All right, good afternoon, everyone. I call to order. Committee of council meeting, February
18, 2025. First time is adoption of the agenda with an addition, item 5.1 under 8.1 resolution,
closed section 91A. Move second. All those in favor? Post carried. Confirmation minutes.
Move second. All those in favor? Post carried. On the reports, 4.1 is a development variance
permit for 247 to Chilcot Avenue. Mr. Cluchet. Good afternoon, mayor and council. The applicant
Burkill Development Limited has applied for a development variance permit for a lot at
247 to Chilcot Avenue. There we are. The RS-14 lot is located near the intersection of Chilcot
and Hastings Street. The lot is unusual in that it has experienced a lesser degree
of subdivision than the surrounding properties. So has created a peculiar situation where it
borders both Chilcot Avenue to the north and Ogilvy Crescent to the south, as well as an
unopened portion of Lane off of Hastings Street. So the applicant is proposing a subdivision
that would create three RS-4 lots, two smaller lots off of Hastings, yes, sorry, Chilcot
Street to the north, and then a larger lot that would have frontage off of Ogilvy Crescent,
with vehicular access being to be open Lane off of Hastings Street. So due to the
peculiarity of the existing lot in relation to the surrounding blocks, the Ogilvy Crescent
frontage does not meet the minimum subdivision requirement laid out in the zoning bylaw.
The applicant seeks to vary the minimum 9.5 meter frontage to the 7.62 meters available.
The other lot dimensions for the two lots off of Chilcot would meet the bylaw frontage requirements.
So the applicant is also seeking a variance to the maximum permitted floor area ratio
for lots 1 and 2. This is due to changes to the FAR exclusions for basements following
the June 2024 Bill 44 zoning bylaw amendments. This is because the applicant had an application
in progress at the time and the variance would allow them to utilize a design which falls
under the old RS-4 zoning regulations. A variance is required because there is no statutory
in-stream protection provided for subdivision applications in relation to the adoption
of new bylaws. The request would allow for approximately 56 meters squared of additional
floor area within the basements for both proposed lots 1 and 2.
So staff remember the opinion that the proposed variances would have limited to no impact
to the surrounding lots and will allow for the development of a large, unusual parcel
under its existing RS-4 zoning. Staff support consideration of the FAR variance in this
circumstance due to the relatively quick timeline and lack of consultation opportunities provided
by the province in relation to the adoption of Bill 44 requirements. And staff recommend
that committee recommend to council that approval of the issuance of development variance
permit DVP-00103 be considered. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Pollock.
Thank you. Thanks for your report. I'm generally in favor of this. I think it's a good use
of the lot. It's having the access from both sides. I was looking at the technical drawings
and the landscaping plans and everything. The only concern I have is that with the
narrow access on this, when you got highlighted up there, that little yellow part, firefighting,
garbage, stuff like that, it's all going to be fairly straightforward even though they've
only got that very tiny frontage. The two lots on either side, 3237, 3233.
Through the chair. I don't want to speak for fire, but there would conceivably be access
from both the Ogilvy and the open lane portion if firefighting was required, similar for waste
removal. What is being done is that there would be vehicle access for that lot off
of the lane as that is an unopened portion. So eventually the part that you can kind
of see running down would open onto, I believe that's Osborne to the south. So over time, that
whole lane would be open, but at this point, there would just be that one section off of
Hastings and then there would also be access off of the cul-de-sac too.
Yeah, and that lane is going to be developed as those houses get redeveloped, I assume.
Correct. Okay. All this in every other comments. Thank you.
Councillor Dirling. Sorry, I'm confused now. So there is an access point off of Ogilvy.
