Good afternoon and welcome to our
regular council meeting for Monday, July
20th, 2026.
I'll call the meeting to order at 5:00
p.m.
First item on the agenda, agenda item
1.1, land acknowledgement. The town of
Coldell acknowledges that we were
gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
peoples of the Canadian plains and pays
respect to the Blackfoot people's past,
present, and future while recognizing
their cultural heritage, beliefs, and
relationship to the land. The town of
Coldell is also home to the Matei
District 1 foothills.
Agenda item 1.2, conflict of interest
declaration, pecuniary and non-punerary.
Are there any in the room this
afternoon?
None declared. Thank you.
Moving on to agenda item 2.1, the
acceptance acceptance of our regular
council meeting agenda for today, July
20th, 2026. Are there any additions or
deletions to the agenda?
Seeing none, could I get someone to
entertain making a motion that council
adopt the regular council meeting agenda
for July 20th, 2026 as presented?
Councelor Reese makes that motion. I'll
call for the vote.
And that is carried.
Moving on to agenda item 3.1, adoption
of the previous minutes for June 29th,
2026. Were there any errors or emissions
in those minute meeting minutes?
Seeing none, could I get someone to
entertain making a motion that council
approve the June 29th, 2026 regular
council meeting minutes as presented?
Councelor Pickering makes that motion.
I'll call for the vote.
And that is carried. And finally, we
have the committee of the whole meeting
minutes for July 6, 2026. Were there any
errors or omissions in those meeting
minutes?
Seeing none, someone care to make a
motion that council approve the July 6,
2026 committee of the whole meeting
minutes as presented.
Deputy Mayor Beman makes that motion.
I'll call for the vote.
And that is carried.
So, first item on the agenda this
afternoon, agenda item 5.1.
We have a public hearing uh regarding
agenda item again 5.1 land use bylaw
amendment 940-P5-26
regarding reszoning from residential R1A
to direct control. Can everybody hear me
out in the atrium?
So, my name is uh Jack Van Ryan. I'll be
chairing this public uh hearing. All
questions and comments shall be directed
through myself as the chair. Public
hearing procedures are as follows.
Council is here to listen to the
information presented and make a
decision on the matter that is subject
of this hearing. This is a formal
hearing and is not a debate.
Everyone wishing to speak and I've been
given a list from our municipal clerk
who has pre-registered will be given an
opportunity to speak once to the matter
as it's called upon by myself as chair.
Each presenter must state his or her
full name, their address, and their
interest in this matter, including
whether they are in support or
opposition.
Individuals who do not identify
themselves will not be given the
opportunity to speak.
I will give all the speakers an
opportunity to speak up to five minutes
and uh on the presentation and are
encouraged when speaking to keep the
presentation to point and refrain from
re reinstating points raised by previous
speakers if possible. So, if a speaker
brings up something that was already
discussed, then I'm going to uh stop you
uh from speaking to that again.
And if a new presentation uh regarding
materials are provided, you are required
to email a copy or give her our
municipal clerk a hard copy.
So, at this time, I would like to ask
our director of growth and investment
and our deputy CEO, Cameron Mills, to
introduce the subject matter of this
public hearing.
» Thank you very much, Mayor Van Ryan and
council. I have the opportunity today to
speak to you with respect to bylaw
940p526.
Uh what we're doing here today is
holding a public hearing uh for this
bylaw which received uh first reading a
few months ago and is going to be given
the opportunity for presentation uh to
council and to hear from uh the
proponent as well as the public uh prior
to consideration of further readings uh
as is the standard standard procedure
for these types of matters. Uh before I
do that, we did receive some additional
correspondence um in after uh the agenda
was circulated. So if it pleases
council, I'd like to take the
opportunity to distribute that to you
now.
Oh, it's not reading off of my screen.
[clears throat]
Okay, so proposed bylaw. Um, oop, sorry,
this is an older version. So, the bylaw
is 940-P5-26
and the subject lands are lots five and
six, block 20, plan 6476A,
which is to say 1511 21st Avenue. The
proposal is to resate the lots from
residential R1A, which is their existing
zoning, to direct control. Uh the
applicant and property owner applied for
rezoning on April 22nd of 2026 and first
reading was provided on May 19th of
2026. Um so the residential R1A zoning
is what I would describe as the standard
uh residential zoning common to uh most
uh of the town uh specifically uh this
area as well as most of our uh newer
subdivisions. It is the typical um
standard when you think of a residential
zoning. That's usually the one you're
thinking of. Uh direct control is a
little bit different. So direct control
uh is the only zoning which
fundamentally takes uh the power to make
uh render decisions at the development
permit level which is to say the most
specific level of decision-m and that
pulls that out of the purview of
administration and occasionally the MPC
and brings that to council's attention.
So the purpose uh of choosing the direct
control zoning um is something we can
get into a little bit uh here and in
terms of how it's different than say
applying another zoning. Uh but the idea
is that this allows uh a little more
attention to detail right at the council
level and that's why that was chosen for
this particular proposal.
So to provide some context uh the
subject lands are currently vacant uh
and have been vacant uh for a period of
several years. Adjacent land uses again
pres predominantly residential R1A uh
with the exception of three residential
small lot R1B properties located on the
east end of block 20. Uh so directly
east of this property. Uh institutional
recreational uh properties are also in
proximity. So we've got R I Baker School
again uh one block to the east as well
as the Anglican Church uh located to the
southwest. Uh there are also commercial
C1 properties fundamentally downtown
Colddale located less than 150 meters uh
from this particular subject property.
So the R1A land uses or the current land
use that's current that's in place
fundamentally speaking this provides uh
for the development of lowdensity
residential properties. So you're
limited to uh single family homes as
well as uh secondary suites uh as well
as uh home occupations and potentially
duplexes. So, minimal commercial or
mixeduse uh development opportunities
exist within the R1A zoning. They they
do exist. It is not a zoning that
applies specifically only to single
family homes, though that is certainly
standard. Uh but in this case, uh
realistically speaking, uh each lot
would be limited to one likely two units
of density with the opportunity for B
either basement suites within a stick
built standard home uh or potentially a
duplex on the site. And there are two
sites. The proposal is to change the
land use to again direct control. Uh
this this district would allow for some
housing diversity which is to say would
allow for the existing uh R1A use but
also allow for the limited uh to uh what
the applicant is physically proposing
here today. And we'll get into the
specifics of that but would not allow
for the development beyond uh what is
being proposed today. So if for example
the applicant was proposing the R2 which
is the multif family zoning with a
concept in mind uh what they what they
are going to propose today um if that
concept changed and changed to something
else that is allowed within the
multifamily
uh zoning say a year or two from now uh
they would have the opportunity to
pursue that because once the zoning is
in place the regulations of that zoning
um are provided and so uh even if the
initial ch if even if the initial
proposal is to do one thing, if you're
going to do something else that still
fits within that zoning, um so be it.
So, for example, if someone were uh
applying for a commercial zoning with
the intention of opening a dentist's
office, uh and a decision was made to
allow it and then a year later they
decided to build a restaurant instead
and that fits within the zoning again
that would be approved. So, in this
case, because it's direct control, the
ability to change is limited. what they
are proposing is fundamentally all that
would be allowed on the property should
the resing be accepted.
So taking a look at the planning context
of the proposal um we need to consider
resoning applications for uh a few
matters. So first of all we need to
consider local context which is to say
uh you know the neighborhood context.
