Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
For. Once.
Good afternoon everyone and thank you for being here. I'd
like to call this meeting to order. I'd like to
acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional ancestral
territory. The Helix Okanagan people. This evening council will hold
a regular meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to
hear from the public on matters contained in the subject
applications. Council has been provided with the information correspondence petitions
or reports that have been received concerning the subject applications.
This information is available to the public online at Colonna.
ca slash Council or by request to the Office of
the City clerk. For those participating this evening or who
have already submitted letters to the Council, a reminder that
this meeting is open to the public and all representation
to Council Forum Part of a Public Record. A live
audio video feed is being broadcasted and recorded on Cologna.
causa will now stand for reaffirmation of both of Office
that will be read by Councillor Singh, please.
It's coming your way, Councillor. Thank you for waiting, Council.
We're here this evening to perform the duties of council.
We will act faithfully and with integrity. We will abide
by the statutes, bylaws, and policies that govern the city.
We will promote openness accountability and responsible leadership. We will
provide good stewardship of public assets. And programs. And finally,
we will always consider the well - being and the
interests of the community of a whole leading to the
development of a safe, vibrant and sustainable city. Thank you,
Councillor Singh. Council, I am looking for a mover in
a seconder from the minutes from our July 14th, 2026
meeting, moved by Councillor Hodge, seconded by Councillor Wolridge. Do
I have any errors and emissions in those minute meetings.
Seeing none all in favor. Thank you. For those of
you who have not attended a Tuesday regular meeting before,
here is how we will proceed this evening. Staff will
provide a brief description of the application. The applicant will
then be given up to 15 minutes to make representation
to council regarding the project. This will then be followed
by a call for Representation from the public participating in
person and online. Any person wishing to make representation during
the meeting will have the opportunity to do so. Speakers
will have up to five minutes to share the remarks.
Once the public has had the opportunity to comment the
applicant will then be given up to 10 minutes to
respond to any questions that were raised by the public.
Any applicant or member of the public may use electronic
visual aids to assist in their presentation or questions. Online
participants must be able to share their screen, to display
their presentation if they have one. Thank you, City Clerk,
please. Thank you your worship. Council and the public will
note that the item under 4. 1, which would have
been first on the agenda was withdrawn by the applicant.
And so we will move directly to item 4. 2
on the agenda. And this is a Liquor license application
for a property on Water Street here to present to
staff from the development planning department. Good afternoon, Jocelyn. Good
afternoon, you worship members of Council. This application is to
seek Council's support for a structural change to a lounge
endorsement for an existing manufacturing license at Coluna Beer Institute
to increase the license capacity from 200 to 262. With
no proposed changes to their indoor and outdoor areas or
hours of operation. In February, Council and approved an increasing
capacity as well as making the patio permanent, following the
end of the temporary expanded service area program. The potential
occupant load is 262 and the applicant is proposing to
increase the capacity to match the approved occupant load. This
application was received in June of 2026 following a decision
of council today. We will forward the recommendation to the
LCRB. The property is located downtown on Water Street by
the Water Street boat launch and waterfront park pathway. The
existing hours of sale are as follows and are not
proposed to changed. They are currently open indoors till 1
a. m. and open outdoors on the patio till 11
p. m. The proposed occupant load is 78 to 111
indoors and 122 to 151 outside on the patio. And
these are the floor plans that indicate the indoor and
outdoor floor area. As well as the stamped occupant load.
No comments have been received. In the application is aligned
with Council Policy 359 Liquor licensing policy and procedures specifically
Liquor Service for Lysis establishment in the central area may
be permitted between the hours of 9 a. m. and
2 a. m. Within the central area, an outdoor patio
at a license establishment may not operate later than 11
p. m. In a licensed establishment within the central area
that closes later than midnight must limit capacity to 500
people. Staff are recommending that a supporting recommendation before to
the LCRB. Thank you. Thank you. The applicant or the
applicants representative now has up to 15 minutes to present
to council. You can make your way to the public
podium on your right here in Council Chambers. And please
begin by stating your name and street name. That would
be if the applicant wishes to present council regarding this
application. Your worship seeing none and seeing none online, and
this will be the public's opportunity to address counsel about
the application. Um, so any members of the public wishing
to address council on this Liquor license, please make your
way to the public podium on your right or raise
your hand in teams. You have up to five minutes
to speak and please begin by stating your name and
street name. This is the second time of asking. This
is the third and final time of asking. Uh, your
worship seeing none and there would be no applicant response.
If there are any questions for staff, this would be
the opportunity for that. Councillor, do I see any questions
for staff. Seeing none, thank you. Thank you, worship. So
that concludes any input on this and be looking for
a mover in a seconder of the staff recommendation? Uh,
moved by Councillor Lovegrove, seconded by Councillor Singh. Any further
discussion. Seeing none, all in favor. Opposed carried. Thank you.
Thank you, worship. That brings us to item 5. 1
on the agenda. And this is a foreman character development
permit and development variance permit for a property on loss
in avenue here to present to staff from development planning.
Thank you. This application is due issue development permit for
the foreign character of an apartment building and a development
variance permit to vary the maximum site coverage of all
buildings and the ratio of tree sizes. This application was
received in August of 2025. The file went through a
rezoning for the rental - only subzone, and today is
Council Consideration of the Development Permit and Development Variance Permit.
The subject property is located east of the downtown Urban
Centre on Lawson Avenue. The property is part of the
transit supportive corridors zoning pilot project area and is therefore
zoned TS1R. The property is in close proximity to transit
stops located on Bernard Avenue and walking distance to the
Queen's Way Bus exchange. Additionally, the site is close to
the shops and services that are provided in the downtown.
Model City Data estimates a population of 1, 672 and
estimated jobs at about 1, 000. This proposal adds 71
rental units to the City's housing targets. This slide is
a snapshot of the housing needs dashboard, indicating our targets
as it relates to the identified 10 - year need
in Coluna's housing needs assessment. The subject property is four
single parcels that are consolidated. And this is an image
of the lot frontage, uh, facing loss in avenue. As
well as neighbourhood context. There has been some redevelopment in
this area, mostly through the building form of Forplexes. In
terms of technical details, uh, the application is for a
five - story building with 71 units, 46 - 1
bedroom, 24 - 2 bedroom, and one three bedroom. There
are 63 proposed parking stalls, 98 bike parking stalls, and
eight trees provided. The applicant is requesting two variances. The
first is maximum site coverage of all buildings from 65
percent required to 68 percent proposed. I will take the
opportunity to speak to that site coverage variance right now.
Uh, the building could have been built to a sick
story height maximum under the zoning bylaw. However, the applicant
increased the building on each side to fit the parking
and units in a five - story building form instead.
Staff do see this as a minor variance and are
supportive of it, and I will speak to the landscape
variants, uh, later on in the presentation. The site plan
indicates all vehicle access will come from the rear lane.
There are also parking stalls and waste and recycling collections
located off of the lane. The main residential lobby is
located off of loss and avenue, as is a stair
access to residential units off of lost and avenue as
well. This is the east and the north elevation facing
lawson, showing the main residential entry as well as stero
access to the first floor unit patios. And the west
and the south elevation. The material board includes white and
charcoal cladding, light grey stone cladding, and oak wood cladding.
This is the applicant's proposed landscape plan, uh, and also
indicates the second variance, which is to vary the minimum
ratio between tree sizes. Based on the landscape area along
the front property line, the zoning requires a minimum of
five trees, including three large trees. The applicant is proposing
two large trees instead of three. To help offset the
requested variants the applicant is also proposing eight trees in
total, which exceeds the minimum number of trees that are
required on site. There will be new boulevard trees required
as part of future upgrades to loss an avenue. So
the tree canopy concerns our mitigated, uh, because the boulevard
trees will eventually see growth and create a canopy over
the sidewalk. And this ratio also ensures that the trees
can be planted on site with proper soil volumes. So
they grow and thrive. There's also perimeter landscaping that includes
shrubs, perennials, ground covers, and grasses on the sides of
the building. There's also a proposed amenity area located on
the podium and it contains seating areas and overhead trellis
and a future gathering space. There's additional amenity space inside
the building. The ground floor contains a multi - purpose
space that can be booked by residents. Um, as well
as study lounges on the second and third floors. These
are the applicants rendering of the project. And that is
the rear elevation and amenitie space that I spoke of.
Overall, the proposed project does fit within design guidelines specifically
to design attractive, engaging, and functional on - site open
spaces. Uh, breaking up the building mass by incorporating elements
that define the building space, middle, and top. This is
largely done through the use of different materials in this
project. And locating off street parking and other back of
house uses away from public view. Steph, do you recommend
support for their proposed development? As it meets the majority
of our guidelines, um, and we see the variances as
minor and mitigated through additional landscaping. Thank you, yourship. Thank
you, Jocelyn. The applicant or the applicants representative now has
up to 15 minutes to present to council. You can
make your way to the public podium on the right
side. And please begin by stating your name and street
name. Yes. Counter, Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name
is Usman Aziz. I'm here to represent my client for
the properties at 727 and 747 Lost and Avenue. Um,
thank you, Jocelyn, for being very thorough on everything that
we want to present. Um, I do have two quick
short little walkthroughs of, uh, the front of the property.
Uh, mainly, uh, representing the landscaping and the trees that
are along the street.
So this is, we're heading towards the downtown.
And this is, uh, like a site strafing video.
All right. Um, that's it. I'm open for questions. Not
at the moment, but if you have anything else to
let us know, that would be great. If not, I'll
just ask you to take a seat and we may
have some questions for you in a little bit. Thank
you. Any members of the public who would like to
address counsel regarding this application on loss and avenue. You
can make your way to the public podium on your
right or raise your hand in teams of participating online.
You have up to five minutes to speak. And please
begin by stating your name and street name. Hi. My
name's David. I live on 722 lawson avenue. So this
is right across the street for me. You know, the
lots of being vacant for a while. So it definitely
looks like an improvement, but it doesn't really address the
character of the neighbourhood. There is three heritage houses in
the immediate vicinity. And, uh, it doesn't match the neighbourhood.
I don't think it's a neighbourhood enhancement. I think it's
a neighbourhood development and increasing the lot size, um, we
just found out the lake is at its lowest levels
ever. Our aquifers are also at their lowest level ever
increasing the volume and size of the building. It's just
going to increase water usage. So that's a big concern.
The trees, less trees in our current environment is pretty
hot outside the tree. Uh, with the parks. The highway,
the frontage on Lawson has not really been addressed as
well. Um, the traffic on Lawson is increasing as it
was when the high rise went across on St. Paul.
