[0:05] Good afternoon and welcome to our

[0:07] regular council meeting for Monday, July

[0:10] 20th, 2026.

[0:12] I'll call the meeting to order at 5:00

[0:14] p.m.

[0:16] First item on the agenda, agenda item

[0:18] 1.1, land acknowledgement. The town of

[0:21] Coldell acknowledges that we were

[0:23] gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot

[0:24] peoples of the Canadian plains and pays

[0:27] respect to the Blackfoot people's past,

[0:29] present, and future while recognizing

[0:32] their cultural heritage, beliefs, and

[0:34] relationship to the land. The town of

[0:37] Coldell is also home to the Matei

[0:39] District 1 foothills.

[0:42] Agenda item 1.2, conflict of interest

[0:44] declaration, pecuniary and non-punerary.

[0:47] Are there any in the room this

[0:49] afternoon?

[0:50] None declared. Thank you.

[0:54] Moving on to agenda item 2.1, the

[0:57] acceptance acceptance of our regular

[1:00] council meeting agenda for today, July

[1:03] 20th, 2026. Are there any additions or

[1:05] deletions to the agenda?

[1:08] Seeing none, could I get someone to

[1:09] entertain making a motion that council

[1:11] adopt the regular council meeting agenda

[1:14] for July 20th, 2026 as presented?

[1:18] Councelor Reese makes that motion. I'll

[1:21] call for the vote.

[1:28] And that is carried.

[1:31] Moving on to agenda item 3.1, adoption

[1:35] of the previous minutes for June 29th,

[1:38] 2026. Were there any errors or emissions

[1:41] in those minute meeting minutes?

[1:47] Seeing none, could I get someone to

[1:48] entertain making a motion that council

[1:50] approve the June 29th, 2026 regular

[1:53] council meeting minutes as presented?

[1:55] Councelor Pickering makes that motion.

[1:58] I'll call for the vote.

[2:06] And that is carried. And finally, we

[2:09] have the committee of the whole meeting

[2:11] minutes for July 6, 2026. Were there any

[2:14] errors or omissions in those meeting

[2:16] minutes?

[2:18] Seeing none, someone care to make a

[2:20] motion that council approve the July 6,

[2:22] 2026 committee of the whole meeting

[2:24] minutes as presented.

[2:28] Deputy Mayor Beman makes that motion.

[2:30] I'll call for the vote.

[2:41] And that is carried.

[2:44] So, first item on the agenda this

[2:46] afternoon, agenda item 5.1.

[2:49] We have a public hearing uh regarding

[2:55] agenda item again 5.1 land use bylaw

[2:58] amendment 940-P5-26

[3:04] regarding reszoning from residential R1A

[3:08] to direct control. Can everybody hear me

[3:12] out in the atrium?

[3:15] So, my name is uh Jack Van Ryan. I'll be

[3:17] chairing this public uh hearing. All

[3:20] questions and comments shall be directed

[3:23] through myself as the chair. Public

[3:26] hearing procedures are as follows.

[3:28] Council is here to listen to the

[3:31] information presented and make a

[3:33] decision on the matter that is subject

[3:36] of this hearing. This is a formal

[3:38] hearing and is not a debate.

[3:42] Everyone wishing to speak and I've been

[3:44] given a list from our municipal clerk

[3:48] who has pre-registered will be given an

[3:50] opportunity to speak once to the matter

[3:53] as it's called upon by myself as chair.

[3:57] Each presenter must state his or her

[4:00] full name, their address, and their

[4:03] interest in this matter, including

[4:04] whether they are in support or

[4:07] opposition.

[4:08] Individuals who do not identify

[4:10] themselves will not be given the

[4:12] opportunity to speak.

[4:15] I will give all the speakers an

[4:19] opportunity to speak up to five minutes

[4:22] and uh on the presentation and are

[4:25] encouraged when speaking to keep the

[4:27] presentation to point and refrain from

[4:30] re reinstating points raised by previous

[4:33] speakers if possible. So, if a speaker

[4:36] brings up something that was already

[4:38] discussed, then I'm going to uh stop you

[4:41] uh from speaking to that again.

[4:44] And if a new presentation uh regarding

[4:47] materials are provided, you are required

[4:50] to email a copy or give her our

[4:53] municipal clerk a hard copy.

[4:56] So, at this time, I would like to ask

[4:59] our director of growth and investment

[5:00] and our deputy CEO, Cameron Mills, to

[5:03] introduce the subject matter of this

[5:05] public hearing.

[5:10] » Thank you very much, Mayor Van Ryan and

[5:12] council. I have the opportunity today to

[5:14] speak to you with respect to bylaw

[5:16] 940p526.

[5:19] Uh what we're doing here today is

[5:22] holding a public hearing uh for this

[5:24] bylaw which received uh first reading a

[5:27] few months ago and is going to be given

[5:29] the opportunity for presentation uh to

[5:32] council and to hear from uh the

[5:34] proponent as well as the public uh prior

[5:37] to consideration of further readings uh

[5:39] as is the standard standard procedure

[5:41] for these types of matters. Uh before I

[5:43] do that, we did receive some additional

[5:44] correspondence um in after uh the agenda

[5:49] was circulated. So if it pleases

[5:51] council, I'd like to take the

[5:52] opportunity to distribute that to you

[5:54] now.

[6:37] Oh, it's not reading off of my screen.

[6:41] [clears throat]

[6:43] Okay, so proposed bylaw. Um, oop, sorry,

[6:47] this is an older version. So, the bylaw

[6:49] is 940-P5-26

[6:52] and the subject lands are lots five and

[6:54] six, block 20, plan 6476A,

[6:58] which is to say 1511 21st Avenue. The

[7:02] proposal is to resate the lots from

[7:04] residential R1A, which is their existing

[7:06] zoning, to direct control. Uh the

[7:09] applicant and property owner applied for

[7:12] rezoning on April 22nd of 2026 and first

[7:15] reading was provided on May 19th of

[7:18] 2026. Um so the residential R1A zoning

[7:22] is what I would describe as the standard

[7:25] uh residential zoning common to uh most

[7:29] uh of the town uh specifically uh this

[7:33] area as well as most of our uh newer

[7:35] subdivisions. It is the typical um

[7:37] standard when you think of a residential

[7:38] zoning. That's usually the one you're

[7:40] thinking of. Uh direct control is a

[7:42] little bit different. So direct control

[7:44] uh is the only zoning which

[7:45] fundamentally takes uh the power to make

[7:48] uh render decisions at the development

[7:50] permit level which is to say the most

[7:52] specific level of decision-m and that

[7:55] pulls that out of the purview of

[7:56] administration and occasionally the MPC

[7:58] and brings that to council's attention.

[8:00] So the purpose uh of choosing the direct

[8:03] control zoning um is something we can

[8:06] get into a little bit uh here and in

[8:08] terms of how it's different than say

[8:10] applying another zoning. Uh but the idea

[8:12] is that this allows uh a little more

[8:15] attention to detail right at the council

[8:16] level and that's why that was chosen for

[8:18] this particular proposal.

[8:24] So to provide some context uh the

[8:26] subject lands are currently vacant uh

[8:28] and have been vacant uh for a period of

[8:30] several years. Adjacent land uses again

[8:33] pres predominantly residential R1A uh

[8:36] with the exception of three residential

[8:38] small lot R1B properties located on the

[8:40] east end of block 20. Uh so directly

[8:44] east of this property. Uh institutional

[8:46] recreational uh properties are also in

[8:49] proximity. So we've got R I Baker School

[8:51] again uh one block to the east as well

[8:54] as the Anglican Church uh located to the

[8:56] southwest. Uh there are also commercial

[8:58] C1 properties fundamentally downtown

[9:01] Colddale located less than 150 meters uh

[9:04] from this particular subject property.

[9:10] So the R1A land uses or the current land

[9:13] use that's current that's in place

[9:15] fundamentally speaking this provides uh

[9:17] for the development of lowdensity

[9:19] residential properties. So you're

[9:21] limited to uh single family homes as

[9:24] well as uh secondary suites uh as well

[9:28] as uh home occupations and potentially

[9:31] duplexes. So, minimal commercial or

[9:34] mixeduse uh development opportunities

[9:36] exist within the R1A zoning. They they

[9:38] do exist. It is not a zoning that

[9:40] applies specifically only to single

[9:42] family homes, though that is certainly

[9:44] standard. Uh but in this case, uh

[9:46] realistically speaking, uh each lot

[9:49] would be limited to one likely two units

[9:52] of density with the opportunity for B

[9:54] either basement suites within a stick

[9:56] built standard home uh or potentially a

[9:58] duplex on the site. And there are two

[10:00] sites. The proposal is to change the

[10:04] land use to again direct control. Uh

[10:07] this this district would allow for some

[10:09] housing diversity which is to say would

[10:10] allow for the existing uh R1A use but

[10:13] also allow for the limited uh to uh what

[10:17] the applicant is physically proposing

[10:19] here today. And we'll get into the

[10:21] specifics of that but would not allow

[10:23] for the development beyond uh what is

[10:25] being proposed today. So if for example

[10:27] the applicant was proposing the R2 which

[10:30] is the multif family zoning with a

[10:32] concept in mind uh what they what they

[10:35] are going to propose today um if that

[10:38] concept changed and changed to something

[10:40] else that is allowed within the

[10:41] multifamily

[10:43] uh zoning say a year or two from now uh

[10:46] they would have the opportunity to

[10:47] pursue that because once the zoning is

[10:49] in place the regulations of that zoning

[10:52] um are provided and so uh even if the

[10:55] initial ch if even if the initial

[10:57] proposal is to do one thing, if you're

[10:59] going to do something else that still

[11:00] fits within that zoning, um so be it.

[11:03] So, for example, if someone were uh

[11:06] applying for a commercial zoning with

[11:07] the intention of opening a dentist's

[11:10] office, uh and a decision was made to

[11:12] allow it and then a year later they

[11:14] decided to build a restaurant instead

[11:16] and that fits within the zoning again

[11:18] that would be approved. So, in this

[11:19] case, because it's direct control, the

[11:21] ability to change is limited. what they

[11:23] are proposing is fundamentally all that

[11:25] would be allowed on the property should

[11:27] the resing be accepted.

[11:32] So taking a look at the planning context

[11:35] of the proposal um we need to consider

[11:38] resoning applications for uh a few

[11:41] matters. So first of all we need to

[11:42] consider local context which is to say

[11:45] uh you know the neighborhood context.

[11:46] How does the proposal fit within the

[11:48] surrounding areas? We also need to

[11:50] consider planning context. So how is the

[11:54] proposal with respect to consistency

[11:56] with community plans? So for example, we

[11:58] have a document uh technical term is the

[12:01] municipal development plan typically

[12:03] called the town plan and this is an o

[12:05] document that provides overarching

[12:07] guidance uh in terms of how development

[12:10] within the community is is intended uh

[12:12] to take place. That is a document that

[12:14] was uh is done every uh few decades or

[12:17] so. So it was most recently updated in

[12:19] uh 2018. there was a a full

[12:22] comprehensive review and rewrite of that

[12:24] document and that was updated at that

[12:26] time. Um it's important to note that

[12:28] land use redesation does not

[12:30] automatically confer the right to

[12:32] develop uh any of all of the listed

[12:34] uses. So you still need to go through

[12:36] the development permit process and the

[12:38] typical uh standards and requirements

[12:40] associated with that. So in this case

[12:42] that process is largely uh discussed

[12:44] here at this level but it does still

[12:46] leave you coming out with a development

[12:48] permit that would include conditions and

[12:50] ensure that any development that does

[12:53] occur meets typical town standards

[12:55] associated with uh things like land use

[12:57] by requirements.