How does the proposal fit within the
surrounding areas? We also need to
consider planning context. So how is the
proposal with respect to consistency
with community plans? So for example, we
have a document uh technical term is the
municipal development plan typically
called the town plan and this is an o
document that provides overarching
guidance uh in terms of how development
within the community is is intended uh
to take place. That is a document that
was uh is done every uh few decades or
so. So it was most recently updated in
uh 2018. there was a a full
comprehensive review and rewrite of that
document and that was updated at that
time. Um it's important to note that
land use redesation does not
automatically confer the right to
develop uh any of all of the listed
uses. So you still need to go through
the development permit process and the
typical uh standards and requirements
associated with that. So in this case
that process is largely uh discussed
here at this level but it does still
leave you coming out with a development
permit that would include conditions and
ensure that any development that does
occur meets typical town standards
associated with uh things like land use
by requirements.
So taking a look at the town plan or the
municip municipal development plan. This
is a long range plan. So, this is
intended to provide, you know, 25 or 30
years of guidance in terms of how the
town is supposed to develop. It's the
document my department uh typically uses
when we're meeting with prospective
investors to talk to them about what our
expectations are for the community. Uh
it really defines the community's vision
and goals and outlines the policies and
strategies that are going to guide
future development within the community.
And it was founded on a significant
amount of community feedback. When we
look at the town plan, we should
recognize that over 900 respondents uh
were involved in the ultimate creation
of that particular document. It is one
of the more uh significant meaningful
public engagement processes that the
town has engaged in uh over a period of
the last decade.
So the town plan includes obviously a
significant amount of text. There's also
maps. So this is a map uh outlining
various areas of the community. Uh
highlighted in uh gold are what would be
discussed as areas of growth. So those
are undeveloped areas uh that at the
time did not include uh area structure
plans which would provide comprehensive
guidance of the development of a
specific area. So you'll notice
Cottonwood for example um or uh the area
around the golf course or the Westgate
area are not in gold nor are they in
red. Those are areas that have area
structure plans that speak specifically
to those areas. The other areas because
they don't have area structure plans
really look to the town plan for
guidance. So the areas of in outlined in
gold there what we would call it areas
of growth and in red are known within
the town plan as areas of change.
So within the town plan, it provides
policies and again these policies are
what uh we as staff use to guide uh and
direct uh folks that meet with us that
are interested in exploring
opportunities within town. Uh some of
the key policies that uh reflect or
reflected here and deal with this
particular issue include policy 2.2
which is that we strive for a target of
10% of new development to be built
within existing areas. So those areas
identified within that previous map as
areas of change. Uh the target for the
communities to see 10% of new
development to occur within those areas.
Policy 2.3 is to encourage the
development of secondary suites and
multi-unit dwellings where appropriate
to increase density in existing
neighborhoods and to take advantage of
existing infrastructure. So that's
reflecting the fact that the town plan
outlines the fact that uh seeking uh
improvements or increases in density
where appropriate is in line with the
town's overarching goals to ensure
efficient and effective use of
infrastructure which ultimately keeps
the cost of operating the town um more
feasible. Policy 2.9 is that multi-unit
dwellings shall be dispersed throughout
the community and not segregated to an
individual area or areas. So the idea
behind policy 2.9 is that we're supposed
to be seeking growth of multi-unit
development uh in all areas uh or sort
of throughout the community where that
would necessarily not be the case would
be where there are area structure plans
because area structure plans so for
example in the Cottonwood community
would divide or decide provide more
specific uh reference in terms of where
things are going to go uh those
unplanned areas or those areas which are
governed by the town plan would be
expected to meet uh this particular
metric.
Policy 2.10, multi-unit dwellings shall
be encouraged to locate in the following
places. Uh where possible within 400
meters walking radius to downtown to
parks, to trail systems, and to schools
and ideally on corner lots whenever
possible.
Policy 2.13 to ensure residential
density targets are achieved by the
development of a diversity of dwelling
styles in neighborhoods including single
detached dwellings, row housing,
secondary suites, and apartment
buildings. Policy 2.19, the
diversification of the town's housing
stock shall take place through an
increase in various types of multi-unit
and non-s single detached housing that
supports a variety of lifestyle and
tenure options.
With respect to engagement uh with the
bylaw, notice of the bylaw and public
hearing was circulated to surrounding
property owners in accordance with the
requirements of the land use bylaw was
also advertised in the Sunny South news
for a period of two weeks and was posted
on the town's uh online engagement
platform. Uh as we have received 200
submissions received via email which
were included in council's agenda
package. who provided an additional uh
email here at the start of the hearing.
Uh in addition to that, three additional
emails were sent after the publication
of the agenda, but were emailed to
council separately. Uh a map is included
in the agenda package that shows the
general location of where the letters uh
that we've received were sent, noting
that 137 of those letters were submitted
from individual locations. Uh in 24
instances we received two letters and in
five instances three letters uh from
existing properties.
Council should hear from any person uh
group of persons or persons representing
themselves who claim to be affected by
the proposed bylaw or resolution. And
it's really up to the individuals to
determine uh whether they are whether or
not they are impacted uh by the by this
particular bylaw. And after considering
the representations made to it about the
proposed bylaw or resolution at the
hearing and after considering any other
matter it considers appropriate council
the opportunity at that point to either
pass the bylaw uh or defeat the bylaw uh
at that time. So we'll consider the
bylaw itself later in the meeting. Uh
that takes place after the public
hearing is closed.
So, with respect to the applicant's
proposal, and I'm going to give the
applicant the opportunity to describe
things in more detail, but I'll just
provide a bit of an overview. Uh, the
applicant, VW Holdings, uh, are owners
with a long-term interest in Coldale and
this area specifically. Uh, so the We
and Visers. Uh, the owners are currently
operate a 7 unit, uh, rental building,
which is approximately two blocks away
located on 1303 22nd Avenue. Uh their
proposal as submitted was an 8 unit uh
eight units of of two-bedroom
multifamily rental building and that was
to be located on uh the double lot. The
site area included a 14,000 square ft
building uh which would have covered
32.7% of the property which is
substantially below the 80% property
coverage requirement. Um the parking
would have been with uh nine off-
streetet stalls which would have
included one barrierfree uh parking
stall uh as well as there is seven on
street parking stalls available. Uh that
would have included new sidewalk
landscaping and a screened waste
enclosure uh as per their proposal.
The applicant uh in their letter of
support uh included as part of their
application notes that the project re is
responsible infill that makes an
efficient use of an underutilized
already serviced lot. Positioned uh by
this is positioned by the applicant as
consistent with town plan objectives
using existing service land and
diversifying housing options beyond
single detached [clears throat]
dwellings. Uh, it is intended for the
applicant to serve local rental demand
from single people living on fixed
incomes, young couples starting out, and
small or younger families working
towards their next housing step. And the
owners state that they intend to retain
ownership and manage the building
long-term and to engage directly with
neighboring residents, which did in fact
occur. We'll note that the initial
proposal was heard on May 19th. Um, so
obviously significant delay between May
19th and now. that was at the
applicant's assistant insistence.
Typically, we would have a public
hearing three weeks after the initial
bylaw. Uh the applicants in this case
wanted to take the time to have the
opportunity to speak to the community
before the public hearing occurred. Uh
and they they did in fact take the
opportunity to do so. So, following
that, uh the applicant has provided uh a
revised response. So, uh, following
their own engagement with neighbors over
the two-month period, uh, the applicants
submitted a revised concept, uh, later
in June 2026, they have reduced the
proposal from eight units to six uh, and
have added additional on-site parking.
