[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] All right, good afternoon, everyone. I call to order. Committee of council meeting, February
[0:10] 18, 2025. First time is adoption of the agenda with an addition, item 5.1 under 8.1 resolution,
[0:17] closed section 91A. Move second. All those in favor? Post carried. Confirmation minutes.
[0:22] Move second. All those in favor? Post carried. On the reports, 4.1 is a development variance
[0:27] permit for 247 to Chilcot Avenue. Mr. Cluchet. Good afternoon, mayor and council. The applicant
[0:35] Burkill Development Limited has applied for a development variance permit for a lot at
[0:39] 247 to Chilcot Avenue. There we are. The RS-14 lot is located near the intersection of Chilcot
[0:48] and Hastings Street. The lot is unusual in that it has experienced a lesser degree
[0:52] of subdivision than the surrounding properties. So has created a peculiar situation where it
[0:59] borders both Chilcot Avenue to the north and Ogilvy Crescent to the south, as well as an
[1:04] unopened portion of Lane off of Hastings Street. So the applicant is proposing a subdivision
[1:13] that would create three RS-4 lots, two smaller lots off of Hastings, yes, sorry, Chilcot
[1:20] Street to the north, and then a larger lot that would have frontage off of Ogilvy Crescent,
[1:25] with vehicular access being to be open Lane off of Hastings Street. So due to the
[1:34] peculiarity of the existing lot in relation to the surrounding blocks, the Ogilvy Crescent
[1:39] frontage does not meet the minimum subdivision requirement laid out in the zoning bylaw.
[1:44] The applicant seeks to vary the minimum 9.5 meter frontage to the 7.62 meters available.
[1:52] The other lot dimensions for the two lots off of Chilcot would meet the bylaw frontage requirements.
[2:02] So the applicant is also seeking a variance to the maximum permitted floor area ratio
[2:06] for lots 1 and 2. This is due to changes to the FAR exclusions for basements following
[2:12] the June 2024 Bill 44 zoning bylaw amendments. This is because the applicant had an application
[2:24] in progress at the time and the variance would allow them to utilize a design which falls
[2:29] under the old RS-4 zoning regulations. A variance is required because there is no statutory
[2:35] in-stream protection provided for subdivision applications in relation to the adoption
[2:40] of new bylaws. The request would allow for approximately 56 meters squared of additional
[2:46] floor area within the basements for both proposed lots 1 and 2.
[2:54] So staff remember the opinion that the proposed variances would have limited to no impact
[2:59] to the surrounding lots and will allow for the development of a large, unusual parcel
[3:03] under its existing RS-4 zoning. Staff support consideration of the FAR variance in this
[3:09] circumstance due to the relatively quick timeline and lack of consultation opportunities provided
[3:13] by the province in relation to the adoption of Bill 44 requirements. And staff recommend
[3:18] that committee recommend to council that approval of the issuance of development variance
[3:23] permit DVP-00103 be considered. Thank you.
[3:28] Thank you. Councillor Pollock.
[3:30] Thank you. Thanks for your report. I'm generally in favor of this. I think it's a good use
[3:37] of the lot. It's having the access from both sides. I was looking at the technical drawings
[3:43] and the landscaping plans and everything. The only concern I have is that with the
[3:48] narrow access on this, when you got highlighted up there, that little yellow part, firefighting,
[3:55] garbage, stuff like that, it's all going to be fairly straightforward even though they've
[3:59] only got that very tiny frontage. The two lots on either side, 3237, 3233.
[4:08] Through the chair. I don't want to speak for fire, but there would conceivably be access
[4:14] from both the Ogilvy and the open lane portion if firefighting was required, similar for waste
[4:22] removal. What is being done is that there would be vehicle access for that lot off
[4:30] of the lane as that is an unopened portion. So eventually the part that you can kind
[4:36] of see running down would open onto, I believe that's Osborne to the south. So over time, that
[4:44] whole lane would be open, but at this point, there would just be that one section off of
[4:48] Hastings and then there would also be access off of the cul-de-sac too.
[4:52] Yeah, and that lane is going to be developed as those houses get redeveloped, I assume.
[4:55] Correct. Okay. All this in every other comments. Thank you.
[4:59] Councillor Dirling. Sorry, I'm confused now. So there is an access point off of Ogilvy.
