[1:36] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:53] For. Once.
[2:04] Good afternoon everyone and thank you for being here. I'd
[2:07] like to call this meeting to order. I'd like to
[2:09] acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional ancestral
[2:12] territory. The Helix Okanagan people. This evening council will hold
[2:16] a regular meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to
[2:19] hear from the public on matters contained in the subject
[2:22] applications. Council has been provided with the information correspondence petitions
[2:27] or reports that have been received concerning the subject applications.
[2:31] This information is available to the public online at Colonna.
[2:34] ca slash Council or by request to the Office of
[2:37] the City clerk. For those participating this evening or who
[2:41] have already submitted letters to the Council, a reminder that
[2:44] this meeting is open to the public and all representation
[2:48] to Council Forum Part of a Public Record. A live
[2:51] audio video feed is being broadcasted and recorded on Cologna.
[2:54] causa will now stand for reaffirmation of both of Office
[3:00] that will be read by Councillor Singh, please.
[3:14] It's coming your way, Councillor. Thank you for waiting, Council.
[3:23] We're here this evening to perform the duties of council.
[3:27] We will act faithfully and with integrity. We will abide
[3:31] by the statutes, bylaws, and policies that govern the city.
[3:35] We will promote openness accountability and responsible leadership. We will
[3:39] provide good stewardship of public assets. And programs. And finally,
[3:44] we will always consider the well - being and the
[3:47] interests of the community of a whole leading to the
[3:50] development of a safe, vibrant and sustainable city. Thank you,
[3:58] Councillor Singh. Council, I am looking for a mover in
[4:02] a seconder from the minutes from our July 14th, 2026
[4:05] meeting, moved by Councillor Hodge, seconded by Councillor Wolridge. Do
[4:09] I have any errors and emissions in those minute meetings.
[4:12] Seeing none all in favor. Thank you. For those of
[4:16] you who have not attended a Tuesday regular meeting before,
[4:21] here is how we will proceed this evening. Staff will
[4:24] provide a brief description of the application. The applicant will
[4:29] then be given up to 15 minutes to make representation
[4:32] to council regarding the project. This will then be followed
[4:35] by a call for Representation from the public participating in
[4:39] person and online. Any person wishing to make representation during
[4:43] the meeting will have the opportunity to do so. Speakers
[4:47] will have up to five minutes to share the remarks.
[4:51] Once the public has had the opportunity to comment the
[4:54] applicant will then be given up to 10 minutes to
[4:57] respond to any questions that were raised by the public.
[5:01] Any applicant or member of the public may use electronic
[5:05] visual aids to assist in their presentation or questions. Online
[5:10] participants must be able to share their screen, to display
[5:13] their presentation if they have one. Thank you, City Clerk,
[5:18] please. Thank you your worship. Council and the public will
[5:23] note that the item under 4. 1, which would have
[5:26] been first on the agenda was withdrawn by the applicant.
[5:30] And so we will move directly to item 4. 2
[5:33] on the agenda. And this is a Liquor license application
[5:36] for a property on Water Street here to present to
[5:38] staff from the development planning department. Good afternoon, Jocelyn. Good
[5:42] afternoon, you worship members of Council. This application is to
[5:46] seek Council's support for a structural change to a lounge
[5:49] endorsement for an existing manufacturing license at Coluna Beer Institute
[5:53] to increase the license capacity from 200 to 262. With
[5:58] no proposed changes to their indoor and outdoor areas or
[6:01] hours of operation. In February, Council and approved an increasing
[6:05] capacity as well as making the patio permanent, following the
[6:09] end of the temporary expanded service area program. The potential
[6:13] occupant load is 262 and the applicant is proposing to
[6:17] increase the capacity to match the approved occupant load. This
[6:21] application was received in June of 2026 following a decision
[6:24] of council today. We will forward the recommendation to the
[6:27] LCRB. The property is located downtown on Water Street by
[6:32] the Water Street boat launch and waterfront park pathway. The
[6:36] existing hours of sale are as follows and are not
[6:40] proposed to changed. They are currently open indoors till 1
[6:46] a. m. and open outdoors on the patio till 11
[6:48] p. m. The proposed occupant load is 78 to 111
[6:56] indoors and 122 to 151 outside on the patio. And
[7:03] these are the floor plans that indicate the indoor and
[7:05] outdoor floor area. As well as the stamped occupant load.
[7:10] No comments have been received. In the application is aligned
[7:13] with Council Policy 359 Liquor licensing policy and procedures specifically
[7:18] Liquor Service for Lysis establishment in the central area may
[7:22] be permitted between the hours of 9 a. m. and
[7:25] 2 a. m. Within the central area, an outdoor patio
[7:28] at a license establishment may not operate later than 11
[7:31] p. m. In a licensed establishment within the central area
[7:36] that closes later than midnight must limit capacity to 500
[7:39] people. Staff are recommending that a supporting recommendation before to
[7:43] the LCRB. Thank you. Thank you. The applicant or the
[7:47] applicants representative now has up to 15 minutes to present
[7:50] to council. You can make your way to the public
[7:53] podium on your right here in Council Chambers. And please
[7:57] begin by stating your name and street name. That would
[8:04] be if the applicant wishes to present council regarding this
[8:08] application. Your worship seeing none and seeing none online, and
[8:16] this will be the public's opportunity to address counsel about
[8:19] the application. Um, so any members of the public wishing
[8:23] to address council on this Liquor license, please make your
[8:26] way to the public podium on your right or raise
[8:30] your hand in teams. You have up to five minutes
[8:31] to speak and please begin by stating your name and
[8:34] street name. This is the second time of asking. This
[8:39] is the third and final time of asking. Uh, your
[8:43] worship seeing none and there would be no applicant response.
[8:46] If there are any questions for staff, this would be
[8:48] the opportunity for that. Councillor, do I see any questions
[8:52] for staff. Seeing none, thank you. Thank you, worship. So
[8:57] that concludes any input on this and be looking for
[9:00] a mover in a seconder of the staff recommendation? Uh,
[9:03] moved by Councillor Lovegrove, seconded by Councillor Singh. Any further
[9:07] discussion. Seeing none, all in favor. Opposed carried. Thank you.
[9:12] Thank you, worship. That brings us to item 5. 1
[9:15] on the agenda. And this is a foreman character development
[9:18] permit and development variance permit for a property on loss
[9:21] in avenue here to present to staff from development planning.
[9:27] Thank you. This application is due issue development permit for
[9:30] the foreign character of an apartment building and a development
[9:33] variance permit to vary the maximum site coverage of all
[9:36] buildings and the ratio of tree sizes. This application was
[9:42] received in August of 2025. The file went through a
[9:45] rezoning for the rental - only subzone, and today is
[9:49] Council Consideration of the Development Permit and Development Variance Permit.
[9:53] The subject property is located east of the downtown Urban
[9:56] Centre on Lawson Avenue. The property is part of the
[9:59] transit supportive corridors zoning pilot project area and is therefore
[10:04] zoned TS1R. The property is in close proximity to transit
[10:09] stops located on Bernard Avenue and walking distance to the
[10:12] Queen's Way Bus exchange. Additionally, the site is close to
[10:15] the shops and services that are provided in the downtown.
[10:21] Model City Data estimates a population of 1, 672 and
[10:26] estimated jobs at about 1, 000. This proposal adds 71
[10:31] rental units to the City's housing targets. This slide is
[10:34] a snapshot of the housing needs dashboard, indicating our targets
[10:38] as it relates to the identified 10 - year need
[10:41] in Coluna's housing needs assessment. The subject property is four
[10:45] single parcels that are consolidated. And this is an image
[10:50] of the lot frontage, uh, facing loss in avenue. As
[10:55] well as neighbourhood context. There has been some redevelopment in
[10:59] this area, mostly through the building form of Forplexes. In
[11:04] terms of technical details, uh, the application is for a
[11:08] five - story building with 71 units, 46 - 1
[11:11] bedroom, 24 - 2 bedroom, and one three bedroom. There
[11:14] are 63 proposed parking stalls, 98 bike parking stalls, and
[11:18] eight trees provided. The applicant is requesting two variances. The
[11:24] first is maximum site coverage of all buildings from 65
[11:27] percent required to 68 percent proposed. I will take the
[11:31] opportunity to speak to that site coverage variance right now.
[11:35] Uh, the building could have been built to a sick
[11:37] story height maximum under the zoning bylaw. However, the applicant
[11:40] increased the building on each side to fit the parking
[11:44] and units in a five - story building form instead.
[11:47] Staff do see this as a minor variance and are
[11:49] supportive of it, and I will speak to the landscape
[11:52] variants, uh, later on in the presentation. The site plan
[11:56] indicates all vehicle access will come from the rear lane.
[11:59] There are also parking stalls and waste and recycling collections
[12:02] located off of the lane. The main residential lobby is
[12:09] located off of loss and avenue, as is a stair
[12:12] access to residential units off of lost and avenue as
[12:16] well. This is the east and the north elevation facing
[12:21] lawson, showing the main residential entry as well as stero
[12:25] access to the first floor unit patios. And the west
[12:30] and the south elevation. The material board includes white and
[12:35] charcoal cladding, light grey stone cladding, and oak wood cladding.
[12:41] This is the applicant's proposed landscape plan, uh, and also
[12:45] indicates the second variance, which is to vary the minimum
[12:48] ratio between tree sizes. Based on the landscape area along
[12:52] the front property line, the zoning requires a minimum of
[12:56] five trees, including three large trees. The applicant is proposing
[13:00] two large trees instead of three. To help offset the
[13:04] requested variants the applicant is also proposing eight trees in
[13:07] total, which exceeds the minimum number of trees that are
[13:10] required on site. There will be new boulevard trees required
[13:13] as part of future upgrades to loss an avenue. So
[13:16] the tree canopy concerns our mitigated, uh, because the boulevard
[13:20] trees will eventually see growth and create a canopy over
[13:22] the sidewalk. And this ratio also ensures that the trees
[13:26] can be planted on site with proper soil volumes. So
[13:29] they grow and thrive. There's also perimeter landscaping that includes
[13:34] shrubs, perennials, ground covers, and grasses on the sides of
[13:37] the building. There's also a proposed amenity area located on
[13:43] the podium and it contains seating areas and overhead trellis
[13:46] and a future gathering space. There's additional amenity space inside
[13:49] the building. The ground floor contains a multi - purpose
[13:52] space that can be booked by residents. Um, as well
[13:54] as study lounges on the second and third floors. These
[13:59] are the applicants rendering of the project. And that is
[14:08] the rear elevation and amenitie space that I spoke of.
[14:14] Overall, the proposed project does fit within design guidelines specifically
[14:18] to design attractive, engaging, and functional on - site open
[14:21] spaces. Uh, breaking up the building mass by incorporating elements
[14:24] that define the building space, middle, and top. This is
[14:27] largely done through the use of different materials in this
[14:30] project. And locating off street parking and other back of
[14:33] house uses away from public view. Steph, do you recommend
[14:37] support for their proposed development? As it meets the majority
[14:40] of our guidelines, um, and we see the variances as
[14:43] minor and mitigated through additional landscaping. Thank you, yourship. Thank
[14:47] you, Jocelyn. The applicant or the applicants representative now has
[14:52] up to 15 minutes to present to council. You can
[14:54] make your way to the public podium on the right
[14:57] side. And please begin by stating your name and street
[15:01] name. Yes. Counter, Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name
[15:06] is Usman Aziz. I'm here to represent my client for
[15:09] the properties at 727 and 747 Lost and Avenue. Um,
[15:16] thank you, Jocelyn, for being very thorough on everything that
[15:20] we want to present. Um, I do have two quick
[15:25] short little walkthroughs of, uh, the front of the property.
[15:29] Uh, mainly, uh, representing the landscaping and the trees that
[15:33] are along the street.
[15:55] So this is, we're heading towards the downtown.
[16:27] And this is, uh, like a site strafing video.
[17:25] All right. Um, that's it. I'm open for questions. Not
[17:29] at the moment, but if you have anything else to
[17:32] let us know, that would be great. If not, I'll
[17:34] just ask you to take a seat and we may
[17:36] have some questions for you in a little bit. Thank
[17:39] you. Any members of the public who would like to
[17:44] address counsel regarding this application on loss and avenue. You
[17:47] can make your way to the public podium on your
[17:50] right or raise your hand in teams of participating online.
[17:53] You have up to five minutes to speak. And please
[17:55] begin by stating your name and street name. Hi. My
[18:04] name's David. I live on 722 lawson avenue. So this
[18:10] is right across the street for me. You know, the
[18:16] lots of being vacant for a while. So it definitely
[18:20] looks like an improvement, but it doesn't really address the
[18:22] character of the neighbourhood. There is three heritage houses in
[18:26] the immediate vicinity. And, uh, it doesn't match the neighbourhood.
[18:31] I don't think it's a neighbourhood enhancement. I think it's
[18:34] a neighbourhood development and increasing the lot size, um, we
[18:39] just found out the lake is at its lowest levels
[18:41] ever. Our aquifers are also at their lowest level ever
[18:45] increasing the volume and size of the building. It's just
[18:50] going to increase water usage. So that's a big concern.
[18:53] The trees, less trees in our current environment is pretty
[18:58] hot outside the tree. Uh, with the parks. The highway,
[19:06] the frontage on Lawson has not really been addressed as
[19:09] well. Um, the traffic on Lawson is increasing as it
[19:13] was when the high rise went across on St. Paul.
[19:18] Suddenly the lane got really busy and accessing Richter. So
[19:22] another concern is the entrance to Lawson with an increased
[19:26] volume of people is also going to impact public safety
[19:30] of rental unit. The type of rental, like if you've
[19:36] been around or anyone has had rentals like I have.
[19:42] It's not usually the best in the neighbourhood. So for
[19:45] crime and safety, we already have, uh, issues with, um,
[19:49] a transient population coming and going, uh, rental pop, a
[19:54] large rental in that area. It's only going to increase
[19:57] the opportunity for, uh, marginalized population to inhabit the area
[20:03] even more than it is. So from a public safety
[20:06] standard, it's really not, not ideal. Um, I know the
[20:12] building looks nice on paper, but it's just a big
[20:16] box. It's ugly. Sorry. No, no insult to the architect.