So, 12star stalls are accommodated on
site uh, utilizing on street parking to
meet uh, full parking requirements. They
are adding uh proposing to add 10 new
Brandon cedar trees along the east side
of the property to provide a buffer uh
for privacy consideration to the
adjacent property there. They're also
proposing to shift the building uh
further to the west to create a further
separation from the one uh neighboring
property to the east.
uh and they note that under the existing
R1A zoning uh the two lots could
accommodate two semi- detached units
either in the form of duplexes or suited
single family uses. Uh and so they would
note that the proposal fundamentally
changes the density proposal uh of the
lots from an existing allowance of four
units up to uh six.
So again, the revised concept is a
six-unit town home building on the same
double lot looking at a building area of
approximately 24.5%.
So a reduction in building area from
32.7% to 24.5
an increase in the proposed park parking
stalls to 12 stalls. So this is meets
the 1.5 stalls per unit plus.5 stalls
per unit visitor requirement and that
includes barrierfree parking. Um and
again providing for that require that
additional uh cedar planting for the
tree buffer and the revised building
setback as shown uh in the rendering
provided by the applicant here.
So that concludes administration's
presentation on the matter. I'm happy to
answer any of council's questions and
I'll also remain uh at the table if
there's additional questions for
administration during uh other portions
of the public hearing.
>> Thank you. And just before I open it up
to members of council for questions,
comments, I'll ask the applicant if they
want to come up and do you have anything
to add? When you sit down, just turn on
your microphone and state your name and
address, please.
Uh my name is Kelly Wyers. Uh the
address is 2015 21st Street here in
Cold. Um
Cam did a great job of sharing all the
information I was hoping for. Um I just
have this to speak. So is this my time
to speak? Is that fair? Okay. So thank
you Mr. Mayor and council for letting us
present today. Um, thank you as well to
the gallery, to the neighbors, and
everyone that's been involved in this
process. We truly appreciate the
opportunity to be here. Even though
there may be different perspectives on
this application, we do appreciate the
feedback we've received in the process
that has brought us here today. I want
to begin by acknowledging that this is
the second time we have come before
council with the resoning application
for a multif family build. It has been a
couple years since our first application
and this is the time and this time we
are approaching the process differently.
The first time we did not fully
understand what it takes to navigate a
process like this and looking back there
are things that we could have done
better. So the question is why are we
trying again? For us it comes down to
our why. My partner Lauren Viser and
myself we came together in 2020 and
purchased a seven unit apartment
building on the corner of 13th Avenue
and 22nd Street. Um, we did that for a
number of reasons, but two of the
biggest ones was we love Coldtown and we
wanted to invest in a town together. Um,
real estate was one of the ways we felt
we could do that and it was something we
were both passionate about and we had
each been involved um, in real estate
personally um, but together decided to
pursue it more intentionally.
We have been managing that building now
for over the past six years. have truly
loved the work of caring for the
property, working with the tenants,
helping provide good homes for people
that need them. As we operated that
building, we found we saw firsthand how
significant the need for housing was.
Every time we would advertise for
vacancy, we'd end up with a waiting
list. We looked at other existing
buildings here in town and um that we
could possibly buy and continue
operating the same way, but there was
just not available. They were full.
Vacancy was effectively a zero rate. It
also did not solve um the overarching
problem of Coldell needing more rental
units. So we began asking a question, a
different question. What if we could not
buy could we build? That led us to the
purchase of these this lot on the corner
of 16th Street and 21st A and to explore
the possibility of building something
similar to what we already operate
successfully less than two blocks away.
When we first applied about two and a
half years ago, we believed that we had
a proposal that aligned with a number of
the town's planning goals. We consulted
with the town, reviewed with the town
plan, understood that this is a way to
support multif family housing, make use
of existing infrastructure, and add
housing within the established community
rather than only on the outskirts of
town. But although we believed in the
project, we did not handle the process
as well as we could have. In particular,
we did not do enough engagement with the
neighbors early on. um to explain our
intentions clearly or to fully
understand the concerns and perspectives
around us. Uh that was a shortcuting
coming on our part and we recognize that
this is one of the main reasons why
we're here. Again, we are here because
our reasons for wanting to do this have
not changed. We still see a need for
housing. We still believe this is a kind
of project that serves a specific and
important purpose and we still want to
invest in this community that we have
lived in and served in for more than 20
years. This is the town where we have
raised our family. It's a town that we
care about and we want to be part of its
growth in a way that is responsible and
beneficial. At the same time, we are
here with a different repo approach. We
have tried to listen more carefully, to
think more carefully, and to come back
not only more clearly but more
authentically.
We understand that council has a
difficult decision to make. We
understand in light of the concerns that
have been raised by the neighbors, we
have heard those concerns, some which we
believe we can mitigate um and some that
we will not be able to. Um in response,
we have made, as Cam showed, we have
made some changes to our proposal, most
notably the reduction from six 8 to six
units. Um,
our goal has been to find a better
balance to respond where we can to the
concerns that have been raised while
still allowing this lot to meet a real
need housing need and serve the a
practical purpose for the community. We
recognize that this is a small project
and we also recognize that there are
other developments now taking place in
cold alle particularly on the outskirts
of town. Um, but we still believe that
this project fills a specific niche. The
cost of living is increasing
significantly. One of Lauren and my
priorities has always been to keep rents
as affordable as possible while still
operating responsibly. Our goal is to
not create low-income housing project.
Our goal is to provide affordable
renting suites that that can give people
a starting point, a place where someone
with a single income can still afford to
live, gain stability and move forward.
That is the model that we have tried to
follow um in our current unit and what
we are hoping to do the same uh with
this project. Our present building
provides for that. Uh four of our seven
units um are homes to single ladies. Um
two are occupied by young couples and
one is a middle-aged couple looking to
downsize in preparation for retirement.
But as stated earlier, Coldale has a
need for this kind of housing. we would
like to provide it. Um, in closing, this
application is more about reszoning the
property. For us, it is about responding
to a real housing need in a town that we
care deeply about. We know we did not
approach a process well, uh, as we could
have the first time. That is why we're
here again with a better understanding,
a revised proposal, and a sincere desire
to contribute positively to Coldale. So,
thank you for your time, your
consideration, and the opportunity to
present today. Uh, thank you.
>> Thank you. And just in case we have a
question for you, just maybe stay at the
desk. So I'll open it up to members of
council questions, comments for either
the presenter or the applicant.
» Deputy Mayor Beakman.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I'll I'll get the I'll
get this started here. My question uh
through to Cam is more about the appeals
process. Now, under section 685 of the
municipal government act, any person
affected by a decision of a development
authority, which standardly can include
neighboring property owners, um can
appeal the approval or conditions of a
development permit to the subdivision
and development appeal board. Now, under
direct control,
uh correct me if I'm wrong, but that uh
that mechanism is no longer available to
the residents. Correct.
>> Uh that's correct. And so the the
trade-off is really fundamentally one of
where um you know the opportunity to
take obviously an issue which is far
more detailed a level of discussion than
typically would be seen at the council
level um is you know provided that
opportunity provide for the opportunity
for a public hearing all the rest of
that. Uh but the downside to direct
control certainly is that because it is
the decision of council rather than the
decision of uh municipal planning
commission the opportunity for the
subdivision of appeal board to
reconsider the application does not
exist. Thank you for that.
» Thank you. Further questions, comments,
councelor Chapman.
>> Yeah, thank you, Mayor, and uh through
to Cam, if I may. Two questions. Number
one, uh in your package or in the
correspondence that was received by um
by your administration, was there any uh
any letters or any correspondence that
were in favor of the application?