[5:08] In the drawing it says there's not. So there would be access for, say, if someone
[5:13] were delivering or for firefighting, someone could access through, I suppose it would
[5:18] be a fence or a gate or something, but driveway access would be off of that lane portion
[5:22] to the off of Hastings. So I'm not in favour of this at all. I don't know why we
[5:28] would, I get it's an unopened portion of them, but if you've walked at it, which I just did
[5:34] on the weekend, it literally is in between two houses and it goes onto a super busy area,
[5:40] which including a telephone pole right in the middle, we'd have to move the telephone
[5:43] to begin with. That's one thing. But that lane would, in essence, go right between
[5:49] two people and dump onto what is already a busy Hastings Street. So I'm not sure
[5:54] why we would put it to a point where we would access that lane. So I'm not in
[6:01] favour of this because I think there should be access off of Ogilvy. Because if you
[6:07] look at the drawing, there was one side of the drawing where it says it would be
[6:10] a parking space. And so if you remove the parking space to the other side, then
[6:14] that would open up the access onto Ogilvy. And with the two, and it would only
[6:18] access one house and a basement suite because the other areas would be on
[6:23] Chilicot. So those are the access points for the two front houses. So to me, it
[6:28] doesn't make sense to be putting a lane through in between two houses onto an
[6:33] area, especially that area of Hastings, which is extremely busy with the Townhouse
[6:38] Complex right across the street where Metro Ford is and everyone turning down
[6:42] there. So you'd have to help me with this one because I'm right now not in
[6:46] favour. Through the chair. So because Hastings is a collector road, in the
[6:53] future, when the lots that are to the south sort of on Hastings would when
[6:59] they redevelop their driveways, they will have to have their vehicle
[7:03] access from the lane in order to not have cars backing out onto what
[7:09] will likely become a busier street. So as part of that long-term plan to
[7:13] open the lane from Hastings down to Osborne to the south, this would be
[7:19] the first portion of that. And then as those lots redevelop, the rest of the
[7:24] lane would be constructed. But we're talking about it could be 30 years
[7:29] before that happens. I mean, literally, but what I'm talking about is that if
[7:33] you want to come straight down, that's one thing. But to cut across
[7:36] because the lane that's there now, if you're coming to Osborne, to cut
[7:41] across in between the two houses and go that way, if I'm at 3219 or 3324,
[7:47] whatever it is, I'm not going to go that way. I'm going to go the other way. So to
[7:50] me, what I'm my concern is, is that 3350 and 3346 in between those two. To me,
[7:56] that access point should not be an access road. It should be, it should
[8:00] come off of Ogilvy instead. So I get what you're saying, but we're talking
[8:05] about, about here and now. And here and now, I'm not a favor of it. So thanks.
[8:12] Thank you, Councillor Petru.
[8:16] Thank you. I had kind of similar thoughts to Councillor Darling, not like
[8:22] totally against the laneway necessarily, but I feel like it doesn't really make
[8:26] sense to have a laneway to one, I know, in the future, I understand the
[8:33] logic, but currently to one property, it kind of almost becomes like a private
[8:39] laneway in a sense. And I feel like just the way the law is, when you look at
[8:43] that cul-de-sac on Ogilvy, it feels more natural that it would make more
[8:49] sense the vehicle access point would be there. And it's a cul-de-sac. So is
[8:54] there a reason why that wasn't the vehicle access point?
[8:59] There are two, through the chair, there are two large trees that are just
[9:03] at the corner there on Ogilvy. So the idea was that if the lane were to be
[9:08] opened as a result of the subdivision, there would be the added benefit that,
[9:12] you know, if there wasn't a driveway access off of Ogilvy, that, you know,
[9:16] we could potentially retain those trees.
[9:18] I see. Yeah, I feel like I would be more in favor of it if the
[9:26] vehicle access was off Ogilvy. I just feel like it makes more sense.
[9:30] Trees are important, but every time we develop a property, trees have to be
[9:34] down, so we need more housing according to the province.
[9:39] Yeah, so those are my thoughts. Thank you.
[9:41] Thank you. Councilor Pinner. Thank you.
[9:44] So just further to that, the recommendation is to open that laneway up.
[9:51] The developer would be paying for that portion of it, correct?
[9:55] Correct. If we don't do it, when the rest of those
[10:00] properties develop, they would have to pay for that, right?
[10:03] So we're not going to be out any money. Is that correct?
[10:06] I'm just, I'm just, I'm just trying to get the big picture on why we're
[10:10] doing this and not coming off of Ogilvy.
