[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.