Thank you for the question. Uh not that
I recall. Um which is not I will say uh
not a typical typically um you know I've
been doing the job for eight years.
Typically when we receive correspondence
it is opposed to applications. So that
is u that is fairly standard I would
say.
>> Thank you. Second question if I mayor uh
through to Cam again. Uh the following
up on Deputy Mayor Beakman's questions
on um direct control. Um I it appears to
me that this mechanism seems to be used
more uh commonly than we ever used to
see it before. And I just say that
mainly because to me direct control
usually is in this case would be used to
almost circumvent uh due process uh
through a normal application process.
And I feel that the merit
of a development should appear as uh
something that would be be used for u
for a development purpose rather than
trying to use another another mechanism
to identify an idea that really wouldn't
uh fit the the normal process.
>> Yeah, thank you for the question. Um I I
would say you know speaking from my
professional experience I I do disagree
uh with your assessment of of the idea
of this being uh circumventing the
process. This is part of the process.
includes the
opportunity to consider things uh for
direct control. The reason uh direct
control is being pursued here uh
fundamentally is because um the town of
Coldell's land use by it's almost 30
years old um and we fundamentally have
one zoning uh R2 which governs all forms
of multif family development and and in
many instances that's okay. So in areas
where we have area structure plans for
example, area structure plans might
provide uh a limit on uh what type of of
use within an R2 zoning can exist. But
in the case where you don't have uh an
area structure plan to provide
governance, um the direct control
provides us with an opportunity to look
at a proposal like this one which is
really um from from the perspective of
multif family relatively insignificant.
And the reason I say that is that
there's a significant difference between
a sixunit or an 8unit building and a 42
unit high-rise building, right? Um,
which is theoretically possible on any
R2 zoning lot. And so the reason for
consideration here is to say yes, the
applicant is saying yes, we are trying
to provide for multif family which is in
increase in density relative to the
neighborhood but only in a very limited
way. And so the intention of doing DC
rather than R2 is to provide should it
be accepted surrounding land owner
certainty that while the density is in
fact increasing it's increasing exactly
in the way that is being proposed uh
without the opportunity for the
developer to come back and say oh I've
come up with another idea which does fit
the R2 criteria and therefore really
should be approved. So, it provides a
level of certainty and a level of
security at council's mind that if you
do make the admittedly difficult
decision uh to move forward with the
zoning that you have some certainty that
it's not going to extend beyond what was
discussed at this meeting.
» Councelor Avery. Thank you, Mayor. Just
a follow up to councelor Chapman's
comment then. Um, so wouldn't it have
been more appropriate then to have this
come across as two separate a zoning
application and then approving that and
then further down the road a development
application rather than moshing them all
into one and confusing the process. And
hence why councelor Chapman and myself
thought this is a way of circumventing
the process because we've mushed it all
together rather than separating direct
control zoning and then a development
permit.
>> Thank you for the question. Um so in my
eight years of presenting to council um
having done uh probably a dozen direct
control hearings, I've never had that
question. uh it's never been raised and
in every instance we have done both uh
the development permit and the the
zoning together. Uh the reason for that
is fundamentally that if the direct
control zoning uh is approved with the
proposal as it is being presented, it's
hard to imagine if a zoning is approved
and the application comes in in line
with exactly what was approved at the
zoning um that we would make a different
decision on the development permit
stage. Um, also that keeps in line with
Colale's general uh preference for
efficient government and providing for
an efficient uh opportunity in which to
do business. So to take a developer if
we have two separate processes that
fundamentally discuss exactly the same
thing and we stretch that out over a
period of several additional months. Uh
that's expensive and it isn't in line
with our philosophy of being uh
efficient and open uh and business-like.
Thank you.
So, just a question. You mentioned it
earlier that uh another use for the land
would be putting a duplex on each one of
the lots and then just for the sake of
everyone that's here, um what's the
opportunity to have them sweeted as well
on the basement if they're a duplex?
>> Thank you. So, we do not allow the
sweeting of duplexes. And so what I'm
suggesting is that potentially the
applicant could provide a plan with
duplexes on the existing lots or
alternatively single family homes which
could then be sweeted. Either way the
total unit density uh would be four on
these existing two lots.
>> Thank you. Any further questions,
comments?
Okay. Thank you, Kelly. And then we're
going to open it up to the people that
signed up. And the first person I'm
gonna ask up is Adam Parker.
And Adam, just as a reminder, I'm going
to uh five minutes for your
presentation.
>> I do request additional time. I'd like
to take Naomi's time from that list. Is
that possible?
>> Naomi won't be speaking tonight.
>> Five minutes.
Good evening, Mayor Van Ryan, members of
council. My name is Adam Parker. I'm
longtime resident of Pdale and I live at
1507 21st Avenue next to the property
that is being discussed tonight. I'm
respectfully asking council to reject
the application to reszone 1511 21st
Avenue from residential R1 to direct
control. I want to begin by making
something clear. I'm not opposed to
growth. I understand needs different
housing options. I understand that
rental is part of it. I also want to
respect applicants's right to bring the
proposal forward. However, the question
before council is whether is not weather
killed on needs housing. The question is
whether the particular R1A property in
this established residential
neighborhood should be removed from the
existing zoning and place under direct
control to allow for a six-unit
development. The surrounding
neighborhood is predominantly made up of
lowdensity single family homes. A multif
family development that already exists
nearby was planned as part of the
neighborhood from the beginning.
residents could see those developments,
understand the land use patterns, and
make informed decisions before
purchasing their homes. This proposal is
different. This is a one-off request to
change the zoning on individual R1A
property because the development being
proposed is not allowed under existing
zoning. The applicant has reduced the
proposal from 8 units to six. They have
added trees, maintained parking, moved
the building further away from
neighboring property. Those efforts can
be acknowledged, but reducing the
element from 8 to six does not resolve
the fundamental problem.
It remains a multif family development
to be inserted into established R1A
neighborhood. It remains more intensive
than what is currently zoned for and
intended accommodations.
Landscaping may provide screening, but
trees do not create parking spaces.
Moving the building does not eliminate
additional traffic, noise, loss of
privacy experienced by the neighbors.
Cold already has residential zoning
districts designed for multif family
developments. Direct control should not
become a convenient compromise for when
the existing zoning does not permit the
development and an applicant's prefers.
Direct control is supposed to be an
exceptional in an intended for
situations where the greater where the
regular land use districts are
inadequate and where the greater public
interest has been clearly demonstrated.
So I believe council must ask two
important questions. What is exceptional
about this property and what is the
greater public interest being served by
reszoning it? The property was
previously considered for multif family
zoning in 2023. The application was
rejected by this council in a vote of 5
to2. That decision matters. The property
has not moved. The surrounding R1A
neighborhood has not changed. The lack
of area structure plan has not changed.
The concerns about parking traffic
density, privacy, neighborhood
compatibility have not disappeared. What
has changed? proposal has been reduced
to six units and requested zoning has
changed to direct control. Direct
control should not be used to find
another route around previous decision
simply because preferred development
cannot proceed under the established
zoning. There's also issue of parking.
Under the normal parking standards
contain the land use bylaw. The 16
development will require significantly
more parking than what is being
proposed. When adequate parking is not
provided, the vehicles do not disappear.