[13:01] So taking a look at the town plan or the

[13:03] municip municipal development plan. This

[13:05] is a long range plan. So, this is

[13:07] intended to provide, you know, 25 or 30

[13:10] years of guidance in terms of how the

[13:12] town is supposed to develop. It's the

[13:14] document my department uh typically uses

[13:17] when we're meeting with prospective

[13:19] investors to talk to them about what our

[13:21] expectations are for the community. Uh

[13:24] it really defines the community's vision

[13:25] and goals and outlines the policies and

[13:28] strategies that are going to guide

[13:29] future development within the community.

[13:31] And it was founded on a significant

[13:33] amount of community feedback. When we

[13:35] look at the town plan, we should

[13:37] recognize that over 900 respondents uh

[13:40] were involved in the ultimate creation

[13:42] of that particular document. It is one

[13:45] of the more uh significant meaningful

[13:47] public engagement processes that the

[13:49] town has engaged in uh over a period of

[13:52] the last decade.

[13:57] So the town plan includes obviously a

[14:00] significant amount of text. There's also

[14:02] maps. So this is a map uh outlining

[14:04] various areas of the community. Uh

[14:06] highlighted in uh gold are what would be

[14:09] discussed as areas of growth. So those

[14:12] are undeveloped areas uh that at the

[14:14] time did not include uh area structure

[14:17] plans which would provide comprehensive

[14:19] guidance of the development of a

[14:20] specific area. So you'll notice

[14:22] Cottonwood for example um or uh the area

[14:26] around the golf course or the Westgate

[14:29] area are not in gold nor are they in

[14:31] red. Those are areas that have area

[14:33] structure plans that speak specifically

[14:35] to those areas. The other areas because

[14:38] they don't have area structure plans

[14:39] really look to the town plan for

[14:41] guidance. So the areas of in outlined in

[14:44] gold there what we would call it areas

[14:45] of growth and in red are known within

[14:49] the town plan as areas of change.

[14:56] So within the town plan, it provides

[14:58] policies and again these policies are

[15:00] what uh we as staff use to guide uh and

[15:03] direct uh folks that meet with us that

[15:05] are interested in exploring

[15:06] opportunities within town. Uh some of

[15:08] the key policies that uh reflect or

[15:11] reflected here and deal with this

[15:13] particular issue include policy 2.2

[15:16] which is that we strive for a target of

[15:18] 10% of new development to be built

[15:20] within existing areas. So those areas

[15:23] identified within that previous map as

[15:25] areas of change. Uh the target for the

[15:27] communities to see 10% of new

[15:30] development to occur within those areas.

[15:32] Policy 2.3 is to encourage the

[15:35] development of secondary suites and

[15:37] multi-unit dwellings where appropriate

[15:39] to increase density in existing

[15:41] neighborhoods and to take advantage of

[15:43] existing infrastructure. So that's

[15:45] reflecting the fact that the town plan

[15:46] outlines the fact that uh seeking uh

[15:50] improvements or increases in density

[15:52] where appropriate is in line with the

[15:55] town's overarching goals to ensure

[15:57] efficient and effective use of

[15:59] infrastructure which ultimately keeps

[16:01] the cost of operating the town um more

[16:04] feasible. Policy 2.9 is that multi-unit

[16:07] dwellings shall be dispersed throughout

[16:09] the community and not segregated to an

[16:11] individual area or areas. So the idea

[16:13] behind policy 2.9 is that we're supposed

[16:16] to be seeking growth of multi-unit

[16:19] development uh in all areas uh or sort

[16:21] of throughout the community where that

[16:23] would necessarily not be the case would

[16:25] be where there are area structure plans

[16:27] because area structure plans so for

[16:28] example in the Cottonwood community

[16:30] would divide or decide provide more

[16:33] specific uh reference in terms of where

[16:36] things are going to go uh those

[16:38] unplanned areas or those areas which are

[16:40] governed by the town plan would be

[16:42] expected to meet uh this particular

[16:44] metric.

[16:46] Policy 2.10, multi-unit dwellings shall

[16:49] be encouraged to locate in the following

[16:51] places. Uh where possible within 400

[16:54] meters walking radius to downtown to

[16:57] parks, to trail systems, and to schools

[17:00] and ideally on corner lots whenever

[17:03] possible.

[17:04] Policy 2.13 to ensure residential

[17:07] density targets are achieved by the

[17:09] development of a diversity of dwelling

[17:11] styles in neighborhoods including single

[17:13] detached dwellings, row housing,

[17:14] secondary suites, and apartment

[17:16] buildings. Policy 2.19, the

[17:19] diversification of the town's housing

[17:21] stock shall take place through an

[17:23] increase in various types of multi-unit

[17:25] and non-s single detached housing that

[17:27] supports a variety of lifestyle and

[17:29] tenure options.

[17:34] With respect to engagement uh with the

[17:36] bylaw, notice of the bylaw and public

[17:39] hearing was circulated to surrounding

[17:41] property owners in accordance with the

[17:43] requirements of the land use bylaw was

[17:44] also advertised in the Sunny South news

[17:47] for a period of two weeks and was posted

[17:49] on the town's uh online engagement

[17:51] platform. Uh as we have received 200

[17:55] submissions received via email which

[17:57] were included in council's agenda

[17:59] package. who provided an additional uh

[18:01] email here at the start of the hearing.

[18:03] Uh in addition to that, three additional

[18:05] emails were sent after the publication

[18:07] of the agenda, but were emailed to

[18:09] council separately. Uh a map is included

[18:12] in the agenda package that shows the

[18:14] general location of where the letters uh

[18:16] that we've received were sent, noting

[18:18] that 137 of those letters were submitted

[18:21] from individual locations. Uh in 24

[18:24] instances we received two letters and in

[18:27] five instances three letters uh from

[18:30] existing properties.

[18:38] Council should hear from any person uh

[18:41] group of persons or persons representing

[18:42] themselves who claim to be affected by

[18:44] the proposed bylaw or resolution. And

[18:46] it's really up to the individuals to

[18:48] determine uh whether they are whether or

[18:50] not they are impacted uh by the by this

[18:52] particular bylaw. And after considering

[18:55] the representations made to it about the

[18:57] proposed bylaw or resolution at the

[18:59] hearing and after considering any other

[19:01] matter it considers appropriate council

[19:04] the opportunity at that point to either

[19:06] pass the bylaw uh or defeat the bylaw uh

[19:09] at that time. So we'll consider the

[19:10] bylaw itself later in the meeting. Uh

[19:12] that takes place after the public

[19:14] hearing is closed.

[19:17] So, with respect to the applicant's

[19:19] proposal, and I'm going to give the

[19:20] applicant the opportunity to describe

[19:22] things in more detail, but I'll just

[19:23] provide a bit of an overview. Uh, the

[19:26] applicant, VW Holdings, uh, are owners

[19:29] with a long-term interest in Coldale and

[19:31] this area specifically. Uh, so the We

[19:33] and Visers. Uh, the owners are currently

[19:36] operate a 7 unit, uh, rental building,

[19:39] which is approximately two blocks away

[19:41] located on 1303 22nd Avenue. Uh their

[19:44] proposal as submitted was an 8 unit uh

[19:47] eight units of of two-bedroom

[19:49] multifamily rental building and that was

[19:51] to be located on uh the double lot. The

[19:54] site area included a 14,000 square ft

[19:57] building uh which would have covered

[19:59] 32.7% of the property which is

[20:02] substantially below the 80% property

[20:04] coverage requirement. Um the parking

[20:07] would have been with uh nine off-

[20:09] streetet stalls which would have

[20:10] included one barrierfree uh parking

[20:13] stall uh as well as there is seven on

[20:16] street parking stalls available. Uh that

[20:18] would have included new sidewalk

[20:19] landscaping and a screened waste

[20:21] enclosure uh as per their proposal.

[20:25] The applicant uh in their letter of

[20:28] support uh included as part of their

[20:30] application notes that the project re is

[20:33] responsible infill that makes an

[20:35] efficient use of an underutilized

[20:37] already serviced lot. Positioned uh by

[20:40] this is positioned by the applicant as

[20:42] consistent with town plan objectives

[20:44] using existing service land and

[20:46] diversifying housing options beyond

[20:47] single detached [clears throat]

[20:48] dwellings. Uh, it is intended for the

[20:51] applicant to serve local rental demand

[20:53] from single people living on fixed

[20:55] incomes, young couples starting out, and

[20:58] small or younger families working

[20:59] towards their next housing step. And the

[21:02] owners state that they intend to retain

[21:03] ownership and manage the building

[21:05] long-term and to engage directly with

[21:07] neighboring residents, which did in fact

[21:09] occur. We'll note that the initial

[21:12] proposal was heard on May 19th. Um, so

[21:15] obviously significant delay between May

[21:16] 19th and now. that was at the

[21:18] applicant's assistant insistence.

[21:20] Typically, we would have a public

[21:21] hearing three weeks after the initial

[21:23] bylaw. Uh the applicants in this case

[21:25] wanted to take the time to have the

[21:27] opportunity to speak to the community

[21:28] before the public hearing occurred. Uh

[21:31] and they they did in fact take the

[21:32] opportunity to do so. So, following

[21:35] that, uh the applicant has provided uh a

[21:38] revised response. So, uh, following

[21:40] their own engagement with neighbors over

[21:42] the two-month period, uh, the applicants

[21:44] submitted a revised concept, uh, later

[21:47] in June 2026, they have reduced the

[21:50] proposal from eight units to six uh, and

[21:53] have added additional on-site parking.

[21:55] So, 12star stalls are accommodated on

[21:57] site uh, utilizing on street parking to

[22:00] meet uh, full parking requirements. They

[22:03] are adding uh proposing to add 10 new

[22:05] Brandon cedar trees along the east side

[22:08] of the property to provide a buffer uh

[22:10] for privacy consideration to the

[22:12] adjacent property there. They're also

[22:14] proposing to shift the building uh

[22:16] further to the west to create a further

[22:18] separation from the one uh neighboring

[22:20] property to the east.

[22:23] uh and they note that under the existing

[22:24] R1A zoning uh the two lots could

[22:27] accommodate two semi- detached units

[22:29] either in the form of duplexes or suited

[22:32] single family uses. Uh and so they would

[22:34] note that the proposal fundamentally

[22:37] changes the density proposal uh of the

[22:39] lots from an existing allowance of four

[22:41] units up to uh six.

[22:47] So again, the revised concept is a

[22:49] six-unit town home building on the same

[22:51] double lot looking at a building area of

[22:54] approximately 24.5%.

