:11] question but just a paid political
[1:06:14] announcement on my own behalf. I wanted
[1:06:16] to pair it what James Mr. Perry has said
[1:06:19] in terms of the solar panels. I'm not
[1:06:22] sure what the incremental cost is for
[1:06:25] you, but I would encourage you as a
[1:06:27] developer to put it there. I don't know
[1:06:28] anybody who wouldn't want that
[1:06:30] initially. um your STRA council is going
[1:06:33] to be very happy not to have to pay for
[1:06:36] converting um and to me it's a it's a
[1:06:39] huge bonus um I hope I that I stand for
[1:06:42] other people in terms of of that
[1:06:44] viewpoint but I think it's a very very
[1:06:48] um important thing that just be done at
[1:06:50] the outset if if the increment
[1:06:52] incremental cost isn't prohibitive so
[1:06:55] encourage you to do so thank you
[1:07:01] great thank Thank
[1:07:02] you, Mr. Perry.
[1:07:06] Yeah, I realized with all my uh general
[1:07:09] sentiments and and questions, I I failed
[1:07:11] to ensure I got a qu answer to the
[1:07:14] question about uh the school in Ro Bay.
[1:07:17] My understanding is next to the new
[1:07:19] community park, there will be a
[1:07:21] elementary school. What do we know about
[1:07:24] that lot? Where are we in that process?
[1:07:26] The best way to increase safety is
[1:07:29] getting people out of that area. And and
[1:07:33] that elementary school, I would presume,
[1:07:34] would have a similar catchment basin for
[1:07:37] children as the Sangster school has
[1:07:39] today.
[1:07:45] My understanding of the um elementary
[1:07:49] school site, it was initially um
[1:07:52] bookmarked as
[1:07:54] um elementary school site, but it is now
[1:07:58] considered for overflow for uh the
[1:08:02] secondary school. It is it is being
[1:08:05] considered as a site for overflow of
[1:08:08] Royal Bay Secondary School. there it is
[1:08:11] not formally
[1:08:14] um lots of conversation and review
[1:08:17] assessing the needs of the community. I
[1:08:20] think there's a lot of work from the
[1:08:22] school district 62 to understand what is
[1:08:26] the most pressing need in the Royal Bay
[1:08:29] community.
[1:08:30] Um, I can speak for the school district,
[1:08:35] but there's
[1:08:37] um I would say not an imminent
[1:08:40] development of an elementary school that
[1:08:42] I'm aware of.
[1:08:45] Thank you. When um forgetting like
[1:08:49] traffic congestion safety, is Sangster
[1:08:52] servicing its basin
[1:08:55] for elementary school children? Is it
[1:08:58] bursting at the seams in terms of maybe
[1:09:02] if I can populations address that? Yeah,
[1:09:04] we we council has met with SD62 a number
[1:09:06] of times and certainly Sangster is is a
[1:09:09] like all schools in the district is
[1:09:11] above its uh percentage of population.
[1:09:14] That's why you see retasking of uh band
[1:09:17] rooms and other things to classrooms.
[1:09:19] But it's not any different than I would
[1:09:21] say Dunmir or any of the other schools,
[1:09:23] Royal Bay Secondary, even newest
[1:09:25] schools. um all schools in SD62 are
[1:09:28] operating above 100% capacity at this
[1:09:30] point. Um but I I I just wanted to step
[1:09:32] in because again that Royal Bay um land
[1:09:36] is way too far off to consider as any
[1:09:39] kind of release valve if you will in
[1:09:40] terms of pressure from Sangster. Um you
[1:09:43] know could be 40 years. You know, it is
[1:09:45] really seen at this point as overflow
[1:09:47] potentially for Royal Bay Secondary, but
[1:09:49] again, nothing that has been confirmed
[1:09:51] by SD62 at this point, but there is no
[1:09:53] immediate uh pressure relief in sight
[1:09:56] there. Okay. Thank you for the new
[1:09:58] information. I appreciate that.