Suddenly the lane got really busy and accessing Richter. So
another concern is the entrance to Lawson with an increased
volume of people is also going to impact public safety
of rental unit. The type of rental, like if you've
been around or anyone has had rentals like I have.
It's not usually the best in the neighbourhood. So for
crime and safety, we already have, uh, issues with, um,
a transient population coming and going, uh, rental pop, a
large rental in that area. It's only going to increase
the opportunity for, uh, marginalized population to inhabit the area
even more than it is. So from a public safety
standard, it's really not, not ideal. Um, I know the
building looks nice on paper, but it's just a big
box. It's ugly. Sorry. No, no insult to the architect.
Uh, other than something like on Martin, uh, Martin Loft
is a nice build. It looks good. It's got some
features to it. And so I think long term for
the city, it doesn't add character. It detracts. So thank
you. I don't want to sound like I'm, I mean,
I'm right across the road. I mean, I've been in
colonifer over 40 years. My children were born here. My
grandchildren were born here. Um, I really love Colonna. Um,
it really, I would like to keep it, uh, with
some character or some ambiance that you want to live
in. A big rental across from our little heritage homes
is not complementary. I mean, there's all, it's a rental.
We're all residents on the street. And so it really
changes the flavour of the neighbourhood. I think that's probably
my five minutes. I would actually urge Council of refusing
crews and land use and tree size. But instead decrease
the land use of 65 to 55 percent neighbour with
bigger offsets and more green face space facing Lawson. Thank
you. Thank you.
Hello, my name is Millen Zordivich. I reside at 725
loss in Avenue. And I own the properties 1471 and
1475 Rickter Street. Since 2000. First, I would like to
know if anyone has read the letter that I sent.
It was written before an impreparation for the first planning
meeting. Listed by the city. I sat through two meetings.
And there was no opportunity for public input. At a
time when it seems it would have been useful. That's
probably. I wrote more carefully thoughtfully and respectfully than this
process deserves. I am aware that nothing I've written or
say will have any effect on what is an offence
to design, planning. And the neighbourhood. I'm angry that staying
within the OCP essentially gives the developer free reign to
bulldoze a neighbourhood. My two houses are heritage listed. They
are not part of the transit supportive corridor. And I
am sure the city will constrain my use of the
properties. In a way that hasn't been applied to a
developer who has no ties to the neighbourhood. And stating
here that both a design and the process do not
serve the community. It's actually grotesque. Density of 70 units
on four lots in a residential neighbourhood served by a
one - lane alley entering rick to street 120 feet
from Bernard. Will be problematic. Frankly, such rental is not
what the city needs. For fun, let's consider property rates.
This is a taking two years of construction hell and
then a five - story elevation, which is an invasion
of my privacy. And the developer has no obligation to
compensate me from my very real losses. It's not going
to happen here, but it is time we revisit property
law. As to trees, the city should be proactive in
pushing mitigation of the climate crisis. This state does not
have one tree that will grow and produce a canopy
and shade on the south side. It is time for
the city to implement design and landscape guidelines as is
happening in progressive cities. Is my time run outer. No,
it's okay. Okay. The CPX plant are greedy FUs. I
have been given no information on five - story elevation.
Less than 10 feet from my property line. Planning should
require setbacks proportional to building heights. Site coverage should include
all built forms. Even the cheapest rentals of the past
put this project to shame with their green space. This
process needs to be improved. The city should do more
than facilitate development. OCP is inadequate in terms of guidance.
Planning is more than colouring rectangles on a map. There
needs to be a design panel of experts dedicated to
producing good design and planning. I'm well aware that my
efforts are futile for the present, but I hope that
some of you will try to imagine raising the power
and such obscenities won't be forced another neighbourhoods in the
future. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Just while any other members of the public who would
like to address counsel on this may make their way
up, just confirming that all correspondence was circulated to council
that was received on this application. Um, so if there
are other members of the public looking to address council
regarding the application on loss in avenue, please make your
way up to the public podium. This is the second
time of asking. And if there are others looking to
speak, you can make your way up immediately following the
person before you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Daniel
Anette. I reside at 741 Lost in Avenue, one of
the properties that will be affected by this. Good afternoon
Mayor and Council. I want to be specific in what
I'm objecting to because I think the technical details of
this proposal matter more than the general concerns about density.
I was, and just before I go on about this,
I was uninformed about these matters. So this is my
first time being notified about this. And, uh, I just
kind of like found out about it through the properties.
So the sign that's in front of our thing, but
our property, but like you're not always driving past it
or I'm sometimes thinking a U - turn. So it's
not very visible to everyone who's on the street. Um,
and I, I guess I got this in the letter
recently. So that's another notification. Um, I have two other
residents that live in a house. My nine - year
- old grandmother and my, uh, elderly uncle. So, um,
it's just, I'm not sure if it's relevant or anything
that can be done to stop this. Development happening. So
if that's not the case, and I apologise for addressing
that concern, but going over the details, um, of this
proposal, there are concerns of that. Um, it's on the
site cover variants. The applicant is asking to increase maximum
site coverage from 65 percent under section 13. 5 of
the zoning bylaw 12375. That's presented as a small number,
but a three point jump on a lot of size
means less permittable ground for storm weather absorption. Less on
- site green space. And the building sitting closer to
the property line. Then the bylaws owned baseline was designed
to allow for the zone. A lake council to treat
this as a real design deficiency. Not a rounding error.
If the building doesn't fit within the appropriate response is
to redesign the footprint, not adjust the bylaw around it.
On the tree ratio variance, the second ask is a
variance to the minimum ratio between tree sizes under section
7. 2, table 7. 2. 2. I like the applicant
or staff to clarify exactly what ratio is being reduced
here. If this variance means substituting a large number of
small caliper trees for the required mix of larger, more
mature canopy stock that satisfies the letter of a landscaping
count. But defeats the purpose, the ratio exists for. Long
- term canopy cover, shade, and storm weather interception on
the site. I don't think the trade - off should
be approved without a clear justification from the applicant. On
parking. I'd also note that the numbers don't add up.
On parking 65 units against 65 souls works out to
roughly 1. 1 stalls per unit. Given this stretch of
Weston Avenue, I think the ratio is worth scrutinizing before
approval, not after residence after residents looking for street parking.
My ask, I'm asking council to deny the site coverage
variants and require the applicant to bring the design within
the existing 65 percent limit. Plan that meets existing tree
size ratio requirements. Before the applicant proceeds further. Thank you
for your time. Thank you.
This will be the final time of asking for any
members of the public wishing to address council regarding this
application. Seeing no more, your worship, this would be the
applicant's opportunity to respond to matters raised by members of
the public. Uh, if you wish to do so, you
have up to 10 minutes.
Alright. Thank you fellow neighbours for your comments. Uh, new
concerns. Um, there was a neighbour notification mail out sent
out to approximately 57 addresses within the vicinity of
the development early this summer, around May. There was my
address and the city staff's address and contact. Uh, we
never received any comments then. Just recently I did approach
the three heritage homes. Along Victor to primarily talk about
their trees that they have in their backyard. I left
my letter along with my contact and everything. And, uh,
you know, to talk about further about the development, um,
fortune unicuring thing about anything from the neighbours then either.
But in terms of, uh, the rental quality, um, yeah,
there is sometimes a concern of tenants, but the client
here, one of his plans and programs was to design
these units about He does want to encourage small young
families to be tenants. Um, it shows with the amenity
space that's outside. It's got a little kids park, uh,
little picnic area of, you know, a place for young
families to gather. And yeah, just being within the vicinity
of downtown where young families can, the law daycare is
opening up now too in downtown and possibly of young
families dropping off their kids and then going to work
in downtown. So, um, it is encouraging a certain type
of demographic that the client is looking for that they
want, uh, want to live here. Um, in terms of
the permeability, um, yes, we are asking for a three
percent bump in site coverage. But in terms of setback
permeability ratios that those all comply within, within bylaw. Um,
in terms of the parking, um, and traffic concerns, um,
all traffic will be directed to the lane. Um, and
all parking, uh, ratios are per bylaw also. So there's
no variance in terms of parking county. In terms of,
I mean, yeah, everyone's got their opinion about the design.
We are, we do want to promote like some kind
of sauce lighting that, uh, enhances visibility at night, but
does not intrude into the neighbor's, you know, creating light
pollution. And then in terms of trees and shading, we
do have, you know, on - site. We are asking
for a variance of trees, but do note that there
are four large oak trees on the boulevard on the
loss inside. That's all for now. Thank you. Thank you,
worship. This would be the opportunity for Council to ask
questions of staff followed by questions of the applicant. Councillor
Singh, is that a question of staff. I'm going to
show you. What's true. Okay, I can come back to
you. Um. You want to try staff? Okay. Thank you.
Justlyn, one of the interveners, I wish I had written
down everything verbatim. But I talked about wanting a clarification
on the tree canopy. I wonder if you could speak
to that. Yes, your worship. So the variance is specifically
for the ratio of, um, of trees is that there
is three required to be large and they are proposing
two. And then part of the, um, rationale that I
went through in my presentation is that loss and avenue
will have to go through, uh, upgrades for curb gutter
sidewalk, including street trees. And so the applicant will either
pay into a cash and lie program for that or
pay into the neighbourhood street urbanization program. Um, and that
work would be completed at a later time. And that
would provide large trees on the boulevard, which is our
main concern as well is ensuring that we get the
treat canopy. Thank you Councillor Lovegrove questions. Thanks, you worship.
So just to follow up on those trees. So, but
I just heard there are already four large oak trees.
Are they on the north side then? Were they going
to be removed as part of urbanization. Uh, three worship.
I can't speak directly to the works and services that
the development engineering group does. I believe that they maintain
trees where possible, but often because they have to relocate
sidewalks and things like that. Um, sometimes they do have
to remove trees and plant new ones. It depends on
the specific project. Fair enough, but there are currently four
large trees. Um, I don't think so. Um, let me
check. Maybe we can get the applicant to come back
up and clarify that when it's, excuse me, sir. Just
one second. We're just at, we're just, uh, councillor just
one sec. We'll all call you back up in a
minute. Through your worship, this is the aerial image. So
it looks like the existing trees are potentially at the
front of the property line. Right. And when, uh, well,
let's talk worst case, if when it's urbanized, they have
to be removed. Um, what's the typical size the city
installs larger small trees. Three worship on the boulevard typically
large trees. Arch trees. Okay. That's good. It is dependent
though on which program we're applying which cross section where
it goes. Okay. And then on the comment about the
visibility of the sign, does staff approve the sign notification
sign location? Through your worship. Yes. We receive pictures from
the applicants once the sign is posted to confirm that
it's been posted. And then on the side coverage, um,
you mentioned your presentation. I just want to make sure
for the public record, I heard you're right. If we
push that back down to 65 percent by not approving
the variance does that mean the sixth story or what
potential or ramifications does that have for the proposal? So
through your worship, I think that the land use component
is an important one here. So this is already zoned
the TS1 zone under that zone. They can build up
to six stories. So the applicant is proposing this, uh,
to five stories with an increased, my understanding is the
rationale that he mentioned to have larger unit sizes. So
if this application was not approved and this site coverage
variance was not approved, they could come back with a
six - story design that meet all of our bylaw
requirements. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for that. Um, would that also
then allow them to put or meet their tree requirement
on site? Three worship. That's a hard question for me
to answer. I think the applicant would probably be better
off to answer that. Okay. Then maybe that's the better
way to go on this. Thanks, Yerish. We'll wait for
the applicant. Thank you. Councillor Cannon, please. Questions of staff.