[22:57] So a reduction in building area from

[22:59] 32.7% to 24.5

[23:02] an increase in the proposed park parking

[23:04] stalls to 12 stalls. So this is meets

[23:06] the 1.5 stalls per unit plus.5 stalls

[23:11] per unit visitor requirement and that

[23:12] includes barrierfree parking. Um and

[23:16] again providing for that require that

[23:18] additional uh cedar planting for the

[23:21] tree buffer and the revised building

[23:22] setback as shown uh in the rendering

[23:25] provided by the applicant here.

[23:31] So that concludes administration's

[23:33] presentation on the matter. I'm happy to

[23:35] answer any of council's questions and

[23:36] I'll also remain uh at the table if

[23:39] there's additional questions for

[23:40] administration during uh other portions

[23:42] of the public hearing.

[23:44] >> Thank you. And just before I open it up

[23:47] to members of council for questions,

[23:48] comments, I'll ask the applicant if they

[23:51] want to come up and do you have anything

[23:54] to add? When you sit down, just turn on

[23:57] your microphone and state your name and

[23:59] address, please.

[24:05] Uh my name is Kelly Wyers. Uh the

[24:08] address is 2015 21st Street here in

[24:10] Cold. Um

[24:15] Cam did a great job of sharing all the

[24:17] information I was hoping for. Um I just

[24:19] have this to speak. So is this my time

[24:21] to speak? Is that fair? Okay. So thank

[24:24] you Mr. Mayor and council for letting us

[24:26] present today. Um, thank you as well to

[24:29] the gallery, to the neighbors, and

[24:30] everyone that's been involved in this

[24:31] process. We truly appreciate the

[24:34] opportunity to be here. Even though

[24:36] there may be different perspectives on

[24:37] this application, we do appreciate the

[24:39] feedback we've received in the process

[24:41] that has brought us here today. I want

[24:43] to begin by acknowledging that this is

[24:45] the second time we have come before

[24:46] council with the resoning application

[24:48] for a multif family build. It has been a

[24:50] couple years since our first application

[24:52] and this is the time and this time we

[24:54] are approaching the process differently.

[24:56] The first time we did not fully

[24:58] understand what it takes to navigate a

[25:00] process like this and looking back there

[25:02] are things that we could have done

[25:03] better. So the question is why are we

[25:05] trying again? For us it comes down to

[25:08] our why. My partner Lauren Viser and

[25:11] myself we came together in 2020 and

[25:14] purchased a seven unit apartment

[25:16] building on the corner of 13th Avenue

[25:18] and 22nd Street. Um, we did that for a

[25:20] number of reasons, but two of the

[25:22] biggest ones was we love Coldtown and we

[25:24] wanted to invest in a town together. Um,

[25:27] real estate was one of the ways we felt

[25:28] we could do that and it was something we

[25:31] were both passionate about and we had

[25:33] each been involved um, in real estate

[25:35] personally um, but together decided to

[25:38] pursue it more intentionally.

[25:40] We have been managing that building now

[25:41] for over the past six years. have truly

[25:43] loved the work of caring for the

[25:44] property, working with the tenants,

[25:46] helping provide good homes for people

[25:47] that need them. As we operated that

[25:49] building, we found we saw firsthand how

[25:52] significant the need for housing was.

[25:55] Every time we would advertise for

[25:56] vacancy, we'd end up with a waiting

[25:58] list. We looked at other existing

[26:00] buildings here in town and um that we

[26:02] could possibly buy and continue

[26:04] operating the same way, but there was

[26:06] just not available. They were full.

[26:08] Vacancy was effectively a zero rate. It

[26:10] also did not solve um the overarching

[26:13] problem of Coldell needing more rental

[26:15] units. So we began asking a question, a

[26:18] different question. What if we could not

[26:20] buy could we build? That led us to the

[26:23] purchase of these this lot on the corner

[26:26] of 16th Street and 21st A and to explore

[26:30] the possibility of building something

[26:31] similar to what we already operate

[26:32] successfully less than two blocks away.

[26:35] When we first applied about two and a

[26:38] half years ago, we believed that we had

[26:40] a proposal that aligned with a number of

[26:41] the town's planning goals. We consulted

[26:44] with the town, reviewed with the town

[26:45] plan, understood that this is a way to

[26:48] support multif family housing, make use

[26:50] of existing infrastructure, and add

[26:52] housing within the established community

[26:54] rather than only on the outskirts of

[26:56] town. But although we believed in the

[26:59] project, we did not handle the process

[27:00] as well as we could have. In particular,

[27:02] we did not do enough engagement with the

[27:03] neighbors early on. um to explain our

[27:06] intentions clearly or to fully

[27:07] understand the concerns and perspectives

[27:09] around us. Uh that was a shortcuting

[27:11] coming on our part and we recognize that

[27:14] this is one of the main reasons why

[27:15] we're here. Again, we are here because

[27:17] our reasons for wanting to do this have

[27:19] not changed. We still see a need for

[27:21] housing. We still believe this is a kind

[27:22] of project that serves a specific and

[27:24] important purpose and we still want to

[27:26] invest in this community that we have

[27:28] lived in and served in for more than 20

[27:29] years. This is the town where we have

[27:32] raised our family. It's a town that we

[27:34] care about and we want to be part of its

[27:36] growth in a way that is responsible and

[27:37] beneficial. At the same time, we are

[27:40] here with a different repo approach. We

[27:42] have tried to listen more carefully, to

[27:44] think more carefully, and to come back

[27:46] not only more clearly but more

[27:48] authentically.

[27:50] We understand that council has a

[27:52] difficult decision to make. We

[27:53] understand in light of the concerns that

[27:55] have been raised by the neighbors, we

[27:57] have heard those concerns, some which we

[27:59] believe we can mitigate um and some that

[28:01] we will not be able to. Um in response,

[28:06] we have made, as Cam showed, we have

[28:08] made some changes to our proposal, most

[28:10] notably the reduction from six 8 to six

[28:12] units. Um,

[28:15] our goal has been to find a better

[28:17] balance to respond where we can to the

[28:20] concerns that have been raised while

[28:22] still allowing this lot to meet a real

[28:24] need housing need and serve the a

[28:27] practical purpose for the community. We

[28:30] recognize that this is a small project

[28:32] and we also recognize that there are

[28:33] other developments now taking place in

[28:36] cold alle particularly on the outskirts

[28:37] of town. Um, but we still believe that

[28:40] this project fills a specific niche. The

[28:43] cost of living is increasing

[28:44] significantly. One of Lauren and my

[28:46] priorities has always been to keep rents

[28:48] as affordable as possible while still

[28:50] operating responsibly. Our goal is to

[28:53] not create low-income housing project.

[28:54] Our goal is to provide affordable

[28:56] renting suites that that can give people

[28:58] a starting point, a place where someone

[29:01] with a single income can still afford to

[29:03] live, gain stability and move forward.

[29:06] That is the model that we have tried to

[29:08] follow um in our current unit and what

[29:11] we are hoping to do the same uh with

[29:14] this project. Our present building

[29:17] provides for that. Uh four of our seven

[29:20] units um are homes to single ladies. Um

[29:23] two are occupied by young couples and

[29:25] one is a middle-aged couple looking to

[29:27] downsize in preparation for retirement.

[29:30] But as stated earlier, Coldale has a

[29:32] need for this kind of housing. we would

[29:34] like to provide it. Um, in closing, this

[29:37] application is more about reszoning the

[29:39] property. For us, it is about responding

[29:41] to a real housing need in a town that we

[29:44] care deeply about. We know we did not

[29:46] approach a process well, uh, as we could

[29:49] have the first time. That is why we're

[29:50] here again with a better understanding,

[29:52] a revised proposal, and a sincere desire

[29:54] to contribute positively to Coldale. So,

[29:56] thank you for your time, your

[29:58] consideration, and the opportunity to

[29:59] present today. Uh, thank you.

[30:02] >> Thank you. And just in case we have a

[30:04] question for you, just maybe stay at the

[30:06] desk. So I'll open it up to members of

[30:09] council questions, comments for either

[30:11] the presenter or the applicant.

[30:18] » Deputy Mayor Beakman.

[30:21] >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll I'll get the I'll

[30:23] get this started here. My question uh

[30:25] through to Cam is more about the appeals

[30:28] process. Now, under section 685 of the

[30:31] municipal government act, any person

[30:33] affected by a decision of a development

[30:35] authority, which standardly can include

[30:37] neighboring property owners, um can

[30:41] appeal the approval or conditions of a

[30:43] development permit to the subdivision

[30:45] and development appeal board. Now, under

[30:47] direct control,

[30:50] uh correct me if I'm wrong, but that uh

[30:53] that mechanism is no longer available to

[30:55] the residents. Correct.

[30:56] >> Uh that's correct. And so the the

[30:58] trade-off is really fundamentally one of

[31:00] where um you know the opportunity to

[31:03] take obviously an issue which is far

[31:05] more detailed a level of discussion than

[31:07] typically would be seen at the council

[31:08] level um is you know provided that

[31:11] opportunity provide for the opportunity

[31:13] for a public hearing all the rest of

[31:14] that. Uh but the downside to direct

[31:16] control certainly is that because it is

[31:18] the decision of council rather than the

[31:20] decision of uh municipal planning

[31:21] commission the opportunity for the

[31:23] subdivision of appeal board to

[31:24] reconsider the application does not

[31:26] exist. Thank you for that.

[31:30] » Thank you. Further questions, comments,

[31:34] councelor Chapman.

[31:36] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor, and uh through

[31:38] to Cam, if I may. Two questions. Number

[31:40] one, uh in your package or in the

[31:44] correspondence that was received by um

[31:46] by your administration, was there any uh

[31:50] any letters or any correspondence that

[31:51] were in favor of the application?

[31:58] Thank you for the question. Uh not that

[31:59] I recall. Um which is not I will say uh

[32:03] not a typical typically um you know I've

[32:05] been doing the job for eight years.

[32:08] Typically when we receive correspondence

[32:10] it is opposed to applications. So that

[32:12] is u that is fairly standard I would

[32:16] say.

[32:16] >> Thank you. Second question if I mayor uh

[32:20] through to Cam again. Uh the following

[32:22] up on Deputy Mayor Beakman's questions

[32:25] on um direct control. Um I it appears to

[32:30] me that this mechanism seems to be used

[32:33] more uh commonly than we ever used to

[32:35] see it before. And I just say that

[32:37] mainly because to me direct control

[32:40] usually is in this case would be used to

[32:43] almost circumvent uh due process uh

[32:47] through a normal application process.

[32:49] And I feel that the merit

[32:53] of a development should appear as uh

[32:57] something that would be be used for u

[33:01] for a development purpose rather than

[33:03] trying to use another another mechanism

[33:06] to identify an idea that really wouldn't

[33:11] uh fit the the normal process.

[33:14] >> Yeah, thank you for the question. Um I I

[33:17] would say you know speaking from my

[33:19] professional experience I I do disagree

[33:21] uh with your assessment of of the idea

[33:23] of this being uh circumventing the

[33:25] process. This is part of the process.