They move onto the street. that reflects
snow removal, traffic, movement,
visibility, emergency access, and daily
lives of people already living in the
neighborhood. Council should also
carefully consider what direct control
means for residents. Future development
permit decisions within direct control
district may not have the same
independent appeal process available
through the subdivision and development
appeals board. This is not simply a
decision about one building. is a change
to the regulatory system governing the
property and may remove an important
level of protection for surrounding
residents. The community response to
this has been clear. Approximately 200
letters of opposition were submitted.
Opposition has come from residents
throughout Coldell, not only from the
immediate neighbors. Signs been placed
on lawns across the community. Two
former members of town council have also
submitted letters opposing this
resoning. This is not a small group of
people who are afraid of change. is a
broad community response from residents
who understand that this decision could
reach far beyond one property. Approving
this application may not create a
legally binding president, but it will
create a planning president. The next
applicant will simply point to this
decision and ask why another R1A
property cannot be treated differently.
Families make the largest investment of
their lives when they purchase a home.
They look at the streets, the
surrounding properties, the traffic, the
lots, the zoning, and they make that
investment with a reasonable
expectation. The basic character of the
neighborhood will be respected. Zoning
should not be untouchable, and
communities should evolve, but spot
reszoning in an established neighborhood
should require compelling and clearly
demonstrated public benefit.
Cola already has hundreds of rental
properties in new developments where
density, roads, parking, service,
housing types were planned together from
the beginning. We can't support housing
without placing established
neighborhoods under constant pressure
from individual reszoning applications.
Council can support growth and still
protect neighborhoods. Council can
support responsible info while insisting
that remain compatible with the
surrounding area. Council can respect
the applicants and their efforts while
still deciding that drug control is not
appropriate for this property. Tonight,
I respectfully ask council to listen to
those residents who wrote letters
intended this hearing and place signs in
their lawn. Please retain the existing
R1A zoning and vote no to the second and
third reading of bylaw 940-P5-26.
Growth matters, but doing so planning
certainty, neighborhood character,
homeowners investment, and the trust
that people have chosen to build with
their lives in Pell must remain
important. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And Adam, I omitted
» And Adam, I omitted to ask you at the
beginning your civic address and just
for the public record, you're located
directly east of this property that's u
being applied for 1507 21st Avenue. I'm
directly east of it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Naomi, did you have anything you wanted
to follow up with?
» Um, good evening. My name is Naomi.
Sorry, I got really nervous. Um, I think
what I would like to add to
>> Would you like some water or you have
water? We can catch up.
>> No, I'm No, I'm good. Um, so my name is
Naomi Foxhall. I live in 150721st.
um have with Adam Parker. I am also in a
post. Um one thing that I want to
acknowledge
is I went around and talked to many many
um residents not just in my area but
throughout Coolell. And the one message
that came up over and over again was
they bought in Coldell for this small
town Coldell feel neighborhood. And I
think that balancing growth with keeping
to Coldell's um charm and and community
can be hard, but we there can be a
balance. And that's by
having our original community, our
original neighborhoods,
not
become what's happening in Calgary or
Edmonton where any house that is
purchased or landfill um all of a sudden
becomes an 8 plex, a 12plex um
overshadowing what the communities or
the neighborhoods have built. Um, and
that message came up over and over again
that people like living in Coldell. They
like it because it's a small town
feeling. They like it because there's
charm. And when they buy into their into
the neighborhoods, they know what
they're getting. And I'm
worry about um the loss of trust. So
when
people build or people build houses or
move into neighborhoods
with the understanding that they're
moving into a certain zoning for that to
change that does actually create
instability
and loss of trust. And so I think it's
really important to recognize these
original neighborhoods and um
actually honor what we have. Um I do
appreciate the developers
um
changes that he's made. Um and I'm not
opposed to growth. I just think that
when we we when we start planning um the
where is also as important as
you know we want more low density or
higher density places but where is
important and looking at our community
and our neighborhoods and what's
charming about cold is some of these old
districts or neighborhoods. So Thank you.
» Lauren, did you have anything you wanted
to say? If you could state your name and
address, please.
>> Yes, my name is Lauren Diser. I live at
107 Fairway Drive. I am a co-licant with
Kelly and uh I basically don't want to
reiterate what everything's been said by Cam or by Kelly, but I do want to
somewhat address the fears, concerns of
my fellow neighbors. We have a great
community,
a community that I want to share with
other people. And as a landlord, I have
come across some fantastic people who
would really like to move into this
community. Uh my solution, our solution
is to propose this sixplex. Uh very
excited about it. Um I do want to
address the issue of direct control.
This was in no means a method of
circumventing the process.
This was actually a method we thought
would be more transparent to our
neighbors. As you heard earlier,
applying for a zone uh R2 zoning leaves
that property open to many types of
developments and we heard that the last
time we did this. So we thought no, we
are going to go to direct control. This
is what we are offering. This is not a
bait and switch.
We think this unit would be perfect for
this lot price-wise,
sizewise.
the facts of all presented by your town
counsel by your town administrator. So,
I'm not going to rehash those. But the
direct control concerns, no. And to our
neighbors, I applaud them for their
rallying together versus one for one
point and making a point of that they
say no and I respect that. I am
obviously on the other side of the page
on that and I respectfully disagree with
them. I am hoping there's some way that
we can alleviate their concerns
and prove to them that Coldale, that
neighborhood that we live in, is a great
community to share with more people.
» Thank you.
Next,
Mike
I can't read the writing on this one
here.
>> Sorum
civic address is 218 16th Street.
» Okay.
Thank you. And then Cal,
civic address 2011 16th Street.
Okay,
he doesn't need to speak. And then we
have civic address 211698
Street. Phil,
I don't see anybody stepping up for that
one. And finally, we have Jacob Clawson.
Jacob, are you in attendance? Want to
speak?
I take that as a no.
Okay, thank you.
So, that concludes everybody on the list
that signed up to speak.
So, I'll open it up one more time to
members of council if they have any
questions, comments.
So seeing none, I will now ask council
if they have sufficient information to
make a decision on land use bylaw
amendment 940-P5-26
regarding reszoning from residential 1
R18 to direct control.
I will close the public hearing at 5:52
p.m.
For all our guests this evening, this is
going to be coming up further down the
agenda. You're welcome to stay for it.
It'll be agenda item 7.1,
I believe. Yes, 7.1. So, you're welcome
to stay for that.
Thank you to everyone that participated
in the public hearing. Moving on to
business arising from the minutes, we
have agenda item 6.1 regarding the
downtown area redevelopment plan um
engagement update and we have our senior
planner Crystal Shike presenting.
Crystal, whenever you're ready.
here today providing a bit more of an
update on our phase two of the
engagement uh for the downtown ARP.
Spencer Croy is away on holidays, so I'm
filling in in his place and this is a
bit more of an update from the previous
update he provided to council last
month.
So, the uh update that we're going to be
focusing on with this report was the
kind of results of the survey that was
done for the downtown ARP.
And some past highlights, uh the last
phase 2 engagement only included the
results of in-person activities. And now
that phase 2 survey has closed, this
highlights detailed information and
findings which are in the engagement
update.
As noted in the attached report, the
survey was advertised thoroughly,
including two weeks in the newspaper,
four weeks on the town's socials running
every other day, two weeks of aboard
signs on the corner of 20th, 19th and
20th and 18th. There were more than 200
postcards with QR codes handd delivered
to residents in the study area.
Postcards were dropped off at the
downtown businesses. Paper copies of the
surveys delivered to Sunny cells Lodge
and the senior center and paper copies
were available at the town office and
library.
So the soft goal for the survey
responses was 300 completed submissions.