[20:21] Uh, other than something like on Martin, uh, Martin Loft
[20:26] is a nice build. It looks good. It's got some
[20:28] features to it. And so I think long term for
[20:33] the city, it doesn't add character. It detracts. So thank
[20:40] you. I don't want to sound like I'm, I mean,
[20:43] I'm right across the road. I mean, I've been in
[20:44] colonifer over 40 years. My children were born here. My
[20:48] grandchildren were born here. Um, I really love Colonna. Um,
[20:52] it really, I would like to keep it, uh, with
[20:57] some character or some ambiance that you want to live
[21:00] in. A big rental across from our little heritage homes
[21:05] is not complementary. I mean, there's all, it's a rental.
[21:09] We're all residents on the street. And so it really
[21:12] changes the flavour of the neighbourhood. I think that's probably
[21:16] my five minutes. I would actually urge Council of refusing
[21:20] crews and land use and tree size. But instead decrease
[21:24] the land use of 65 to 55 percent neighbour with
[21:29] bigger offsets and more green face space facing Lawson. Thank
[21:35] you. Thank you.
[21:45] Hello, my name is Millen Zordivich. I reside at 725
[21:49] loss in Avenue. And I own the properties 1471 and
[21:54] 1475 Rickter Street. Since 2000. First, I would like to
[22:00] know if anyone has read the letter that I sent.
[22:06] It was written before an impreparation for the first planning
[22:09] meeting. Listed by the city. I sat through two meetings.
[22:18] And there was no opportunity for public input. At a
[22:21] time when it seems it would have been useful. That's
[22:24] probably. I wrote more carefully thoughtfully and respectfully than this
[22:29] process deserves. I am aware that nothing I've written or
[22:35] say will have any effect on what is an offence
[22:37] to design, planning. And the neighbourhood. I'm angry that staying
[22:42] within the OCP essentially gives the developer free reign to
[22:46] bulldoze a neighbourhood. My two houses are heritage listed. They
[22:53] are not part of the transit supportive corridor. And I
[22:57] am sure the city will constrain my use of the
[22:59] properties. In a way that hasn't been applied to a
[23:02] developer who has no ties to the neighbourhood. And stating
[23:07] here that both a design and the process do not
[23:09] serve the community. It's actually grotesque. Density of 70 units
[23:14] on four lots in a residential neighbourhood served by a
[23:17] one - lane alley entering rick to street 120 feet
[23:21] from Bernard. Will be problematic. Frankly, such rental is not
[23:27] what the city needs. For fun, let's consider property rates.
[23:31] This is a taking two years of construction hell and
[23:35] then a five - story elevation, which is an invasion
[23:38] of my privacy. And the developer has no obligation to
[23:43] compensate me from my very real losses. It's not going
[23:46] to happen here, but it is time we revisit property
[23:51] law. As to trees, the city should be proactive in
[23:55] pushing mitigation of the climate crisis. This state does not
[23:59] have one tree that will grow and produce a canopy
[24:02] and shade on the south side. It is time for
[24:06] the city to implement design and landscape guidelines as is
[24:11] happening in progressive cities. Is my time run outer. No,
[24:16] it's okay. Okay. The CPX plant are greedy FUs. I
[24:20] have been given no information on five - story elevation.
[24:24] Less than 10 feet from my property line. Planning should
[24:28] require setbacks proportional to building heights. Site coverage should include
[24:33] all built forms. Even the cheapest rentals of the past
[24:36] put this project to shame with their green space. This
[24:40] process needs to be improved. The city should do more
[24:42] than facilitate development. OCP is inadequate in terms of guidance.
[24:48] Planning is more than colouring rectangles on a map. There
[24:52] needs to be a design panel of experts dedicated to
[24:55] producing good design and planning. I'm well aware that my
[24:58] efforts are futile for the present, but I hope that
[25:01] some of you will try to imagine raising the power
[25:04] and such obscenities won't be forced another neighbourhoods in the
[25:07] future. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
[25:17] Just while any other members of the public who would
[25:20] like to address counsel on this may make their way
[25:22] up, just confirming that all correspondence was circulated to council
[25:25] that was received on this application. Um, so if there
[25:29] are other members of the public looking to address council
[25:32] regarding the application on loss in avenue, please make your
[25:35] way up to the public podium. This is the second
[25:38] time of asking. And if there are others looking to
[25:43] speak, you can make your way up immediately following the
[25:45] person before you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Daniel
[25:49] Anette. I reside at 741 Lost in Avenue, one of
[25:53] the properties that will be affected by this. Good afternoon
[25:57] Mayor and Council. I want to be specific in what
[26:02] I'm objecting to because I think the technical details of
[26:05] this proposal matter more than the general concerns about density.
[26:11] I was, and just before I go on about this,
[26:14] I was uninformed about these matters. So this is my
[26:18] first time being notified about this. And, uh, I just
[26:28] kind of like found out about it through the properties.
[26:32] So the sign that's in front of our thing, but
[26:35] our property, but like you're not always driving past it
[26:39] or I'm sometimes thinking a U - turn. So it's
[26:41] not very visible to everyone who's on the street. Um,
[26:45] and I, I guess I got this in the letter
[26:47] recently. So that's another notification. Um, I have two other
[26:52] residents that live in a house. My nine - year
[26:54] - old grandmother and my, uh, elderly uncle. So, um,
[27:00] it's just, I'm not sure if it's relevant or anything
[27:04] that can be done to stop this. Development happening. So
[27:10] if that's not the case, and I apologise for addressing
[27:13] that concern, but going over the details, um, of this
[27:17] proposal, there are concerns of that. Um, it's on the
[27:23] site cover variants. The applicant is asking to increase maximum
[27:28] site coverage from 65 percent under section 13. 5 of
[27:34] the zoning bylaw 12375. That's presented as a small number,
[27:42] but a three point jump on a lot of size
[27:45] means less permittable ground for storm weather absorption. Less on
[27:51] - site green space. And the building sitting closer to
[27:54] the property line. Then the bylaws owned baseline was designed
[28:01] to allow for the zone. A lake council to treat
[28:05] this as a real design deficiency. Not a rounding error.
[28:11] If the building doesn't fit within the appropriate response is
[28:17] to redesign the footprint, not adjust the bylaw around it.
[28:23] On the tree ratio variance, the second ask is a
[28:27] variance to the minimum ratio between tree sizes under section
[28:32] 7. 2, table 7. 2. 2. I like the applicant
[28:38] or staff to clarify exactly what ratio is being reduced
[28:42] here. If this variance means substituting a large number of
[28:47] small caliper trees for the required mix of larger, more
[28:52] mature canopy stock that satisfies the letter of a landscaping
[28:57] count. But defeats the purpose, the ratio exists for. Long
[29:02] - term canopy cover, shade, and storm weather interception on
[29:07] the site. I don't think the trade - off should
[29:09] be approved without a clear justification from the applicant. On
[29:15] parking. I'd also note that the numbers don't add up.
[29:19] On parking 65 units against 65 souls works out to
[29:23] roughly 1. 1 stalls per unit. Given this stretch of
[29:29] Weston Avenue, I think the ratio is worth scrutinizing before
[29:33] approval, not after residence after residents looking for street parking.
[29:39] My ask, I'm asking council to deny the site coverage
[29:43] variants and require the applicant to bring the design within
[29:48] the existing 65 percent limit. Plan that meets existing tree
[29:56] size ratio requirements. Before the applicant proceeds further. Thank you
[30:01] for your time. Thank you.
[30:12] This will be the final time of asking for any
[30:14] members of the public wishing to address council regarding this
[30:16] application. Seeing no more, your worship, this would be the
[30:24] applicant's opportunity to respond to matters raised by members of
[30:28] the public. Uh, if you wish to do so, you
[30:30] have up to 10 minutes.
[30:40] Alright. Thank you fellow neighbours for your comments. Uh, new
[30:44] concerns. Um, there was a neighbour notification mail out sent
[30:53] out to approximately 57 addresses within the vicinity of
[31:03] the development early this summer, around May. There was my
[31:10] address and the city staff's address and contact. Uh, we
[31:14] never received any comments then. Just recently I did approach
[31:22] the three heritage homes. Along Victor to primarily talk about
[31:30] their trees that they have in their backyard. I left
[31:35] my letter along with my contact and everything. And, uh,
[31:39] you know, to talk about further about the development, um,
[31:43] fortune unicuring thing about anything from the neighbours then either.
[31:48] But in terms of, uh, the rental quality, um, yeah,
[31:53] there is sometimes a concern of tenants, but the client
[31:58] here, one of his plans and programs was to design
[32:04] these units about He does want to encourage small young
[32:11] families to be tenants. Um, it shows with the amenity
[32:18] space that's outside. It's got a little kids park, uh,
[32:22] little picnic area of, you know, a place for young
[32:25] families to gather. And yeah, just being within the vicinity
[32:32] of downtown where young families can, the law daycare is
[32:38] opening up now too in downtown and possibly of young
[32:43] families dropping off their kids and then going to work
[32:46] in downtown. So, um, it is encouraging a certain type
[32:51] of demographic that the client is looking for that they
[32:55] want, uh, want to live here. Um, in terms of
[32:58] the permeability, um, yes, we are asking for a three
[33:03] percent bump in site coverage. But in terms of setback
[33:07] permeability ratios that those all comply within, within bylaw. Um,
[33:13] in terms of the parking, um, and traffic concerns, um,
[33:19] all traffic will be directed to the lane. Um, and
[33:24] all parking, uh, ratios are per bylaw also. So there's
[33:29] no variance in terms of parking county. In terms of,
[33:38] I mean, yeah, everyone's got their opinion about the design.
[33:42] We are, we do want to promote like some kind
[33:47] of sauce lighting that, uh, enhances visibility at night, but
[33:53] does not intrude into the neighbor's, you know, creating light
[33:56] pollution. And then in terms of trees and shading, we
[34:01] do have, you know, on - site. We are asking
[34:04] for a variance of trees, but do note that there
[34:07] are four large oak trees on the boulevard on the
[34:11] loss inside. That's all for now. Thank you. Thank you,
[34:21] worship. This would be the opportunity for Council to ask
[34:24] questions of staff followed by questions of the applicant. Councillor
[34:28] Singh, is that a question of staff. I'm going to
[34:30] show you. What's true. Okay, I can come back to
[34:32] you. Um. You want to try staff? Okay. Thank you.
[34:40] Justlyn, one of the interveners, I wish I had written
[34:43] down everything verbatim. But I talked about wanting a clarification
[34:47] on the tree canopy. I wonder if you could speak
[34:50] to that. Yes, your worship. So the variance is specifically
[34:55] for the ratio of, um, of trees is that there
[34:59] is three required to be large and they are proposing
[35:02] two. And then part of the, um, rationale that I
[35:08] went through in my presentation is that loss and avenue
[35:11] will have to go through, uh, upgrades for curb gutter
[35:15] sidewalk, including street trees. And so the applicant will either
[35:19] pay into a cash and lie program for that or
[35:22] pay into the neighbourhood street urbanization program. Um, and that
[35:26] work would be completed at a later time. And that
[35:29] would provide large trees on the boulevard, which is our
[35:32] main concern as well is ensuring that we get the
[35:34] treat canopy. Thank you Councillor Lovegrove questions. Thanks, you worship.
[35:41] So just to follow up on those trees. So, but
[35:44] I just heard there are already four large oak trees.
[35:47] Are they on the north side then? Were they going
[35:49] to be removed as part of urbanization. Uh, three worship.
[35:54] I can't speak directly to the works and services that
[35:56] the development engineering group does. I believe that they maintain
[35:59] trees where possible, but often because they have to relocate
[36:02] sidewalks and things like that. Um, sometimes they do have
[36:05] to remove trees and plant new ones. It depends on
[36:09] the specific project. Fair enough, but there are currently four
[36:13] large trees. Um, I don't think so. Um, let me
[36:19] check. Maybe we can get the applicant to come back
[36:22] up and clarify that when it's, excuse me, sir. Just
[36:25] one second. We're just at, we're just, uh, councillor just
[36:27] one sec. We'll all call you back up in a
[36:29] minute. Through your worship, this is the aerial image. So
[36:32] it looks like the existing trees are potentially at the
[36:35] front of the property line. Right. And when, uh, well,
[36:42] let's talk worst case, if when it's urbanized, they have
[36:45] to be removed. Um, what's the typical size the city
[36:48] installs larger small trees. Three worship on the boulevard typically
[36:53] large trees. Arch trees. Okay. That's good. It is dependent
[36:57] though on which program we're applying which cross section where
[37:01] it goes. Okay. And then on the comment about the
[37:07] visibility of the sign, does staff approve the sign notification
[37:11] sign location? Through your worship. Yes. We receive pictures from
[37:15] the applicants once the sign is posted to confirm that
[37:17] it's been posted. And then on the side coverage, um,
[37:22] you mentioned your presentation. I just want to make sure
[37:24] for the public record, I heard you're right. If we
[37:27] push that back down to 65 percent by not approving
[37:30] the variance does that mean the sixth story or what
[37:34] potential or ramifications does that have for the proposal? So
[37:37] through your worship, I think that the land use component
[37:40] is an important one here. So this is already zoned
[37:43] the TS1 zone under that zone. They can build up
[37:45] to six stories. So the applicant is proposing this, uh,
[37:49] to five stories with an increased, my understanding is the
[37:52] rationale that he mentioned to have larger unit sizes. So
[37:56] if this application was not approved and this site coverage
[38:02] variance was not approved, they could come back with a
[38:05] six - story design that meet all of our bylaw
[38:07] requirements. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for that. Um, would that also
[38:14] then allow them to put or meet their tree requirement
[38:16] on site? Three worship. That's a hard question for me
[38:20] to answer. I think the applicant would probably be better
[38:23] off to answer that. Okay. Then maybe that's the better
[38:27] way to go on this. Thanks, Yerish. We'll wait for
[38:29] the applicant. Thank you. Councillor Cannon, please. Questions of staff.