[33:27] includes the

[33:29] opportunity to consider things uh for

[33:31] direct control. The reason uh direct

[33:34] control is being pursued here uh

[33:36] fundamentally is because um the town of

[33:39] Coldell's land use by it's almost 30

[33:41] years old um and we fundamentally have

[33:43] one zoning uh R2 which governs all forms

[33:48] of multif family development and and in

[33:50] many instances that's okay. So in areas

[33:53] where we have area structure plans for

[33:54] example, area structure plans might

[33:57] provide uh a limit on uh what type of of

[34:01] use within an R2 zoning can exist. But

[34:03] in the case where you don't have uh an

[34:05] area structure plan to provide

[34:06] governance, um the direct control

[34:10] provides us with an opportunity to look

[34:11] at a proposal like this one which is

[34:14] really um from from the perspective of

[34:18] multif family relatively insignificant.

[34:20] And the reason I say that is that

[34:22] there's a significant difference between

[34:24] a sixunit or an 8unit building and a 42

[34:28] unit high-rise building, right? Um,

[34:31] which is theoretically possible on any

[34:34] R2 zoning lot. And so the reason for

[34:36] consideration here is to say yes, the

[34:38] applicant is saying yes, we are trying

[34:40] to provide for multif family which is in

[34:43] increase in density relative to the

[34:45] neighborhood but only in a very limited

[34:47] way. And so the intention of doing DC

[34:50] rather than R2 is to provide should it

[34:53] be accepted surrounding land owner

[34:55] certainty that while the density is in

[34:57] fact increasing it's increasing exactly

[34:59] in the way that is being proposed uh

[35:02] without the opportunity for the

[35:04] developer to come back and say oh I've

[35:06] come up with another idea which does fit

[35:08] the R2 criteria and therefore really

[35:10] should be approved. So, it provides a

[35:11] level of certainty and a level of

[35:13] security at council's mind that if you

[35:15] do make the admittedly difficult

[35:17] decision uh to move forward with the

[35:19] zoning that you have some certainty that

[35:21] it's not going to extend beyond what was

[35:23] discussed at this meeting.

[35:30] » Councelor Avery. Thank you, Mayor. Just

[35:33] a follow up to councelor Chapman's

[35:35] comment then. Um, so wouldn't it have

[35:38] been more appropriate then to have this

[35:40] come across as two separate a zoning

[35:42] application and then approving that and

[35:46] then further down the road a development

[35:48] application rather than moshing them all

[35:51] into one and confusing the process. And

[35:55] hence why councelor Chapman and myself

[35:58] thought this is a way of circumventing

[36:01] the process because we've mushed it all

[36:04] together rather than separating direct

[36:06] control zoning and then a development

[36:08] permit.

[36:10] >> Thank you for the question. Um so in my

[36:12] eight years of presenting to council um

[36:15] having done uh probably a dozen direct

[36:17] control hearings, I've never had that

[36:19] question. uh it's never been raised and

[36:21] in every instance we have done both uh

[36:23] the development permit and the the

[36:25] zoning together. Uh the reason for that

[36:27] is fundamentally that if the direct

[36:29] control zoning uh is approved with the

[36:33] proposal as it is being presented, it's

[36:35] hard to imagine if a zoning is approved

[36:39] and the application comes in in line

[36:41] with exactly what was approved at the

[36:42] zoning um that we would make a different

[36:45] decision on the development permit

[36:47] stage. Um, also that keeps in line with

[36:50] Colale's general uh preference for

[36:53] efficient government and providing for

[36:55] an efficient uh opportunity in which to

[36:57] do business. So to take a developer if

[37:00] we have two separate processes that

[37:02] fundamentally discuss exactly the same

[37:04] thing and we stretch that out over a

[37:06] period of several additional months. Uh

[37:08] that's expensive and it isn't in line

[37:10] with our philosophy of being uh

[37:12] efficient and open uh and business-like.

[37:18] Thank you.

[37:20] So, just a question. You mentioned it

[37:23] earlier that uh another use for the land

[37:26] would be putting a duplex on each one of

[37:29] the lots and then just for the sake of

[37:32] everyone that's here, um what's the

[37:36] opportunity to have them sweeted as well

[37:38] on the basement if they're a duplex?

[37:40] >> Thank you. So, we do not allow the

[37:42] sweeting of duplexes. And so what I'm

[37:44] suggesting is that potentially the

[37:46] applicant could provide a plan with

[37:48] duplexes on the existing lots or

[37:51] alternatively single family homes which

[37:53] could then be sweeted. Either way the

[37:55] total unit density uh would be four on

[37:58] these existing two lots.

[38:01] >> Thank you. Any further questions,

[38:03] comments?

[38:05] Okay. Thank you, Kelly. And then we're

[38:07] going to open it up to the people that

[38:09] signed up. And the first person I'm

[38:12] gonna ask up is Adam Parker.

[38:16] And Adam, just as a reminder, I'm going

[38:19] to uh five minutes for your

[38:21] presentation.

[38:23] >> I do request additional time. I'd like

[38:25] to take Naomi's time from that list. Is

[38:28] that possible?

[38:30] >> Naomi won't be speaking tonight.

[38:33] >> Five minutes.

[38:38] Good evening, Mayor Van Ryan, members of

[38:40] council. My name is Adam Parker. I'm

[38:42] longtime resident of Pdale and I live at

[38:44] 1507 21st Avenue next to the property

[38:46] that is being discussed tonight. I'm

[38:48] respectfully asking council to reject

[38:50] the application to reszone 1511 21st

[38:53] Avenue from residential R1 to direct

[38:55] control. I want to begin by making

[38:57] something clear. I'm not opposed to

[38:58] growth. I understand needs different

[39:00] housing options. I understand that

[39:02] rental is part of it. I also want to

[39:05] respect applicants's right to bring the

[39:06] proposal forward. However, the question

[39:08] before council is whether is not weather

[39:10] killed on needs housing. The question is

[39:12] whether the particular R1A property in

[39:14] this established residential

[39:16] neighborhood should be removed from the

[39:17] existing zoning and place under direct

[39:19] control to allow for a six-unit

[39:20] development. The surrounding

[39:22] neighborhood is predominantly made up of

[39:24] lowdensity single family homes. A multif

[39:26] family development that already exists

[39:28] nearby was planned as part of the

[39:30] neighborhood from the beginning.

[39:32] residents could see those developments,

[39:33] understand the land use patterns, and

[39:35] make informed decisions before

[39:36] purchasing their homes. This proposal is

[39:39] different. This is a one-off request to

[39:41] change the zoning on individual R1A

[39:43] property because the development being

[39:45] proposed is not allowed under existing

[39:47] zoning. The applicant has reduced the

[39:49] proposal from 8 units to six. They have

[39:52] added trees, maintained parking, moved

[39:53] the building further away from

[39:54] neighboring property. Those efforts can

[39:56] be acknowledged, but reducing the

[39:58] element from 8 to six does not resolve

[39:59] the fundamental problem.

[40:02] It remains a multif family development

[40:04] to be inserted into established R1A

[40:06] neighborhood. It remains more intensive

[40:08] than what is currently zoned for and

[40:10] intended accommodations.

[40:12] Landscaping may provide screening, but

[40:14] trees do not create parking spaces.

[40:15] Moving the building does not eliminate

[40:18] additional traffic, noise, loss of

[40:20] privacy experienced by the neighbors.

[40:22] Cold already has residential zoning

[40:25] districts designed for multif family

[40:26] developments. Direct control should not

[40:28] become a convenient compromise for when

[40:31] the existing zoning does not permit the

[40:33] development and an applicant's prefers.

[40:35] Direct control is supposed to be an

[40:37] exceptional in an intended for

[40:39] situations where the greater where the

[40:41] regular land use districts are

[40:42] inadequate and where the greater public

[40:45] interest has been clearly demonstrated.

[40:47] So I believe council must ask two

[40:50] important questions. What is exceptional

[40:52] about this property and what is the

[40:54] greater public interest being served by

[40:56] reszoning it? The property was

[40:58] previously considered for multif family

[41:00] zoning in 2023. The application was

[41:02] rejected by this council in a vote of 5

[41:04] to2. That decision matters. The property

[41:07] has not moved. The surrounding R1A

[41:09] neighborhood has not changed. The lack

[41:11] of area structure plan has not changed.

[41:13] The concerns about parking traffic

[41:15] density, privacy, neighborhood

[41:16] compatibility have not disappeared. What

[41:19] has changed? proposal has been reduced

[41:20] to six units and requested zoning has

[41:23] changed to direct control. Direct

[41:25] control should not be used to find

[41:27] another route around previous decision

[41:29] simply because preferred development

[41:31] cannot proceed under the established

[41:33] zoning. There's also issue of parking.

[41:35] Under the normal parking standards

[41:37] contain the land use bylaw. The 16

[41:39] development will require significantly

[41:41] more parking than what is being

[41:42] proposed. When adequate parking is not

[41:45] provided, the vehicles do not disappear.

[41:47] They move onto the street. that reflects

[41:49] snow removal, traffic, movement,

[41:51] visibility, emergency access, and daily

[41:53] lives of people already living in the

[41:55] neighborhood. Council should also

[41:57] carefully consider what direct control

[41:58] means for residents. Future development

[42:00] permit decisions within direct control

[42:04] district may not have the same

[42:06] independent appeal process available

[42:08] through the subdivision and development

[42:09] appeals board. This is not simply a

[42:12] decision about one building. is a change

[42:13] to the regulatory system governing the

[42:15] property and may remove an important

[42:17] level of protection for surrounding

[42:19] residents. The community response to

[42:21] this has been clear. Approximately 200

[42:23] letters of opposition were submitted.

[42:25] Opposition has come from residents

[42:26] throughout Coldell, not only from the

[42:28] immediate neighbors. Signs been placed

[42:30] on lawns across the community. Two

[42:32] former members of town council have also

[42:34] submitted letters opposing this

[42:36] resoning. This is not a small group of

[42:39] people who are afraid of change. is a

[42:41] broad community response from residents

[42:42] who understand that this decision could

[42:44] reach far beyond one property. Approving

[42:47] this application may not create a

[42:49] legally binding president, but it will

[42:51] create a planning president. The next

[42:54] applicant will simply point to this

[42:55] decision and ask why another R1A

[42:57] property cannot be treated differently.

[42:59] Families make the largest investment of

[43:02] their lives when they purchase a home.

[43:04] They look at the streets, the

[43:06] surrounding properties, the traffic, the

[43:07] lots, the zoning, and they make that

[43:09] investment with a reasonable

[43:10] expectation. The basic character of the

[43:12] neighborhood will be respected. Zoning

[43:14] should not be untouchable, and

[43:16] communities should evolve, but spot

[43:18] reszoning in an established neighborhood

[43:19] should require compelling and clearly

[43:21] demonstrated public benefit.

[43:24] Cola already has hundreds of rental

[43:26] properties in new developments where

[43:29] density, roads, parking, service,

[43:31] housing types were planned together from

[43:33] the beginning. We can't support housing

[43:36] without placing established

[43:36] neighborhoods under constant pressure

[43:38] from individual reszoning applications.