Once the survey closed, 267
surveys had been received and there are
likely a handful of paper copies that
will trickle in over the next several
weeks. And with those added, ultimately
we are within that 10% um of the
response target considering that another
100 to 120 points of feedback were
recorded through the in-person events
and activities through the first part of
phase two. So we can consider that a
success for the engagement uh for the
downtown ARP for phase two. One of the
main objectives of the most recent
survey was to validate the ideas,
concepts, and proposals that came out of
the in-person activities carried out
earlier in phase 2 engagement. 39 of the
surveys, 59 questions were designed to
be directly comparable to the ideas,
concepts, and proposals from the
inperson engagement activities held
earlier this year. 35 of the 39 survey
questions showed either strong alignment
with the outcomes from the in-person
feedback or an increase in positive
sentiment as compared to the in-person
feedback. This is reassuring from a
validation perspective. So, as we
conclude phase two of the engagement for
the downtown ARP,
uh we are beginning to draft the uh
downtown plan
and the first iteration of the plan
should be ready for council, community,
and the project [clears throat] partner
review by the end of Q3.
So, based on what was attached uh to the
agenda packet, does council have any
questions or would they like to uh dive
deeper into any one particular page of
the update?
>> Thank you. I'll open up members of
council questions, comments.
» Seeing none,
could I get someone to entertain that
Council received this report in downtown
ARP phase 2 engagement update for
information. Council Chapen makes that
motion. I'll call for the vote.
And that is carried. Thank you, Crystal.
Moving down to agenda item 6.2, to the
20th Avenue and 8th Street four-way
stop. And we have our director of
infrastructure, Dustin Yankee,
presenting. Dustin, whenever you're
ready.
» Good evening, Mayor and Council.
The objective of this report is to seek
council's formal approval to install a
four-way stop at the intersection of
20th Avenue and 8th Street following the
recommendation made at the July 6th,
2026 May the whole meeting.
In that meeting, administration
presented a report reviewing options to
address informal pedestrian crossings of
8th Street between 20th Avenue and the
RCMP station. Committee endorsed the
installation of a four-way stop at the
intersection of 8th Street and 20th
Avenue and requested that administration
bring forward proposals for a midblock
crossing along 8th Street as well as
paving of shale pathways in the vicinity
of East View Park during this fall's
capital budget deliberations.
Terms of financial impacts, uh, new
signage would be handled through
existing operating budgets. So, there's
no request for budget.
And I have two options here for council.
Number one being the council direct
administration to install a four-way
stop at the intersection of 20th a and 8
street or to table this item pending the
receipt of further information. Happy to
answer any questions from council.
>> Thank you. Questions, comments?
Councelor Chapen.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Dustin, for
bringing this forward. Um, speaking in
support. Uh my only question to you is
uh how much information does Alberta
Transportation need to know about this
or is this mainly a municipal
um issue for us?
>> We can handle this internally. There's
no need to engage with Alberta
Transportation.
>> Okay. Thank you. And so that means that
845
and Highway 3 uh will stay the same and
uh not they don't need to be informed
about our our other changes. Yeah, this
is just for changing the signage at that
one intersection. So, we're just adding
the two stop signs.
>> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.
» Thank you. Any further questions,
comments?
Seeing none, our decision options that
council direct administration to install
a four-way stop at the intersection of
20th Avenue and 8th Street. or option
two that council table this item pending
the receipt of further information.
Anybody care to sponsor one of those?
Councelor Pickering beat you to the
punch here. Councelor Pickering, what
would you like?
>> Turn your microphone on and state that,
please.
» I would like to have option one
approved. There's a motion on the floor
by councelor Pickering that councelor
direct administration to install a
four-way stop at the intersection of
20th AB and 8th Street. I'll call for
the vote
and that is carried.
Thank you Dustin.
Moving on to agenda item 7.1.
We have the land use bylaw amendment
again regarding amendment 940-P5-26
regarding resoning
um plan 6476
block 20 lot 5 and 6 civic address 1511
and 21st Avenue from residential R1A to
direct control uh regarding second and
third reading and again we have our
director growth and investment and
deputy CEO Cameron Mills presenting.
Cam, is there any followup information
to the public hearing information you
presented? Uh, thank you, Bear Van Ryan.
Uh, no, I believe we had the opportunity
to address the issue appropriately at
the public hearing. Uh obviously we had
some um questions from council that we
had the opportunity to address and
between additional information raised
from the uh public participating in the
process as well as the proponent
administration's position is that
sufficient information exists in order
for council to make an appropriate
decision.
>> Thank you.
Any questions, comments from council to
our presenter?
So before us we have um
second and third reading. So for our
guests
we need to pass second reading and then
we will move forward to third and final
reading and if the second reading is not
passed then the proposal is uh defeated.
So I'll ask one more time questions
comments from members of council.
Seeing none, I'm looking to for someone
to sponsor that council approve second
reading of land use bylaw amendment
940-P5-26.
» Excuse me. Isn't there two options here
where you can deny the second and third
reading right off the start?
So
now we're going to go with each reading
individually.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Because if second reading isn't passed,
it's defeated regardless. So councelor
Avery makes the motion that council
approve second reading of land use bylaw
amendment 940-P5-26
as presented.
I see no more questions, comments. I'll
call for the vote.
And that is defeated.
[laughter]
Thank you, Cameron. Moving on to
agenda item 7.2, two
traffic control bylaw 945-R7-26
regarding all three readings. And again,
we have our director of infrastructure,
Dustin Yankee, presenting.
» [snorts]
» Thank you, mayor.
The objective of this report is to
present bylaw 945-R7-26,
an amendment to traffic control bylaw
843-R3-22,
reducing the town's unpoled speed limit
from 50 km an hour to 40 km an hour for
council's consideration of first,
second, and third readings following the
recommendation provided at the July 6,
2026 committee. the whole meeting.
At that meeting, administration
presented a report summarizing speed
data collected across Coldell between
2021 and 2026, the collision severity
evidence supporting a reduced speed
default limit and the experience of
other mun Alberta municipalities that
have made the same change. The 2026 data
collection captured over 300,000 vehicle
observations across 16 different uh
study locations with a weighted average
speed of 45.2 km an hour on the roads
that are proposed for change, indicating
that most drivers already travel at or
near the proposed limit.
The committee endorsed bringing forward
the bylaw amendment for council's
consideration at this meeting.
Because 50 km an hour is the statutory
default under the traffic safety act
applying automatically on any road
without a posted limit. The change
requires a bylaw amendment to be
enforceable. Entrance signage alone
cannot displace the statutory liy
default.
this bylaw amendment. Uh we've changed
section three speed limits
uh specifically section uh or clause 3B
I should say with a new clause
establishing a 40 kmter maximum on all
highways under the direction control and
management of the town unless otherwise
posted while preserving the town's
obligation to sign any limits that
differ from the default. The 30
kilometer an hour playground zones, 20
kilometer an hour alley limit and
construction zone provisions remain
unchanged and highway 3 and highway 845
remain under provincial jurisdiction and
are also unaffected.
The bylaw provides for a coming into
forest date of September 1st, 2026,
allowing the legal change, insurance,
signage installation, and public
awareness campaign to land together.
In advance of the go live date,
administration will run a coordinated
public awareness campaign, including
formal media updates, mailouts, and
social media updates, followed by a six
week education focused enforcement uh grace
period. Speed and compliance monitoring
will continue after implementation
through the town's existing program,
informing targeted enforcement and
future traffic coming.