[38:32] Yeah. Thanks. Just wanted to did stop. Worked with the
[38:34] applicant to look at what would be achieved. Meeting the
[38:43] site cute coverage without the variance. Uh, through your worship
[38:49] throughout the application process, I think that the site coverage
[38:52] variance was always identified. That was how the building was
[38:55] initially designed. Okay. And you said the units are larger,
[38:59] but there's actually one three bedroom unit. Is that correct?
[39:02] There's only one three bedroom union. Yeah. That's correct. Um,
[39:06] as far as this being the first department building on
[39:09] this block, is there any concerns about the president setting
[39:13] with this, uh, variance request? Uh, excuse me, there was
[39:16] a cough right when you were in the middle of
[39:18] that sentence. I understand this is the first department building
[39:20] in this block, right? There's other ones that have been
[39:23] the predominant block pattern right now is four plexes and
[39:26] single family homes. Yeah. That's correct. So just wondering you
[39:30] said that basically these variances are considered minor. Um, yeah,
[39:35] through your worship of staff, do you consider these variances
[39:37] minor? Like often when we're looking at these form a
[39:40] character development permits, we think about the trade - offs,
[39:42] um, a six story apartment building can be really challenging
[39:45] for, for neighbours. Um, and that is what the zone
[39:49] allows. So in this case, you get a little bit
[39:51] of a lower profile. And we also worked with the
[39:54] applicant on some specific design asks to try and make
[39:59] it more attractive building. Um, to be in the neighbourhood.
[40:03] And so it's a bit of a trade - off
[40:05] in that sense. Thank you. Welcome. I have one question
[40:09] for the applicant. Sir, if I may ask you to
[40:11] come back forward, please. Council, I see no more questions
[40:14] for staff. Um, so this is just, if you would,
[40:17] sir, please. There's a couple of questions. Councillor Singh, no
[40:23] questions. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Love Grove, you had a
[40:26] question for the applicant. Thanks, you worship. Hi, and welcome.
[40:31] Um, so on the trees, you mentioned four large oak
[40:35] trees. Are those going to be impacted if the street
[40:38] gets urbanized? Correct. So that's, it's, they've already landscape architects
[40:43] already issued a, you know, price bond, you know, that,
[40:46] that potentially put accommodate these four large oak trees on
[40:49] the boulevard. So if, if it is urbanized and there
[40:54] are four there now, and we have no idea on
[40:57] the timing. So, so these four would be new trees
[41:04] on, on the boulevard between the sidewalk and the street
[41:07] curve. Oh. And so the proponent is giving a, what
[41:13] do they call that? Certificate credit. To install four large
[41:20] trees. Correct. Okay. And, um, then what happens if the
[41:28] over coverage variants is not allowed? Do you have any
[41:33] idea what the client is thinking? You know what? I'm
[41:37] not certain that's, I don't think we need to get
[41:38] into that speculation. It's, I mean, we have something in
[41:41] front of us, Councillor. Yes. No, fair comment. All right.
[41:45] I'll draw that question. Thanks. Councillor Cannon, please. Thanks. Um,
[41:49] just wondering as far as you heard from the concerns
[41:51] of the neighbour, did you have a chance to meet
[41:53] with any of the neighbours? Uh, I'm chill today. No.
[41:56] Sorry? Until today, no. Okay. And the question then is
[42:01] if you would have went six stories and did you
[42:04] consider that and what would the implications if you went
[42:06] six stories and conform to the bylaw. No. I mean,
[42:11] we were trying to avoid going that high. To six
[42:14] stories, primarily we felt that we could achieve what the
[42:20] client needed within the five stories, uh, without being too
[42:25] intrusive in the surrounding neighbourhood of going six stories. You
[42:32] didn't even model it out of seeing how many more
[42:34] units you could get in. Then parking also, uh, allows
[42:39] you so much. We could add more units, but then
[42:43] we would be in a parking variant. So. Thanks. Thank
[42:49] you. Seeing no further questions, please, sir. Please take your
[42:52] seat. Thank you very much. Uh, City clerk, please. Thank
[42:55] you. Roshi, if that concludes any public input on the
[42:57] matter. And I'd be looking for a mover in seconder
[43:01] of the recommendation. Move my council Wolward. Seconded by Councillor
[43:05] Singh. Further discussion, please. For the discussion Councillor Love Grove.
[43:13] Thanks for your worship. Uh, this is interesting. I actually,
[43:18] until the residents came up. So I appreciate these public
[43:20] hearings. I was thinking, well, what's the big deal? Um,
[43:25] so I want to thank the residents for coming back
[43:27] and speaking. I really, really appreciate it. And to the
[43:29] gentleman, things it's not going to make a difference. This
[43:32] is what democracy is about. So please take the heart
[43:35] that I take to hurt your comments. Um, and I
[43:37] appreciate your letters as well. Um, and I appreciate my
[43:41] Council colleagues asking about, did they talk to the residents
[43:46] before they or after they came up with the five
[43:48] - story design? Because clearly that answers my question that
[43:51] I was going to ask. And I think, um, we've
[43:54] got impacts on heritage properties. We've got, uh, impacts on
[43:59] fit. And they character the neighbourhood. And I'm going to
[44:04] actually vote against this. We've got three residents that came
[44:06] up with well articulated reasons to not approve this. We,
[44:11] um, have an issue in the city with affordable housing,
[44:16] but we've heard housing supply, maybe we tap the brakes
[44:19] on that. So I'm not, I don't see us in
[44:21] a housing crisis as much as maybe four years ago.
[44:25] And I'm prepared to ask the applicant to take a
[44:28] nerve or crack at this to come back with us.
[44:30] To us. Thanks to worship. Thank you. Count stack, please.
[44:34] Thank you, worship. Um, I too would like to thank
[44:37] the speakers this evening and particularly Daniel just because, uh,
[44:43] it's your very first time. However, you identified the two
[44:46] specific items that the public should speak to. And so
[44:50] I think you did very well. Um, from my perspective
[44:53] on this, like to me, I think there is a
[44:55] significant improvement of the five versus six stories. Having a
[45:00] six story building go up right beside my house. I'm
[45:03] well aware of it. And, uh, I think that is
[45:05] a reasonable trade - off. The slightly larger footprint, I
[45:08] don't think will be noticeable. And I like the trees
[45:13] on the boulevard. I think the four oak trees will
[45:15] help offset some of this. But I do acknowledge to
[45:18] the neighbours. This is significant change to the neighbourhood. And,
[45:23] um, unfortunately that's the direction our city is growing because
[45:27] of the zoning for these properties. I don't think you'll
[45:29] ever have someone build a heritage home on this type
[45:33] of zoning. It just, uh, just doesn't really make sense.
[45:37] People wouldn't build a fraction of what they're entitled to
[45:40] build on this area. But it does have a huge
[45:43] impact on the neighbourhood. And I'm sympathetic. But it means
[45:46] all our bylaws with the exception of two minor variances.
[45:49] I have to support it. Thank you. Council Singh, please.
[45:55] Thank you, Wosha. It fits this project fits in our
[45:58] official community pipeline guidelines. The variances, like my colleague said,
[46:03] are fairly minor. The footprint is not, the ask is
[46:07] not for a huge footprint. So, um. It is doable.
[46:13] And, um, I can understand how people in the neighbourhood
[46:17] would feel impacted and concerned about what could be impacting
[46:22] their lifestyles. But once the only ask I could make
[46:28] of the applicant is to work with the neighbours to
[46:33] make a good project needs to have good neighbours and
[46:38] friendly neighbours and residents who lived there want to feel
[46:41] like the neighbourhood welcomes them as well. So it would
[46:45] behoove the applicant to work with the neighbourhood. And, uh,
[46:50] make sure you don't aggravate each other. I think I
[46:57] will be supporting this. We are moving towards. More needing
[47:02] more housing for our, for people who are in our
[47:06] city. So I will support this. Council Wolverage, please. Thanks
[47:11] to worship. Somewhere to my colleagues. Thank everyone for coming
[47:14] out this evening and speaking to the application. Um, whenever
[47:17] I'm looking at variances, um, critically, um, I always question
[47:23] if they make the building, um, and the development better.
[47:26] And, um, in my mind, um, when I read the
[47:29] report and understood that this was, um, keeping the building
[47:31] lower than six stories, which is, which is allowed in
[47:35] my mind, um, is, is, uh, positive for the community
[47:40] and the neighbourhood. And I fully understand, um, how these
[47:43] neighbourhoods are changing and shifting and that causes friction. Um,
[47:47] I have some comfort on the tree discussion regarding, um,
[47:51] this, these trees being in addition to the boulevard plantings
[47:55] that the city will be responsible for, um, and then
[47:58] the addition of, um, different amenities throughout the building. And
[48:01] a rental was touched on a little bit this evening.
[48:04] And the thing that I like about rental tenure buildings
[48:06] is that they're owned and managed, um, directly by one
[48:09] owner versus individual units, which can often be more challenging
[48:13] to manage over time. So, um, by having rental buildings,
[48:17] there's usually one owner and one manager of the building
[48:19] that can, um, keep things in check for the neighbourhood.
[48:21] So, um, it meets all the other, uh, bylaws. It
[48:24] means the parking bylaws. And it's on a transit transit
[48:27] area. And for those that are advocating for more rapid
[48:31] transit, um, this is the type of development that we
[48:33] need. So I will be supporting it this evening. Thank
[48:35] you. Council Weber, please. You know, you look at this
[48:42] and this particular project. As gentle densification. It's, you know,
[48:48] if they had come forward with, um, say fourplexes on
[48:52] the four lot, 16 units, that would be, that would
[48:55] fit into the neighbourhood more. But the problem is that's
[48:58] what we're voting on. They have this owning to be
[49:00] able to build a five or six story building there.
[49:03] And if we vote against it, there could be a
[49:04] six story building there. And as we've seen in other
[49:06] areas, six stories do loom over a residential neighbourhood more
[49:10] than five stories. So this is, this is our choice
[49:13] right now. And it isn't about whether there's going to
[49:17] be a building there or not. So, uh, you know,
[49:20] it would be tough to vote against this not knowing
[49:22] what the end result will be. The idea that I
[49:27] would say the thing about rental units attracting marginalized communities,
[49:32] most of these rental buildings that are opening up charged
[49:34] far more for rent than I pay in my mortgage.
[49:36] I can barely afford to live there myself. So I
[49:38] don't know that unless I'm marginalized, I don't know there'll
[49:40] be a lot of marginalized people hanging around there. Councillor
[49:43] Cannon, please. Thanks. I appreciate as well as the members
[49:47] from the community and the applicant and my council colleagues
[49:50] questions. I've been going back and forth because, you know,
[49:52] I appreciate the five story, but I also, um, look
[49:55] at the fact that his zone already at six stories.
[49:58] And we do as Councillor Weber doesn't fit the forming
[50:01] character. And that's what we're also going on in the
[50:03] development has to do with the former character. And that's
[50:06] one of the big things, especially this variance because we're
[50:10] setting the tone for first partner building adjacent to heritage
[50:14] homes. I think our deviating from our own standards, which
[50:21] are already increased with the zoning bylaw a few years
[50:24] ago, increase the density. So I just think it's kind
[50:28] of mission creep continue to go away from our own
[50:32] standards, which are quite lenient already in many cases. So
[50:39] I personally would have liked to see in the applicant
[50:42] work with the residents a little closer and had some
[50:44] dialogue and, you know, had a discussion about, you know,
[50:47] what implications of six stories. And larger units. There's only
[50:51] one three bedroom. They want to have units for families.
[50:54] It really doesn't do much for families with two bedrooms.
[50:57] So given the fact that it's variance doesn't, in my
[51:01] mind, hasn't been demonstrated to significant necessity. It doesn't fit
[51:07] the form and character in the area and the variants
[51:10] for the trees. I would not be supporting the very
[51:12] interests today. Thank you. Thank you. Council saying no further
[51:17] comments. Just before I call the question. Obviously what was
[51:21] before us tonight with respect to a couple of variances,
[51:24] uh, other than that everything else proceeds or proceeds at
[51:26] a six story level without any variances in it. Um,
[51:30] just looking in hearing all of my Councillor colleagues, I
[51:32] think they're very much for the information, but I am
[51:35] at an agreement that it ends up being the variances.
[51:39] Our minor with regards to advancing this particular project. So,
[51:42] um, I would like to thank the residents for coming
[51:44] out. And just again, once, uh, just to confirm with
[51:47] them, that all information that you had forwarded into us,
[51:49] we were received by all council members and we had
[51:51] the opportunity to view it. So thank you very much
[51:53] for affording that information to us. Uh, with that Council,
[51:56] I'm just calling the question all in favor opposed. Councillor
[52:00] Love Grove and Councillor Canon opposed. And once again, thank
[52:03] you for coming out this evening. Thank you. We're ship.
[52:09] That brings us to item 5. 2 on the agenda.
[52:12] And this is a former character development permit and development
[52:14] variance permit for a property on Dayton Street here to
[52:17] present his staff from the development planning department. Good evening,
[52:23] Mark. Good evening, your worship. The purpose of this application
[52:31] is to consider a development permit for the foreman character
[52:34] of a commercial medical services building and development variants permit
[52:37] to reduce the required number of parking stalls from 60
[52:40] to 30 as well as vary the upper floor setbacks
[52:43] from three metres required to zero metres proposed along the
[52:46] north and west property lines. The application was submitted on
[52:52] April 24th and neighbourhood notification was completed on June 29th.
[52:56] Today, we're here for Council Consideration of the Development Permit
[52:59] and Development Variance Permit. If they are approved, the applicant
[53:02] could proceed to building permit. The subject property is located
[53:06] on the west side of Dayton Street to near the
[53:09] intersection with Dixon Avenue within the Capri landmark urban centre.
[53:12] It's located within walking distance to a variety of other
[53:15] commercial services and employment. And there are transit stops on
[53:18] Harvey Avenue and Springfield Avenue within a five minute walk
[53:20] of the subject parcel. Model City Data shows that within
[53:25] five minute walking radius of the subject property, there's an
[53:27] estimated population of approximately 631 with 4, 602 jobs. Uh,
[53:34] this is a subject property. It currently contains three existing
[53:38] buildings. Uh, the furthest south building is proposed to be
[53:42] demolished as part of this application. Uh, the proposed building
[53:46] location is shown by the red dashed line. And also
[53:50] it should be noted the applicant is proposing to subdivide
[53:52] the parcel to create this as its own separate lot.