[1:10:02] Thank you. Any other questions at
[1:10:05] all? I don't see any. Um I think
[1:10:09] um I I just wanted to kind of observe
[1:10:12] that two things can be true at once. You
[1:10:15] know we have a situation here uh where
[1:10:17] you know the applicants have put forward
[1:10:20] um what is and I used this term before
[1:10:22] an isolation a solid proposal. It is a a
[1:10:25] attractive uh building that is OCP
[1:10:28] compliant welldesigned um meets the
[1:10:31] criteria that that we would seek on
[1:10:33] paper for for this location. Um,
[1:10:36] alternatively, it's also fair to say
[1:10:38] that there are perception issues. It
[1:10:40] creates a sense of crowding um, in a in
[1:10:43] a fairly low density area. Um, it
[1:10:46] becomes a bit of a lightning rod for
[1:10:47] density concerns. We know that density
[1:10:49] in Cwood has been um, contentious, we'll
[1:10:53] say, with with density increases in
[1:10:55] Royal Bay and other areas. Um, there are
[1:10:58] perceived traffic issues. I think it's
[1:11:00] fair to to say that um our staff advice
[1:11:03] was accurate that the actual impact
[1:11:07] would probably be nominal barely
[1:11:09] perceptible but I understand the
[1:11:11] perception as well when you add density
[1:11:13] the belief is we are going to see
[1:11:15] additional issues and what it does is
[1:11:16] exacerbate the already stressful issue
[1:11:19] and creates a lightning rod for that to
[1:11:21] to kind of focus on. Um and then the
[1:11:24] construction concerns I understand that
[1:11:25] I live next door to a construction site.
[1:11:27] I live across the street from a
[1:11:28] construction site. Construction is 24/7
[1:11:31] and uh it's not ideal. I knew that when
[1:11:33] I was going to get into it, though, so I
[1:11:35] accept that. I think in an established
[1:11:37] neighborhood or a legacy neighborhood,
[1:11:39] having new construction is is a little
[1:11:41] more traumatic. It it has a real impact
[1:11:43] on people for a set period of time. And
[1:11:45] I don't think we want to be dismissive
[1:11:46] of that.
[1:11:49] Um the way I view this and and I stand
[1:11:52] to be correctly by anyone is that these
[1:11:55] two things are true at once. We we have
[1:11:58] a public perception and and a public
[1:12:00] valid public concern challenge before us
[1:12:03] and we have a a reasonably strong
[1:12:06] presentation for a development before
[1:12:08] us. And so the decision making um
[1:12:11] becomes a little less black and white
[1:12:13] and a little more gray. If there were
[1:12:15] compliancy issues with the project, we
[1:12:17] would easily push it back to the
[1:12:19] applicant to work with staff to correct
[1:12:21] those. Um you know, and and it becomes a
[1:12:23] very cut and dry thing. This isn't that
[1:12:25] case. So I'm open to any motion coming
[1:12:29] forward from the committee. Um but I'm
[1:12:31] just going to suggest that barring a
[1:12:33] different one, my motion would be to
[1:12:35] advance the proposal to the regular
[1:12:37] council without recommendation but
[1:12:40] strictly to um task regular council to
[1:12:43] review for consideration of readings or
[1:12:46] any other decision. So essentially
[1:12:48] elevate it to council who are elected to
[1:12:51] to take into account the public's view
[1:12:53] and to look at a project whether or not
[1:12:56] it's OCP compliant and all of those
[1:12:58] other things and and make the call. Um
[1:13:00] based on that um again that's the motion
[1:13:02] I I will put forward in a moment barring
[1:13:05] any other motion or any discussion. I'm
[1:13:08] open to to someone else if they want to
[1:13:10] make a recommendation or
[1:13:12] not. Seeing none. Okay. So I will make
[1:13:14] that motion. I'll repeat it for you.
[1:13:16] Just to advance the proposal to regular
[1:13:18] council without recommendation for
[1:13:20] review of consideration for readings or
[1:13:23] other decision.