Council may give first and second
readings at this meeting or first,
second, and third at this meeting in
accordance with section 187
um with the third only coming with
unanimous agreement uh of all counselors
present.
And just a note, uh the attached bylaw
here, we are sticking to just uh what's
being discussed tonight. There will be a
more wholesome review occurring later
this year coming from our bylaw
department.
So, if you're noticing other uh clauses
that probably require an update just due
to the age of the the the bylaw, uh we
are looking at bringing out a more
revised update later in the year.
Uh just to jump into
uh our messaging plan. So, if council
does give uh all three readings tonight,
administration will launch a public
communications campaign to inform
residents about the change that would be
coming on September 1st. We would use
six main communication tools, a news
release, dedicated web page and FAQ
section, social media, newspaper
advertising, billboards, as well as a
blanket mail. The key message being that
starting September 1st, 2026, Kola's
default unposted speed limit will be 40
km an hour. The change only applies to
roads where no speed limit is posted and
excludes Highway 3 and Highway 845.
Roads with posted speed limit signs will
continue to follow the posted limit.
Uh here a bit more detail uh in terms of
dates. Um so starting uh effectively
later this week we would do a news
release uh followed by a web page and
FAQ and then follow uh following that
would be social media updates. We would
look at running two ads in the Sunny
South newspaper, a billboard placed on
Highway 3 and 845 to notify residents as
well as non-residents,
as well as a blanket mail out
approximately two weeks before September
1st with a QR code that would link uh
residents to further information on the
web page.
So for council, there are three options
here. Um not going to read through all
them but essentially option one would be
to give all three readings. Uh option
two give first and second and defer the
third reading to a subsequent council
meeting and option three would be to
table the item and happy to answer any
questions council may have.
>> Thank you. I'll open up members of
council questions comments.
Councelor Ree
Thank you, Mayor Van, and through to
Dustin. Thank you for your report. So,
the two main problem areas that we had
originally were on 16th Avenue and 845.
And so, I remember back when this first
came to council that we were told we
were unable to just kind of make one
street 40 as opposed to just doing a
blanket of the entire town. So my
question is um since we had municipal
enforcement out in the roads has the
speeding reduced on the 845 and I mean
16 is under construction right now but
have you noticed a reduction in it?
[clears throat]
>> I can't speak for uh our bylaw
department directly. Um I think it'd be
a little hard to gauge just for the the
short amount of time that they have been
in force. Um I would say in probably
five six months time that we could chat
with the the B department to give an
update on what the the new data looks
like because we still will continue to
collect data with our traffic analyzers.
So um I think it's the short answer is
it's probably too soon to tell but I
would presume even anecdotally I've
heard that there has been a noticeable
presence in the community. So I think
there would be um it will aid in the
future. I think it just takes a bit of
time to see it in the data.
» Councelor Chapman, thank you, Mayor. Uh
thank you, Dustin, uh for bringing this
forward and uh I
experiencing trying to drive down 40
kilometers an hour down the east half of
Main Street is is something I'm going to
have to redisipline myself to. So, uh
that's something that most people are uh
will be interested in. And I think that
uh the general public and from my
perspective have really indicated to me
that they're in general support uh of
this move forward. So um I'm happy to
give first reading to this. Uh the only
question I do have for you is 8:45
and sometime in the future I'd
appreciate having administration come
back and identify for councel again once
again about the uh playground zone uh on
that stretch uh by the John Davidson
school and how we want to address that.
But I'll move for first reading.
>> Thank you. Any further questions,
comments?
There's a motion on the floor by
councelor Chapman that council approve
first reading of traffic control bylaw
945-R07-26.
I'll call for the vote
[snorts]
and that is carried.
Moving on to
second reading. Is there anybody that
wishes to uh make that motion? Council
Avery put his hand up. So there's a
motion on the floor that council that
council approved second reading of
traffic control bylaw 945-R7-26.
Seeing no more questions, comments, I'll
call for the vote.
And that is carried with councelor
Pickering opposed.
Next, I need someone to sponsor that
council approve unanimous consent to
hold all three readings in one meeting
for traffic control bylaw 945-R7-26.
Councelor Reese will sponsor that one.
Seeing no more questions, comments, I'll
call for the vote.
And that is carried.
And finally, I need someone to sponsor
that council approved third and final
reading of traffic control bylaw
945-R7-26.
Deputy Mayor Beakman makes that motion.
I'll call for the vote.
And that is carried. And just for our
guests,
for the unanimous consent to move
forward, we need all members of council
to vote in favor of that. And councelor
Pickering being a gentleman knows that
uh it would have been carried
regardless. So he voted in favor of the
unanimous consent.
So that is carried.
Moving on to Thank you, Dustin. Moving
on to agenda item 7.3,
we have land use bylaw amendment
944-P6-26
regarding first reading reszoning
highway commercial C2 to direct control
DC regarding unit 3H civic address
60519A
Avenue. And again we have our director
of growth and investment and deputy CEO
Cameron Mills presenting. Cam whenever
you're ready.
Thank you very much. Um yeah so I have
an opportunity to discuss another uh
[laughter] very interesting and
sometimes controversial land use
development matter in this particular
case. Also a reszoning to direct control
uh though for different reasons. So,
land use bylaw amendment 944-P6-26
uh is is being presented to council for
consideration of first reading. And so,
uh the purpose of this bylaw is to
reszone uh one particular unit within a
building uh about to begin construction
uh in order to allow for the
consideration of one particular use. Um,
so in this particular case, the bylaw is
to allow uh for the consideration of
allowing for a cannabis retail facility
uh to be located within a commercial
development currently being proposed uh
in East Coale. As council will recall,
uh direct control zoning is required in
order to consider this particular use.
uh requires direct
control consent and is not allowed uh in
any other form or in any other zoning.
We have considered a number of these uh
types of uh hearings over the years. We
have previously approved a cannabis
retail uh facility uh in downtown
Coldale located uh where previously uh
3G ery was located just uh to the east
and to the north of this building. We've
had other considerations of other sites
um located within uh downtown Coale as
well as we've considered a similar issue
uh for the low for the unit in West
Coale where I believe uh Dominoes is now
uh currently located. And so uh this is
an opportunity uh for us to consider an
application that's before us here and to
consider those particular merits. So uh
the unit 3H uh 60519A Avenue. So that's
a unit again in the commercial
development to be constructed uh in East
Coale. So just directly east uh of the
RCMP station along 19A Avenue. Um the
applicant uh Ken Costello. Um the unit
adjacent units uh in the area are all
going to remain within that C2 zoning.
And we do note that the proposed
location is appropriately set back uh
from parks and playgrounds, hospitals,
other cannabis retail facilities, liquor
stores, and schools uh which are the
requirement of the land use bylaw. Uh
with that said, we do ask that council
provide first reading of the bylaw so
that uh it can be brought to life uh for
consideration at a public hearing uh
down the line. In this particular case,
uh the public hearing would take place
in uh September, which is the next
available council meeting.
Thank you. Councelor Avery has a
question or comment. Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you, Cam. Um, so are we guaranteed
there's no liquor stores going into this
complex because
cannabis stores are direct control where
uh a liquor store is not direct control.