Yeah. Thanks. Just wanted to did stop. Worked with the
applicant to look at what would be achieved. Meeting the
site cute coverage without the variance. Uh, through your worship
throughout the application process, I think that the site coverage
variance was always identified. That was how the building was
initially designed. Okay. And you said the units are larger,
but there's actually one three bedroom unit. Is that correct?
There's only one three bedroom union. Yeah. That's correct. Um,
as far as this being the first department building on
this block, is there any concerns about the president setting
with this, uh, variance request? Uh, excuse me, there was
a cough right when you were in the middle of
that sentence. I understand this is the first department building
in this block, right? There's other ones that have been
the predominant block pattern right now is four plexes and
single family homes. Yeah. That's correct. So just wondering you
said that basically these variances are considered minor. Um, yeah,
through your worship of staff, do you consider these variances
minor? Like often when we're looking at these form a
character development permits, we think about the trade - offs,
um, a six story apartment building can be really challenging
for, for neighbours. Um, and that is what the zone
allows. So in this case, you get a little bit
of a lower profile. And we also worked with the
applicant on some specific design asks to try and make
it more attractive building. Um, to be in the neighbourhood.
And so it's a bit of a trade - off
in that sense. Thank you. Welcome. I have one question
for the applicant. Sir, if I may ask you to
come back forward, please. Council, I see no more questions
for staff. Um, so this is just, if you would,
sir, please. There's a couple of questions. Councillor Singh, no
questions. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Love Grove, you had a
question for the applicant. Thanks, you worship. Hi, and welcome.
Um, so on the trees, you mentioned four large oak
trees. Are those going to be impacted if the street
gets urbanized? Correct. So that's, it's, they've already landscape architects
already issued a, you know, price bond, you know, that,
that potentially put accommodate these four large oak trees on
the boulevard. So if, if it is urbanized and there
are four there now, and we have no idea on
the timing. So, so these four would be new trees
on, on the boulevard between the sidewalk and the street
curve. Oh. And so the proponent is giving a, what
do they call that? Certificate credit. To install four large
trees. Correct. Okay. And, um, then what happens if the
over coverage variants is not allowed? Do you have any
idea what the client is thinking? You know what? I'm
not certain that's, I don't think we need to get
into that speculation. It's, I mean, we have something in
front of us, Councillor. Yes. No, fair comment. All right.
I'll draw that question. Thanks. Councillor Cannon, please. Thanks. Um,
just wondering as far as you heard from the concerns
of the neighbour, did you have a chance to meet
with any of the neighbours? Uh, I'm chill today. No.
Sorry? Until today, no. Okay. And the question then is
if you would have went six stories and did you
consider that and what would the implications if you went
six stories and conform to the bylaw. No. I mean,
we were trying to avoid going that high. To six
stories, primarily we felt that we could achieve what the
client needed within the five stories, uh, without being too
intrusive in the surrounding neighbourhood of going six stories. You
didn't even model it out of seeing how many more
units you could get in. Then parking also, uh, allows
you so much. We could add more units, but then
we would be in a parking variant. So. Thanks. Thank
you. Seeing no further questions, please, sir. Please take your
seat. Thank you very much. Uh, City clerk, please. Thank
you. Roshi, if that concludes any public input on the
matter. And I'd be looking for a mover in seconder
of the recommendation. Move my council Wolward. Seconded by Councillor
Singh. Further discussion, please. For the discussion Councillor Love Grove.
Thanks for your worship. Uh, this is interesting. I actually,
until the residents came up. So I appreciate these public
hearings. I was thinking, well, what's the big deal? Um,
so I want to thank the residents for coming back
and speaking. I really, really appreciate it. And to the
gentleman, things it's not going to make a difference. This
is what democracy is about. So please take the heart
that I take to hurt your comments. Um, and I
appreciate your letters as well. Um, and I appreciate my
Council colleagues asking about, did they talk to the residents
before they or after they came up with the five
- story design? Because clearly that answers my question that
I was going to ask. And I think, um, we've
got impacts on heritage properties. We've got, uh, impacts on
fit. And they character the neighbourhood. And I'm going to
actually vote against this. We've got three residents that came
up with well articulated reasons to not approve this. We,
um, have an issue in the city with affordable housing,
but we've heard housing supply, maybe we tap the brakes
on that. So I'm not, I don't see us in
a housing crisis as much as maybe four years ago.
And I'm prepared to ask the applicant to take a
nerve or crack at this to come back with us.
To us. Thanks to worship. Thank you. Count stack, please.
Thank you, worship. Um, I too would like to thank
the speakers this evening and particularly Daniel just because, uh,
it's your very first time. However, you identified the two
specific items that the public should speak to. And so
I think you did very well. Um, from my perspective
on this, like to me, I think there is a
significant improvement of the five versus six stories. Having a
six story building go up right beside my house. I'm
well aware of it. And, uh, I think that is
a reasonable trade - off. The slightly larger footprint, I
don't think will be noticeable. And I like the trees
on the boulevard. I think the four oak trees will
help offset some of this. But I do acknowledge to
the neighbours. This is significant change to the neighbourhood. And,
um, unfortunately that's the direction our city is growing because
of the zoning for these properties. I don't think you'll
ever have someone build a heritage home on this type
of zoning. It just, uh, just doesn't really make sense.
People wouldn't build a fraction of what they're entitled to
build on this area. But it does have a huge
impact on the neighbourhood. And I'm sympathetic. But it means
all our bylaws with the exception of two minor variances.
I have to support it. Thank you. Council Singh, please.
Thank you, Wosha. It fits this project fits in our
official community pipeline guidelines. The variances, like my colleague said,
are fairly minor. The footprint is not, the ask is
not for a huge footprint. So, um. It is doable.
And, um, I can understand how people in the neighbourhood
would feel impacted and concerned about what could be impacting
their lifestyles. But once the only ask I could make
of the applicant is to work with the neighbours to
make a good project needs to have good neighbours and
friendly neighbours and residents who lived there want to feel
like the neighbourhood welcomes them as well. So it would
behoove the applicant to work with the neighbourhood. And, uh,
make sure you don't aggravate each other. I think I
will be supporting this. We are moving towards. More needing
more housing for our, for people who are in our
city. So I will support this. Council Wolverage, please. Thanks
to worship. Somewhere to my colleagues. Thank everyone for coming
out this evening and speaking to the application. Um, whenever
I'm looking at variances, um, critically, um, I always question
if they make the building, um, and the development better.
And, um, in my mind, um, when I read the
report and understood that this was, um, keeping the building
lower than six stories, which is, which is allowed in
my mind, um, is, is, uh, positive for the community
and the neighbourhood. And I fully understand, um, how these
neighbourhoods are changing and shifting and that causes friction. Um,
I have some comfort on the tree discussion regarding, um,
this, these trees being in addition to the boulevard plantings
that the city will be responsible for, um, and then
the addition of, um, different amenities throughout the building. And
a rental was touched on a little bit this evening.
And the thing that I like about rental tenure buildings
is that they're owned and managed, um, directly by one
owner versus individual units, which can often be more challenging
to manage over time. So, um, by having rental buildings,
there's usually one owner and one manager of the building
that can, um, keep things in check for the neighbourhood.
So, um, it meets all the other, uh, bylaws. It
means the parking bylaws. And it's on a transit transit
area. And for those that are advocating for more rapid
transit, um, this is the type of development that we
need. So I will be supporting it this evening. Thank
you. Council Weber, please. You know, you look at this
and this particular project. As gentle densification. It's, you know,
if they had come forward with, um, say fourplexes on
the four lot, 16 units, that would be, that would
fit into the neighbourhood more. But the problem is that's
what we're voting on. They have this owning to be
able to build a five or six story building there.
And if we vote against it, there could be a
six story building there. And as we've seen in other
areas, six stories do loom over a residential neighbourhood more
than five stories. So this is, this is our choice
right now. And it isn't about whether there's going to
be a building there or not. So, uh, you know,
it would be tough to vote against this not knowing
what the end result will be. The idea that I
would say the thing about rental units attracting marginalized communities,
most of these rental buildings that are opening up charged
far more for rent than I pay in my mortgage.
I can barely afford to live there myself. So I
don't know that unless I'm marginalized, I don't know there'll
be a lot of marginalized people hanging around there. Councillor
Cannon, please. Thanks. I appreciate as well as the members
from the community and the applicant and my council colleagues
questions. I've been going back and forth because, you know,
I appreciate the five story, but I also, um, look
at the fact that his zone already at six stories.
And we do as Councillor Weber doesn't fit the forming
character. And that's what we're also going on in the
development has to do with the former character. And that's
one of the big things, especially this variance because we're
setting the tone for first partner building adjacent to heritage
homes. I think our deviating from our own standards, which
are already increased with the zoning bylaw a few years
ago, increase the density. So I just think it's kind
of mission creep continue to go away from our own
standards, which are quite lenient already in many cases. So
I personally would have liked to see in the applicant
work with the residents a little closer and had some
dialogue and, you know, had a discussion about, you know,
what implications of six stories. And larger units. There's only
one three bedroom. They want to have units for families.
It really doesn't do much for families with two bedrooms.
So given the fact that it's variance doesn't, in my
mind, hasn't been demonstrated to significant necessity. It doesn't fit
the form and character in the area and the variants
for the trees. I would not be supporting the very
interests today. Thank you. Thank you. Council saying no further
comments. Just before I call the question. Obviously what was
before us tonight with respect to a couple of variances,
uh, other than that everything else proceeds or proceeds at
a six story level without any variances in it. Um,
just looking in hearing all of my Councillor colleagues, I
think they're very much for the information, but I am
at an agreement that it ends up being the variances.