[43:40] Council can support growth and still

[43:42] protect neighborhoods. Council can

[43:44] support responsible info while insisting

[43:46] that remain compatible with the

[43:47] surrounding area. Council can respect

[43:50] the applicants and their efforts while

[43:51] still deciding that drug control is not

[43:53] appropriate for this property. Tonight,

[43:55] I respectfully ask council to listen to

[43:57] those residents who wrote letters

[43:59] intended this hearing and place signs in

[44:01] their lawn. Please retain the existing

[44:04] R1A zoning and vote no to the second and

[44:07] third reading of bylaw 940-P5-26.

[44:12] Growth matters, but doing so planning

[44:16] certainty, neighborhood character,

[44:17] homeowners investment, and the trust

[44:19] that people have chosen to build with

[44:20] their lives in Pell must remain

[44:22] important. Thank you.

[44:25] >> Thank you. And Adam, I omitted

[44:34] » And Adam, I omitted to ask you at the

[44:36] beginning your civic address and just

[44:39] for the public record, you're located

[44:41] directly east of this property that's u

[44:44] being applied for 1507 21st Avenue. I'm

[44:47] directly east of it.

[44:48] >> Okay. Thank you.

[44:53] Naomi, did you have anything you wanted

[44:55] to follow up with?

[45:02] » Um, good evening. My name is Naomi.

[45:06] Sorry, I got really nervous. Um, I think

[45:11] what I would like to add to

[45:12] >> Would you like some water or you have

[45:13] water? We can catch up.

[45:14] >> No, I'm No, I'm good. Um, so my name is

[45:18] Naomi Foxhall. I live in 150721st.

[45:22] um have with Adam Parker. I am also in a

[45:26] post. Um one thing that I want to

[45:29] acknowledge

[45:31] is I went around and talked to many many

[45:36] um residents not just in my area but

[45:39] throughout Coolell. And the one message

[45:42] that came up over and over again was

[45:45] they bought in Coldell for this small

[45:48] town Coldell feel neighborhood. And I

[45:51] think that balancing growth with keeping

[45:55] to Coldell's um charm and and community

[46:00] can be hard, but we there can be a

[46:03] balance. And that's by

[46:06] having our original community, our

[46:08] original neighborhoods,

[46:10] not

[46:12] become what's happening in Calgary or

[46:14] Edmonton where any house that is

[46:20] purchased or landfill um all of a sudden

[46:24] becomes an 8 plex, a 12plex um

[46:27] overshadowing what the communities or

[46:30] the neighborhoods have built. Um, and

[46:33] that message came up over and over again

[46:36] that people like living in Coldell. They

[46:39] like it because it's a small town

[46:41] feeling. They like it because there's

[46:44] charm. And when they buy into their into

[46:48] the neighborhoods, they know what

[46:49] they're getting. And I'm

[46:52] worry about um the loss of trust. So

[46:57] when

[46:58] people build or people build houses or

[47:02] move into neighborhoods

[47:07] with the understanding that they're

[47:08] moving into a certain zoning for that to

[47:11] change that does actually create

[47:14] instability

[47:16] and loss of trust. And so I think it's

[47:19] really important to recognize these

[47:21] original neighborhoods and um

[47:25] actually honor what we have. Um I do

[47:29] appreciate the developers

[47:31] um

[47:33] changes that he's made. Um and I'm not

[47:37] opposed to growth. I just think that

[47:40] when we we when we start planning um the

[47:44] where is also as important as

[47:47] you know we want more low density or

[47:50] higher density places but where is

[47:54] important and looking at our community

[47:57] and our neighborhoods and what's

[48:00] charming about cold is some of these old

[48:03] districts or neighborhoods. So Thank you.

[48:15] » Lauren, did you have anything you wanted

[48:17] to say? If you could state your name and

[48:20] address, please.

[48:21] >> Yes, my name is Lauren Diser. I live at

[48:23] 107 Fairway Drive. I am a co-licant with

[48:28] Kelly and uh I basically don't want to

[48:31] reiterate what everything's been said by Cam or by Kelly, but I do want to

[48:37] somewhat address the fears, concerns of

[48:39] my fellow neighbors. We have a great

[48:41] community,

[48:43] a community that I want to share with

[48:44] other people. And as a landlord, I have

[48:48] come across some fantastic people who

[48:50] would really like to move into this

[48:52] community. Uh my solution, our solution

[48:55] is to propose this sixplex. Uh very

[48:59] excited about it. Um I do want to

[49:02] address the issue of direct control.

[49:05] This was in no means a method of

[49:09] circumventing the process.

[49:12] This was actually a method we thought

[49:14] would be more transparent to our

[49:16] neighbors. As you heard earlier,

[49:18] applying for a zone uh R2 zoning leaves

[49:23] that property open to many types of

[49:25] developments and we heard that the last

[49:28] time we did this. So we thought no, we

[49:31] are going to go to direct control. This

[49:33] is what we are offering. This is not a

[49:36] bait and switch.

[49:38] We think this unit would be perfect for

[49:42] this lot price-wise,

[49:45] sizewise.

[49:46] the facts of all presented by your town

[49:48] counsel by your town administrator. So,

[49:52] I'm not going to rehash those. But the

[49:54] direct control concerns, no. And to our

[49:57] neighbors, I applaud them for their

[50:00] rallying together versus one for one

[50:02] point and making a point of that they

[50:04] say no and I respect that. I am

[50:08] obviously on the other side of the page

[50:09] on that and I respectfully disagree with

[50:11] them. I am hoping there's some way that

[50:14] we can alleviate their concerns

[50:17] and prove to them that Coldale, that

[50:21] neighborhood that we live in, is a great

[50:23] community to share with more people.

[50:29] » Thank you.

[50:32] Next,

[50:34] Mike

[50:41] I can't read the writing on this one

[50:44] here.

[50:46] >> Sorum

[50:53] civic address is 218 16th Street.

[50:59] » Okay.

[51:00] Thank you. And then Cal,

[51:06] civic address 2011 16th Street.

[51:11] Okay,

[51:12] he doesn't need to speak. And then we

[51:15] have civic address 211698

[51:18] Street. Phil,

[51:25] I don't see anybody stepping up for that

[51:27] one. And finally, we have Jacob Clawson.

[51:32] Jacob, are you in attendance? Want to

[51:34] speak?

[51:37] I take that as a no.

[51:41] Okay, thank you.

[51:43] So, that concludes everybody on the list

[51:46] that signed up to speak.

[51:49] So, I'll open it up one more time to

[51:52] members of council if they have any

[51:54] questions, comments.

[51:59] So seeing none, I will now ask council

[52:02] if they have sufficient information to

[52:05] make a decision on land use bylaw

[52:07] amendment 940-P5-26

[52:13] regarding reszoning from residential 1

[52:16] R18 to direct control.

[52:20] I will close the public hearing at 5:52

[52:26] p.m.

[52:30] For all our guests this evening, this is

[52:34] going to be coming up further down the

[52:36] agenda. You're welcome to stay for it.

[52:39] It'll be agenda item 7.1,

[52:42] I believe. Yes, 7.1. So, you're welcome

[52:45] to stay for that.

[52:49] Thank you to everyone that participated

[52:51] in the public hearing. Moving on to

[52:55] business arising from the minutes, we

[52:57] have agenda item 6.1 regarding the

[53:00] downtown area redevelopment plan um

[53:04] engagement update and we have our senior

[53:07] planner Crystal Shike presenting.

[53:10] Crystal, whenever you're ready.

[53:25] here today providing a bit more of an

[53:28] update on our phase two of the

[53:30] engagement uh for the downtown ARP.

[53:33] Spencer Croy is away on holidays, so I'm

[53:36] filling in in his place and this is a

[53:38] bit more of an update from the previous

[53:40] update he provided to council last

[53:42] month.

[53:44] So, the uh update that we're going to be

[53:46] focusing on with this report was the

[53:50] kind of results of the survey that was

[53:52] done for the downtown ARP.

[53:55] And some past highlights, uh the last

[53:59] phase 2 engagement only included the

[54:01] results of in-person activities. And now

[54:03] that phase 2 survey has closed, this

[54:06] highlights detailed information and

[54:08] findings which are in the engagement

[54:11] update.

[54:14] As noted in the attached report, the

[54:16] survey was advertised thoroughly,

[54:18] including two weeks in the newspaper,

[54:20] four weeks on the town's socials running

[54:22] every other day, two weeks of aboard

[54:25] signs on the corner of 20th, 19th and

[54:28] 20th and 18th. There were more than 200

[54:32] postcards with QR codes handd delivered

[54:34] to residents in the study area.

[54:36] Postcards were dropped off at the

[54:38] downtown businesses. Paper copies of the

[54:40] surveys delivered to Sunny cells Lodge

[54:44] and the senior center and paper copies

[54:46] were available at the town office and

[54:48] library.

[54:50] So the soft goal for the survey

[54:52] responses was 300 completed submissions.

[54:55] Once the survey closed, 267

[54:58] surveys had been received and there are

[55:01] likely a handful of paper copies that

[55:04] will trickle in over the next several

[55:05] weeks. And with those added, ultimately

[55:08] we are within that 10% um of the

[55:12] response target considering that another

[55:14] 100 to 120 points of feedback were

[55:18] recorded through the in-person events

[55:20] and activities through the first part of

[55:22] phase two. So we can consider that a

[55:26] success for the engagement uh for the

[55:30] downtown ARP for phase two. One of the

[55:33] main objectives of the most recent

[55:34] survey was to validate the ideas,

[55:36] concepts, and proposals that came out of

[55:38] the in-person activities carried out

[55:41] earlier in phase 2 engagement. 39 of the

[55:46] surveys, 59 questions were designed to

[55:48] be directly comparable to the ideas,

[55:51] concepts, and proposals from the

[55:52] inperson engagement activities held

[55:55] earlier this year. 35 of the 39 survey

[55:58] questions showed either strong alignment

[56:00] with the outcomes from the in-person

[56:02] feedback or an increase in positive

[56:04] sentiment as compared to the in-person

[56:07] feedback. This is reassuring from a

[56:10] validation perspective. So, as we

[56:13] conclude phase two of the engagement for

[56:16] the downtown ARP,

[56:18] uh we are beginning to draft the uh

[56:22] downtown plan

[56:24] and the first iteration of the plan

[56:26] should be ready for council, community,

[56:28] and the project [clears throat] partner

[56:29] review by the end of Q3.

[56:33] So, based on what was attached uh to the

[56:36] agenda packet, does council have any

[56:39] questions or would they like to uh dive

[56:42] deeper into any one particular page of

[56:45] the update?

[56:48] >> Thank you. I'll open up members of

[56:50] council questions, comments.

[56:56] » Seeing none,

[56:58] could I get someone to entertain that

[57:02] Council received this report in downtown

[57:06] ARP phase 2 engagement update for

[57:08] information. Council Chapen makes that

[57:11] motion. I'll call for the vote.

[57:21] And that is carried. Thank you, Crystal.