[10:13] Through the chair, just on the focus here, so the two questions that
[10:18] are directly related to the development variance permit relate to a variance
[10:22] in lot frontage off of Ogilvy, and the second is relating to the
[10:26] floor area related to the three houses. Those are the two questions
[10:30] before committee. Just so we're clear on the ask.
[10:34] Right. The other discussions that committee members are sharing
[10:37] with us are actually subject to our subdivision approval officer,
[10:42] who obviously follows the set plans and such and out of council.
[10:46] So the conversations that we're hearing are definitely input,
[10:49] and I'll turn to my, my colleague to see what he wants to say.
[10:55] We could look at, if I understand correctly, I'm not hearing that
[10:58] there's an offense to the lane. The idea is, do you hook the lane
[11:01] instead of the Hastings? Do you hook it out to Ogilvy?
[11:05] In both cases, we would suggest that the current developer has to
[11:09] provide the right-of-way. The current developer has to pay for
[11:12] the cost as part of offsites. The lots further to the south
[11:15] will eventually redevelop, and when they do, they'll need the
[11:18] rest of the lane. Those developers will pay for it.
[11:21] So the short answer, Councillor, is that yes, this developer would
[11:25] pay for the obligations as part of his offsites. Yes, we could
[11:28] take that now. And ideally, we have to make sure he has
[11:33] adequate access in order for the subdivision to occur.
[11:36] But some of the decisions of whether or not we hook this to
[11:39] the right or hook this to the left, we could look at during
[11:41] the subdivision process. Mr. Frederick, am I off base?
[11:45] So the Chair, I would concur with Bruce's comments. We could
[11:50] secure the lane off of Ogilvy for now, but in the future, I
[11:53] think it does set up for ripe potential for that. All the
[11:57] remaining lots on the south to be able to open the lane, I
[12:00] think it also improves fire access in the future and
[12:02] additional infrastructure that needs to go in in the future.
[12:05] And it is always our intent to remove driveways off of
[12:08] Collector Streets to make it safe for the residents.
[12:11] No, and there's already a lane there. And that all makes
[12:14] sense. I don't disagree with that. And it's, you know, I
[12:18] guess it's the here and now. You know, if those homes that
[12:23] are there that have that lane there now, and that whole
[12:29] area is not being changed for another decade, like do we
[12:33] have, is there anything percolating that things
[12:36] are going to change in the next little bit? Or are we
[12:40] I think staff would be reaching to give you an answer to
[12:44] that. Okay, so, so given that it just, I mean, it just seems
[12:48] that it makes more sense to have that that lot that that one
[12:52] that's fronting Ogilvy to that's where that access
[12:57] would be. And I know that's not what our discussion is, but
[13:00] it has everything to do with this. So I so that's kind of
[13:05] where I'm coming from on that. I'll leave it at that. Okay,
[13:11] thank you. Can Sir Petru. Thank you. Okay, I need to
[13:15] clarify. So are you saying the laneway that's coming off
[13:22] Hastings would go all the way through to Ogilvy as an
[13:27] alternative? Okay, so like that wasn't what I was
[13:32] thinking, which leads me to another question, which is
[13:34] maybe gets to more to the root of the problem. If it wasn't a
[13:38] laneway, if it was just off of the cul-de-sac as it is now, is
[13:42] that enough frontage there for vehicle access without putting
[13:48] adding a laneway, like pushing the laneway all the way
[13:50] through? Apologies to clarify. If I actually understand
[13:53] the network currently the lane configuration is that L
[13:58] hockey stick curve just to Hastings. This would be an
[14:01] access in from Hastings to Ogilvy. There isn't
[14:04] currently the intention that it would extend through to
[14:06] Ogilvy. Your frontage issue here is that that bottom corner
[14:11] when we are there is too narrow. So we need variance
[14:15] permission from committee to proceed with the subdivision.
[14:20] We need variance permission from council proceed with
[14:24] granting the additional floor area. If committee then
[14:27] wanted to suggest that the staff should go back and look at
[14:30] this particular connection, we could handle that with our
[14:33] partners in transportation.
[14:36] Okay, I still don't think I'm totally following are on the
[14:39] same page with what you're saying about the laneway
[14:41] connecting to Ogilvy, but it doesn't matter.
[14:45] That would be an option. Okay.
[14:52] The immediate option would be to do the do the lane from
[14:55] Ogilvy right to the existing lane, what's been secured
[14:58] and in the future if
[15:00] So, the lane would go from Hastings to Ogilvy. I know, but that's what you're talking about.