Our minor with regards to advancing this particular project. So,
um, I would like to thank the residents for coming
out. And just again, once, uh, just to confirm with
them, that all information that you had forwarded into us,
we were received by all council members and we had
the opportunity to view it. So thank you very much
for affording that information to us. Uh, with that Council,
I'm just calling the question all in favor opposed. Councillor
Love Grove and Councillor Canon opposed. And once again, thank
you for coming out this evening. Thank you. We're ship.
That brings us to item 5. 2 on the agenda.
And this is a former character development permit and development
variance permit for a property on Dayton Street here to
present his staff from the development planning department. Good evening,
Mark. Good evening, your worship. The purpose of this application
is to consider a development permit for the foreman character
of a commercial medical services building and development variants permit
to reduce the required number of parking stalls from 60
to 30 as well as vary the upper floor setbacks
from three metres required to zero metres proposed along the
north and west property lines. The application was submitted on
April 24th and neighbourhood notification was completed on June 29th.
Today, we're here for Council Consideration of the Development Permit
and Development Variance Permit. If they are approved, the applicant
could proceed to building permit. The subject property is located
on the west side of Dayton Street to near the
intersection with Dixon Avenue within the Capri landmark urban centre.
It's located within walking distance to a variety of other
commercial services and employment. And there are transit stops on
Harvey Avenue and Springfield Avenue within a five minute walk
of the subject parcel. Model City Data shows that within
five minute walking radius of the subject property, there's an
estimated population of approximately 631 with 4, 602 jobs. Uh,
this is a subject property. It currently contains three existing
buildings. Uh, the furthest south building is proposed to be
demolished as part of this application. Uh, the proposed building
location is shown by the red dashed line. And also
it should be noted the applicant is proposing to subdivide
the parcel to create this as its own separate lot.
So it would be separate from the other two buildings.
Uh, that is also where the, uh, the variance is
largely stem from is the future subdivision application. This shows
the neighbourhood context image number one is the, uh, existing
building viewed from Dayton Street. The second image shows the
property from the east from Dun Street across some other
private parcels. And the third image shows the building location
from the south adjacent to the existing parcade. The applicant
is proposing to construct a four - story commercial medical
services building, 30 parking stalls are proposed to be provided,
which would be accessed from the adjacent parcade to the
north. So access the parkade in this building through the
parcade to the north. The proposing 14 bicycle stalls. And
also as a condition of the development approval, the applicant,
it will be required to register a road reserve for
the southern 10 metre portion of the property in order
to facilitate the future Southern Road extension. In order to
facilitate the proposal, the applicant is proposing two variances. The
first variance is to the number of parking stalls. Uh,
they are proposing to provide 30 parking stalls on site,
which would be in a parcade as part of the
building. Uh, the, there is, uh, the adjacent park gate
to the north. However, as it's being subdivided from this
parcel, uh, those don't count to the number of parking
stalls on site. That being said, there is a significant
surplus of parking located in that parquet that isn't required
for any other building. And, uh, so the tenets of
this building would have access to the existing parcade. Uh,
similarly, the upper floor setbacks are to the north and
west property lines where they're required to have a three
metre setback, uh, over the portions of the building that
are over 16 metres in height. Uh, these property lines
are to the west, which is, uh, parcels that contain
a private lane that are also owned by the same
applicant and to the north, which is the existing parcade.
So I'm not expected to have a significant impact on
the public realm. The existing site configuration is shown on
the left side of this slide. Uh, the applicant is
proposing a subdivision of the existing parcel as shown in
the red parcel B area. That's going to contain the
new building. And ultimately, uh, you can see on the
farthest right of this slide, the future road right away
for this other lin road extension at some point in
the future when that's constructed. This is the applicant site
plan. The building's main entry would be located on date
and street access to loading bays as well as garbage
and recycling would be provided from a private lane, uh,
along the west property line. The southern part of the
site in the future would be for the Southern Lind
Road extension. In the meantime, the applicant is proposing to
use it as a lane, but also provide it with
a high quality finish to make sort of an urban
plaza on the adjacent portion of their site. This is
the parcade plan showing the 30 parking stalls that are
located within the building. As mentioned, they're located from the
adjacent parcade to the north. As a condition of the
subdivision, they're going to be required to register and access
easement. Uh, that provides access to this parcade through the
adjacent parcel. These are the elevations. This elevation shows the
side of the building facing Dayton Street. The upper floor
setback variants is indicated in red, which is adjacent to
the parcade. They're just not stepping back from the parcade
structure. This is the south elevation facing Sutherland Road. The
future Southern Lind Road. The West elevation, which would be
the rear of their property where that private lane is
located. And finally, the North elevation. This is the elevation
that's facing in their own parquet. The applicant is proposing
of variety of high quality materials, primarily consisting of metal
panels in various colours. This is the applicant's landscape plan,
which includes trees and landscape plantings around the perimeter of
the building. In particular, on that, uh, interim plaza area,
which would be the location of the future Sutherland Road
extension. This is a rendering of the building from the
Dayton Street angle showing the high quality finish and the
substantial building articulation that exists along all frontages of the
building. This slide shows the massing. The building, the new
building would actually do quite a good job of hiding
the existing parcade structure and improving the look of the
building along the street. Rendering also from the South showing
that elevation along the subtle and road extension. And this
is the street context just showing the adjacent property, the
future settled in road extension area and then the adjacent
parcade. The application generally meets the city's OCP design guidelines,
including orienting the primary building facade to the street with
ground - oriented commercial uses to create street - edge
activity, providing site servicing and parking at the rear of
the building and screening them using architectural elements. The design's
compatible with the future transportation network, including reducing curd cups
along the roadway and utilising lane access, and also providing
high quality landscaping and open space at grade. Therefore, staff
recommends support for the proposed development permit and development variance
permit as it aligns with the OCP design guidelines. It's
compatible with the future settle and road extension and the
variances are mainly as a result of the subdivision. Uh,
with excess parking stalls being available on nearby properties and
the upper floor setback variants, uh, improves the screening of
the adjacent parcade and doesn't detract from the public realm.
And that concludes my comments to worship. Thank you, Mark.
The applicant or the applicants representative now has up to
15 minutes to present to council. And I just ask
that you begin by stating your name and street name,
please. Oops, sorry. The presentation.
Is that already. Should be. Perfect. Can you see. Thank
you.
Good evening, your worship. My name is Joanne Adamson and
I'm Director of Development. I'm joined here today by our
architects, Blank and Cameron from Studio 710 who've joined us
online. And my fellow team members, Lisa Colson, Richard and
Sirong. This evening, we are here to present Stober's latest
building called the Phoenix Medical Building. The proposed medical building
is a four - story commercial development with a predominant
retail use at the grand level, located at 1896 Dayton
Street. In the UC2 zone of the Capri landmark Urban
Centre. The proposed building is designed to respond to the
evolving requirements of the 2040 OCP, part of which anticipates
the connection between dolphin and Sutherland Avenue as part of
the Sutherland Aval extension. Additionally, the redevelopment of the site
provides an opportunity to enhance the retail streetscape along Dayton
and screen the landmark VI parcade. Now, more than ever,
access to high quality healthcare services is essential to a
growing and vibrant city. While several health care providers already
exist in the landmark district, the proposed building is intentionally
designed to accommodate a broad range of medical uses. The
proposed development is within the central portion of the landmark
district. The existing use is a single - story building,
dating, to the early 1980s. For a long time, this
was home to accompany called Phoenix Imaging. A while back,
Stober Group purchased the property and the building has since
been used for storage and waiting for the right time.
Well, this time is now. A phoenix is a universal
symbol of rebirth and resilience. And this is why we
are keeping the name. The proposal is a brown field
redevelopment site where the property lines will be adjusted to
achieve the city's goal of the Southern extension. The dotted
line illustrates the road connection from Dixon Avenue to Dolphin
Avenue. The site contacts plan also shows how the proposed
building seamlessly integrates into the landmark district. When completed, it
will right across the street from landmark too. Because of
the property line adjustments, it's a real mind vendor to
visualize where the building will be placed. Please allow me
a few minutes to walk through the process. The shape
of the current parcel of land is an image number
one. This uniquely shaped parcel contains landmark VI, the landmark
six park eight, and the old Phoenix Building. We intend
to subdivide the southern portion of the land for development.
This is the pink square that is shown in the
second image. The shape of the subdivided parcel will be
further modified to provide a road reserve for the future
Southerland Ave extension, as seen in the light yellow at
the bottom. This modification is the reason why the building
has a unique shape. The image also illustrates that Stober
Group will create a private lane on adjacent land parcels
for future site circulation. The Civil Engineering Dryagram illustrates how
site access will be achieved. For example, a fire truck
will be able to drive north on Dayton, turn left
onto the private laner muse, then turn right on the
new Private Lane. Back onto an existing private lane and
then on to date and. The isometric image shows how
the building will be constructed in a zero lot line
manner against the landmark 6 barcade. We're also going to
use the landmark 6 par K for access to the
underground parking below the building. The proposed building has a
dual street front condition. What this means is that the
building has to respond to date and avenue today and
the future Southern Lind Av tomorrow. The challenge is Sutherland
Ave doesn't exist yet, but it will one day. To
ensure the building is vibrant in the end term, Stober
Group is proposing to construct a laneway muse on the
road reserve. We endeavour to ensure that all of our
buildings are animated and will flourish. And this is why
we're paying so much attention to the ground plane. Comfortable,
well - designed streetscapes promote successful retail, and it is
important that the retail business on the ground floor is
fruitful on day one. The landscape plan shows the attention
to detail paying to the ground plane planters stamped concrete
street trees catenary lighting. We'll make the muse very inviting.
Variance number one. The parking requirement for the development is
60 stalls. We will be providing 60 stalls 60, sorry,
I apologise. 30 will be under the building and the
remaining 30 will be supplied through the landmark district through
our campus planning program. The second variance is to seek
a relaxation of the three metre setback above 16 metres
along the north portion of the property lane, which is
up against the parcade. And then the lane itself. Really,
it's a zero lot line condition, which is allowed in
an urban centre. We're just taking the lotline condition right
to the top. We have worked to design a building
that responds thoughtfully to the evolving urban context. Planned street
realignments and public realm objectives of the City of Kelowna.
Rather than a curtain wall, this building utilises playful window
patterns in a variety of texture and cladding. Preformed metal
clotting of two main types of material form the wall
surfaces. Natural wood colour spoundrel accents highlight the window patterning.