[57:25] Moving down to agenda item 6.2, to the

[57:30] 20th Avenue and 8th Street four-way

[57:33] stop. And we have our director of

[57:35] infrastructure, Dustin Yankee,

[57:36] presenting. Dustin, whenever you're

[57:38] ready.

[57:52] » Good evening, Mayor and Council.

[57:55] The objective of this report is to seek

[57:57] council's formal approval to install a

[58:00] four-way stop at the intersection of

[58:01] 20th Avenue and 8th Street following the

[58:04] recommendation made at the July 6th,

[58:06] 2026 May the whole meeting.

[58:09] In that meeting, administration

[58:10] presented a report reviewing options to

[58:13] address informal pedestrian crossings of

[58:15] 8th Street between 20th Avenue and the

[58:17] RCMP station. Committee endorsed the

[58:20] installation of a four-way stop at the

[58:22] intersection of 8th Street and 20th

[58:24] Avenue and requested that administration

[58:25] bring forward proposals for a midblock

[58:27] crossing along 8th Street as well as

[58:30] paving of shale pathways in the vicinity

[58:33] of East View Park during this fall's

[58:36] capital budget deliberations.

[58:38] Terms of financial impacts, uh, new

[58:41] signage would be handled through

[58:43] existing operating budgets. So, there's

[58:44] no request for budget.

[58:47] And I have two options here for council.

[58:49] Number one being the council direct

[58:51] administration to install a four-way

[58:52] stop at the intersection of 20th a and 8

[58:55] street or to table this item pending the

[58:58] receipt of further information. Happy to

[59:01] answer any questions from council.

[59:04] >> Thank you. Questions, comments?

[59:08] Councelor Chapen.

[59:10] >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Dustin, for

[59:12] bringing this forward. Um, speaking in

[59:15] support. Uh my only question to you is

[59:18] uh how much information does Alberta

[59:21] Transportation need to know about this

[59:22] or is this mainly a municipal

[59:25] um issue for us?

[59:28] >> We can handle this internally. There's

[59:29] no need to engage with Alberta

[59:31] Transportation.

[59:32] >> Okay. Thank you. And so that means that

[59:34] 845

[59:36] and Highway 3 uh will stay the same and

[59:40] uh not they don't need to be informed

[59:41] about our our other changes. Yeah, this

[59:44] is just for changing the signage at that

[59:47] one intersection. So, we're just adding

[59:49] the two stop signs.

[59:50] >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

[59:55] » Thank you. Any further questions,

[59:57] comments?

[59:59] Seeing none, our decision options that

[1:00:02] council direct administration to install

[1:00:05] a four-way stop at the intersection of

[1:00:07] 20th Avenue and 8th Street. or option

[1:00:10] two that council table this item pending

[1:00:13] the receipt of further information.

[1:00:14] Anybody care to sponsor one of those?

[1:00:18] Councelor Pickering beat you to the

[1:00:20] punch here. Councelor Pickering, what

[1:00:21] would you like?

[1:00:23] >> Turn your microphone on and state that,

[1:00:25] please.

[1:00:29] » I would like to have option one

[1:00:30] approved. There's a motion on the floor

[1:00:33] by councelor Pickering that councelor

[1:00:35] direct administration to install a

[1:00:37] four-way stop at the intersection of

[1:00:39] 20th AB and 8th Street. I'll call for

[1:00:41] the vote

[1:00:48] and that is carried.

[1:00:50] Thank you Dustin.

[1:00:54] Moving on to agenda item 7.1.

[1:00:59] We have the land use bylaw amendment

[1:01:02] again regarding amendment 940-P5-26

[1:01:09] regarding resoning

[1:01:11] um plan 6476

[1:01:14] block 20 lot 5 and 6 civic address 1511

[1:01:18] and 21st Avenue from residential R1A to

[1:01:23] direct control uh regarding second and

[1:01:26] third reading and again we have our

[1:01:28] director growth and investment and

[1:01:30] deputy CEO Cameron Mills presenting.

[1:01:32] Cam, is there any followup information

[1:01:35] to the public hearing information you

[1:01:38] presented? Uh, thank you, Bear Van Ryan.

[1:01:40] Uh, no, I believe we had the opportunity

[1:01:42] to address the issue appropriately at

[1:01:43] the public hearing. Uh obviously we had

[1:01:45] some um questions from council that we

[1:01:47] had the opportunity to address and

[1:01:49] between additional information raised

[1:01:51] from the uh public participating in the

[1:01:53] process as well as the proponent

[1:01:55] administration's position is that

[1:01:57] sufficient information exists in order

[1:01:59] for council to make an appropriate

[1:02:00] decision.

[1:02:02] >> Thank you.

[1:02:04] Any questions, comments from council to

[1:02:07] our presenter?

[1:02:10] So before us we have um

[1:02:15] second and third reading. So for our

[1:02:17] guests

[1:02:18] we need to pass second reading and then

[1:02:22] we will move forward to third and final

[1:02:24] reading and if the second reading is not

[1:02:29] passed then the proposal is uh defeated.

[1:02:33] So I'll ask one more time questions

[1:02:35] comments from members of council.

[1:02:39] Seeing none, I'm looking to for someone

[1:02:41] to sponsor that council approve second

[1:02:43] reading of land use bylaw amendment

[1:02:46] 940-P5-26.

[1:02:57] » Excuse me. Isn't there two options here

[1:02:59] where you can deny the second and third

[1:03:01] reading right off the start?

[1:03:07] So

[1:03:09] now we're going to go with each reading

[1:03:11] individually.

[1:03:12] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:03:13] >> Because if second reading isn't passed,

[1:03:14] it's defeated regardless. So councelor

[1:03:17] Avery makes the motion that council

[1:03:20] approve second reading of land use bylaw

[1:03:22] amendment 940-P5-26

[1:03:27] as presented.

[1:03:29] I see no more questions, comments. I'll

[1:03:31] call for the vote.

[1:03:40] And that is defeated.

[1:03:46] [laughter]

[1:03:49] Thank you, Cameron. Moving on to

[1:03:52] agenda item 7.2, two

[1:03:57] traffic control bylaw 945-R7-26

[1:04:04] regarding all three readings. And again,

[1:04:07] we have our director of infrastructure,

[1:04:09] Dustin Yankee, presenting.

[1:04:27] » [snorts]

[1:04:29] » Thank you, mayor.

[1:04:31] The objective of this report is to

[1:04:33] present bylaw 945-R7-26,

[1:04:37] an amendment to traffic control bylaw

[1:04:40] 843-R3-22,

[1:04:44] reducing the town's unpoled speed limit

[1:04:46] from 50 km an hour to 40 km an hour for

[1:04:49] council's consideration of first,

[1:04:51] second, and third readings following the

[1:04:53] recommendation provided at the July 6,

[1:04:56] 2026 committee. the whole meeting.

[1:05:00] At that meeting, administration

[1:05:02] presented a report summarizing speed

[1:05:04] data collected across Coldell between

[1:05:06] 2021 and 2026, the collision severity

[1:05:10] evidence supporting a reduced speed

[1:05:12] default limit and the experience of

[1:05:14] other mun Alberta municipalities that

[1:05:16] have made the same change. The 2026 data

[1:05:20] collection captured over 300,000 vehicle

[1:05:23] observations across 16 different uh

[1:05:26] study locations with a weighted average

[1:05:29] speed of 45.2 km an hour on the roads

[1:05:33] that are proposed for change, indicating

[1:05:35] that most drivers already travel at or

[1:05:38] near the proposed limit.

[1:05:40] The committee endorsed bringing forward

[1:05:42] the bylaw amendment for council's

[1:05:44] consideration at this meeting.

[1:05:47] Because 50 km an hour is the statutory

[1:05:50] default under the traffic safety act

[1:05:52] applying automatically on any road

[1:05:54] without a posted limit. The change

[1:05:56] requires a bylaw amendment to be

[1:05:58] enforceable. Entrance signage alone

[1:06:00] cannot displace the statutory liy

[1:06:02] default.

[1:06:04] this bylaw amendment. Uh we've changed

[1:06:07] section three speed limits

[1:06:10] uh specifically section uh or clause 3B

[1:06:14] I should say with a new clause

[1:06:15] establishing a 40 kmter maximum on all

[1:06:18] highways under the direction control and

[1:06:20] management of the town unless otherwise

[1:06:22] posted while preserving the town's

[1:06:24] obligation to sign any limits that

[1:06:26] differ from the default. The 30

[1:06:28] kilometer an hour playground zones, 20

[1:06:31] kilometer an hour alley limit and

[1:06:33] construction zone provisions remain

[1:06:35] unchanged and highway 3 and highway 845

[1:06:39] remain under provincial jurisdiction and

[1:06:41] are also unaffected.

[1:06:44] The bylaw provides for a coming into

[1:06:46] forest date of September 1st, 2026,

[1:06:49] allowing the legal change, insurance,

[1:06:51] signage installation, and public

[1:06:53] awareness campaign to land together.

[1:06:56] In advance of the go live date,

[1:06:58] administration will run a coordinated

[1:07:00] public awareness campaign, including

[1:07:02] formal media updates, mailouts, and

[1:07:04] social media updates, followed by a six

[1:07:07] week education focused enforcement uh grace

[1:07:12] period. Speed and compliance monitoring

[1:07:15] will continue after implementation

[1:07:17] through the town's existing program,

[1:07:19] informing targeted enforcement and

[1:07:21] future traffic coming.

[1:07:23] Council may give first and second

[1:07:25] readings at this meeting or first,

[1:07:28] second, and third at this meeting in

[1:07:29] accordance with section 187

[1:07:32] um with the third only coming with

[1:07:35] unanimous agreement uh of all counselors

[1:07:37] present.

[1:07:39] And just a note, uh the attached bylaw

[1:07:41] here, we are sticking to just uh what's

[1:07:44] being discussed tonight. There will be a

[1:07:46] more wholesome review occurring later

[1:07:48] this year coming from our bylaw

[1:07:50] department.

[1:07:51] So, if you're noticing other uh clauses

[1:07:54] that probably require an update just due

[1:07:56] to the age of the the the bylaw, uh we

[1:08:00] are looking at bringing out a more

[1:08:02] revised update later in the year.

[1:08:08] Uh just to jump into

[1:08:11] uh our messaging plan. So, if council

[1:08:14] does give uh all three readings tonight,

[1:08:17] administration will launch a public

[1:08:19] communications campaign to inform

[1:08:21] residents about the change that would be

[1:08:23] coming on September 1st. We would use

[1:08:26] six main communication tools, a news

[1:08:28] release, dedicated web page and FAQ

[1:08:31] section, social media, newspaper

[1:08:33] advertising, billboards, as well as a

[1:08:36] blanket mail. The key message being that

[1:08:39] starting September 1st, 2026, Kola's

[1:08:42] default unposted speed limit will be 40

[1:08:44] km an hour. The change only applies to

[1:08:47] roads where no speed limit is posted and

[1:08:49] excludes Highway 3 and Highway 845.

[1:08:51] Roads with posted speed limit signs will

[1:08:53] continue to follow the posted limit.