[15:09] In the future, eventually. Okay. That's not what I was thinking. I was
[15:13] thinking that the lane would stay as it is and vehicles would just access off the cul-de-sac
[15:18] like all the other properties on that street. But with the variants, does the frontage
[15:24] allow enough space to have a driveway and space for a vehicle to get in? Like, I don't
[15:28] know. I don't know what that is. A 7.62 meter could allow for vehicle access, yes. I think,
[15:43] if I may, I think there may be a little bit confusion about Ogilvy versus Osborne. Osborne
[15:48] is the street, sorry, in this image it's cut off, but to the south, sorry, whereas Ogilvy
[15:55] is the cul-de-sac here. From my understanding, what is currently on the table for the subdivision
[16:04] is to bring the lane through to the property line where that red is, and then eventually
[16:11] it would go down to Osborne. I don't, there's not a, at least to my knowledge, a current
[16:19] consideration that we would bring the lane sort of straight across to Ogilvy if that
[16:23] is what the councillor is referring to. That was so, what you just said is what I thought
[16:27] to. I never was thinking the lane would go all the way through. Also, I heard that somewhere
[16:31] and then I was like, wait, did I totally misunderstand? Yes, sorry, hopefully to clarify that. Yes,
[16:37] so that's not being considered. What is being considered is the portion from Hastings
[16:43] to the property line that is shown on the map there. Yes. And then it would go
[16:48] to the south. Yes. Okay, so for me, speaking for myself, I would, I know this isn't the question
[16:53] on the table, but I would not like the vehicle access to be off the lane to this property.
[16:58] I think it makes more sense for it to come off Ogilvy if the variance still allows
[17:02] for enough space for vehicle access and that can be a later down the road conversation
[17:08] then I'm happy. Through the chair, I'm certainly hearing
[17:13] good direction from committee. I would still put the two questions. My recommendation is
[17:18] we consider the two questions around the variances and direct staff to explore different ways
[17:24] to handle the lane issue. Thank you. I was just conferring with the corporate officer
[17:31] to that end. Is that how they do it in Calgary? I can explain. I heard and I accepted it was
[17:45] Glenn's fault. That rings true to me. Councillor Darling. So just to confirm, so where that
[17:56] lane, where the future lane down to Osborn, right now it's all backyards. So there's no
[18:02] lane there. I just want to make everyone understand there's no lane there. It's all backyards.
[18:06] So if we're going to reconstruct, when we decide to construct that lane, we're going to plow
[18:11] right through everyone's backyard that has it right now. Just so everyone's, I want to be
[18:15] very clear on that. I get that. I get it. I know what you're saying. That section that
[18:20] you're talking about would not be touched until those owners came forward with an application
[18:24] for those lands. Absolutely. Right. So my point is that we're doing, it would be the, so the variance,
[18:31] the variance I don't have an overly a problem with, but my question is,
[18:35] because I do not, I don't want this to go ahead if it's going to go on Hastings.
[18:40] So my question is, what's the process then? So if we were to say the variances,
[18:45] we accept the variance, then what happens after that? When would it come back
[18:48] potentially for, that's what I'm confused by. There's a couple of things. So
[18:52] so a question in front of us is a variance to our zoning bylaw, which I think we all
[18:58] understand. In fact, the question right now in front of us is whether we recommend to council
[19:03] that those variants be considered. So this discussion has obviously brought to light
[19:10] a concern around where the axis is going to be. Now council would not normally consider that
[19:16] question. That would be approved by the approving officer of subdivision. So now
[19:23] the two are have somewhat been tied through this conversation. So what I recommend is that
[19:31] we forward this with the recommendation to council where it will be considered.
[19:37] And in the interim period between now and that council consideration, staff bring forward to us
[19:43] reflecting on the discussion, more details and information around an access point that is not
[19:54] off of Hastings, which I have heard is is the concern at this point. What happens 30 years from
[19:59] now? If you follow in Councillor Penner's footsteps and you're here 30 years from now to
[20:05] determine where the lane goes and where it doesn't, then God bless you. You can decide
[20:10] it then. So we probably shouldn't get ourselves too far down that rabbit hole. And let's just deal
[20:16] with this property and what's in front of us. So I think that that's probably
[20:22] as a direction, a way to go with this. If that satisfies everyone. So I'll finish the
[20:28] speakers list and then in terms of process, I think that in my view that Councillor Garling
[20:35] allows, doesn't get into a situation where you say, okay, yeah, I'm good with this, but then
[20:41] you never see it again and you don't know what the decision has been on the access point.