And similar soffit materials. And screens conceal the mechanical and
electrical equipment. The four story massing is designed with strategic
recesses and projections to add depth and visual interest while
responding to the commercial oriented context. The building's design is
intended to be simple, elegant, and visually memorable. Thriving destinations
are defined by a strong sense of character and community
and how authentically they are connected and reinforced the surrounding
urban fabric. The proposed buildings architecture is designed to enhance
the public realm will provide in a screening effect of
the landmark VI parcade. Thank you for your time. Thank
you. Thank you. It's now the public's opportunity to address
councillor regarding this application. So any members of the public
who wish to speak to council about the application on
Dayton Street, please make your way up to the public
podium or raise your hand in teams of participating online.
You'll have up to five minutes to speak and please
begin by stating your name and street name. This is
the second time I've asking. This is the third and
final time for anyone who wishes to address council regarding
the application on Dayton Street. Seeing non - your worship,
there would be no need for an applicant response. This
would be the opportunity for Council to ask questions of
staff followed by questions of the applicant. So Council, just
confirming that it's staff first. So Councillor Weber, please. Let's
look like a real. Actually quite an exciting addition to
that area. Um, especially considering what's there. Um, in terms
from the city's perspective, uh, how long down the road
are we talking about getting a street buy there, a
Sutherland Road. Your worship construction of the Sutherland Road extension
is still dependent on acquiring future properties to the West.
So until, you know, that sorted out potentially a long
time greater than 10 years, I would say. Oh, okay.
We're not that close. What about the mention of a
city park across what would be a street there? Uh,
your worship, the City owns the adjacent parcel directly to
the south with the intention of a future City Park.
There's currently a commercial building that's located on it. That
low building, that's pictured there that really sort of, okay,
I didn't know that. Okay, that's good to know. And
the parking, maybe I should ask the developer this, but
the parking, the essential extra parking, they're going to provide
within the parkades. They just said in the development that
it's 30 spaces in the district's campus parking program. So
that won't necessarily be 30 spaces immediately next to this
building. It could be spread out over the whole district?
Your worship, um, we're not making them designate 30 spaces
immediately next to this building. The applicant, uh, centrally manages
a very significant amount of parking in this immediate neighbourhood.
So it would be up to the applicant to manage
their parking for their tenants and their visitors in a
manner that functions for them. Uh, staff are confident given
the supply that's existing in the neighbourhood that the bylaw
requirements among all the different buildings. It's just, that sounds
fine to me. It's just, it sounds a little tricky
that, uh, 30 spaces for this building could be spread
out amongst a bunch of different parcades. If for people
who are going to that building, it would be tricky
to find those spots if that's true. But maybe that's
more of a question for the developer. Thank you. Mark,
I'm just going to stay on that line for one
second just before I move off. Um, the, I guess
I'm just looking for that greater level of comfort, understanding
that there was 60 parking spaces that were requested on
this particular site. And it is down to 30. Um,
and there is obviously substantial parking throughout the area. Um,
I guess when we looked at the development permits and
building all of the parking throughout the other areas, did
those parking a lot mean exceed what we're required for
those developments. And so we are now tapping into what
is excess based upon those developments to meet the requirements
of this. I mean, just if you can ask that
that's what I'm, that's what I'm just kind of looking
for that level of comfort. That's correct your worship. We
did get the applicant to prove out the amount of
parking that was required for the existing buildings that they
have in the neighbourhood and the existing parking supply that
they had. And it was found that they had, uh,
significant amount of excess parking available based on the current
buildings that exist. I believe a several hundred stalls in
excess. So there's certainly significantly more than 30 stalls excess,
including in the adjacent parcade itself. Thank you for that
comfort. Thank you. Councillor Cannon, please. I was going to
ask questions similar lines. So this would be the eighth
building. I was just wondering if you know the total
number of parking spots with the on the campus with
the state building. Your worship, I don't know the total
number of parking spots offhand. Uh, we did calculate as
part of the process. I believe it was more than
a thousand among all the different parcades in the area.
Uh, I don't know exactly number. Okay. Thanks. When I
went by the property today, just in between 1896, the
building site and the parquet, I think the applicant said
they're going to keep that laneway so that you can
actually, right now it's, it's fenced off, but they're going
to open that up. So it'll be circulating. Sorry. Your
worship just to clarify that to the, between the parcade
and the building or to the west of the building.
To the, between the park eight and the building, existing
building. Your worship, this building is being built immediately next
to the parquet. There's not going to be any space
in between them. Uh, access to this building is going
to be through the parcade. So it's zero lot line
on both sides of the future subdivision line. Uh, there
is a private lane that the applicant is proposing to
the west which connects to an existing private lane that
they own, uh, north of those parcels. Thanks for the
clarification in Councillor Weber asked the timing. So another decade
or so before the road goes through. So that the
muse and the trees will be well plant mature by
then. Thanks. Thank you. Um, if I may, I do
have a question for the applicant, please, if they could
come back up. And thank you for being here today.
Of course. And grateful for this presentation. I mean, obviously
the importance of, uh, medical and pulling medical buildings into
our community is extremely important. So thank you for that.
My question still goes around and maybe just again, getting
that, getting that greater level of comfort around the park.
When you're having a medical building, the assumption is that
a lot of those individuals are going into the medical
building. So their ability to kind of walk great distances
or get to that service. And again, looking for that
level of comfort, um, uh, just recognising that there is
extra parking available, but is it inconveniencing them with regards
to what they're trying to do, getting into a medical
building. Great question, your worship. Um, we are going to
make sure that the users of the medical building as
well as the tennis of the medical building have convenient
parking. Um, just to put people's minds at rest when
what we call the Dixon parcade, um, that was built
not for a specific building. So that's where the excess
parking is. So between our overall campus that we manage
with indigo. So we have a really well established parking
partner who's helping us oversee the entire program. And we
can, um, ebb and flow between parking. And we can,
um, assign different parking stalls to different places. Okay. Okay.
Yeah. Just looking for, I mean, obviously understanding that if
somebody needs that type of care, they're not going to
want to walk a long distance in any way, shape
or form. So just recognising that, I think is important.
And it sounds like you have. We've got that covered.
But I do appreciate the question. Thank you. Thank you.
Um, you can take a seat. Please. There's no further
questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. City clerk, please.
Thank you, worship. That concludes public input on this item.
And we'd be looking for a mover in seconder of
the staff recommendation. Um, move by councillor Weber, seconded by
Councillor Bulridge. Do we have comments? Councillor Singh. Just want
to say it's going to be a perfect addition to
the location, the buildings nearby. This sort of, this sort
of looks like an older building stuck in a very
modern environment. It goes, it's so old that I can
tell you Council Cannon used to play drums there. In
the old building. That's how old it is. Thank. You.
Councillor Councillor Stock, please. Just briefly two words. Nice job.
Councillor Hart, please. Thank you, worship. Yeah. I, for one,
I'm going to be very happy that that parcade is
not going to be seeing anymore. So honestly, that is
a big addition because parkades can be very ugly. And
that's been there like that building's been there a long
time. Um, I think the number of jobs that this
is going to create and the vibrancy of the, of
that area. And eventually when, you know, we knew this
road that's going to be going through there. Maybe it
might be 10 years or more. But, uh, it's great
that that's secured. Of course, it's all to do with,
with land and how we can acquire the land. And
hopefully that'll be a little bit at a time. But
anyway, I think the building's very handsome. And I think
it'll be a great addition to the neighbourhood. I actually,
a few neighbours called me and just said that, Hey,
in their neighbourhood, they're actually on Dixon. And they were
quite interested in it. And they had no complaints. They
just thought it was a great addition to their neighbourhood.
So thank you. Councillor Cannon, please. Thanks Akama. Council colleagues
comments. And I just want to applaud the applicant as
well for the excess animating the future Southern Road. That's,
I think over and above because, as I said, it
could be 10, 20 years. The only problem with the
Council of the day having to cut down all those
trees. I didn't want to be here. Listen to you
here at that time. But yeah, it's definitely a great.
And I know it's a medical tourism growing market for
our community. I had, uh, really true call me. They're
fighting over the space. I really, so the high demand.
And the last thing I beasty is that for our
practice for ship teams are familiar with the building. Sad
to see it go, but it's going to be a
great addition. Thanks. Council Love Grow, please. Thanks, your worship.
Thanks very much for the presentation. And, um, I'm with
all my colleagues on this one as well, but I
just want to point out one other thing. I mean,
this is also weekends. We have our farmers market down
there, right? Uh, thanks to you folks for hosting them.
And it's really congested for me and going down there.
And I love the Lebanese restaurant that's right beside this.
So I'm frequent visitor this. But more importantly, you're going
to one step closer to that local internal road connection
that we really need to remove or at least reduce
the congestion. It'll help folks make trips and keep them
internal to the neighbourhood. So they don't have to go
out on her view and then wait to get the
ball and go around the corner. It's, it is a
little bit of craziness. Um, so, uh, compliments on having
a lane for fire access at least. It's private I
get that. But at least you're improving safety already by
doing this. So thanks again. Thank you. Uh, Council calling
the questions all in favor. Post carried. And thank you
once again for the applicant being here this evening. And
Mark, thank you also. Your worship, that brings us to
item 5. 3 on the agenda. And this is a
development variance permit for a property on Southern Avenue here
to present a staff from development planning.
Thank you. Yourship. This is to review a staff recommendation
to not issue a development variance permit to vary the
number of visitor parking stalls required. On the subject property.
This application was received in June. Public notification was completed.
Project is located in the Capri landmark Urban Centre, just
east of Capri Centre Mall and the site is double
fronting onto both Sutherland Avenue and Pridham Avenue. The project
has finished construction and has received provisional occupancy. It was
approved with 240 units. These images are recent. Give us
an idea of the current on - street parking in
the neighbourhood. Um, this is the building facing north. Oh,
sorry. Neighbourhood context. This is the building areal image facing
north and then southernly avenue. These are the images of
the, uh, neighbourhood that were recently taken that showed the
on - street parking situation. Uh, Devin Chryer Avenue facing
south and Pridham Avenue facing east. In terms of technical
details, this project was six stories, 240 units, 153 studios,
147 of those were micro suites. So that means that
they're less than 29 metres squared. 41 bedroom, 42 two
bedroom and five, three bedroom, 306 long - term bike
parking. The development permit approval included a reduction of 10
stalls in total, five of which were for providing a
car share. Five of which were for providing extra bike
parking. And then three stalls were paid for it into
the cash and lie program, which recently ended when council
adopted the new parking regulations in the zoning bylaw this
past spring. In total, the development has 226 stalls, and
that includes 34 visitors dolls. Under the current parking regulations,
the recently adopted ones. The building would require a total
of 233 stalls, and that also includes 34 visitors dolls.