[53:55] So it would be separate from the other two buildings.
[53:58] Uh, that is also where the, uh, the variance is
[54:01] largely stem from is the future subdivision application. This shows
[54:06] the neighbourhood context image number one is the, uh, existing
[54:10] building viewed from Dayton Street. The second image shows the
[54:13] property from the east from Dun Street across some other
[54:17] private parcels. And the third image shows the building location
[54:21] from the south adjacent to the existing parcade. The applicant
[54:26] is proposing to construct a four - story commercial medical
[54:29] services building, 30 parking stalls are proposed to be provided,
[54:33] which would be accessed from the adjacent parcade to the
[54:36] north. So access the parkade in this building through the
[54:40] parcade to the north. The proposing 14 bicycle stalls. And
[54:44] also as a condition of the development approval, the applicant,
[54:46] it will be required to register a road reserve for
[54:48] the southern 10 metre portion of the property in order
[54:51] to facilitate the future Southern Road extension. In order to
[54:57] facilitate the proposal, the applicant is proposing two variances. The
[55:01] first variance is to the number of parking stalls. Uh,
[55:04] they are proposing to provide 30 parking stalls on site,
[55:07] which would be in a parcade as part of the
[55:08] building. Uh, the, there is, uh, the adjacent park gate
[55:13] to the north. However, as it's being subdivided from this
[55:17] parcel, uh, those don't count to the number of parking
[55:20] stalls on site. That being said, there is a significant
[55:23] surplus of parking located in that parquet that isn't required
[55:26] for any other building. And, uh, so the tenets of
[55:29] this building would have access to the existing parcade. Uh,
[55:33] similarly, the upper floor setbacks are to the north and
[55:36] west property lines where they're required to have a three
[55:39] metre setback, uh, over the portions of the building that
[55:43] are over 16 metres in height. Uh, these property lines
[55:46] are to the west, which is, uh, parcels that contain
[55:50] a private lane that are also owned by the same
[55:52] applicant and to the north, which is the existing parcade.
[55:55] So I'm not expected to have a significant impact on
[55:56] the public realm. The existing site configuration is shown on
[56:02] the left side of this slide. Uh, the applicant is
[56:05] proposing a subdivision of the existing parcel as shown in
[56:08] the red parcel B area. That's going to contain the
[56:11] new building. And ultimately, uh, you can see on the
[56:13] farthest right of this slide, the future road right away
[56:16] for this other lin road extension at some point in
[56:18] the future when that's constructed. This is the applicant site
[56:23] plan. The building's main entry would be located on date
[56:26] and street access to loading bays as well as garbage
[56:30] and recycling would be provided from a private lane, uh,
[56:33] along the west property line. The southern part of the
[56:36] site in the future would be for the Southern Lind
[56:39] Road extension. In the meantime, the applicant is proposing to
[56:42] use it as a lane, but also provide it with
[56:45] a high quality finish to make sort of an urban
[56:48] plaza on the adjacent portion of their site. This is
[56:53] the parcade plan showing the 30 parking stalls that are
[56:56] located within the building. As mentioned, they're located from the
[56:59] adjacent parcade to the north. As a condition of the
[57:03] subdivision, they're going to be required to register and access
[57:06] easement. Uh, that provides access to this parcade through the
[57:09] adjacent parcel. These are the elevations. This elevation shows the
[57:15] side of the building facing Dayton Street. The upper floor
[57:18] setback variants is indicated in red, which is adjacent to
[57:22] the parcade. They're just not stepping back from the parcade
[57:25] structure. This is the south elevation facing Sutherland Road. The
[57:30] future Southern Lind Road. The West elevation, which would be
[57:34] the rear of their property where that private lane is
[57:36] located. And finally, the North elevation. This is the elevation
[57:40] that's facing in their own parquet. The applicant is proposing
[57:46] of variety of high quality materials, primarily consisting of metal
[57:51] panels in various colours. This is the applicant's landscape plan,
[57:56] which includes trees and landscape plantings around the perimeter of
[57:59] the building. In particular, on that, uh, interim plaza area,
[58:03] which would be the location of the future Sutherland Road
[58:05] extension. This is a rendering of the building from the
[58:10] Dayton Street angle showing the high quality finish and the
[58:14] substantial building articulation that exists along all frontages of the
[58:18] building. This slide shows the massing. The building, the new
[58:23] building would actually do quite a good job of hiding
[58:25] the existing parcade structure and improving the look of the
[58:27] building along the street. Rendering also from the South showing
[58:34] that elevation along the subtle and road extension. And this
[58:39] is the street context just showing the adjacent property, the
[58:43] future settled in road extension area and then the adjacent
[58:45] parcade. The application generally meets the city's OCP design guidelines,
[58:51] including orienting the primary building facade to the street with
[58:54] ground - oriented commercial uses to create street - edge
[58:57] activity, providing site servicing and parking at the rear of
[58:59] the building and screening them using architectural elements. The design's
[59:03] compatible with the future transportation network, including reducing curd cups
[59:06] along the roadway and utilising lane access, and also providing
[59:09] high quality landscaping and open space at grade. Therefore, staff
[59:13] recommends support for the proposed development permit and development variance
[59:16] permit as it aligns with the OCP design guidelines. It's
[59:19] compatible with the future settle and road extension and the
[59:21] variances are mainly as a result of the subdivision. Uh,
[59:25] with excess parking stalls being available on nearby properties and
[59:29] the upper floor setback variants, uh, improves the screening of
[59:32] the adjacent parcade and doesn't detract from the public realm.
[59:35] And that concludes my comments to worship. Thank you, Mark.
[59:39] The applicant or the applicants representative now has up to
[59:42] 15 minutes to present to council. And I just ask
[59:46] that you begin by stating your name and street name,
[59:50] please. Oops, sorry. The presentation.
[1:00:02] Is that already. Should be. Perfect. Can you see. Thank
[1:00:09] you.
[1:00:19] Good evening, your worship. My name is Joanne Adamson and
[1:00:23] I'm Director of Development. I'm joined here today by our
[1:00:26] architects, Blank and Cameron from Studio 710 who've joined us
[1:00:30] online. And my fellow team members, Lisa Colson, Richard and
[1:00:35] Sirong. This evening, we are here to present Stober's latest
[1:00:39] building called the Phoenix Medical Building. The proposed medical building
[1:00:45] is a four - story commercial development with a predominant
[1:00:48] retail use at the grand level, located at 1896 Dayton
[1:00:54] Street. In the UC2 zone of the Capri landmark Urban
[1:00:58] Centre. The proposed building is designed to respond to the
[1:01:01] evolving requirements of the 2040 OCP, part of which anticipates
[1:01:07] the connection between dolphin and Sutherland Avenue as part of
[1:01:11] the Sutherland Aval extension. Additionally, the redevelopment of the site
[1:01:15] provides an opportunity to enhance the retail streetscape along Dayton
[1:01:20] and screen the landmark VI parcade. Now, more than ever,
[1:01:25] access to high quality healthcare services is essential to a
[1:01:28] growing and vibrant city. While several health care providers already
[1:01:33] exist in the landmark district, the proposed building is intentionally
[1:01:37] designed to accommodate a broad range of medical uses. The
[1:01:45] proposed development is within the central portion of the landmark
[1:01:49] district. The existing use is a single - story building,
[1:01:53] dating, to the early 1980s. For a long time, this
[1:01:57] was home to accompany called Phoenix Imaging. A while back,
[1:02:01] Stober Group purchased the property and the building has since
[1:02:04] been used for storage and waiting for the right time.
[1:02:08] Well, this time is now. A phoenix is a universal
[1:02:12] symbol of rebirth and resilience. And this is why we
[1:02:15] are keeping the name. The proposal is a brown field
[1:02:21] redevelopment site where the property lines will be adjusted to
[1:02:24] achieve the city's goal of the Southern extension. The dotted
[1:02:28] line illustrates the road connection from Dixon Avenue to Dolphin
[1:02:32] Avenue. The site contacts plan also shows how the proposed
[1:02:36] building seamlessly integrates into the landmark district. When completed, it
[1:02:41] will right across the street from landmark too. Because of
[1:02:46] the property line adjustments, it's a real mind vendor to
[1:02:49] visualize where the building will be placed. Please allow me
[1:02:52] a few minutes to walk through the process. The shape
[1:02:56] of the current parcel of land is an image number
[1:02:59] one. This uniquely shaped parcel contains landmark VI, the landmark
[1:03:04] six park eight, and the old Phoenix Building. We intend
[1:03:08] to subdivide the southern portion of the land for development.
[1:03:11] This is the pink square that is shown in the
[1:03:13] second image. The shape of the subdivided parcel will be
[1:03:20] further modified to provide a road reserve for the future
[1:03:23] Southerland Ave extension, as seen in the light yellow at
[1:03:26] the bottom. This modification is the reason why the building
[1:03:30] has a unique shape. The image also illustrates that Stober
[1:03:34] Group will create a private lane on adjacent land parcels
[1:03:38] for future site circulation. The Civil Engineering Dryagram illustrates how
[1:03:44] site access will be achieved. For example, a fire truck
[1:03:48] will be able to drive north on Dayton, turn left
[1:03:51] onto the private laner muse, then turn right on the
[1:03:55] new Private Lane. Back onto an existing private lane and
[1:04:00] then on to date and. The isometric image shows how
[1:04:05] the building will be constructed in a zero lot line
[1:04:07] manner against the landmark 6 barcade. We're also going to
[1:04:10] use the landmark 6 par K for access to the
[1:04:13] underground parking below the building. The proposed building has a
[1:04:20] dual street front condition. What this means is that the
[1:04:23] building has to respond to date and avenue today and
[1:04:27] the future Southern Lind Av tomorrow. The challenge is Sutherland
[1:04:30] Ave doesn't exist yet, but it will one day. To
[1:04:34] ensure the building is vibrant in the end term, Stober
[1:04:37] Group is proposing to construct a laneway muse on the
[1:04:40] road reserve. We endeavour to ensure that all of our
[1:04:43] buildings are animated and will flourish. And this is why
[1:04:46] we're paying so much attention to the ground plane. Comfortable,
[1:04:51] well - designed streetscapes promote successful retail, and it is
[1:04:55] important that the retail business on the ground floor is
[1:04:57] fruitful on day one. The landscape plan shows the attention
[1:05:02] to detail paying to the ground plane planters stamped concrete
[1:05:07] street trees catenary lighting. We'll make the muse very inviting.
[1:05:13] Variance number one. The parking requirement for the development is
[1:05:17] 60 stalls. We will be providing 60 stalls 60, sorry,
[1:05:22] I apologise. 30 will be under the building and the
[1:05:25] remaining 30 will be supplied through the landmark district through
[1:05:28] our campus planning program. The second variance is to seek
[1:05:34] a relaxation of the three metre setback above 16 metres
[1:05:39] along the north portion of the property lane, which is
[1:05:42] up against the parcade. And then the lane itself. Really,
[1:05:46] it's a zero lot line condition, which is allowed in
[1:05:49] an urban centre. We're just taking the lotline condition right
[1:05:51] to the top. We have worked to design a building
[1:05:58] that responds thoughtfully to the evolving urban context. Planned street
[1:06:02] realignments and public realm objectives of the City of Kelowna.
[1:06:06] Rather than a curtain wall, this building utilises playful window
[1:06:10] patterns in a variety of texture and cladding. Preformed metal
[1:06:15] clotting of two main types of material form the wall
[1:06:18] surfaces. Natural wood colour spoundrel accents highlight the window patterning.
[1:06:24] And similar soffit materials. And screens conceal the mechanical and
[1:06:29] electrical equipment. The four story massing is designed with strategic
[1:06:34] recesses and projections to add depth and visual interest while
[1:06:38] responding to the commercial oriented context. The building's design is
[1:06:43] intended to be simple, elegant, and visually memorable. Thriving destinations
[1:06:49] are defined by a strong sense of character and community
[1:06:53] and how authentically they are connected and reinforced the surrounding
[1:06:57] urban fabric. The proposed buildings architecture is designed to enhance
[1:07:01] the public realm will provide in a screening effect of
[1:07:04] the landmark VI parcade. Thank you for your time. Thank
[1:07:09] you. Thank you. It's now the public's opportunity to address
[1:07:18] councillor regarding this application. So any members of the public
[1:07:21] who wish to speak to council about the application on
[1:07:24] Dayton Street, please make your way up to the public
[1:07:26] podium or raise your hand in teams of participating online.
[1:07:30] You'll have up to five minutes to speak and please
[1:07:32] begin by stating your name and street name. This is
[1:07:38] the second time I've asking. This is the third and
[1:07:45] final time for anyone who wishes to address council regarding
[1:07:48] the application on Dayton Street. Seeing non - your worship,
[1:07:53] there would be no need for an applicant response. This
[1:07:56] would be the opportunity for Council to ask questions of
[1:07:59] staff followed by questions of the applicant. So Council, just
[1:08:03] confirming that it's staff first. So Councillor Weber, please. Let's
[1:08:09] look like a real. Actually quite an exciting addition to
[1:08:11] that area. Um, especially considering what's there. Um, in terms
[1:08:16] from the city's perspective, uh, how long down the road
[1:08:19] are we talking about getting a street buy there, a
[1:08:22] Sutherland Road. Your worship construction of the Sutherland Road extension
[1:08:26] is still dependent on acquiring future properties to the West.
[1:08:30] So until, you know, that sorted out potentially a long
[1:08:33] time greater than 10 years, I would say. Oh, okay.
[1:08:36] We're not that close. What about the mention of a
[1:08:38] city park across what would be a street there? Uh,
[1:08:42] your worship, the City owns the adjacent parcel directly to
[1:08:45] the south with the intention of a future City Park.
[1:08:48] There's currently a commercial building that's located on it. That
[1:08:50] low building, that's pictured there that really sort of, okay,
[1:08:53] I didn't know that. Okay, that's good to know. And
[1:08:56] the parking, maybe I should ask the developer this, but
[1:08:59] the parking, the essential extra parking, they're going to provide
[1:09:02] within the parkades. They just said in the development that
[1:09:06] it's 30 spaces in the district's campus parking program. So
[1:09:10] that won't necessarily be 30 spaces immediately next to this
[1:09:12] building. It could be spread out over the whole district?