[20:47] The decision can ultimately be made with that information at that council meeting.
[20:52] Okay. And last point is, and this is a great example of how the loss of public hearings
[21:00] and public input is, this is a great example of forever changing a neighbourhood in how you,
[21:07] in just literally by one decision on how that particular area of that street is going to
[21:11] look in the future. Here's a great opportunity for people to be able to come and share their
[21:17] points of view and why, whether they're for against whatever it is. And that's now not
[21:21] part of the process, which is a real shame. So I think that's a, this is a prime example.
[21:27] And it has nothing to do with anybody, any staff member, anything like that. This is a prime example
[21:31] of why people should have input in what their neighbourhoods look like in the future,
[21:36] now and in the future as well. I think that's a fundamental. If you buy a home and you should
[21:42] be able to have some sort of say of what your neighbourhood is going to look like in the
[21:44] future, that right now has been taken away. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Pinner.
[21:50] So just to, you know, 30 years from now, the reason why I did ask the question is because
[21:58] trying to get, you know, when you make decisions and say, okay, so you kind of do this in isolation.
[22:03] If we knew that, that the rest of Hastings was getting developed the next couple of years,
[22:09] then I just would go, yeah, it's fine. But we don't know that. And that's why I asked the
[22:14] question. And I do appreciate the Mayor's comments on that. But, but as Councillor
[22:18] Darling said, this will change that. It'll change the, where those two homes on either side,
[22:28] north and south of the laneway. It'll change their home, the feel of their home for a reason
[22:36] that I'm not willing to support at this time. Once that all gets redeveloped, yeah,
[22:41] we're going to put the lane in there and all the trees are going to come out and,
[22:44] you know, that's just the way it's going to go. But do we really need to do it today?
[22:47] And that's really the, that's my comment. Thank you.
[22:51] Okay. Thank you. Councillor Pollock.
[22:55] Just speaking to the recommendation, you know, we, there's more than one conversation this morning
[22:59] about giving the money from the federal government on the housing accelerator fund.
[23:04] And thanks again to Brissons staff for all the hard work on that. But there's
[23:07] targets to be met. And this is, the end of the day, this is two additional
[23:10] housing units to add to that total, right? So, and I think it's two more
[23:15] single family dwelling units. So, I strongly in favour of this. Thank you.
[23:21] Okay. Thank you. So, you're going to move the recommendation and add a third bullet,
[23:26] which is direct staff to provide information on access options. Okay. And that will capture
[23:32] the discussion that's happened here and we can consider at council. Okay. Does that work
[23:37] for everyone? Work for staff? Okay. It's been moved, seconded. All those in favour?
[23:41] Opposed? Carried. Okay. 4.2. Housing target progress report. Mr. Mayor.
[23:50] There you go. You can add three to the number.
[23:58] Good afternoon.
[23:59] There you go. Maybe.
[24:05] Mayor West, on July 24th, 2024, the Ministry of Housing issued a housing target order to
[24:11] Port Coquitlam, which came into effect on August 1st. The order sets out a five-year
[24:17] housing target of 2,279 net new completed units by July 31st, 2029. The order further
[24:26] specifies annual housing targets, reporting periods and process and performance indicators,
[24:31] which will be used to measure annual progress. The city's reporting periods run on an annual
[24:37] basis with a one-time six-month interim reporting period.
[24:45] As noted in the report, the city has taken a number of actions to help enable the supply
[24:50] of additional housing within the community to align with meeting the housing target.
[24:55] While the number of net new units was quite modest in the six-month period, staff note there
[25:00] is a significant amount of volume for projects in stream, including current development
[25:05] applications, issued building permits and development under construction.
[25:10] In accordance with the Housing Supply Act, staff recommend receipt of this report
[25:14] and direct staff to submit the housing target interim progress report
[25:18] to meet the requirements set out by the province. Thank you.
[25:21] Okay, thank you very much. I don't believe there's a lot to say at this point. As you know,
[25:30] six months is too early, I think, to offer a fair assessment given the short period of time
[25:39] and the fact that we've got a number of things in the queue. But I appreciate that
[25:44] this is a requirement of the province. So I'll have much more commentaries,
[25:50] I'm sure members of council will, when we are at our 12-month point.
[25:55] So can someone move the recommendation? Move? Second? All those in favor? Post? Carried.
[25:59] Thanks. Any resolution to close? Second? All those in favor? Post? Carried. Thank you.