So the visitors stall rate has not changed. Uh, and
the applicant is proposing to reallocate 10 of the visitor
stalls to regular stalls. Staff are not supportive of this
variance. This area has experienced significant transformation of new apartment
buildings in the past two to three years. The concern
is that reallocating stalls from visitors to regular will create
the potential for an overflow of on street parking. The
only usable street frontage for on - street parking in
this specific site area is Pridham Avenue because of the
bike lanes that are on Sutherland Avenue. So that has
the potential to create additional spill out into the neighbourhood.
And as a general note for council, parking services is
in early stages of developing an area parking plan for
this urban centre. That will have an impact on the
long - term parking availability in the future, but the
details of that is unknown at this time. Staff are
not comfortable with approving an amendment without knowing what the
on - street parking management plan will look like in
the future. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you,
Justin. It's now the applicant or the applicant's representative's opportunity
to address council regarding this application. And so I just
asked that you begin by stating your name and street
name, and you'll have up to five minutes to present.
I just need to set up my presentation. Thank you,
Alex. Help me, everybody. Where. S your presentation. Here? Should.
Be a PDF. Take it. Right here. Oh. This is
it. Perfect. Yeah. Okay. That's about it. As good as
we can get it there. Also. Okay.
Thanks. Good afternoon worship. Members of council. My name is
Daven Shalong, and I'm the director of land development with
Millennial Developments. We're located at suite 1100 1631 Dixon Avenue.
Uh, we're clona - based developer. You may be familiar
with some of our projects, two of which I'm going
to be referencing here tonight. And I'm here really to
ask for what I believe is a straightforward variance. Um,
it's a reduction in visitor parking cells from 34 stalls
to 24 stalls. Um, that's it. But as part of
the variance, I'd like to share with you why I
think, uh, I think our data supports us. So this
slide represents the variance request and plain terms. Uh, and
I'll say that the data we're using is based on
empirical observations from our five crossings building, which is essentially
ready across the street from, from a revval project. Um,
it's directly comparable to Revo, um, same general size, uh,
composition, et cetera. The 34 visitor stalls were approved under
this existing DP by yourselves. Um, and they total of
24 delivered visitor stalls is what we're proposing under this
variance. Uh, this effectively translates to a reduction of 10
stalls, which are going to be reallocated entirely to resident
parking. That's the proposal here. Um, there's a few things
I want to be crystal clear about. We're not removing
parking from the building at all. Uh, every one of
the 10 stalls, um, stays in the parcade. We're simply
moving them from the visitor parking column to the resident
parking column. And, uh, and we can, we can demonstrate
that that demand exists, obviously. I also want to be
clear that we have the physical capacity to deliver on
the 34 visitor stalls. That was approved in the original
DP application. So, um, we're not in a precarious position.
We're not, you know, we haven't hit a snag or
anything like that. Um, we just prefer not to, uh,
delivered as visitor, uh, and deliver it as resident parking.
I'd also like to address, um, a question, because I
believe it is a fair question. If you're thinking it,
why didn't we ask for this when we originally submitted
our, uh, DP application. The honest answer is because we
had no basis for it. And we had no business
to ask for it. Um, we didn't, we didn't have
any data on the five crossings project, uh, that was
currently in the, in the process of being built out.
We didn't have any, uh, empirical data, uh, so to
have requested a visitor parking reduction on the basis of
speculation would have been premature and inappropriate and frankly unfair
to the city's process. So we made a deliberate decision.
We built what was approved. We committed to the 34
visitor stalls as designed. And then we observed what was
happening at our, at our sister building at five crossings.
So for nearly two years, the building management team at
five crossings tracked all the visitor parking utilization on a
daily basis includes, uh, through the day, the evenings, the
weekends and even those holidays. Um, only once that, uh,
that data was clear and consistent, uh, did we bring
this application forward? And I believe this is one of
the reasons that the variance process exists for these situations.
Uh, particularly where information emerges post approval, uh, that couldn't
have been known at the time of the original submission.
Um, I've got a few photos here for you. These
were taken at our five crossings development over multiple days
and times. Um, I'm going to get right to the
point here. The image in the top right was taken
this past August long weekend. And in Colonna, we all
know what that means. Um, it's the peak of summer.
Residents are entertaining. We have a ton of visitors here.
And if our visitor parking was ever going to be
at capacity, this would be the weekend when we had
see it. Uh, as you can see, the stalls are,
uh, essentially empty. I'll also point out that the other
three photos have less parking. Um, than what you would
see on that August long weekend. And the one in
the top left, uh, the one vehicle, um, that is
there that is actually my vehicle. Um, where I was
taking a photo. Let me put numbers to what I've
been referring to. Our five crossings development, which is where
we're pulling the data from. It's 207 units. It's 28
visitor stalls. Over nearly two full years of stabilized augmency,
including evenings and weekends. The building management team consistently observed
roughly 20 percent utilization. So in practical terms, only six
of those 28 stalls had a vehicle in them. So
22 are consistently empty. Um, it's, it's not a rounding
area, uh, rounding error. This is, this is the reality
of how visitors are using parking in five crossings and
exactly how we anticipate it'll be used in Revo as
well. Um, we've also had these observations formally confirmed in
writing by the building management team. Um, again, it's, it's
direct day to day oversight of the facility that's occurring
by, by their team lead Ric Doucette. And he's included
a letter in our application. And I imagine it's in
your council packages as well. Um, I'd like to take
just a couple of moments to review some of his
excerpts here. Quote one speaks to the consistency of the
pattern that I've been referring to. So visitor parking at
five crossings is consistently underutilized. Quote two raises something that
I don't think anyone anticipated, which I believe sanctions are
case. And Rick, the lead building management, um, personnel has
noted that the sheer volume of empty visitor stalls creates
an ongoing management problem because residents who don't have a
dedicated stall are tempted to use the glut of available
visitor stalls. And that really undermines the parking program and
creates enforcement burden. Now I know the enforcement burden isn't
councils concern. Uh, but really this is, this is, this
is why we believe reallocating the stalls to resident is
a, is a good solution. It puts supply. We're genuine
demand exists. And then quote three just confirms a utilization
value that I've, that I've been referring to, which is
a 20 percent which is consistent across all the days,
including the peak periods. This is a table, um. That
will take everything we've just established at five crossing and
imply it directly to Revo, uh, at a 20 percent
utilization that proposed 24 stalls would have roughly five to
six vehicles in the met peak demand. This leaves 19
stalls. That would be vacant in Revo at its peak
period. Even after the reduction, uh, the building is still
really materially over parked for visitor use. Um, and this
is why I would argue that this variance doesn't create
a deficiency. It actually eliminates an excess and redirects at
axis to where the data shows demand actually exists. And,
uh, and also to what, uh, staff was referring to.
I'd like to take a few moments just to reference
staff's report. And thank you for the report, Jocelyn and
Jason. Because I think the report makes some excellent points
and raises exactly the right concerns. And this is what
I want to show counsel and why our proposal actually
helps resolve these concerns. So staff report identified two reasons
to oppose the application. The first was that the reduction
in visitor stalls poses increased pressure. On on street parking
management and second that it could lead to deficient on
- site visitor parking. But I, again, I want to
be straight with you. These, those two concerns are almost
exactly why we're making this application. Um, the reality of
how parking works in a building like this is that
when residents don't have a designated parking stall, they park
on the street. And that's if they're following the rules,
not trying to use our visitor parking. Every resident vehicle
we can place into a permanent stall inside this building
is one less vehicle on the street. The 10 stalls
we're relocating go directly to resident parking addressing a documented
gap, because not every suite at Rebo is assigned with
parking. Um, in fact, we do have a handful of
suites that don't have parking come with them. And that's
why we're trying to do this. Um, staff also flagged
the Capri landmark parking review and the importance of maintaining
adequate off street parking supply. I couldn't agree more. This
is exactly what I'm trying to achieve here. We're maximizing
the use of Offstreet supply by moving the 10 unused
stalls to an area that actually needs it. So that's
again why I argue that this proposal is actually well
aligned with staff subjective, not necessarily in conflict with it.
Um, I also understand there was an opposition. Opposition letter
submitted. And the sentiment of the letter was essentially the
same thing. It was there's too much parking on the
streets in this area. Um, again, I agree. And ultimately
it's not necessarily visitor parking in five crossings. And, uh,
and Revo that's going to be an issue. It's the
resident parking because there's not enough of it. Now I
know some of you, uh, are probably asking yourself, who
is this guy? What, what makes, uh, millennials visitor parking
utilization so low, uh, when it's not low in other
buildings. And it's a great question. And the simple answer
is that it's a quality of the building management that
we retained. Um, our building management team, uh, both in
five crossings and in Revo is there on a daily
basis. They're not offsite. So, um, they are consistently monitoring
the parking situation and the enforce it. So this keeps
a visitor stalls available for genuine visitor use and prevents
the stall creep that can undermine other buildings. And as
I said, um, we're very happy with the management team.
And this management team has actually been retained to manage
the revO building as well. So we know that we're
going to get the same quality of service from them
that we do from five, five crossings. Um, I'll wrap
it up here. Um, again, I'm kindly asking you to,
uh, to consider approving the variance to the existing Revo
DP, uh, from 34 visitor stalls to 24 with the
10 release stalls that will be reallocated to resident parking.
Um, and of course the 10 release stalls is going
to take vehicles off the street within that area. Um,
and, um, and help the current situation. We've got nearly
two years of consistent data from a directly comparable building
that we designed and built. We have written confirmation from
the five crossings building management team. Demonstrating that the visitor
parking is underutilized. And, uh, and we believe that Revo
in its current state of 34 visitor stalls will be
material over parked for visitor use. So, uh, reducing the
10 will be a great, great help to the neighbourhood.
We believe that it will reduce the pressure and it'll
be, uh, it'll be a difference in the overall area.
So I understand that staff, uh, does not support this
application. Um, but, uh, but we are asking that these,
that the empirical observations that I've presented to you tonight
this afternoon, uh, will come in, we'll come into play
in your consideration. So thank you very time. And I'm
happy to field any questions. Thank you. I'll just get
you to grab a seat. And if we have any
questions, we'll call you back. Any members of the public
who would like to address counsel regarding this application, you
can make your way to the public podium on your
right or raise your hand in teams if participating online.
You have up to five minutes to speak. And please
begin by stating your name and street name. This is
the second time of asking for any members of the
public wishing to address Council regarding the application on Sutherland
Avenue. This is the third and final time of asking.
Seeing none, your worship, the applicant response. This would be
the opportunity for Council to ask questions of staff followed
by questions of the applicant. Thank you, Jocelyn, please. If
we can get some questions. First question just before I
put it out, there's a review that you said is
going to take place at some point in time. Could
you give us a rough idea when that review is
going to happen? Um, I apologise your worship. My understanding
from our, um, our transportation integrated transportation team is that
they're doing a review right now for all urban centres.