>> Thank you for the question. So we're not
guaranteed and in fact the the reading
of the bylaw is that the the rule uh the
re sorry the rules are unidirectional
right and so the rules have to do with
the sighting of a cannabis retail store
once it is in place it is in place so it
doesn't create uh a buffer where for
example we could not locate a hospital
within 300 meters of it or a liquor
store within 100 meters of it. Um, so
for example, we have a cannabis retail
facility here that's been operating for
a number of years. Once the cannabis
retail store is in place, later we have
a daycare that seeks to operate around
the corner, which is technically within
a 100 meters of it. The fact that the
cannabis retail store is in place does
not uh prevent the uh daycare from
making application to site. However, if
the daycare daycare was there first, it
would be a strong consideration in
considering a new uh cannabis retail
location. So, uh, doesn't prevent a
liquor store from going in later. Uh, at
this time, we don't have any approved
use like that.
» Thank you. Any further questions,
comments for our presenter?
Seeing none, could I get someone to
entertain making a motion that council
approve first reading of land use bylaw
amendment 944-P6-26
and direct administration to schedule a
public hearing for the next available
council meeting. Councelor Ree makes
that motion. I'll call for the vote.
And that is carried with councelor Avery
and councelor Chapman opposed.
Thank you Cameron.
Moving on to new business agenda item
8.1.
We have a request for sponsorship for
Special Olympics charity golf tournament
coming up on September the 18th, 2026.
And we have our municipal clerk Atlanta
speaking to Atlanta whenever you're
ready.
Thank you, mayor, members of council.
The uh organizers of the Special
Olympics Lethbridge has uh approached
the town council requesting sponsorship
for a team in their fundraising golf
tournament to be held at Lando Lakes
Golf Course on Friday, September 18th,
2026. This is the first time that the
event um has been held and funds raised
will be to help support athletes train,
compete, and build confidence through
sport. Um, should council wish to
dedicate funds towards this event, they
do have allocated funds through
council's promotional budget available.
And, uh, a team, a fourperson team in
the Special Olympics golf tournament is
at a cost of $600.
Um, unless council would so choose to
donate otherwise for a
specific denomination. I'm happy to
answer any questions that council may
have.
>> Thank you. I'll open up members of
council questions, comments.
Just a comment maybe to make a note for
u budget deliberations that we should
have a discussion about the sponsorships
because we had another one come in today
that missed the agenda timeline for
another golf tournament. So, uh
something we should take a look at
during budget deliberation. Councelor
Chapman.
>> Thank you, Mayor. um speaking in favor
of of of supporting this. I I believe
that uh a number of our um volunteers in
our community are involved with the
Special Olympics as well as we do have a
number of athletes as well from the
community. So um I do speak in favor of
supporting this and and identifying with
the Special Olympics in this way.
>> So Council Chapen, you would sponsor DEC
decision option one? Yes.
>> Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor
by councelor Chapman that council
approve sponsorship of a fourperson team
in the special Olympics golf tournament
being held on September 18th, 2026 at a
cost of $600.
Saying no more questions, I'll councelor
Sailor.
» Go ahead. Could I um perhaps make a
friendly amendment um that we do
something similar to what we do with Rio
where we would do the $600 team and the
uh $600 sponsorship so that then we
would be a sponsor uh plus enter a team
for the total of 1,200.
Councelor Chapman, would you accept that
friendly amendment?
So there is a friendly amendment and we
will have to do a vote by hand on that
one. Pardon me.
Okay.
So, while our municipal clerk keys that
in, the motion will be that council
approve a sponsorship of a fourperson
team in the Special Olympic golf
tournament held on September 18th, 2026
at a cost of $600 with an additional
$600 uh given as a donation to Special
Olympics.
See no more questions, I'll call for the
vote on that.
And that is carried. Thank you.
Lam. Moving on to council and
committee reports. This uh evening we
have councelor Bill Chapman presenting
on the highway 3 twinning. He has a
verbal update update along with a short
video. Councelor Chapman, whenever
you're ready.
» Thank you, Mayor and uh mayor, members
of council. Uh this is a report on the
highway 320 developments association. We
had our AGM on April 23rd
uh in Taber and our keynote speaker was
lead core road construction.
Uh want to give you an up a current
update of the stage one of the current
twinning project as updated from the
Alberta Transportation and Economic
Corridors. Work on this stage of the
highway involves 20 a 54 km stretch from
Taber to Berdett, including construction
of eight new kilometers of four-lane
divided highway which bypasses Grassy
Lake.
The stage one project includes 11 bridge
side structures, intersection
improvements for acceleration and
deceleration lanes, intersection
widening. We there's uh plans for two
rest pull outs, one westbound and one
eastbound, 10 service roads, and the
Baltwater station in Berdett is being
relocated. Some fast facts for council
uh and our folks online uh is uh we've
got 2.8 cubic 2.8 million cubic meters
of grading work done. uh 1 million tons
of granular base, 475,000
tones of asphalt concrete pavement, 82
new signs, 38 kilometers of right of way
fencing, 30 new street light
installations, and this project is
anticipated to be completed in the fall
of 2026.
The grading part of the highway is uh
91% completed which includes mainline
grading and top soil and seated seating.
Gravel base of is 80% completed. Paving
is 62% complete and utilities are 100%
completed and this includes 19 pipeline
crossings and lowerings completed. 46
kilometers of communications relocations
and 28 kilometers of power relocations
which are completed smids
uh that is 100% complete uh with 11 uh
canal bridge structures completed and 11
pipelines and laterals completed.
Looking ahead over the next month,
grading crews and gravel gravel crews
and paving crews are completing their
various assignments and project work.
Ancillary work to start at the concrete
curb and gutter in c and tab. Uh sign
installations to start in the first half
of the project and due to the heavy and
unsustain and sustained rainfalls,
dewatering and erosion repairs
throughout the project are currently in
progress. Darren Davidson, who is the
south zone director for Alberta
Transportation Economic Corridors, uh,
attends all our meetings and our AGMs
and provides his report to the
membership. At his update, uh, during
his update at the AGM, Darren included
that the intersection here in Coldale at
Highway 45 and Highway 3 will be getting
some traffic light upgrades at the cost
of a million dollars. This project is
expected to commence uh the summer of
26. The association is delighted that
the 2026 provincial capital budget uh
that $172 million was allocated for
commencing sta stage two of the twinning
projects which will be starting in 2027.
Uh the highway 320 twinning development
association has formed a series of
public videos which addresses the
imperative need to twin to continue
twinning. At this time I would like to
show council and those watching online
one of our shorts which illustrates the
value of twinning highway 3.
is more than a road. It's
where we start.
It's how we connect. [music]
And it's something we share every day.
It's how we grow. It's how [music] we
move. And it carries more than we see.
It's the way out. It's the way home. And
it connects all of us. It's where
[music] we reflect.
It's where we slow down. And it deserves
[music] our attention. It's what we're
building,
not just for today, but for years ahead.
[music]
Highway 3 connects everyone in southern
Alberta, and its future [music] depends
on all of us.
Thank you. And councelor Chapman, you'd
be willing to make a motion that council
receive the verbal highway 320 reporters
information.
I'll call for the vote.
And that is carried. So that concludes
the open portion of tonight's meeting.
Thank you for everyone that's here in
attendance. I will require a motion that
council move into close session at 6:30
p.m. in accordance with section 197-4-B
of the Municipal Government Act to
discuss matters exempt from disclosure 4
items 13.1 subject to section 20
disclosure harmful to personal privacy
and section 21 disclosure harmful to
individual or public safety. Item 13.2 2
subject to section 26 disclosure harmful
to intergovernmental relations. Items
13.2 and 13.3 subject to section 29
advice from from officials. And finally,
item 13.3 subject to section 28 local
public body confidences. Who would like
to make that motion?
Councelor Reese makes that motion. I'll
call for the vote.
And that is carried. We shall take a 10m
minute break.