[1:09:16] Your worship, um, we're not making them designate 30 spaces
[1:09:20] immediately next to this building. The applicant, uh, centrally manages
[1:09:24] a very significant amount of parking in this immediate neighbourhood.
[1:09:27] So it would be up to the applicant to manage
[1:09:28] their parking for their tenants and their visitors in a
[1:09:32] manner that functions for them. Uh, staff are confident given
[1:09:35] the supply that's existing in the neighbourhood that the bylaw
[1:09:39] requirements among all the different buildings. It's just, that sounds
[1:09:42] fine to me. It's just, it sounds a little tricky
[1:09:44] that, uh, 30 spaces for this building could be spread
[1:09:46] out amongst a bunch of different parcades. If for people
[1:09:49] who are going to that building, it would be tricky
[1:09:50] to find those spots if that's true. But maybe that's
[1:09:52] more of a question for the developer. Thank you. Mark,
[1:09:57] I'm just going to stay on that line for one
[1:09:58] second just before I move off. Um, the, I guess
[1:10:01] I'm just looking for that greater level of comfort, understanding
[1:10:05] that there was 60 parking spaces that were requested on
[1:10:09] this particular site. And it is down to 30. Um,
[1:10:12] and there is obviously substantial parking throughout the area. Um,
[1:10:19] I guess when we looked at the development permits and
[1:10:23] building all of the parking throughout the other areas, did
[1:10:26] those parking a lot mean exceed what we're required for
[1:10:30] those developments. And so we are now tapping into what
[1:10:35] is excess based upon those developments to meet the requirements
[1:10:39] of this. I mean, just if you can ask that
[1:10:42] that's what I'm, that's what I'm just kind of looking
[1:10:43] for that level of comfort. That's correct your worship. We
[1:10:47] did get the applicant to prove out the amount of
[1:10:49] parking that was required for the existing buildings that they
[1:10:51] have in the neighbourhood and the existing parking supply that
[1:10:54] they had. And it was found that they had, uh,
[1:10:56] significant amount of excess parking available based on the current
[1:10:59] buildings that exist. I believe a several hundred stalls in
[1:11:03] excess. So there's certainly significantly more than 30 stalls excess,
[1:11:08] including in the adjacent parcade itself. Thank you for that
[1:11:11] comfort. Thank you. Councillor Cannon, please. I was going to
[1:11:14] ask questions similar lines. So this would be the eighth
[1:11:16] building. I was just wondering if you know the total
[1:11:18] number of parking spots with the on the campus with
[1:11:21] the state building. Your worship, I don't know the total
[1:11:24] number of parking spots offhand. Uh, we did calculate as
[1:11:27] part of the process. I believe it was more than
[1:11:28] a thousand among all the different parcades in the area.
[1:11:31] Uh, I don't know exactly number. Okay. Thanks. When I
[1:11:34] went by the property today, just in between 1896, the
[1:11:38] building site and the parquet, I think the applicant said
[1:11:41] they're going to keep that laneway so that you can
[1:11:43] actually, right now it's, it's fenced off, but they're going
[1:11:45] to open that up. So it'll be circulating. Sorry. Your
[1:11:49] worship just to clarify that to the, between the parcade
[1:11:52] and the building or to the west of the building.
[1:11:54] To the, between the park eight and the building, existing
[1:11:56] building. Your worship, this building is being built immediately next
[1:12:00] to the parquet. There's not going to be any space
[1:12:02] in between them. Uh, access to this building is going
[1:12:04] to be through the parcade. So it's zero lot line
[1:12:06] on both sides of the future subdivision line. Uh, there
[1:12:09] is a private lane that the applicant is proposing to
[1:12:12] the west which connects to an existing private lane that
[1:12:14] they own, uh, north of those parcels. Thanks for the
[1:12:17] clarification in Councillor Weber asked the timing. So another decade
[1:12:21] or so before the road goes through. So that the
[1:12:24] muse and the trees will be well plant mature by
[1:12:27] then. Thanks. Thank you. Um, if I may, I do
[1:12:31] have a question for the applicant, please, if they could
[1:12:33] come back up. And thank you for being here today.
[1:12:38] Of course. And grateful for this presentation. I mean, obviously
[1:12:40] the importance of, uh, medical and pulling medical buildings into
[1:12:44] our community is extremely important. So thank you for that.
[1:12:48] My question still goes around and maybe just again, getting
[1:12:50] that, getting that greater level of comfort around the park.
[1:12:54] When you're having a medical building, the assumption is that
[1:12:56] a lot of those individuals are going into the medical
[1:12:58] building. So their ability to kind of walk great distances
[1:13:04] or get to that service. And again, looking for that
[1:13:08] level of comfort, um, uh, just recognising that there is
[1:13:12] extra parking available, but is it inconveniencing them with regards
[1:13:15] to what they're trying to do, getting into a medical
[1:13:17] building. Great question, your worship. Um, we are going to
[1:13:22] make sure that the users of the medical building as
[1:13:25] well as the tennis of the medical building have convenient
[1:13:27] parking. Um, just to put people's minds at rest when
[1:13:32] what we call the Dixon parcade, um, that was built
[1:13:37] not for a specific building. So that's where the excess
[1:13:39] parking is. So between our overall campus that we manage
[1:13:44] with indigo. So we have a really well established parking
[1:13:49] partner who's helping us oversee the entire program. And we
[1:13:52] can, um, ebb and flow between parking. And we can,
[1:13:56] um, assign different parking stalls to different places. Okay. Okay.
[1:14:02] Yeah. Just looking for, I mean, obviously understanding that if
[1:14:04] somebody needs that type of care, they're not going to
[1:14:06] want to walk a long distance in any way, shape
[1:14:09] or form. So just recognising that, I think is important.
[1:14:12] And it sounds like you have. We've got that covered.
[1:14:16] But I do appreciate the question. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:14:19] Um, you can take a seat. Please. There's no further
[1:14:21] questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. City clerk, please.
[1:14:23] Thank you, worship. That concludes public input on this item.
[1:14:26] And we'd be looking for a mover in seconder of
[1:14:28] the staff recommendation. Um, move by councillor Weber, seconded by
[1:14:32] Councillor Bulridge. Do we have comments? Councillor Singh. Just want
[1:14:37] to say it's going to be a perfect addition to
[1:14:40] the location, the buildings nearby. This sort of, this sort
[1:14:44] of looks like an older building stuck in a very
[1:14:48] modern environment. It goes, it's so old that I can
[1:14:53] tell you Council Cannon used to play drums there. In
[1:14:57] the old building. That's how old it is. Thank. You.
[1:15:01] Councillor Councillor Stock, please. Just briefly two words. Nice job.
[1:15:09] Councillor Hart, please. Thank you, worship. Yeah. I, for one,
[1:15:13] I'm going to be very happy that that parcade is
[1:15:15] not going to be seeing anymore. So honestly, that is
[1:15:17] a big addition because parkades can be very ugly. And
[1:15:22] that's been there like that building's been there a long
[1:15:24] time. Um, I think the number of jobs that this
[1:15:27] is going to create and the vibrancy of the, of
[1:15:30] that area. And eventually when, you know, we knew this
[1:15:34] road that's going to be going through there. Maybe it
[1:15:36] might be 10 years or more. But, uh, it's great
[1:15:38] that that's secured. Of course, it's all to do with,
[1:15:42] with land and how we can acquire the land. And
[1:15:45] hopefully that'll be a little bit at a time. But
[1:15:47] anyway, I think the building's very handsome. And I think
[1:15:49] it'll be a great addition to the neighbourhood. I actually,
[1:15:52] a few neighbours called me and just said that, Hey,
[1:15:55] in their neighbourhood, they're actually on Dixon. And they were
[1:15:59] quite interested in it. And they had no complaints. They
[1:16:01] just thought it was a great addition to their neighbourhood.
[1:16:04] So thank you. Councillor Cannon, please. Thanks Akama. Council colleagues
[1:16:09] comments. And I just want to applaud the applicant as
[1:16:11] well for the excess animating the future Southern Road. That's,
[1:16:17] I think over and above because, as I said, it
[1:16:19] could be 10, 20 years. The only problem with the
[1:16:21] Council of the day having to cut down all those
[1:16:23] trees. I didn't want to be here. Listen to you
[1:16:26] here at that time. But yeah, it's definitely a great.
[1:16:28] And I know it's a medical tourism growing market for
[1:16:32] our community. I had, uh, really true call me. They're
[1:16:36] fighting over the space. I really, so the high demand.
[1:16:39] And the last thing I beasty is that for our
[1:16:41] practice for ship teams are familiar with the building. Sad
[1:16:44] to see it go, but it's going to be a
[1:16:45] great addition. Thanks. Council Love Grow, please. Thanks, your worship.
[1:16:49] Thanks very much for the presentation. And, um, I'm with
[1:16:53] all my colleagues on this one as well, but I
[1:16:54] just want to point out one other thing. I mean,
[1:16:55] this is also weekends. We have our farmers market down
[1:16:58] there, right? Uh, thanks to you folks for hosting them.
[1:17:02] And it's really congested for me and going down there.
[1:17:05] And I love the Lebanese restaurant that's right beside this.
[1:17:07] So I'm frequent visitor this. But more importantly, you're going
[1:17:11] to one step closer to that local internal road connection
[1:17:15] that we really need to remove or at least reduce
[1:17:18] the congestion. It'll help folks make trips and keep them
[1:17:21] internal to the neighbourhood. So they don't have to go
[1:17:24] out on her view and then wait to get the
[1:17:26] ball and go around the corner. It's, it is a
[1:17:28] little bit of craziness. Um, so, uh, compliments on having
[1:17:33] a lane for fire access at least. It's private I
[1:17:36] get that. But at least you're improving safety already by
[1:17:39] doing this. So thanks again. Thank you. Uh, Council calling
[1:17:42] the questions all in favor. Post carried. And thank you
[1:17:46] once again for the applicant being here this evening. And
[1:17:49] Mark, thank you also. Your worship, that brings us to
[1:17:57] item 5. 3 on the agenda. And this is a
[1:18:01] development variance permit for a property on Southern Avenue here
[1:18:05] to present a staff from development planning.
[1:18:20] Thank you. Yourship. This is to review a staff recommendation
[1:18:23] to not issue a development variance permit to vary the
[1:18:26] number of visitor parking stalls required. On the subject property.
[1:18:32] This application was received in June. Public notification was completed.
[1:18:39] Project is located in the Capri landmark Urban Centre, just
[1:18:43] east of Capri Centre Mall and the site is double
[1:18:45] fronting onto both Sutherland Avenue and Pridham Avenue. The project
[1:18:52] has finished construction and has received provisional occupancy. It was
[1:18:55] approved with 240 units. These images are recent. Give us
[1:18:59] an idea of the current on - street parking in
[1:19:01] the neighbourhood. Um, this is the building facing north. Oh,
[1:19:06] sorry. Neighbourhood context. This is the building areal image facing
[1:19:10] north and then southernly avenue. These are the images of
[1:19:14] the, uh, neighbourhood that were recently taken that showed the
[1:19:17] on - street parking situation. Uh, Devin Chryer Avenue facing
[1:19:21] south and Pridham Avenue facing east. In terms of technical
[1:19:27] details, this project was six stories, 240 units, 153 studios,
[1:19:35] 147 of those were micro suites. So that means that
[1:19:38] they're less than 29 metres squared. 41 bedroom, 42 two
[1:19:42] bedroom and five, three bedroom, 306 long - term bike
[1:19:46] parking. The development permit approval included a reduction of 10
[1:19:52] stalls in total, five of which were for providing a
[1:19:55] car share. Five of which were for providing extra bike
[1:20:00] parking. And then three stalls were paid for it into
[1:20:03] the cash and lie program, which recently ended when council
[1:20:06] adopted the new parking regulations in the zoning bylaw this
[1:20:09] past spring. In total, the development has 226 stalls, and
[1:20:14] that includes 34 visitors dolls. Under the current parking regulations,
[1:20:20] the recently adopted ones. The building would require a total
[1:20:24] of 233 stalls, and that also includes 34 visitors dolls.
[1:20:28] So the visitors stall rate has not changed. Uh, and
[1:20:31] the applicant is proposing to reallocate 10 of the visitor
[1:20:34] stalls to regular stalls. Staff are not supportive of this
[1:20:39] variance. This area has experienced significant transformation of new apartment
[1:20:43] buildings in the past two to three years. The concern
[1:20:46] is that reallocating stalls from visitors to regular will create
[1:20:51] the potential for an overflow of on street parking. The
[1:20:55] only usable street frontage for on - street parking in
[1:20:58] this specific site area is Pridham Avenue because of the
[1:21:02] bike lanes that are on Sutherland Avenue. So that has
[1:21:06] the potential to create additional spill out into the neighbourhood.
[1:21:09] And as a general note for council, parking services is
[1:21:12] in early stages of developing an area parking plan for
[1:21:15] this urban centre. That will have an impact on the
[1:21:18] long - term parking availability in the future, but the
[1:21:21] details of that is unknown at this time. Staff are
[1:21:25] not comfortable with approving an amendment without knowing what the
[1:21:28] on - street parking management plan will look like in
[1:21:30] the future. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you,
[1:21:33] Justin. It's now the applicant or the applicant's representative's opportunity
[1:21:39] to address council regarding this application. And so I just
[1:21:44] asked that you begin by stating your name and street
[1:21:46] name, and you'll have up to five minutes to present.
[1:21:58] I just need to set up my presentation. Thank you,
[1:22:05] Alex. Help me, everybody. Where. S your presentation. Here? Should.
[1:22:13] Be a PDF. Take it. Right here. Oh. This is
[1:22:18] it. Perfect. Yeah. Okay. That's about it. As good as
[1:22:23] we can get it there. Also. Okay.
[1:22:34] Thanks. Good afternoon worship. Members of council. My name is
[1:22:40] Daven Shalong, and I'm the director of land development with
[1:22:43] Millennial Developments. We're located at suite 1100 1631 Dixon Avenue.