I don't know when that will be brought forward to
council for consideration. That's fine. Thank you. Um, second question.
The information that was presented to us, um, did you
have that information in front of you while you were
reviewing the decision that staff had made on this? Three
of your worship. Yes. Yes. We did. Um, and that
was part of the applicant's rationale that they submitted with
their application. Third question. Do you know in that information?
Is there a cost associated with regards to a tenant,
maintaining a stall. Through your worship, I do not know.
Welcome back to the applicant. Yeah, that would be a
month for that. Okay. Thank you. Councillor. Oh, City Manager,
please. Yeah. Thank you. You worship just to your first
question around the timing of the Urban Centres study that
was referenced would likely be the beginning of next term
of council. Thank you. Thank you. Council Walbridge, please. My
questions are for the applicant you worship. Thanks. Thank you.
Councillor Love Grove, please. Thanks, your worship. So just to
go back to your presentation, um, there is currently an
on - street parking problem on Sutherland. Did I hear
you correctly on that? In the vicinity of this proposal?
Through your worship, I think the multiple factors that are
probably creating on street issues right now. Some probably that
there is some construction going on. So workers park for
the day and leave. Um, and then the influx of
apartment buildings two or three within the past two to
three years that have vastly changed the landscape of this
area. Okay. And, uh, just following up on the mayor's
question. When the applicant gave you the data, um, you're
rational for non - approval was that it didn't meet
by - large. Do you agree with the data? Or
did you... Through your worship? I think the data is
helpful in understanding the operations for that specific building for
REVO, which is, or sorry, not REVO. The other one
that he was talking about. One of the main differences
that we kind of looked at, and we also discussed
with our parking services team is the allocation of frontage
on this property. So this site fronts onto Sutherland as
well, where, um, active transportation corridor is. And then it
has Pridum to the north. So it's different context. It's
a very similar building and how it operates, but the
site context is always a little bit different for each.
Okay. And I guess the other question back to the
mayor's question on cost impact. They're building the stalls for
the residents, the 34, and the 34 that would be
visitor anyways. Um, shifting them to resident, um, are you
aware of any changes to the design? For example, they're
all underground by the looks of it. We're at least
in the data for the other development. Um, what ramifications
would that anyways? Three of your worship, we haven't received
a development permit amendment for any internal circulation or anything
like that as part of this application. Um, pending council's
decision today. That would kind of be our next step
is to take a look to see if the parquead
was built as approved and what the, what the allocation
looks like if it's changed at all. Okay. And do
our city bylaws, um, allow applicants to place charges on
their visitor stalls? Like pay parking for visitors? I mean.
It's, it's more of a strata. It's more of a
strata item and ownership item than it is our bylaws.
Yes. Through your worship, I believe that that's more how
the building is managed. That's a management of the building
through strata and remind me, sorry, is this a purely
rental or is it private? This is not a rental
building. This is market. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So there is
a strata and the strata would deal with that. Okay.
That's correct. Okay. I guess I've got questions for the
appointment. Council Weber, please. So kind of boils down the
argument here. The idea that, uh, more resident parking. In
the building would mean less resident parking on the street.
Like that's their, that's the argument here. And if the
visitor parking isn't being used, some of it. And residents
can use those spots. They'll be less parking on the
street. And that which is a good goal. Right. But
that argument isn't swinging city staff. Through your worship, I
think that ultimately city staff are looking at what was
originally approved in the development permit. And we're choosing to
stick with the integrity of what that was. We typically
don't see these come back to us. Unless there was
an issue in a building and a resident came forward
and complained and said, I don't think that this strata
is operating how it was approved. So, um, it's very,
it's, um, it's commendable that the applicant has come forward
to ask for council's approval because this is a variance
to their original development permit. And our decision is really
just based on the fact that this has been a
consistent ratio of visitor stalls for apartment buildings throughout both
bylaws, even with the recent changes. Um, and we, we
stand by that. And without any on - street parking
management plans at this time, um, we're just not comfortable
changing that approval. That was a good answer. Very good
at you. Councillor saying, do you have staff questions or.
The. Same to the last. You're not mic's not on.
Sorry. Um, I was same thing along what Councillor Weber
was asking essentially simplistic question. It's all got so complicated
with data and information and all this. Simply put. 34
stall. 10 visitor stalls, the applicant just wants to make
that 10 visitor stalls, resident stalls or residents who have
who need extra parking will not be on the street.
Through your worship, correct. And wooden staff consider that to
be a positive is what I was going to say.
But the, so if they have any guests, their guests
will have no place to stop park. I would, if
you would, Jocelyn, maybe just go back through the answer
you just gave a minute ago. Why it ends up
being staff or staying with the original proposal like you
had just said? Yes. Through your worship. Maybe I can
try and reword it a little differently. Oh, Adam's here.
I think you did a great job. Just I think
you did a great job. Just do it again. I
got it. I got it. I think. Yes, she did
do a great job. And that's all I wanted to
know. No, that's it. You watched her wife. I could
just, uh, explain maybe the difference between on street parking
relative to visitor. That's the key issue here is that
currently there is no on street parking in front of
this building. So yes, that means any visitor who uses
this building is likely using the street parking because it's
much more easy to access the front lobby. Therefore visitor
parking is not being utilised within these buildings. How are
staff's concerned is that if we introduce on street parking
into the area, that means more visitor parking will then
be into the buildings. And so we're concerned that on
street parking still is needed within buildings. Um, but in
the interim without entreking control, there is a valid argument
from the applicant's sake to transfer resident parking, um, uh,
from the street to inside the building. Councillor Wolbertch, was
I reading you right that you have a question for
Adam? Now, uh, now that all the questions are going
to staff, I need, I have one for staff and
then the applicant. Um, just going back to the technical
details of the, of the project I remember, Rivo. I
remember five crossings. Um, there's 147 micro units. Um, which
don't contribute DCCs correct. Yes. That's correct. Um, did those
include parking. At the time of, um, can't recall. You
worship. I would say at the time it would have
been at a point eight stall ratio two units. So
there would have been approximately 20 percent of those micro
suites without, um, parking stalls, which is indicated of, of
more hearing is that there was more demand for parking
than what was provided for those microsuites. Correct. I'll have
that more questions for the applicant. Hopefully they can explain
their rationale. Councillor stock, please. For the applicant. Okay. So
I have Council to Heart for the applicant. Okay. So
we're all done with staff at the moment. Thank you
very much Adam and Jocelyn. Thank you for those questions.
If I may, please ask the applicant to come back
to the microphone. Um, so sir, we have some questions
for you. I am going to start with, uh, Councillor
Wolbridge, please. Thanks for that. Thanks for being here tonight.
Um, definitely an odd approach. We don't generally see a
bait and switch happen like this, uh, this late in
the game when something's under construction. Um, so were you
aware, um, when the, and by the way, I was
a supporter of five crossings in Revo with this innovative
model. Thank you. Um, and knowing that, um, you know,
there was a lot of feedback around micro suites around
DCCs and around the parking requirements. So I'm just a
little bit confused now this late in the game. You're
coming and you're saying you want to monetize those. So
can you explain to me rationalist to why we're doing
that now. Uh, your worship. If I could just make
a clarification, we're not, we're not actually looking to monetize
anything. The ask is simply to convert the visitor to
the resident parking. We, we recognise that there's significant parking
happening on the street in this neighbourhood. And we want
to put more residents into permanent parking versus having them
on the street. They will not be monetized. They won't
be sold. You're just going to donate them. They will
be sold with the sweets. Yeah. So they're sold. So
they'll be sold with the speeds. Okay. Thanks for that.
Um, and, uh, what's the feedback Ben from your current
purchasers? Are they aware of this change. Um. To a
certain degree, we have it, we have it in our
disclosure statement. Okay. Okay. Cause I reached out to a
few of them and they weren't to wear this application.
Okay. Yeah. That's interesting. It is it's we obviously by,
by law, we're required to identify everything within, within a
disclosure statement. Right. So you can kind of guess where
I'm going with this. But, um, I'll leave it to
the rest of my colleagues to ask more questions. Thanks.
If you were like, give me questions. One second, please.
No, I'm going to get some clarification from you on
this, um, because I want clarification with it. These 10
units that will transfer from being, um, uh, interpermanent parking,
um, at some point in time will then be sold
alongside a unit as opposed to being free parking for
residents, correct? They will be attached and sold with the
unit. But thank you. Thank you. That's, that's, that was,
that was kind of what we were looking for in
it. And saying that they're not monetized isn't correct because
we understand kind of that, you know, a unit has
to have an attachment to it. So what it does
is it's opened up 10 more to be sold. And
that's, that's, that's where we're kind of questioning with it.
Councillor Stock, please. Thank you. So back to the first
building that you used as your model or to demonstrate
the lack of demand. How many units in that building
are seeking, parking, that it's not a, and the parking
available for them. Um, I don't. Recall, uh, I don't
recall the number, um, but again, similar to Rebel, we
had units that were sold, uh, that did not have
parking. Right. So, so people in that building have expressed
that they would have preferred to have an additional parking
stall to go with their unit. Cause that's sort of
the model you're saying the demand for permanent parking, but
not much demand for the visitor parking. That's correct. And
part of the reason for that is because we believed,
uh, in the design process that the location would speak
for itself and that there would be significantly less demand
for resident parking because of the location to Capri and
all the other amenities surrounding that. Okay. So, okay. I'll
have a comment on that. But that, that makes it
clear to me, um, were the problem really lies, which
is, uh, not enough parking for the permanent units. Yeah.
Anyway, thank you. I'll make a comment at the right
time. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Lovegrove, please. Thanks very much.
So, um, is it, um, in your performer, or what
are your disclosure statement is that the stall can be
unbundled if the buyer chooses not to want parking. I'm
not sure I understand your question. So in your proposals,
you're asking that 10 of the visitor stalls be used
for permanent parking. And I'm getting a sense that perhaps
it's going to be linked or bundled with a microsuite.
That you said, uh, some of them don't have parking
right now. Um, if a buyer of a microsuite chooses
to say, I don't need it. Um, will it be
unbundled or will it be sold as a unit with
no choice? With the unsold units that we currently have,
we have the option for both. So, uh, regardless, um,
the units that do not come with parking. Cool. So
they could have the option to say, I don't want
parking. I want a unit sold. That doesn't have parking.
We have that option for them. Okay. So, but they
don't have the option to choose a suite and say,
I don't want parking with this suite. You choose the
suites that have parking. That's not given that option is
not giving to the buyer. Um, the, the option could
be given to the buyer depending on the circumstances of,
of what they're looking for. What I'm saying is we
don't have availability. The 10 will not cover off everything,
uh, all the unsold units that come without parking. Yeah.