[1:08:56] Uh here a bit more detail uh in terms of

[1:08:59] dates. Um so starting uh effectively

[1:09:04] later this week we would do a news

[1:09:06] release uh followed by a web page and

[1:09:08] FAQ and then follow uh following that

[1:09:12] would be social media updates. We would

[1:09:14] look at running two ads in the Sunny

[1:09:17] South newspaper, a billboard placed on

[1:09:20] Highway 3 and 845 to notify residents as

[1:09:23] well as non-residents,

[1:09:25] as well as a blanket mail out

[1:09:27] approximately two weeks before September

[1:09:29] 1st with a QR code that would link uh

[1:09:32] residents to further information on the

[1:09:34] web page.

[1:09:39] So for council, there are three options

[1:09:41] here. Um not going to read through all

[1:09:44] them but essentially option one would be

[1:09:45] to give all three readings. Uh option

[1:09:48] two give first and second and defer the

[1:09:51] third reading to a subsequent council

[1:09:53] meeting and option three would be to

[1:09:55] table the item and happy to answer any

[1:09:59] questions council may have.

[1:10:02] >> Thank you. I'll open up members of

[1:10:04] council questions comments.

[1:10:06] Councelor Ree

[1:10:11] Thank you, Mayor Van, and through to

[1:10:14] Dustin. Thank you for your report. So,

[1:10:16] the two main problem areas that we had

[1:10:18] originally were on 16th Avenue and 845.

[1:10:21] And so, I remember back when this first

[1:10:24] came to council that we were told we

[1:10:26] were unable to just kind of make one

[1:10:29] street 40 as opposed to just doing a

[1:10:31] blanket of the entire town. So my

[1:10:34] question is um since we had municipal

[1:10:37] enforcement out in the roads has the

[1:10:40] speeding reduced on the 845 and I mean

[1:10:43] 16 is under construction right now but

[1:10:44] have you noticed a reduction in it?

[1:10:48] [clears throat]

[1:10:48] >> I can't speak for uh our bylaw

[1:10:51] department directly. Um I think it'd be

[1:10:53] a little hard to gauge just for the the

[1:10:55] short amount of time that they have been

[1:10:57] in force. Um I would say in probably

[1:11:00] five six months time that we could chat

[1:11:02] with the the B department to give an

[1:11:04] update on what the the new data looks

[1:11:07] like because we still will continue to

[1:11:09] collect data with our traffic analyzers.

[1:11:11] So um I think it's the short answer is

[1:11:13] it's probably too soon to tell but I

[1:11:16] would presume even anecdotally I've

[1:11:18] heard that there has been a noticeable

[1:11:20] presence in the community. So I think

[1:11:22] there would be um it will aid in the

[1:11:26] future. I think it just takes a bit of

[1:11:27] time to see it in the data.

[1:11:34] » Councelor Chapman, thank you, Mayor. Uh

[1:11:36] thank you, Dustin, uh for bringing this

[1:11:38] forward and uh I

[1:11:42] experiencing trying to drive down 40

[1:11:44] kilometers an hour down the east half of

[1:11:47] Main Street is is something I'm going to

[1:11:49] have to redisipline myself to. So, uh

[1:11:52] that's something that most people are uh

[1:11:54] will be interested in. And I think that

[1:11:57] uh the general public and from my

[1:11:58] perspective have really indicated to me

[1:12:01] that they're in general support uh of

[1:12:04] this move forward. So um I'm happy to

[1:12:07] give first reading to this. Uh the only

[1:12:10] question I do have for you is 8:45

[1:12:14] and sometime in the future I'd

[1:12:16] appreciate having administration come

[1:12:18] back and identify for councel again once

[1:12:20] again about the uh playground zone uh on

[1:12:23] that stretch uh by the John Davidson

[1:12:26] school and how we want to address that.

[1:12:28] But I'll move for first reading.

[1:12:32] >> Thank you. Any further questions,

[1:12:35] comments?

[1:12:36] There's a motion on the floor by

[1:12:38] councelor Chapman that council approve

[1:12:41] first reading of traffic control bylaw

[1:12:43] 945-R07-26.

[1:12:48] I'll call for the vote

[1:12:51] [snorts]

[1:12:57] and that is carried.

[1:13:02] Moving on to

[1:13:05] second reading. Is there anybody that

[1:13:07] wishes to uh make that motion? Council

[1:13:11] Avery put his hand up. So there's a

[1:13:12] motion on the floor that council that

[1:13:15] council approved second reading of

[1:13:16] traffic control bylaw 945-R7-26.

[1:13:22] Seeing no more questions, comments, I'll

[1:13:24] call for the vote.

[1:13:32] And that is carried with councelor

[1:13:35] Pickering opposed.

[1:13:37] Next, I need someone to sponsor that

[1:13:39] council approve unanimous consent to

[1:13:42] hold all three readings in one meeting

[1:13:44] for traffic control bylaw 945-R7-26.

[1:13:50] Councelor Reese will sponsor that one.

[1:13:54] Seeing no more questions, comments, I'll

[1:13:56] call for the vote.

[1:14:03] And that is carried.

[1:14:06] And finally, I need someone to sponsor

[1:14:09] that council approved third and final

[1:14:12] reading of traffic control bylaw

[1:14:14] 945-R7-26.

[1:14:19] Deputy Mayor Beakman makes that motion.

[1:14:21] I'll call for the vote.

[1:14:29] And that is carried. And just for our

[1:14:31] guests,

[1:14:33] for the unanimous consent to move

[1:14:36] forward, we need all members of council

[1:14:39] to vote in favor of that. And councelor

[1:14:43] Pickering being a gentleman knows that

[1:14:45] uh it would have been carried

[1:14:47] regardless. So he voted in favor of the

[1:14:49] unanimous consent.

[1:14:52] So that is carried.

[1:14:55] Moving on to Thank you, Dustin. Moving

[1:14:58] on to agenda item 7.3,

[1:15:02] we have land use bylaw amendment

[1:15:05] 944-P6-26

[1:15:09] regarding first reading reszoning

[1:15:13] highway commercial C2 to direct control

[1:15:16] DC regarding unit 3H civic address

[1:15:20] 60519A

[1:15:22] Avenue. And again we have our director

[1:15:24] of growth and investment and deputy CEO

[1:15:26] Cameron Mills presenting. Cam whenever

[1:15:28] you're ready.

[1:15:38] Thank you very much. Um yeah so I have

[1:15:41] an opportunity to discuss another uh

[1:15:43] [laughter] very interesting and

[1:15:46] sometimes controversial land use

[1:15:47] development matter in this particular

[1:15:48] case. Also a reszoning to direct control

[1:15:51] uh though for different reasons. So,

[1:15:52] land use bylaw amendment 944-P6-26

[1:15:58] uh is is being presented to council for

[1:16:00] consideration of first reading. And so,

[1:16:03] uh the purpose of this bylaw is to

[1:16:06] reszone uh one particular unit within a

[1:16:09] building uh about to begin construction

[1:16:12] uh in order to allow for the

[1:16:13] consideration of one particular use. Um,

[1:16:16] so in this particular case, the bylaw is

[1:16:18] to allow uh for the consideration of

[1:16:20] allowing for a cannabis retail facility

[1:16:24] uh to be located within a commercial

[1:16:26] development currently being proposed uh

[1:16:28] in East Coale. As council will recall,

[1:16:30] uh direct control zoning is required in

[1:16:33] order to consider this particular use.

[1:16:35] uh requires direct

[1:16:39] control consent and is not allowed uh in

[1:16:41] any other form or in any other zoning.

[1:16:44] We have considered a number of these uh

[1:16:46] types of uh hearings over the years. We

[1:16:48] have previously approved a cannabis

[1:16:50] retail uh facility uh in downtown

[1:16:53] Coldale located uh where previously uh

[1:16:56] 3G ery was located just uh to the east

[1:16:58] and to the north of this building. We've

[1:17:00] had other considerations of other sites

[1:17:03] um located within uh downtown Coale as

[1:17:06] well as we've considered a similar issue

[1:17:08] uh for the low for the unit in West

[1:17:10] Coale where I believe uh Dominoes is now

[1:17:13] uh currently located. And so uh this is

[1:17:15] an opportunity uh for us to consider an

[1:17:17] application that's before us here and to

[1:17:19] consider those particular merits. So uh

[1:17:22] the unit 3H uh 60519A Avenue. So that's

[1:17:26] a unit again in the commercial

[1:17:28] development to be constructed uh in East

[1:17:30] Coale. So just directly east uh of the

[1:17:33] RCMP station along 19A Avenue. Um the

[1:17:38] applicant uh Ken Costello. Um the unit

[1:17:41] adjacent units uh in the area are all

[1:17:43] going to remain within that C2 zoning.

[1:17:45] And we do note that the proposed

[1:17:47] location is appropriately set back uh

[1:17:49] from parks and playgrounds, hospitals,

[1:17:51] other cannabis retail facilities, liquor

[1:17:54] stores, and schools uh which are the

[1:17:56] requirement of the land use bylaw. Uh

[1:17:58] with that said, we do ask that council

[1:17:59] provide first reading of the bylaw so

[1:18:01] that uh it can be brought to life uh for

[1:18:05] consideration at a public hearing uh

[1:18:06] down the line. In this particular case,

[1:18:08] uh the public hearing would take place

[1:18:10] in uh September, which is the next

[1:18:12] available council meeting.

[1:18:15] Thank you. Councelor Avery has a

[1:18:17] question or comment. Thank you, Mayor.

[1:18:19] Thank you, Cam. Um, so are we guaranteed

[1:18:23] there's no liquor stores going into this

[1:18:26] complex because

[1:18:29] cannabis stores are direct control where

[1:18:31] uh a liquor store is not direct control.

[1:18:34] >> Thank you for the question. So we're not

[1:18:35] guaranteed and in fact the the reading

[1:18:38] of the bylaw is that the the rule uh the

[1:18:40] re sorry the rules are unidirectional

[1:18:44] right and so the rules have to do with

[1:18:46] the sighting of a cannabis retail store

[1:18:49] once it is in place it is in place so it

[1:18:52] doesn't create uh a buffer where for

[1:18:54] example we could not locate a hospital

[1:18:56] within 300 meters of it or a liquor

[1:18:59] store within 100 meters of it. Um, so

[1:19:02] for example, we have a cannabis retail

[1:19:04] facility here that's been operating for

[1:19:06] a number of years. Once the cannabis

[1:19:09] retail store is in place, later we have

[1:19:11] a daycare that seeks to operate around

[1:19:13] the corner, which is technically within

[1:19:15] a 100 meters of it. The fact that the

[1:19:17] cannabis retail store is in place does

[1:19:19] not uh prevent the uh daycare from

[1:19:22] making application to site. However, if

[1:19:24] the daycare daycare was there first, it

[1:19:27] would be a strong consideration in

[1:19:28] considering a new uh cannabis retail

[1:19:30] location. So, uh, doesn't prevent a

[1:19:32] liquor store from going in later. Uh, at

[1:19:34] this time, we don't have any approved

[1:19:36] use like that.