[1:22:49] Uh, we're clona - based developer. You may be familiar
[1:22:52] with some of our projects, two of which I'm going
[1:22:55] to be referencing here tonight. And I'm here really to
[1:22:59] ask for what I believe is a straightforward variance. Um,
[1:23:03] it's a reduction in visitor parking cells from 34 stalls
[1:23:08] to 24 stalls. Um, that's it. But as part of
[1:23:11] the variance, I'd like to share with you why I
[1:23:14] think, uh, I think our data supports us. So this
[1:23:22] slide represents the variance request and plain terms. Uh, and
[1:23:26] I'll say that the data we're using is based on
[1:23:29] empirical observations from our five crossings building, which is essentially
[1:23:33] ready across the street from, from a revval project. Um,
[1:23:36] it's directly comparable to Revo, um, same general size, uh,
[1:23:44] composition, et cetera. The 34 visitor stalls were approved under
[1:23:48] this existing DP by yourselves. Um, and they total of
[1:23:52] 24 delivered visitor stalls is what we're proposing under this
[1:23:56] variance. Uh, this effectively translates to a reduction of 10
[1:24:00] stalls, which are going to be reallocated entirely to resident
[1:24:04] parking. That's the proposal here. Um, there's a few things
[1:24:07] I want to be crystal clear about. We're not removing
[1:24:10] parking from the building at all. Uh, every one of
[1:24:13] the 10 stalls, um, stays in the parcade. We're simply
[1:24:18] moving them from the visitor parking column to the resident
[1:24:21] parking column. And, uh, and we can, we can demonstrate
[1:24:25] that that demand exists, obviously. I also want to be
[1:24:28] clear that we have the physical capacity to deliver on
[1:24:32] the 34 visitor stalls. That was approved in the original
[1:24:36] DP application. So, um, we're not in a precarious position.
[1:24:41] We're not, you know, we haven't hit a snag or
[1:24:44] anything like that. Um, we just prefer not to, uh,
[1:24:48] delivered as visitor, uh, and deliver it as resident parking.
[1:24:55] I'd also like to address, um, a question, because I
[1:24:58] believe it is a fair question. If you're thinking it,
[1:25:01] why didn't we ask for this when we originally submitted
[1:25:03] our, uh, DP application. The honest answer is because we
[1:25:08] had no basis for it. And we had no business
[1:25:10] to ask for it. Um, we didn't, we didn't have
[1:25:14] any data on the five crossings project, uh, that was
[1:25:18] currently in the, in the process of being built out.
[1:25:21] We didn't have any, uh, empirical data, uh, so to
[1:25:25] have requested a visitor parking reduction on the basis of
[1:25:28] speculation would have been premature and inappropriate and frankly unfair
[1:25:33] to the city's process. So we made a deliberate decision.
[1:25:36] We built what was approved. We committed to the 34
[1:25:39] visitor stalls as designed. And then we observed what was
[1:25:42] happening at our, at our sister building at five crossings.
[1:25:46] So for nearly two years, the building management team at
[1:25:49] five crossings tracked all the visitor parking utilization on a
[1:25:52] daily basis includes, uh, through the day, the evenings, the
[1:25:56] weekends and even those holidays. Um, only once that, uh,
[1:26:02] that data was clear and consistent, uh, did we bring
[1:26:05] this application forward? And I believe this is one of
[1:26:07] the reasons that the variance process exists for these situations.
[1:26:13] Uh, particularly where information emerges post approval, uh, that couldn't
[1:26:17] have been known at the time of the original submission.
[1:26:28] Um, I've got a few photos here for you. These
[1:26:31] were taken at our five crossings development over multiple days
[1:26:35] and times. Um, I'm going to get right to the
[1:26:37] point here. The image in the top right was taken
[1:26:40] this past August long weekend. And in Colonna, we all
[1:26:43] know what that means. Um, it's the peak of summer.
[1:26:46] Residents are entertaining. We have a ton of visitors here.
[1:26:50] And if our visitor parking was ever going to be
[1:26:52] at capacity, this would be the weekend when we had
[1:26:54] see it. Uh, as you can see, the stalls are,
[1:26:57] uh, essentially empty. I'll also point out that the other
[1:27:01] three photos have less parking. Um, than what you would
[1:27:06] see on that August long weekend. And the one in
[1:27:09] the top left, uh, the one vehicle, um, that is
[1:27:13] there that is actually my vehicle. Um, where I was
[1:27:16] taking a photo. Let me put numbers to what I've
[1:27:24] been referring to. Our five crossings development, which is where
[1:27:29] we're pulling the data from. It's 207 units. It's 28
[1:27:32] visitor stalls. Over nearly two full years of stabilized augmency,
[1:27:37] including evenings and weekends. The building management team consistently observed
[1:27:41] roughly 20 percent utilization. So in practical terms, only six
[1:27:46] of those 28 stalls had a vehicle in them. So
[1:27:50] 22 are consistently empty. Um, it's, it's not a rounding
[1:27:54] area, uh, rounding error. This is, this is the reality
[1:27:58] of how visitors are using parking in five crossings and
[1:28:03] exactly how we anticipate it'll be used in Revo as
[1:28:05] well. Um, we've also had these observations formally confirmed in
[1:28:11] writing by the building management team. Um, again, it's, it's
[1:28:17] direct day to day oversight of the facility that's occurring
[1:28:19] by, by their team lead Ric Doucette. And he's included
[1:28:22] a letter in our application. And I imagine it's in
[1:28:25] your council packages as well. Um, I'd like to take
[1:28:30] just a couple of moments to review some of his
[1:28:33] excerpts here. Quote one speaks to the consistency of the
[1:28:37] pattern that I've been referring to. So visitor parking at
[1:28:41] five crossings is consistently underutilized. Quote two raises something that
[1:28:46] I don't think anyone anticipated, which I believe sanctions are
[1:28:49] case. And Rick, the lead building management, um, personnel has
[1:28:55] noted that the sheer volume of empty visitor stalls creates
[1:28:58] an ongoing management problem because residents who don't have a
[1:29:02] dedicated stall are tempted to use the glut of available
[1:29:06] visitor stalls. And that really undermines the parking program and
[1:29:10] creates enforcement burden. Now I know the enforcement burden isn't
[1:29:13] councils concern. Uh, but really this is, this is, this
[1:29:19] is why we believe reallocating the stalls to resident is
[1:29:22] a, is a good solution. It puts supply. We're genuine
[1:29:26] demand exists. And then quote three just confirms a utilization
[1:29:33] value that I've, that I've been referring to, which is
[1:29:36] a 20 percent which is consistent across all the days,
[1:29:39] including the peak periods. This is a table, um. That
[1:29:49] will take everything we've just established at five crossing and
[1:29:53] imply it directly to Revo, uh, at a 20 percent
[1:29:56] utilization that proposed 24 stalls would have roughly five to
[1:30:00] six vehicles in the met peak demand. This leaves 19
[1:30:03] stalls. That would be vacant in Revo at its peak
[1:30:06] period. Even after the reduction, uh, the building is still
[1:30:10] really materially over parked for visitor use. Um, and this
[1:30:14] is why I would argue that this variance doesn't create
[1:30:17] a deficiency. It actually eliminates an excess and redirects at
[1:30:22] axis to where the data shows demand actually exists. And,
[1:30:25] uh, and also to what, uh, staff was referring to.
[1:30:31] I'd like to take a few moments just to reference
[1:30:34] staff's report. And thank you for the report, Jocelyn and
[1:30:37] Jason. Because I think the report makes some excellent points
[1:30:43] and raises exactly the right concerns. And this is what
[1:30:46] I want to show counsel and why our proposal actually
[1:30:50] helps resolve these concerns. So staff report identified two reasons
[1:30:56] to oppose the application. The first was that the reduction
[1:30:59] in visitor stalls poses increased pressure. On on street parking
[1:31:04] management and second that it could lead to deficient on
[1:31:07] - site visitor parking. But I, again, I want to
[1:31:11] be straight with you. These, those two concerns are almost
[1:31:14] exactly why we're making this application. Um, the reality of
[1:31:19] how parking works in a building like this is that
[1:31:22] when residents don't have a designated parking stall, they park
[1:31:25] on the street. And that's if they're following the rules,
[1:31:28] not trying to use our visitor parking. Every resident vehicle
[1:31:33] we can place into a permanent stall inside this building
[1:31:35] is one less vehicle on the street. The 10 stalls
[1:31:38] we're relocating go directly to resident parking addressing a documented
[1:31:43] gap, because not every suite at Rebo is assigned with
[1:31:49] parking. Um, in fact, we do have a handful of
[1:31:51] suites that don't have parking come with them. And that's
[1:31:55] why we're trying to do this. Um, staff also flagged
[1:32:00] the Capri landmark parking review and the importance of maintaining
[1:32:03] adequate off street parking supply. I couldn't agree more. This
[1:32:07] is exactly what I'm trying to achieve here. We're maximizing
[1:32:10] the use of Offstreet supply by moving the 10 unused
[1:32:13] stalls to an area that actually needs it. So that's
[1:32:19] again why I argue that this proposal is actually well
[1:32:21] aligned with staff subjective, not necessarily in conflict with it.
[1:32:25] Um, I also understand there was an opposition. Opposition letter
[1:32:29] submitted. And the sentiment of the letter was essentially the
[1:32:33] same thing. It was there's too much parking on the
[1:32:35] streets in this area. Um, again, I agree. And ultimately
[1:32:40] it's not necessarily visitor parking in five crossings. And, uh,
[1:32:46] and Revo that's going to be an issue. It's the
[1:32:48] resident parking because there's not enough of it. Now I
[1:32:53] know some of you, uh, are probably asking yourself, who
[1:32:58] is this guy? What, what makes, uh, millennials visitor parking
[1:33:02] utilization so low, uh, when it's not low in other
[1:33:06] buildings. And it's a great question. And the simple answer
[1:33:09] is that it's a quality of the building management that
[1:33:12] we retained. Um, our building management team, uh, both in
[1:33:17] five crossings and in Revo is there on a daily
[1:33:20] basis. They're not offsite. So, um, they are consistently monitoring
[1:33:25] the parking situation and the enforce it. So this keeps
[1:33:29] a visitor stalls available for genuine visitor use and prevents
[1:33:33] the stall creep that can undermine other buildings. And as
[1:33:37] I said, um, we're very happy with the management team.
[1:33:41] And this management team has actually been retained to manage
[1:33:44] the revO building as well. So we know that we're
[1:33:46] going to get the same quality of service from them
[1:33:48] that we do from five, five crossings. Um, I'll wrap
[1:33:58] it up here. Um, again, I'm kindly asking you to,
[1:34:02] uh, to consider approving the variance to the existing Revo
[1:34:06] DP, uh, from 34 visitor stalls to 24 with the
[1:34:10] 10 release stalls that will be reallocated to resident parking.
[1:34:14] Um, and of course the 10 release stalls is going
[1:34:17] to take vehicles off the street within that area. Um,
[1:34:21] and, um, and help the current situation. We've got nearly
[1:34:25] two years of consistent data from a directly comparable building
[1:34:29] that we designed and built. We have written confirmation from
[1:34:32] the five crossings building management team. Demonstrating that the visitor
[1:34:36] parking is underutilized. And, uh, and we believe that Revo
[1:34:42] in its current state of 34 visitor stalls will be
[1:34:44] material over parked for visitor use. So, uh, reducing the
[1:34:51] 10 will be a great, great help to the neighbourhood.
[1:34:57] We believe that it will reduce the pressure and it'll
[1:35:01] be, uh, it'll be a difference in the overall area.
[1:35:04] So I understand that staff, uh, does not support this
[1:35:08] application. Um, but, uh, but we are asking that these,
[1:35:13] that the empirical observations that I've presented to you tonight
[1:35:17] this afternoon, uh, will come in, we'll come into play
[1:35:20] in your consideration. So thank you very time. And I'm
[1:35:23] happy to field any questions. Thank you. I'll just get
[1:35:28] you to grab a seat. And if we have any
[1:35:30] questions, we'll call you back. Any members of the public
[1:35:34] who would like to address counsel regarding this application, you
[1:35:37] can make your way to the public podium on your
[1:35:39] right or raise your hand in teams if participating online.
[1:35:43] You have up to five minutes to speak. And please
[1:35:45] begin by stating your name and street name. This is
[1:35:51] the second time of asking for any members of the
[1:35:53] public wishing to address Council regarding the application on Sutherland
[1:35:56] Avenue. This is the third and final time of asking.
[1:36:04] Seeing none, your worship, the applicant response. This would be
[1:36:07] the opportunity for Council to ask questions of staff followed
[1:36:10] by questions of the applicant. Thank you, Jocelyn, please. If
[1:36:13] we can get some questions. First question just before I
[1:36:16] put it out, there's a review that you said is
[1:36:19] going to take place at some point in time. Could
[1:36:21] you give us a rough idea when that review is
[1:36:23] going to happen? Um, I apologise your worship. My understanding
[1:36:28] from our, um, our transportation integrated transportation team is that
[1:36:32] they're doing a review right now for all urban centres.
[1:36:34] I don't know when that will be brought forward to
[1:36:37] council for consideration. That's fine. Thank you. Um, second question.
[1:36:41] The information that was presented to us, um, did you
[1:36:44] have that information in front of you while you were
[1:36:46] reviewing the decision that staff had made on this? Three
[1:36:49] of your worship. Yes. Yes. We did. Um, and that
[1:36:51] was part of the applicant's rationale that they submitted with
[1:36:54] their application. Third question. Do you know in that information?
[1:36:59] Is there a cost associated with regards to a tenant,
[1:37:03] maintaining a stall. Through your worship, I do not know.
[1:37:09] Welcome back to the applicant. Yeah, that would be a
[1:37:10] month for that. Okay. Thank you. Councillor. Oh, City Manager,
[1:37:13] please. Yeah. Thank you. You worship just to your first
[1:37:16] question around the timing of the Urban Centres study that
[1:37:20] was referenced would likely be the beginning of next term
[1:37:22] of council. Thank you. Thank you. Council Walbridge, please. My
[1:37:26] questions are for the applicant you worship. Thanks. Thank you.