[1:13:25] And so to explain to the folks in the
[1:13:27] audience just to lay person's terms what
[1:13:29] I'm trying to do here um is that this is
[1:13:31] going to go to council anyways. That's
[1:13:33] where the final decision rests. This
[1:13:34] group here this evening we were not
[1:13:36] going to make that final decision. We're
[1:13:38] looking at the the technical side of it
[1:13:39] and things to say okay is there
[1:13:41] something here that really stands out
[1:13:43] that needs to be sent back to the
[1:13:44] drawing board. Um I'm hesitant to do
[1:13:47] that because developers are also part of
[1:13:49] our community and and there's costs
[1:13:50] associated with time delays with you
[1:13:53] know redoing the work and bringing in
[1:13:55] architects and other people. So there is
[1:13:57] no cause really to do that at this
[1:13:58] stage. Um and I and time is money. We
[1:14:02] don't want to do that. So, what we will
[1:14:03] do though is put it forward to council
[1:14:05] where again you'll have that opportunity
[1:14:07] to to come forward with lots more time
[1:14:10] to prepare um well aware of how the
[1:14:12] microphone button works and and able to
[1:14:14] speak to the full council including the
[1:14:15] mayor who's been observing tonight
[1:14:18] um and and share your views and I think
[1:14:21] you know also gives the applicant a fair
[1:14:23] amount of time to take to heart your
[1:14:25] concerns and and I fully encourage them
[1:14:27] to consider that and see you know
[1:14:29] knowing full well what what the
[1:14:31] community thinks how you might mitigate
[1:14:33] that. So, it it will give everyone an
[1:14:35] opportunity to kind of go away, take a
[1:14:37] deep breath, and and regroup uh at a
[1:14:40] time in the future when an actual
[1:14:41] decision can be made. So, what one thing
[1:14:44] I learned in this job, it's it's never a
[1:14:46] win-win. It's kind of somewhere just
[1:14:47] below that. So, we'll we'll buy
[1:14:49] everybody some time and and move on with
[1:14:52] a little more information, provided that
[1:14:53] this um this recommendation moves
[1:14:55] forward. Mr. Perry, I see you have a a
[1:14:59] glowing light. Please go ahead. Uh the
[1:15:02] one thing that I wanted to uh see if we
[1:15:04] wanted to consider uh was if a uh
[1:15:08] planted boulevard was considered more
[1:15:11] valuable to the city than perhaps like a
[1:15:13] clamshell bay parking along that
[1:15:16] stretch. Um as mentioned it's currently
[1:15:18] used for parking um during the drop off
[1:15:21] pickup times. I feel like while the
[1:15:24] boulevard is ideal from a green space,
[1:15:26] from a safety perspective along the the
[1:15:28] bike lane and the um uh sidewalk, I
[1:15:33] still think that there's something worth
[1:15:35] evaluating there. Um I don't necessarily
[1:15:38] know what the rest of the uh table here
[1:15:42] believes, but um hearing um a lot of the
[1:15:45] concerns um finding ways to address and
[1:15:48] respond to them seems valuable.
[1:15:51] So my recommendation is to uh provide to
[1:15:55] council the uh amended recommendation of
[1:16:01] asking the developer or and to work with
[1:16:03] city staff to address the viability of
[1:16:06] additional parking along
[1:16:10] chosen. Okay. So we have a proposed
[1:16:12] amendment to the um the original
[1:16:15] recommendation. So, we can
[1:16:18] uh vote on
[1:16:22] the amendment first, I believe. Sorry, I
[1:16:25] have a flag raised by uh engineering.