In the drawing it says there's not. So there would be access for, say, if someone
were delivering or for firefighting, someone could access through, I suppose it would
be a fence or a gate or something, but driveway access would be off of that lane portion
to the off of Hastings. So I'm not in favour of this at all. I don't know why we
would, I get it's an unopened portion of them, but if you've walked at it, which I just did
on the weekend, it literally is in between two houses and it goes onto a super busy area,
which including a telephone pole right in the middle, we'd have to move the telephone
to begin with. That's one thing. But that lane would, in essence, go right between
two people and dump onto what is already a busy Hastings Street. So I'm not sure
why we would put it to a point where we would access that lane. So I'm not in
favour of this because I think there should be access off of Ogilvy. Because if you
look at the drawing, there was one side of the drawing where it says it would be
a parking space. And so if you remove the parking space to the other side, then
that would open up the access onto Ogilvy. And with the two, and it would only
access one house and a basement suite because the other areas would be on
Chilicot. So those are the access points for the two front houses. So to me, it
doesn't make sense to be putting a lane through in between two houses onto an
area, especially that area of Hastings, which is extremely busy with the Townhouse
Complex right across the street where Metro Ford is and everyone turning down
there. So you'd have to help me with this one because I'm right now not in
favour. Through the chair. So because Hastings is a collector road, in the
future, when the lots that are to the south sort of on Hastings would when
they redevelop their driveways, they will have to have their vehicle
access from the lane in order to not have cars backing out onto what
will likely become a busier street. So as part of that long-term plan to
open the lane from Hastings down to Osborne to the south, this would be
the first portion of that. And then as those lots redevelop, the rest of the
lane would be constructed. But we're talking about it could be 30 years
before that happens. I mean, literally, but what I'm talking about is that if
you want to come straight down, that's one thing. But to cut across
because the lane that's there now, if you're coming to Osborne, to cut
across in between the two houses and go that way, if I'm at 3219 or 3324,
whatever it is, I'm not going to go that way. I'm going to go the other way. So to
me, what I'm my concern is, is that 3350 and 3346 in between those two. To me,
that access point should not be an access road. It should be, it should
come off of Ogilvy instead. So I get what you're saying, but we're talking
about, about here and now. And here and now, I'm not a favor of it. So thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Petru.
Thank you. I had kind of similar thoughts to Councillor Darling, not like
totally against the laneway necessarily, but I feel like it doesn't really make
sense to have a laneway to one, I know, in the future, I understand the
logic, but currently to one property, it kind of almost becomes like a private
laneway in a sense. And I feel like just the way the law is, when you look at
that cul-de-sac on Ogilvy, it feels more natural that it would make more
sense the vehicle access point would be there. And it's a cul-de-sac. So is
there a reason why that wasn't the vehicle access point?
There are two, through the chair, there are two large trees that are just
at the corner there on Ogilvy. So the idea was that if the lane were to be
opened as a result of the subdivision, there would be the added benefit that,
you know, if there wasn't a driveway access off of Ogilvy, that, you know,
we could potentially retain those trees.
I see. Yeah, I feel like I would be more in favor of it if the
vehicle access was off Ogilvy. I just feel like it makes more sense.
Trees are important, but every time we develop a property, trees have to be
down, so we need more housing according to the province.
Yeah, so those are my thoughts. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor Pinner. Thank you.
So just further to that, the recommendation is to open that laneway up.
The developer would be paying for that portion of it, correct?
Correct. If we don't do it, when the rest of those
properties develop, they would have to pay for that, right?
So we're not going to be out any money. Is that correct?
I'm just, I'm just, I'm just trying to get the big picture on why we're
doing this and not coming off of Ogilvy.
Through the chair, just on the focus here, so the two questions that
are directly related to the development variance permit relate to a variance
in lot frontage off of Ogilvy, and the second is relating to the
floor area related to the three houses. Those are the two questions
before committee. Just so we're clear on the ask.
Right. The other discussions that committee members are sharing
with us are actually subject to our subdivision approval officer,
who obviously follows the set plans and such and out of council.
So the conversations that we're hearing are definitely input,
and I'll turn to my, my colleague to see what he wants to say.
We could look at, if I understand correctly, I'm not hearing that
there's an offense to the lane. The idea is, do you hook the lane
instead of the Hastings? Do you hook it out to Ogilvy?
In both cases, we would suggest that the current developer has to
provide the right-of-way. The current developer has to pay for
the cost as part of offsites. The lots further to the south
will eventually redevelop, and when they do, they'll need the
rest of the lane. Those developers will pay for it.
So the short answer, Councillor, is that yes, this developer would
pay for the obligations as part of his offsites. Yes, we could
take that now. And ideally, we have to make sure he has
adequate access in order for the subdivision to occur.
But some of the decisions of whether or not we hook this to
the right or hook this to the left, we could look at during
the subdivision process. Mr. Frederick, am I off base?
So the Chair, I would concur with Bruce's comments. We could
secure the lane off of Ogilvy for now, but in the future, I
think it does set up for ripe potential for that. All the
remaining lots on the south to be able to open the lane, I
think it also improves fire access in the future and
additional infrastructure that needs to go in in the future.
And it is always our intent to remove driveways off of
Collector Streets to make it safe for the residents.