[1:37:29] Councillor Love Grove, please. Thanks, your worship. So just to
[1:37:35] go back to your presentation, um, there is currently an
[1:37:40] on - street parking problem on Sutherland. Did I hear
[1:37:44] you correctly on that? In the vicinity of this proposal?
[1:37:49] Through your worship, I think the multiple factors that are
[1:37:51] probably creating on street issues right now. Some probably that
[1:37:57] there is some construction going on. So workers park for
[1:38:00] the day and leave. Um, and then the influx of
[1:38:03] apartment buildings two or three within the past two to
[1:38:07] three years that have vastly changed the landscape of this
[1:38:10] area. Okay. And, uh, just following up on the mayor's
[1:38:15] question. When the applicant gave you the data, um, you're
[1:38:23] rational for non - approval was that it didn't meet
[1:38:25] by - large. Do you agree with the data? Or
[1:38:27] did you... Through your worship? I think the data is
[1:38:31] helpful in understanding the operations for that specific building for
[1:38:35] REVO, which is, or sorry, not REVO. The other one
[1:38:39] that he was talking about. One of the main differences
[1:38:42] that we kind of looked at, and we also discussed
[1:38:44] with our parking services team is the allocation of frontage
[1:38:49] on this property. So this site fronts onto Sutherland as
[1:38:55] well, where, um, active transportation corridor is. And then it
[1:39:00] has Pridum to the north. So it's different context. It's
[1:39:05] a very similar building and how it operates, but the
[1:39:08] site context is always a little bit different for each.
[1:39:11] Okay. And I guess the other question back to the
[1:39:19] mayor's question on cost impact. They're building the stalls for
[1:39:25] the residents, the 34, and the 34 that would be
[1:39:29] visitor anyways. Um, shifting them to resident, um, are you
[1:39:35] aware of any changes to the design? For example, they're
[1:39:38] all underground by the looks of it. We're at least
[1:39:41] in the data for the other development. Um, what ramifications
[1:39:45] would that anyways? Three of your worship, we haven't received
[1:39:48] a development permit amendment for any internal circulation or anything
[1:39:52] like that as part of this application. Um, pending council's
[1:39:57] decision today. That would kind of be our next step
[1:39:59] is to take a look to see if the parquead
[1:40:02] was built as approved and what the, what the allocation
[1:40:07] looks like if it's changed at all. Okay. And do
[1:40:10] our city bylaws, um, allow applicants to place charges on
[1:40:15] their visitor stalls? Like pay parking for visitors? I mean.
[1:40:22] It's, it's more of a strata. It's more of a
[1:40:24] strata item and ownership item than it is our bylaws.
[1:40:26] Yes. Through your worship, I believe that that's more how
[1:40:29] the building is managed. That's a management of the building
[1:40:32] through strata and remind me, sorry, is this a purely
[1:40:35] rental or is it private? This is not a rental
[1:40:36] building. This is market. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So there is
[1:40:40] a strata and the strata would deal with that. Okay.
[1:40:43] That's correct. Okay. I guess I've got questions for the
[1:40:45] appointment. Council Weber, please. So kind of boils down the
[1:40:52] argument here. The idea that, uh, more resident parking. In
[1:40:59] the building would mean less resident parking on the street.
[1:41:02] Like that's their, that's the argument here. And if the
[1:41:05] visitor parking isn't being used, some of it. And residents
[1:41:09] can use those spots. They'll be less parking on the
[1:41:12] street. And that which is a good goal. Right. But
[1:41:17] that argument isn't swinging city staff. Through your worship, I
[1:41:22] think that ultimately city staff are looking at what was
[1:41:26] originally approved in the development permit. And we're choosing to
[1:41:30] stick with the integrity of what that was. We typically
[1:41:33] don't see these come back to us. Unless there was
[1:41:37] an issue in a building and a resident came forward
[1:41:40] and complained and said, I don't think that this strata
[1:41:43] is operating how it was approved. So, um, it's very,
[1:41:48] it's, um, it's commendable that the applicant has come forward
[1:41:53] to ask for council's approval because this is a variance
[1:41:55] to their original development permit. And our decision is really
[1:41:59] just based on the fact that this has been a
[1:42:02] consistent ratio of visitor stalls for apartment buildings throughout both
[1:42:06] bylaws, even with the recent changes. Um, and we, we
[1:42:10] stand by that. And without any on - street parking
[1:42:13] management plans at this time, um, we're just not comfortable
[1:42:18] changing that approval. That was a good answer. Very good
[1:42:22] at you. Councillor saying, do you have staff questions or.
[1:42:28] The. Same to the last. You're not mic's not on.
[1:42:35] Sorry. Um, I was same thing along what Councillor Weber
[1:42:39] was asking essentially simplistic question. It's all got so complicated
[1:42:46] with data and information and all this. Simply put. 34
[1:42:52] stall. 10 visitor stalls, the applicant just wants to make
[1:42:57] that 10 visitor stalls, resident stalls or residents who have
[1:43:02] who need extra parking will not be on the street.
[1:43:07] Through your worship, correct. And wooden staff consider that to
[1:43:11] be a positive is what I was going to say.
[1:43:14] But the, so if they have any guests, their guests
[1:43:16] will have no place to stop park. I would, if
[1:43:22] you would, Jocelyn, maybe just go back through the answer
[1:43:24] you just gave a minute ago. Why it ends up
[1:43:26] being staff or staying with the original proposal like you
[1:43:28] had just said? Yes. Through your worship. Maybe I can
[1:43:32] try and reword it a little differently. Oh, Adam's here.
[1:43:37] I think you did a great job. Just I think
[1:43:39] you did a great job. Just do it again. I
[1:43:40] got it. I got it. I think. Yes, she did
[1:43:42] do a great job. And that's all I wanted to
[1:43:45] know. No, that's it. You watched her wife. I could
[1:43:48] just, uh, explain maybe the difference between on street parking
[1:43:51] relative to visitor. That's the key issue here is that
[1:43:54] currently there is no on street parking in front of
[1:43:57] this building. So yes, that means any visitor who uses
[1:44:01] this building is likely using the street parking because it's
[1:44:03] much more easy to access the front lobby. Therefore visitor
[1:44:08] parking is not being utilised within these buildings. How are
[1:44:11] staff's concerned is that if we introduce on street parking
[1:44:14] into the area, that means more visitor parking will then
[1:44:17] be into the buildings. And so we're concerned that on
[1:44:21] street parking still is needed within buildings. Um, but in
[1:44:24] the interim without entreking control, there is a valid argument
[1:44:29] from the applicant's sake to transfer resident parking, um, uh,
[1:44:35] from the street to inside the building. Councillor Wolbertch, was
[1:44:41] I reading you right that you have a question for
[1:44:42] Adam? Now, uh, now that all the questions are going
[1:44:44] to staff, I need, I have one for staff and
[1:44:46] then the applicant. Um, just going back to the technical
[1:44:49] details of the, of the project I remember, Rivo. I
[1:44:52] remember five crossings. Um, there's 147 micro units. Um, which
[1:44:57] don't contribute DCCs correct. Yes. That's correct. Um, did those
[1:45:00] include parking. At the time of, um, can't recall. You
[1:45:07] worship. I would say at the time it would have
[1:45:08] been at a point eight stall ratio two units. So
[1:45:11] there would have been approximately 20 percent of those micro
[1:45:13] suites without, um, parking stalls, which is indicated of, of
[1:45:18] more hearing is that there was more demand for parking
[1:45:21] than what was provided for those microsuites. Correct. I'll have
[1:45:24] that more questions for the applicant. Hopefully they can explain
[1:45:26] their rationale. Councillor stock, please. For the applicant. Okay. So
[1:45:30] I have Council to Heart for the applicant. Okay. So
[1:45:33] we're all done with staff at the moment. Thank you
[1:45:35] very much Adam and Jocelyn. Thank you for those questions.
[1:45:37] If I may, please ask the applicant to come back
[1:45:39] to the microphone. Um, so sir, we have some questions
[1:45:48] for you. I am going to start with, uh, Councillor
[1:45:52] Wolbridge, please. Thanks for that. Thanks for being here tonight.
[1:45:56] Um, definitely an odd approach. We don't generally see a
[1:46:00] bait and switch happen like this, uh, this late in
[1:46:02] the game when something's under construction. Um, so were you
[1:46:06] aware, um, when the, and by the way, I was
[1:46:09] a supporter of five crossings in Revo with this innovative
[1:46:12] model. Thank you. Um, and knowing that, um, you know,
[1:46:16] there was a lot of feedback around micro suites around
[1:46:20] DCCs and around the parking requirements. So I'm just a
[1:46:25] little bit confused now this late in the game. You're
[1:46:27] coming and you're saying you want to monetize those. So
[1:46:29] can you explain to me rationalist to why we're doing
[1:46:32] that now. Uh, your worship. If I could just make
[1:46:38] a clarification, we're not, we're not actually looking to monetize
[1:46:41] anything. The ask is simply to convert the visitor to
[1:46:46] the resident parking. We, we recognise that there's significant parking
[1:46:52] happening on the street in this neighbourhood. And we want
[1:46:55] to put more residents into permanent parking versus having them
[1:46:58] on the street. They will not be monetized. They won't
[1:47:02] be sold. You're just going to donate them. They will
[1:47:04] be sold with the sweets. Yeah. So they're sold. So
[1:47:07] they'll be sold with the speeds. Okay. Thanks for that.
[1:47:09] Um, and, uh, what's the feedback Ben from your current
[1:47:13] purchasers? Are they aware of this change. Um. To a
[1:47:23] certain degree, we have it, we have it in our
[1:47:25] disclosure statement. Okay. Okay. Cause I reached out to a
[1:47:28] few of them and they weren't to wear this application.
[1:47:30] Okay. Yeah. That's interesting. It is it's we obviously by,
[1:47:34] by law, we're required to identify everything within, within a
[1:47:37] disclosure statement. Right. So you can kind of guess where
[1:47:39] I'm going with this. But, um, I'll leave it to
[1:47:41] the rest of my colleagues to ask more questions. Thanks.
[1:47:44] If you were like, give me questions. One second, please.
[1:47:46] No, I'm going to get some clarification from you on
[1:47:48] this, um, because I want clarification with it. These 10
[1:47:53] units that will transfer from being, um, uh, interpermanent parking,
[1:48:00] um, at some point in time will then be sold
[1:48:04] alongside a unit as opposed to being free parking for
[1:48:10] residents, correct? They will be attached and sold with the
[1:48:14] unit. But thank you. Thank you. That's, that's, that was,
[1:48:16] that was kind of what we were looking for in
[1:48:18] it. And saying that they're not monetized isn't correct because
[1:48:21] we understand kind of that, you know, a unit has
[1:48:24] to have an attachment to it. So what it does
[1:48:27] is it's opened up 10 more to be sold. And
[1:48:29] that's, that's, that's where we're kind of questioning with it.
[1:48:32] Councillor Stock, please. Thank you. So back to the first
[1:48:35] building that you used as your model or to demonstrate
[1:48:38] the lack of demand. How many units in that building
[1:48:45] are seeking, parking, that it's not a, and the parking
[1:48:48] available for them. Um, I don't. Recall, uh, I don't
[1:48:55] recall the number, um, but again, similar to Rebel, we
[1:48:59] had units that were sold, uh, that did not have
[1:49:01] parking. Right. So, so people in that building have expressed
[1:49:07] that they would have preferred to have an additional parking
[1:49:09] stall to go with their unit. Cause that's sort of
[1:49:12] the model you're saying the demand for permanent parking, but
[1:49:16] not much demand for the visitor parking. That's correct. And
[1:49:19] part of the reason for that is because we believed,
[1:49:23] uh, in the design process that the location would speak
[1:49:29] for itself and that there would be significantly less demand
[1:49:32] for resident parking because of the location to Capri and
[1:49:36] all the other amenities surrounding that. Okay. So, okay. I'll
[1:49:40] have a comment on that. But that, that makes it
[1:49:42] clear to me, um, were the problem really lies, which
[1:49:45] is, uh, not enough parking for the permanent units. Yeah.
[1:49:51] Anyway, thank you. I'll make a comment at the right
[1:49:53] time. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Lovegrove, please. Thanks very much.
[1:49:59] So, um, is it, um, in your performer, or what
[1:50:04] are your disclosure statement is that the stall can be
[1:50:08] unbundled if the buyer chooses not to want parking. I'm
[1:50:17] not sure I understand your question. So in your proposals,
[1:50:21] you're asking that 10 of the visitor stalls be used
[1:50:24] for permanent parking. And I'm getting a sense that perhaps
[1:50:28] it's going to be linked or bundled with a microsuite.
[1:50:32] That you said, uh, some of them don't have parking
[1:50:35] right now. Um, if a buyer of a microsuite chooses
[1:50:41] to say, I don't need it. Um, will it be
[1:50:45] unbundled or will it be sold as a unit with
[1:50:48] no choice? With the unsold units that we currently have,
[1:50:53] we have the option for both. So, uh, regardless, um,
[1:50:58] the units that do not come with parking. Cool. So
[1:51:03] they could have the option to say, I don't want
[1:51:06] parking. I want a unit sold. That doesn't have parking.
[1:51:10] We have that option for them. Okay. So, but they
[1:51:13] don't have the option to choose a suite and say,
[1:51:15] I don't want parking with this suite. You choose the
[1:51:17] suites that have parking. That's not given that option is
[1:51:21] not giving to the buyer. Um, the, the option could
[1:51:25] be given to the buyer depending on the circumstances of,
[1:51:28] of what they're looking for. What I'm saying is we
[1:51:31] don't have availability. The 10 will not cover off everything,
[1:51:36] uh, all the unsold units that come without parking. Yeah.