Okay. I appreciate that. Um, okay. And so you found
in this area or based on data from the, um,
five, the other building, sorry. Five crossings, your worship. Thank
you. Five crossings. Um, that there seems to be an
overrepresentation of resident parking demand. And is it in this
area. So right across the street. It's your worship. So
yes, it's, it's effectively right across the street. It's divided
by, um, a city park. Okay. That's, that's interesting. I'll
have comments. You worship. Thanks. Do we have any other
questions. No further questions. Okay. Do I have a mover
please? Um, please city clerk. Thank you, worship. That concludes
any public input on this item and brings us to
the recommendation. So looking for a mover in a seconder.
So I have a mover and Councillor Wolridge and I
have a secondary and Councillor Stack and I have comments
from Councillor Wolverge. Thanks to worship. As you can probably
tell by my questions, I'm quite heated about this one.
Um, because at the time I was assured that, um,
data was driving how this, these buildings were designed. And
that's been the story that I've heard all along. Um,
and now we see this come forward. And I know
it's only 10 parking spots, but having sat in this
chair for eight years and being the recipient of resident
feedback after buildings are built and how they are functioning.
Um, statistically speaking, fewer visitors dolls means that there's likely
to be a higher peak demand on the streets from
what I've experienced in my inbox. And for me, the
difference between parking management of a rental building versus a
condo building is very different in that of a rental
building. You have a manager that can work with the
tenants to do parking demand management. When we have individual
owners, um, who by the way, weren't necessarily aware of
this happening. It becomes so much harder to manage. And
then it becomes the city's issue to, um, to address.
Um, and it perturbs me because we approve the high
amount of microsweets that don't contribute to DCCs. And yes,
the amenity packages are beautiful. Um, that are being built.
There's parking reductions, et cetera. So, um, my patients is
really low for this. I'm very supportive of staff's recommendation
of non - support because to me, this is just,
it's not acceptable. And I'll leave it there. Councillor Stack,
please. Thank you, worship. Similar comments. To me, with this,
it's really interesting because this was a bit of an
experiment. This first building. And since we're talking about the
first building as a model, so to speak, for the
second, uh, the issue for me, it just simply seems
that they've miscalculated how many residents would like to have
a place to park a car. It doesn't mean they've
miscalculated how many people take a bike to work. I
think that's very legitimate. But, uh, what it tells me
is the one of park a car. Then there's available
spots. And the problem, it becomes for the city. That
means that those people who want to buy a suite,
they got to park on the street, which then creates
a problem for the rest of the neighbourhood. So, uh,
to me, this is not a question about whether the
visitor stalls are right. I think we need to protect
those visitor stalls because that's what our racial citywide tell
us we need. So I support staff in that. But
what it is, is a good flag for council and
for staff to realise that, um, even though people may
be using their bicycles, they still need places to park
cars. Like they may park a car for two weeks
and not drive it. But they still need a place
to park it because they're riding their bike to work.
And it tells me that we have to be very,
very careful not to approve units with two greater parking
reduction. I think it's, this is telling me from the
evidence, I'm being told is that we have trimmed it
too low. And we should have had a higher parking
ratio for permanent. So I can't, I will support staff's
recommendation. Councillor Love Grove, please. Thanks, your worship. Well, I'm
going to support staff's recommendation, but I just want to
make, uh, comments here. And that is that incidentally UBC
did have a traffic study in this area, um, one
of my colleagues did it. And we found there actually
is a lower amount of traffic generated because of all
the amenities and the recent installation of the southern act
of transport corridor, the bike path, uh, it's near a
transportive corridor. And don't forget let's not forget not everybody
owns a car. We got Karshar in here too. Maybe
not in this development, but absolutely in the neighbourhood and
in the city. So I actually think there's a really
good case to say the last car ownership by residents
living in the building, which is why it really surprised
me to hear you want to shift it from visitor
to owners. So I'm going, oh, that's kind of why
I was poking in prod and staff as well. So
something's going on. I'm, I'm not comfortable going against our
staff expert. So for now, I'm going to support this,
but I do think it'll be interesting to see. I
hope you're collecting the data as we go because we're
going to be talking in the future. Thanks very much.
Council Cannon, please. Thanks similar Councillor Stack and the fact
that one of the reasons why I've voted against many
of the applications when we have 20 percent reduction because
of the fact that there was a study done by
the capstone students at UBCO this year. There was Privy
to the results. And they looked at about, uh, half
a dozen multifamily projects in downtown. And majority of them
had more demand from parking that was provided. So I
looked forward to the new review. Hope they'll be here
to look at that review. And also the strata one
they decide in the future if they want to convert
some of those visitor stalls to residents and they'll have
that option as well. In the future. Thank you. Thank
you. Um, just final comments just before we put this
to a vote with regards to it. I don't feel
good about this one just because for, for a few
reasons. And one of the reasons that, um, I see
these visitor stalls being transferred and being sold with a
unit. And so it's a way of taking, um, gaining
money on it. And that was something that, you know,
wasn't brought forward to us that they were going to
be transferred over. The second point of it is that
I believe the applicant could have worked with staff and
said, you know what, we know you're doing a study
into the future. And when that study's done, we'll kind
of take a look at this because there's nothing which
stops the applicant after he said that the property is
very well managed by the property manager to provide 10
visitor passes or temporary parking permits. For individuals who need
it on the intern bases if that's the case until
staff get done their report. What stops the applicant though
is selling them. Um, and they can't transfer them and
direct the registered them on title, which is a different
point. So that's where I just have difficulty with it.
We're not, the picture is not clear for me on
basically what we're trying to actually accomplish. It goes more
so down the road of the sale aspect of it
than it does of trying to deal with the actual
problem. So I'm looking forwards to when staff complete their
report. If this does come back in front before us,
I hope it comes back with direction on it that
is, uh, clear for us right at this particular point
in time. Um, and saying that I'm going to call
the question all in favor. Opposed. Thank you. So that
was all in favor of accepting staff's recommendation. Thank you
to the applicant for being here. Thank you for being
in front of us. Thank you for the work that
you've done on presenting that. And also thank you to
staff. Thank you, our ship. That brings us to item
5. 4 on the agenda. And this is an application
for a development variance permit on Elm Road here to
present his staff from development planning. Thank you, your worship
short. The purpose of this report is to issue a
development variance permit to vary the minimum lot width to
facilitate a two lot subdivision. The application was submitted on
July 10th and neighbourhood notification was completed on July 13th.
Today, we're here to consider the variance. And if the
variance is approved by council, the applicant could continue with
their proposed subdivision. The subject properties located on Elm Road,
which is a cul - de - sac off -
McClure road in the lower mission. They are nearby bus
stops located on Gordon Drive and McLear Road. And Oknog
and Mission Secondary School in Bellevue Creek Elementary School are
both within walking and cycling distance of the subject property.
The property currently contains a single detached dwelling that the
owner wishes to retain after the subdivision is completed. And
the surrounding neighbourhood primarily consists of single detached dwellings with
a recently subdivided lot located immediately next door. Uh, these
photos show the existing streetscape and neighbourhood context. The dash
blue line on the image on the right shows the
proposed line of the subdivision. And you can see how
the proposed new lot is narrower near the street, but
substantially widens towards the back of the parcel. The applicant
is proposing a development variance permit to facilitate a two
- lot subdivision. Uh, as mentioned, they're proposing to retain
the existing single family home on one of the parcels,
which means the only feasible lot shape is a pie
- shaped lot where the new lot is narrower at
the front than the rear. The specific variance is to
reduce the minimum lot width for the subdivision from 16
and a half metres to 10. 65 metres. The proposal
meets all other zoning by la regulations and vehicle access
to the site can be provided from Elm Road, despite
the reduced lot width. This is the site plan showing
the proposed subdivision boundaries. Uh, the proposed variants to the
minimum lot width is shown by the red circle. It
only applies to proposed lot A, which otherwise meets the
subdivision regulations, propose lot B, which would keep the existing
single family home meets all of the subdivision regulations. The
proposal aligns with efficient community plan policy, which for suburban
residential lands, uh, they're intended to accommodate most of the
city's lower density housing forms alongside new, small scale, multi
- unit homes. And therefore staff recommends support for the
proposed variants as it aligns with the official community plan.
It complies with all of their zoning biolar regulations. And
it's the result of an irregular lot shape and the
desire to retain the existing dwelling. And that concludes my
comments for worship. Thank you, Mark. The applicant or the
applicant's representative has up to 15 minutes to present council.
You can make your way to the public podium. And
please begin by stating your name and street name. Good
afternoon, your worship. I'm Bearded with Urban Options Planning. Really,
I'm just here for questions, but I did want to
bring one other point. The variants for the lot line
had been approved in 2024. It expired in January this
year. And the client has done all the works and
services for the subdivision. Um, you do recall at some
point big bank stopped lending money to people. And they
kind of got stuck in one of these kinds of
situations. And that brings us here today. If this is
approved today, we are ready to subdivision documents. Tomorrow or
the next day and finish off this project. I'm sure
it's been a little bit of an eyesore for the
neighbourhood for a while. And that's all I have. Thank
you. Thank you. Any members of the public wishing to
address counsel regarding this application. You can make your way
to the public podium to your right or raise your
hand in teams. You have up to five minutes to
speak and please begin by stating your name and street
name. This is the second time of asking for any
members of the public wishing to address council regarding the
application on Elm Road. And this is the third and
final time of asking. Your worship seeing none, the applicant
response needed. This would be the opportunity for Council Task
questions of staff followed by questions of the applicant. Thank
you, Councillor Weber, please. Yeah, just for staff, quick question.
Um, uh, wasn't really mentioned in the presentation or I
didn't see it in the documents. But what can be,
what can be squashed into that new lot, that new
oddly shaped law? What can they build in there? Uh,
your worship, the property zoned RU1 large lot housing, which
would allow up to four dwelling units per lot. Uh,
that would be provided that they could, uh, meet the
zoning by the regulations, uh, due to the constrained nature,
in particular of the front lot line is probably unlikely
that'd be able to achieve parking for four units. But
that would be up to an architect or a designer
to try and figure out what could be achieved. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, council, seeing no further questions, uh,
City clerk, please. Thank you, Riship. That concludes any public
input on this item and we'd be looking for a
mover and a seconder of the staff recommendation. Move by
Councillor to heart, seconded by Councillor Cannon. Any further discussion.
Seeing none, all in favor. Posed carried. Thank you to
the applicant for being here. And thank you to staff
once again. And seeing that, um, we are adjourned.