[1:16:28] We'll just uh allow John to provide some
[1:16:30] input. Thank you. Thank you, chair. I
[1:16:33] don't want to put a wet blanket on this,
[1:16:34] but if it comes to staff, I'm going to
[1:16:36] suggest we don't do it. It's
[1:16:38] exacerbating the problem with regards to
[1:16:40] interaction with bicycles, cars, and
[1:16:42] pedestrians, especially in the school
[1:16:44] zone. That clamshell piece would be less
[1:16:47] than 10 meters from the intersection. So
[1:16:49] when you're making that right turn off a
[1:16:50] lagoon and coming on from a hill, which
[1:16:52] means you're going to probably
[1:16:53] accelerate coming out of lagoon onto
[1:16:55] Mosen, which just about everybody does,
[1:16:57] you get those sudden stops because
[1:16:59] somebody's pulling out of that clamshell
[1:17:00] or somebody's trying to back into that
[1:17:02] parallel spot. So that's purposeful with
[1:17:04] regards to Neria Road. If you think of
[1:17:06] Souk
[1:17:07] Road, Machosen, believe it or not, and
[1:17:09] hard the hard thing is we've got to
[1:17:11] think 40 years out, not four years out.
[1:17:14] And Machosen is going to look like some
[1:17:16] flavor of a souk road. And we're going
[1:17:19] to try to remove every piece of parking
[1:17:21] we can off of Machosen. And putting one
[1:17:23] in now when we know it's ultimately not
[1:17:25] what we desire would be against staff's
[1:17:27] recommendation. I'm not suggesting don't
[1:17:29] do it. I'm just suggesting if I'm part
[1:17:30] of the conversation, I'm going to tell
[1:17:32] council I would recommend that we don't
[1:17:34] do it. And I'm sure traffic engineer
[1:17:35] would do the same. Thank you, Johnny.
[1:17:37] Yeah, and I would I would concur. I
[1:17:39] would be voting against it if the
[1:17:40] amendment still stands. I see um
[1:17:42] Katrina, did you want to speak to it?
[1:17:44] Well, I think that you already said it,
[1:17:46] but I actually don't think that the
[1:17:48] parking is a good idea either. I think
[1:17:50] I'm just envisioning like safety being
[1:17:52] number one, kids walking along there,
[1:17:54] and I find cars coming in and out of
[1:17:57] parking spots more treacherous, and I
[1:17:59] think that keeping the boulevard is
[1:18:02] would be a preferred way to go. Thank
[1:18:06] you. Um, Mr. Perry, I believe very
[1:18:08] well-intentioned. Um, the amendments on
[1:18:11] the floor we can vote or you can
[1:18:13] withdraw. Up to you. I I mean, I heard
[1:18:14] very very good reasoning as to not do
[1:18:17] it. I I'm more than glad to retract
[1:18:19] that. uh suggestion. Thank you for your
[1:18:21] consideration. Thank you. And yeah, and
[1:18:23] appreciate you looking for some some
[1:18:25] problem solving here. Um so that brings
[1:18:27] us back to the um original motion. Um
[1:18:30] any further discussion on that at this
[1:18:32] point? Seeing none, I'll call the
[1:18:34] question. All those
[1:18:36] opposed. I see none. So we will move
[1:18:41] on. That brings us to item
[1:18:45] six. Sorry, I just have a question from
[1:18:47] the gallery. Maybe if you want to come
[1:18:48] up to the microphone, I'll make a
[1:18:50] exception here. And
[1:18:54] you get
[1:18:56] Yes. Yes. So the question for those
[1:18:58] listening online, the question from the
[1:18:59] gallery was was seeking understanding on
[1:19:01] who gets to vote and it is just the
[1:19:02] committee members that vote um on the
[1:19:05] the motion on the floor here. So the
[1:19:08] committee has voted unanimously just to
[1:19:10] send this on to regular council um
[1:19:13] without a recommendation either for or
[1:19:16] against. just to go to council to then
[1:19:18] review the the
[1:19:20] application.
[1:19:24] Okay. I I'd rather not at this point.
[1:19:26] I'm happy to speak to you afterwards if
[1:19:28] you like uh more casually. Um so at this
[1:19:30] point we'll move on to item six which is
[1:19:32] adjournment. Can I have a mo motion to
[1:19:35] adjurnn? I see one there. All those in
[1:19:39] favor? I pulled a mayor's trick at the
[1:19:42] end and switched it up. So that's
[1:19:44] unanimous. Uh the meeting is adjourned.
[1:19:46] Thank you everyone for your time. I
[1:19:47] appreciate it.