[1:51:39] Okay. I appreciate that. Um, okay. And so you found
[1:51:43] in this area or based on data from the, um,
[1:51:47] five, the other building, sorry. Five crossings, your worship. Thank
[1:51:51] you. Five crossings. Um, that there seems to be an
[1:51:54] overrepresentation of resident parking demand. And is it in this
[1:52:00] area. So right across the street. It's your worship. So
[1:52:07] yes, it's, it's effectively right across the street. It's divided
[1:52:10] by, um, a city park. Okay. That's, that's interesting. I'll
[1:52:16] have comments. You worship. Thanks. Do we have any other
[1:52:19] questions. No further questions. Okay. Do I have a mover
[1:52:23] please? Um, please city clerk. Thank you, worship. That concludes
[1:52:28] any public input on this item and brings us to
[1:52:31] the recommendation. So looking for a mover in a seconder.
[1:52:34] So I have a mover and Councillor Wolridge and I
[1:52:36] have a secondary and Councillor Stack and I have comments
[1:52:39] from Councillor Wolverge. Thanks to worship. As you can probably
[1:52:43] tell by my questions, I'm quite heated about this one.
[1:52:45] Um, because at the time I was assured that, um,
[1:52:49] data was driving how this, these buildings were designed. And
[1:52:52] that's been the story that I've heard all along. Um,
[1:52:55] and now we see this come forward. And I know
[1:52:57] it's only 10 parking spots, but having sat in this
[1:53:01] chair for eight years and being the recipient of resident
[1:53:05] feedback after buildings are built and how they are functioning.
[1:53:08] Um, statistically speaking, fewer visitors dolls means that there's likely
[1:53:13] to be a higher peak demand on the streets from
[1:53:17] what I've experienced in my inbox. And for me, the
[1:53:23] difference between parking management of a rental building versus a
[1:53:27] condo building is very different in that of a rental
[1:53:29] building. You have a manager that can work with the
[1:53:31] tenants to do parking demand management. When we have individual
[1:53:36] owners, um, who by the way, weren't necessarily aware of
[1:53:39] this happening. It becomes so much harder to manage. And
[1:53:43] then it becomes the city's issue to, um, to address.
[1:53:47] Um, and it perturbs me because we approve the high
[1:53:51] amount of microsweets that don't contribute to DCCs. And yes,
[1:53:53] the amenity packages are beautiful. Um, that are being built.
[1:53:57] There's parking reductions, et cetera. So, um, my patients is
[1:54:02] really low for this. I'm very supportive of staff's recommendation
[1:54:05] of non - support because to me, this is just,
[1:54:10] it's not acceptable. And I'll leave it there. Councillor Stack,
[1:54:13] please. Thank you, worship. Similar comments. To me, with this,
[1:54:20] it's really interesting because this was a bit of an
[1:54:21] experiment. This first building. And since we're talking about the
[1:54:23] first building as a model, so to speak, for the
[1:54:26] second, uh, the issue for me, it just simply seems
[1:54:29] that they've miscalculated how many residents would like to have
[1:54:32] a place to park a car. It doesn't mean they've
[1:54:35] miscalculated how many people take a bike to work. I
[1:54:37] think that's very legitimate. But, uh, what it tells me
[1:54:40] is the one of park a car. Then there's available
[1:54:43] spots. And the problem, it becomes for the city. That
[1:54:47] means that those people who want to buy a suite,
[1:54:49] they got to park on the street, which then creates
[1:54:51] a problem for the rest of the neighbourhood. So, uh,
[1:54:53] to me, this is not a question about whether the
[1:54:57] visitor stalls are right. I think we need to protect
[1:54:59] those visitor stalls because that's what our racial citywide tell
[1:55:02] us we need. So I support staff in that. But
[1:55:05] what it is, is a good flag for council and
[1:55:09] for staff to realise that, um, even though people may
[1:55:13] be using their bicycles, they still need places to park
[1:55:15] cars. Like they may park a car for two weeks
[1:55:18] and not drive it. But they still need a place
[1:55:20] to park it because they're riding their bike to work.
[1:55:22] And it tells me that we have to be very,
[1:55:23] very careful not to approve units with two greater parking
[1:55:26] reduction. I think it's, this is telling me from the
[1:55:29] evidence, I'm being told is that we have trimmed it
[1:55:34] too low. And we should have had a higher parking
[1:55:36] ratio for permanent. So I can't, I will support staff's
[1:55:39] recommendation. Councillor Love Grove, please. Thanks, your worship. Well, I'm
[1:55:47] going to support staff's recommendation, but I just want to
[1:55:49] make, uh, comments here. And that is that incidentally UBC
[1:55:54] did have a traffic study in this area, um, one
[1:55:58] of my colleagues did it. And we found there actually
[1:56:00] is a lower amount of traffic generated because of all
[1:56:02] the amenities and the recent installation of the southern act
[1:56:05] of transport corridor, the bike path, uh, it's near a
[1:56:09] transportive corridor. And don't forget let's not forget not everybody
[1:56:12] owns a car. We got Karshar in here too. Maybe
[1:56:16] not in this development, but absolutely in the neighbourhood and
[1:56:18] in the city. So I actually think there's a really
[1:56:20] good case to say the last car ownership by residents
[1:56:24] living in the building, which is why it really surprised
[1:56:26] me to hear you want to shift it from visitor
[1:56:29] to owners. So I'm going, oh, that's kind of why
[1:56:32] I was poking in prod and staff as well. So
[1:56:35] something's going on. I'm, I'm not comfortable going against our
[1:56:38] staff expert. So for now, I'm going to support this,
[1:56:41] but I do think it'll be interesting to see. I
[1:56:44] hope you're collecting the data as we go because we're
[1:56:46] going to be talking in the future. Thanks very much.
[1:56:49] Council Cannon, please. Thanks similar Councillor Stack and the fact
[1:56:53] that one of the reasons why I've voted against many
[1:56:58] of the applications when we have 20 percent reduction because
[1:57:02] of the fact that there was a study done by
[1:57:03] the capstone students at UBCO this year. There was Privy
[1:57:07] to the results. And they looked at about, uh, half
[1:57:09] a dozen multifamily projects in downtown. And majority of them
[1:57:14] had more demand from parking that was provided. So I
[1:57:17] looked forward to the new review. Hope they'll be here
[1:57:21] to look at that review. And also the strata one
[1:57:24] they decide in the future if they want to convert
[1:57:26] some of those visitor stalls to residents and they'll have
[1:57:31] that option as well. In the future. Thank you. Thank
[1:57:34] you. Um, just final comments just before we put this
[1:57:37] to a vote with regards to it. I don't feel
[1:57:41] good about this one just because for, for a few
[1:57:44] reasons. And one of the reasons that, um, I see
[1:57:48] these visitor stalls being transferred and being sold with a
[1:57:52] unit. And so it's a way of taking, um, gaining
[1:58:00] money on it. And that was something that, you know,
[1:58:03] wasn't brought forward to us that they were going to
[1:58:04] be transferred over. The second point of it is that
[1:58:08] I believe the applicant could have worked with staff and
[1:58:11] said, you know what, we know you're doing a study
[1:58:13] into the future. And when that study's done, we'll kind
[1:58:15] of take a look at this because there's nothing which
[1:58:19] stops the applicant after he said that the property is
[1:58:22] very well managed by the property manager to provide 10
[1:58:27] visitor passes or temporary parking permits. For individuals who need
[1:58:31] it on the intern bases if that's the case until
[1:58:35] staff get done their report. What stops the applicant though
[1:58:39] is selling them. Um, and they can't transfer them and
[1:58:42] direct the registered them on title, which is a different
[1:58:45] point. So that's where I just have difficulty with it.
[1:58:49] We're not, the picture is not clear for me on
[1:58:51] basically what we're trying to actually accomplish. It goes more
[1:58:54] so down the road of the sale aspect of it
[1:58:57] than it does of trying to deal with the actual
[1:58:59] problem. So I'm looking forwards to when staff complete their
[1:59:03] report. If this does come back in front before us,
[1:59:05] I hope it comes back with direction on it that
[1:59:08] is, uh, clear for us right at this particular point
[1:59:10] in time. Um, and saying that I'm going to call
[1:59:13] the question all in favor. Opposed. Thank you. So that
[1:59:17] was all in favor of accepting staff's recommendation. Thank you
[1:59:19] to the applicant for being here. Thank you for being
[1:59:21] in front of us. Thank you for the work that
[1:59:23] you've done on presenting that. And also thank you to
[1:59:25] staff. Thank you, our ship. That brings us to item
[1:59:33] 5. 4 on the agenda. And this is an application
[1:59:35] for a development variance permit on Elm Road here to
[1:59:38] present his staff from development planning. Thank you, your worship
[1:59:47] short. The purpose of this report is to issue a
[1:59:49] development variance permit to vary the minimum lot width to
[1:59:52] facilitate a two lot subdivision. The application was submitted on
[1:59:56] July 10th and neighbourhood notification was completed on July 13th.
[2:00:00] Today, we're here to consider the variance. And if the
[2:00:02] variance is approved by council, the applicant could continue with
[2:00:05] their proposed subdivision. The subject properties located on Elm Road,
[2:00:10] which is a cul - de - sac off -
[2:00:11] McClure road in the lower mission. They are nearby bus
[2:00:14] stops located on Gordon Drive and McLear Road. And Oknog
[2:00:17] and Mission Secondary School in Bellevue Creek Elementary School are
[2:00:19] both within walking and cycling distance of the subject property.
[2:00:25] The property currently contains a single detached dwelling that the
[2:00:28] owner wishes to retain after the subdivision is completed. And
[2:00:31] the surrounding neighbourhood primarily consists of single detached dwellings with
[2:00:34] a recently subdivided lot located immediately next door. Uh, these
[2:00:39] photos show the existing streetscape and neighbourhood context. The dash
[2:00:43] blue line on the image on the right shows the
[2:00:45] proposed line of the subdivision. And you can see how
[2:00:47] the proposed new lot is narrower near the street, but
[2:00:50] substantially widens towards the back of the parcel. The applicant
[2:00:54] is proposing a development variance permit to facilitate a two
[2:00:57] - lot subdivision. Uh, as mentioned, they're proposing to retain
[2:01:00] the existing single family home on one of the parcels,
[2:01:03] which means the only feasible lot shape is a pie
[2:01:05] - shaped lot where the new lot is narrower at
[2:01:07] the front than the rear. The specific variance is to
[2:01:10] reduce the minimum lot width for the subdivision from 16
[2:01:13] and a half metres to 10. 65 metres. The proposal
[2:01:17] meets all other zoning by la regulations and vehicle access
[2:01:20] to the site can be provided from Elm Road, despite
[2:01:22] the reduced lot width. This is the site plan showing
[2:01:27] the proposed subdivision boundaries. Uh, the proposed variants to the
[2:01:30] minimum lot width is shown by the red circle. It
[2:01:33] only applies to proposed lot A, which otherwise meets the
[2:01:36] subdivision regulations, propose lot B, which would keep the existing
[2:01:39] single family home meets all of the subdivision regulations. The
[2:01:44] proposal aligns with efficient community plan policy, which for suburban
[2:01:48] residential lands, uh, they're intended to accommodate most of the
[2:01:51] city's lower density housing forms alongside new, small scale, multi
[2:01:54] - unit homes. And therefore staff recommends support for the
[2:01:58] proposed variants as it aligns with the official community plan.
[2:02:01] It complies with all of their zoning biolar regulations. And
[2:02:04] it's the result of an irregular lot shape and the
[2:02:06] desire to retain the existing dwelling. And that concludes my
[2:02:08] comments for worship. Thank you, Mark. The applicant or the
[2:02:13] applicant's representative has up to 15 minutes to present council.
[2:02:16] You can make your way to the public podium. And
[2:02:18] please begin by stating your name and street name. Good
[2:02:27] afternoon, your worship. I'm Bearded with Urban Options Planning. Really,
[2:02:30] I'm just here for questions, but I did want to
[2:02:32] bring one other point. The variants for the lot line
[2:02:36] had been approved in 2024. It expired in January this
[2:02:41] year. And the client has done all the works and
[2:02:45] services for the subdivision. Um, you do recall at some
[2:02:49] point big bank stopped lending money to people. And they
[2:02:53] kind of got stuck in one of these kinds of
[2:02:54] situations. And that brings us here today. If this is
[2:02:57] approved today, we are ready to subdivision documents. Tomorrow or
[2:03:02] the next day and finish off this project. I'm sure
[2:03:05] it's been a little bit of an eyesore for the
[2:03:06] neighbourhood for a while. And that's all I have. Thank
[2:03:08] you. Thank you. Any members of the public wishing to
[2:03:15] address counsel regarding this application. You can make your way
[2:03:18] to the public podium to your right or raise your
[2:03:21] hand in teams. You have up to five minutes to
[2:03:24] speak and please begin by stating your name and street
[2:03:26] name. This is the second time of asking for any
[2:03:31] members of the public wishing to address council regarding the
[2:03:33] application on Elm Road. And this is the third and
[2:03:40] final time of asking. Your worship seeing none, the applicant
[2:03:45] response needed. This would be the opportunity for Council Task
[2:03:47] questions of staff followed by questions of the applicant. Thank
[2:03:50] you, Councillor Weber, please. Yeah, just for staff, quick question.
[2:03:54] Um, uh, wasn't really mentioned in the presentation or I
[2:03:58] didn't see it in the documents. But what can be,
[2:04:00] what can be squashed into that new lot, that new
[2:04:03] oddly shaped law? What can they build in there? Uh,
[2:04:05] your worship, the property zoned RU1 large lot housing, which
[2:04:08] would allow up to four dwelling units per lot. Uh,
[2:04:11] that would be provided that they could, uh, meet the
[2:04:13] zoning by the regulations, uh, due to the constrained nature,
[2:04:16] in particular of the front lot line is probably unlikely
[2:04:18] that'd be able to achieve parking for four units. But
[2:04:21] that would be up to an architect or a designer
[2:04:23] to try and figure out what could be achieved. Okay.
[2:04:25] Thank you. Thank you, council, seeing no further questions, uh,
[2:04:31] City clerk, please. Thank you, Riship. That concludes any public
[2:04:33] input on this item and we'd be looking for a
[2:04:35] mover and a seconder of the staff recommendation. Move by
[2:04:38] Councillor to heart, seconded by Councillor Cannon. Any further discussion.
[2:04:44] Seeing none, all in favor. Posed carried. Thank you to
[2:04:47] the applicant for being here. And thank you to staff
[2:04:49] once again. And seeing that, um, we are adjourned.