No, and there's already a lane there. And that all makes
sense. I don't disagree with that. And it's, you know, I
guess it's the here and now. You know, if those homes that
are there that have that lane there now, and that whole
area is not being changed for another decade, like do we
have, is there anything percolating that things
are going to change in the next little bit? Or are we
I think staff would be reaching to give you an answer to
that. Okay, so, so given that it just, I mean, it just seems
that it makes more sense to have that that lot that that one
that's fronting Ogilvy to that's where that access
would be. And I know that's not what our discussion is, but
it has everything to do with this. So I so that's kind of
where I'm coming from on that. I'll leave it at that. Okay,
thank you. Can Sir Petru. Thank you. Okay, I need to
clarify. So are you saying the laneway that's coming off
Hastings would go all the way through to Ogilvy as an
alternative? Okay, so like that wasn't what I was
thinking, which leads me to another question, which is
maybe gets to more to the root of the problem. If it wasn't a
laneway, if it was just off of the cul-de-sac as it is now, is
that enough frontage there for vehicle access without putting
adding a laneway, like pushing the laneway all the way
through? Apologies to clarify. If I actually understand
the network currently the lane configuration is that L
hockey stick curve just to Hastings. This would be an
access in from Hastings to Ogilvy. There isn't
currently the intention that it would extend through to
Ogilvy. Your frontage issue here is that that bottom corner
when we are there is too narrow. So we need variance
permission from committee to proceed with the subdivision.
We need variance permission from council proceed with
granting the additional floor area. If committee then
wanted to suggest that the staff should go back and look at
this particular connection, we could handle that with our
partners in transportation.
Okay, I still don't think I'm totally following are on the
same page with what you're saying about the laneway
connecting to Ogilvy, but it doesn't matter.
That would be an option. Okay.
The immediate option would be to do the do the lane from
Ogilvy right to the existing lane, what's been secured
and in the future if
So, the lane would go from Hastings to Ogilvy. I know, but that's what you're talking about.
In the future, eventually. Okay. That's not what I was thinking. I was
thinking that the lane would stay as it is and vehicles would just access off the cul-de-sac
like all the other properties on that street. But with the variants, does the frontage
allow enough space to have a driveway and space for a vehicle to get in? Like, I don't
know. I don't know what that is. A 7.62 meter could allow for vehicle access, yes. I think,
if I may, I think there may be a little bit confusion about Ogilvy versus Osborne. Osborne
is the street, sorry, in this image it's cut off, but to the south, sorry, whereas Ogilvy
is the cul-de-sac here. From my understanding, what is currently on the table for the subdivision
is to bring the lane through to the property line where that red is, and then eventually
it would go down to Osborne. I don't, there's not a, at least to my knowledge, a current
consideration that we would bring the lane sort of straight across to Ogilvy if that
is what the councillor is referring to. That was so, what you just said is what I thought
to. I never was thinking the lane would go all the way through. Also, I heard that somewhere
and then I was like, wait, did I totally misunderstand? Yes, sorry, hopefully to clarify that. Yes,
so that's not being considered. What is being considered is the portion from Hastings
to the property line that is shown on the map there. Yes. And then it would go
to the south. Yes. Okay, so for me, speaking for myself, I would, I know this isn't the question
on the table, but I would not like the vehicle access to be off the lane to this property.
I think it makes more sense for it to come off Ogilvy if the variance still allows
for enough space for vehicle access and that can be a later down the road conversation
then I'm happy. Through the chair, I'm certainly hearing
good direction from committee. I would still put the two questions. My recommendation is
we consider the two questions around the variances and direct staff to explore different ways
to handle the lane issue. Thank you. I was just conferring with the corporate officer
to that end. Is that how they do it in Calgary? I can explain. I heard and I accepted it was
Glenn's fault. That rings true to me. Councillor Darling. So just to confirm, so where that
lane, where the future lane down to Osborn, right now it's all backyards. So there's no
lane there. I just want to make everyone understand there's no lane there. It's all backyards.
So if we're going to reconstruct, when we decide to construct that lane, we're going to plow
right through everyone's backyard that has it right now. Just so everyone's, I want to be
very clear on that. I get that. I get it. I know what you're saying. That section that
you're talking about would not be touched until those owners came forward with an application
for those lands. Absolutely. Right. So my point is that we're doing, it would be the, so the variance,
the variance I don't have an overly a problem with, but my question is,
because I do not, I don't want this to go ahead if it's going to go on Hastings.
So my question is, what's the process then? So if we were to say the variances,
we accept the variance, then what happens after that? When would it come back
potentially for, that's what I'm confused by. There's a couple of things. So
so a question in front of us is a variance to our zoning bylaw, which I think we all
understand. In fact, the question right now in front of us is whether we recommend to council
that those variants be considered. So this discussion has obviously brought to light
a concern around where the axis is going to be. Now council would not normally consider that
question. That would be approved by the approving officer of subdivision. So now
the two are have somewhat been tied through this conversation. So what I recommend is that
we forward this with the recommendation to council where it will be considered.