[1:19:39] » Thank you. Any further questions,

[1:19:41] comments for our presenter?

[1:19:44] Seeing none, could I get someone to

[1:19:46] entertain making a motion that council

[1:19:48] approve first reading of land use bylaw

[1:19:50] amendment 944-P6-26

[1:19:56] and direct administration to schedule a

[1:19:59] public hearing for the next available

[1:20:01] council meeting. Councelor Ree makes

[1:20:03] that motion. I'll call for the vote.

[1:20:13] And that is carried with councelor Avery

[1:20:16] and councelor Chapman opposed.

[1:20:20] Thank you Cameron.

[1:20:22] Moving on to new business agenda item

[1:20:25] 8.1.

[1:20:26] We have a request for sponsorship for

[1:20:29] Special Olympics charity golf tournament

[1:20:32] coming up on September the 18th, 2026.

[1:20:35] And we have our municipal clerk Atlanta

[1:20:38] speaking to Atlanta whenever you're

[1:20:39] ready.

[1:20:42] Thank you, mayor, members of council.

[1:20:44] The uh organizers of the Special

[1:20:46] Olympics Lethbridge has uh approached

[1:20:48] the town council requesting sponsorship

[1:20:51] for a team in their fundraising golf

[1:20:53] tournament to be held at Lando Lakes

[1:20:55] Golf Course on Friday, September 18th,

[1:20:58] 2026. This is the first time that the

[1:21:00] event um has been held and funds raised

[1:21:03] will be to help support athletes train,

[1:21:06] compete, and build confidence through

[1:21:07] sport. Um, should council wish to

[1:21:10] dedicate funds towards this event, they

[1:21:12] do have allocated funds through

[1:21:14] council's promotional budget available.

[1:21:16] And, uh, a team, a fourperson team in

[1:21:19] the Special Olympics golf tournament is

[1:21:21] at a cost of $600.

[1:21:23] Um, unless council would so choose to

[1:21:26] donate otherwise for a

[1:21:29] specific denomination. I'm happy to

[1:21:32] answer any questions that council may

[1:21:34] have.

[1:21:35] >> Thank you. I'll open up members of

[1:21:37] council questions, comments.

[1:21:39] Just a comment maybe to make a note for

[1:21:42] u budget deliberations that we should

[1:21:45] have a discussion about the sponsorships

[1:21:48] because we had another one come in today

[1:21:49] that missed the agenda timeline for

[1:21:52] another golf tournament. So, uh

[1:21:54] something we should take a look at

[1:21:55] during budget deliberation. Councelor

[1:21:58] Chapman.

[1:21:59] >> Thank you, Mayor. um speaking in favor

[1:22:02] of of of supporting this. I I believe

[1:22:04] that uh a number of our um volunteers in

[1:22:08] our community are involved with the

[1:22:10] Special Olympics as well as we do have a

[1:22:12] number of athletes as well from the

[1:22:15] community. So um I do speak in favor of

[1:22:19] supporting this and and identifying with

[1:22:22] the Special Olympics in this way.

[1:22:24] >> So Council Chapen, you would sponsor DEC

[1:22:27] decision option one? Yes.

[1:22:30] >> Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor

[1:22:32] by councelor Chapman that council

[1:22:34] approve sponsorship of a fourperson team

[1:22:37] in the special Olympics golf tournament

[1:22:40] being held on September 18th, 2026 at a

[1:22:43] cost of $600.

[1:22:45] Saying no more questions, I'll councelor

[1:22:48] Sailor.

[1:22:53] » Go ahead. Could I um perhaps make a

[1:22:56] friendly amendment um that we do

[1:22:58] something similar to what we do with Rio

[1:22:59] where we would do the $600 team and the

[1:23:02] uh $600 sponsorship so that then we

[1:23:04] would be a sponsor uh plus enter a team

[1:23:07] for the total of 1,200.

[1:23:11] Councelor Chapman, would you accept that

[1:23:13] friendly amendment?

[1:23:16] So there is a friendly amendment and we

[1:23:19] will have to do a vote by hand on that

[1:23:22] one. Pardon me.

[1:23:24] Okay.

[1:23:27] So, while our municipal clerk keys that

[1:23:30] in, the motion will be that council

[1:23:32] approve a sponsorship of a fourperson

[1:23:34] team in the Special Olympic golf

[1:23:36] tournament held on September 18th, 2026

[1:23:40] at a cost of $600 with an additional

[1:23:43] $600 uh given as a donation to Special

[1:23:47] Olympics.

[1:23:49] See no more questions, I'll call for the

[1:23:51] vote on that.

[1:24:10] And that is carried. Thank you.

[1:24:13] Lam. Moving on to council and

[1:24:16] committee reports. This uh evening we

[1:24:20] have councelor Bill Chapman presenting

[1:24:22] on the highway 3 twinning. He has a

[1:24:26] verbal update update along with a short

[1:24:29] video. Councelor Chapman, whenever

[1:24:31] you're ready.

[1:24:35] » Thank you, Mayor and uh mayor, members

[1:24:37] of council. Uh this is a report on the

[1:24:40] highway 320 developments association. We

[1:24:42] had our AGM on April 23rd

[1:24:45] uh in Taber and our keynote speaker was

[1:24:48] lead core road construction.

[1:24:50] Uh want to give you an up a current

[1:24:52] update of the stage one of the current

[1:24:54] twinning project as updated from the

[1:24:56] Alberta Transportation and Economic

[1:24:58] Corridors. Work on this stage of the

[1:25:00] highway involves 20 a 54 km stretch from

[1:25:04] Taber to Berdett, including construction

[1:25:06] of eight new kilometers of four-lane

[1:25:09] divided highway which bypasses Grassy

[1:25:12] Lake.

[1:25:13] The stage one project includes 11 bridge

[1:25:16] side structures, intersection

[1:25:18] improvements for acceleration and

[1:25:20] deceleration lanes, intersection

[1:25:22] widening. We there's uh plans for two

[1:25:26] rest pull outs, one westbound and one

[1:25:28] eastbound, 10 service roads, and the

[1:25:32] Baltwater station in Berdett is being

[1:25:34] relocated. Some fast facts for council

[1:25:38] uh and our folks online uh is uh we've

[1:25:42] got 2.8 cubic 2.8 million cubic meters

[1:25:47] of grading work done. uh 1 million tons

[1:25:50] of granular base, 475,000

[1:25:53] tones of asphalt concrete pavement, 82

[1:25:57] new signs, 38 kilometers of right of way

[1:26:01] fencing, 30 new street light

[1:26:04] installations, and this project is

[1:26:06] anticipated to be completed in the fall

[1:26:08] of 2026.

[1:26:10] The grading part of the highway is uh

[1:26:13] 91% completed which includes mainline

[1:26:16] grading and top soil and seated seating.

[1:26:19] Gravel base of is 80% completed. Paving

[1:26:23] is 62% complete and utilities are 100%

[1:26:27] completed and this includes 19 pipeline

[1:26:30] crossings and lowerings completed. 46

[1:26:33] kilometers of communications relocations

[1:26:36] and 28 kilometers of power relocations

[1:26:40] which are completed smids

[1:26:43] uh that is 100% complete uh with 11 uh

[1:26:48] canal bridge structures completed and 11

[1:26:51] pipelines and laterals completed.

[1:26:54] Looking ahead over the next month,

[1:26:57] grading crews and gravel gravel crews

[1:26:59] and paving crews are completing their

[1:27:00] various assignments and project work.

[1:27:03] Ancillary work to start at the concrete

[1:27:06] curb and gutter in c and tab. Uh sign

[1:27:09] installations to start in the first half

[1:27:11] of the project and due to the heavy and

[1:27:14] unsustain and sustained rainfalls,

[1:27:17] dewatering and erosion repairs

[1:27:19] throughout the project are currently in

[1:27:21] progress. Darren Davidson, who is the

[1:27:23] south zone director for Alberta

[1:27:25] Transportation Economic Corridors, uh,

[1:27:28] attends all our meetings and our AGMs

[1:27:30] and provides his report to the

[1:27:32] membership. At his update, uh, during

[1:27:35] his update at the AGM, Darren included

[1:27:37] that the intersection here in Coldale at

[1:27:40] Highway 45 and Highway 3 will be getting

[1:27:43] some traffic light upgrades at the cost

[1:27:45] of a million dollars. This project is

[1:27:48] expected to commence uh the summer of

[1:27:50] 26. The association is delighted that

[1:27:54] the 2026 provincial capital budget uh

[1:27:57] that $172 million was allocated for

[1:28:00] commencing sta stage two of the twinning

[1:28:04] projects which will be starting in 2027.

[1:28:08] Uh the highway 320 twinning development

[1:28:10] association has formed a series of

[1:28:12] public videos which addresses the

[1:28:15] imperative need to twin to continue

[1:28:17] twinning. At this time I would like to

[1:28:19] show council and those watching online

[1:28:22] one of our shorts which illustrates the

[1:28:25] value of twinning highway 3.

[1:28:32] is more than a road. It's

[1:28:35] where we start.

[1:28:37] It's how we connect. [music]

[1:28:39] And it's something we share every day.

[1:28:42] It's how we grow. It's how [music] we

[1:28:45] move. And it carries more than we see.

[1:28:49] It's the way out. It's the way home. And

[1:28:53] it connects all of us. It's where

[1:28:57] [music] we reflect.

[1:28:58] It's where we slow down. And it deserves

[1:29:02] [music] our attention. It's what we're

[1:29:04] building,

[1:29:06] not just for today, but for years ahead.

[1:29:09] [music]

[1:29:10] Highway 3 connects everyone in southern

[1:29:12] Alberta, and its future [music] depends

[1:29:15] on all of us.

[1:29:25] Thank you. And councelor Chapman, you'd

[1:29:27] be willing to make a motion that council

[1:29:29] receive the verbal highway 320 reporters

[1:29:32] information.

[1:29:34] I'll call for the vote.

[1:29:44] And that is carried. So that concludes

[1:29:47] the open portion of tonight's meeting.

[1:29:50] Thank you for everyone that's here in

[1:29:52] attendance. I will require a motion that

[1:29:55] council move into close session at 6:30

[1:29:58] p.m. in accordance with section 197-4-B

[1:30:03] of the Municipal Government Act to

[1:30:05] discuss matters exempt from disclosure 4

[1:30:08] items 13.1 subject to section 20

[1:30:12] disclosure harmful to personal privacy

[1:30:14] and section 21 disclosure harmful to

[1:30:18] individual or public safety. Item 13.2 2

[1:30:22] subject to section 26 disclosure harmful

[1:30:25] to intergovernmental relations. Items

[1:30:28] 13.2 and 13.3 subject to section 29

[1:30:33] advice from from officials. And finally,

[1:30:35] item 13.3 subject to section 28 local

[1:30:39] public body confidences. Who would like

[1:30:42] to make that motion?

[1:30:44] Councelor Reese makes that motion. I'll

[1:30:47] call for the vote.

[1:30:54] And that is carried. We shall take a 10m

[1:30:57] minute break.

Regular Council Meeting - 20 Jul 2026

Transcript