And in the interim period between now and that council consideration, staff bring forward to us
reflecting on the discussion, more details and information around an access point that is not
off of Hastings, which I have heard is is the concern at this point. What happens 30 years from
now? If you follow in Councillor Penner's footsteps and you're here 30 years from now to
determine where the lane goes and where it doesn't, then God bless you. You can decide
it then. So we probably shouldn't get ourselves too far down that rabbit hole. And let's just deal
with this property and what's in front of us. So I think that that's probably
as a direction, a way to go with this. If that satisfies everyone. So I'll finish the
speakers list and then in terms of process, I think that in my view that Councillor Garling
allows, doesn't get into a situation where you say, okay, yeah, I'm good with this, but then
you never see it again and you don't know what the decision has been on the access point.
The decision can ultimately be made with that information at that council meeting.
Okay. And last point is, and this is a great example of how the loss of public hearings
and public input is, this is a great example of forever changing a neighbourhood in how you,
in just literally by one decision on how that particular area of that street is going to
look in the future. Here's a great opportunity for people to be able to come and share their
points of view and why, whether they're for against whatever it is. And that's now not
part of the process, which is a real shame. So I think that's a, this is a prime example.
And it has nothing to do with anybody, any staff member, anything like that. This is a prime example
of why people should have input in what their neighbourhoods look like in the future,
now and in the future as well. I think that's a fundamental. If you buy a home and you should
be able to have some sort of say of what your neighbourhood is going to look like in the
future, that right now has been taken away. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Pinner.
So just to, you know, 30 years from now, the reason why I did ask the question is because
trying to get, you know, when you make decisions and say, okay, so you kind of do this in isolation.
If we knew that, that the rest of Hastings was getting developed the next couple of years,
then I just would go, yeah, it's fine. But we don't know that. And that's why I asked the
question. And I do appreciate the Mayor's comments on that. But, but as Councillor
Darling said, this will change that. It'll change the, where those two homes on either side,
north and south of the laneway. It'll change their home, the feel of their home for a reason
that I'm not willing to support at this time. Once that all gets redeveloped, yeah,
we're going to put the lane in there and all the trees are going to come out and,
you know, that's just the way it's going to go. But do we really need to do it today?
And that's really the, that's my comment. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Councillor Pollock.
Just speaking to the recommendation, you know, we, there's more than one conversation this morning
about giving the money from the federal government on the housing accelerator fund.
And thanks again to Brissons staff for all the hard work on that. But there's
targets to be met. And this is, the end of the day, this is two additional
housing units to add to that total, right? So, and I think it's two more
single family dwelling units. So, I strongly in favour of this. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. So, you're going to move the recommendation and add a third bullet,
which is direct staff to provide information on access options. Okay. And that will capture
the discussion that's happened here and we can consider at council. Okay. Does that work
for everyone? Work for staff? Okay. It's been moved, seconded. All those in favour?
Opposed? Carried. Okay. 4.2. Housing target progress report. Mr. Mayor.
There you go. You can add three to the number.
Good afternoon.
There you go. Maybe.
Mayor West, on July 24th, 2024, the Ministry of Housing issued a housing target order to
Port Coquitlam, which came into effect on August 1st. The order sets out a five-year
housing target of 2,279 net new completed units by July 31st, 2029. The order further
specifies annual housing targets, reporting periods and process and performance indicators,
which will be used to measure annual progress. The city's reporting periods run on an annual
basis with a one-time six-month interim reporting period.
As noted in the report, the city has taken a number of actions to help enable the supply
of additional housing within the community to align with meeting the housing target.
While the number of net new units was quite modest in the six-month period, staff note there
is a significant amount of volume for projects in stream, including current development
applications, issued building permits and development under construction.
In accordance with the Housing Supply Act, staff recommend receipt of this report
and direct staff to submit the housing target interim progress report
to meet the requirements set out by the province. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. I don't believe there's a lot to say at this point. As you know,
six months is too early, I think, to offer a fair assessment given the short period of time
and the fact that we've got a number of things in the queue. But I appreciate that
this is a requirement of the province. So I'll have much more commentaries,
I'm sure members of council will, when we are at our 12-month point.
So can someone move the recommendation? Move? Second? All those in favor? Post? Carried.
Thanks. Any resolution to close? Second? All those in favor? Post? Carried. Thank you.