Council Meeting

The time is now 656, and we have begun our web broadcast.

Folks watching at home can now see our public participation slide on the screen.

And to confirm, Council Chambers is currently muted.

Thank you.

The time is now six fifty nine, and Council Chambers is currently muted.

Whenever Council is ready to begin, Council Chambers will need to be unmuted at that time.

Good evening.

This council meeting is called to order.

We recognize the Lekwungen speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt and the Songhees, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public who telephone in during the public participation and question periods, portions of the agenda.

If you are wishing to provide your comments to council regarding the development permit for 1519 Admiral's Road, Canadian Tire, there will be a specific time to speak to these applications when they are considered during this meeting.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, you can call 778-402-29927.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 320 592 911 Pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until you're asked.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then announce the last four digits of your phone number.

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you to not use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality, and ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and address for the record.

Speakers will have five minutes each to speak during the public participation period and two minutes to ask a question during the question period, and you will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded.

By participating to this in this webcast, you are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Approval of the agenda.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda with the inclusion of late items or the blue sheets?

Council Rogers.

If I could also add one microphone.

Great.

If I can also add an item with council's approval, please.

Um, a motion to refer uh an item to the uh CDAC Advisory Committee for next week.

So I need a I guess a motion or approval to have that added to the agenda on business arising.

Discussion secondary.

You've moved it, I'll second.

I made it.

All in favor.

Sorry, I was gonna discuss it.

I was letting the motion people uh discuss it first.

Okay.

If I uh I'll speak to it then if I may.

Um yes, this is um um uh an item that I would like to add on to the CDAC um agenda on the transportation portion.

Um the uh there is a baseline conditions report, a really excellent report that um uh the that's been prepared and is on the website.

I'd like uh the advisory committees to um uh review it for information and and uh staff be available to discuss work to date and and next steps.

And I would hope that um we could encourage the members to do some work on the pedestrian and and uh transit components.

I can speak to that more, but um uh the urgency is um uh to get it on the November 22nd because the next one would be in January, which would uh well I wouldn't want to delay the uh consultant's report, so I think it'd be very timely to do it now.

Okay.

Question for staff on that, and you have to remind me, and because we've had so many of the CDAC and preacts uh canceled because of lack of agenda items or quorum, but was it typical for a CDAC meeting to occur with one agenda item?

Thank you.

Um actually the other advisory committee is meeting with one agenda item.

Okay.

Okay.

It does happen.

Perfect.

And my next question, and this maybe could be for further discussion on this motion or potentially an amendment uh with staff's input, but I know we've had some anecdotal and electronic discussions surrounding the opportunity for current PREAC and CDAC members to discuss uh how they feel about uh our uh potential changes uh that are coming to advisory committees, which uh will happen at some point.

I'm wondering if there would be an appetite to have that as an agenda item uh on there for an open discussion uh should members wish to discuss that uh during the meeting.

I think uh opportunity is everything in life, and this is something that uh it was very timely.

I guess when we get down into the weeds, we can talk about that.

And because um I understand that um a couple of committee members aren't happy to discuss it until they have a clear direction and a clear understanding from what um council wants to do.

They a couple of members felt it was premature and they were quite opposed to having that that discussion.

One was and one was not.

So I I don't know what the feeling would be in the advisory committees.

Okay.

Yeah, it's kind of I was taking a little taken aback, but okay.

Because I think that's going to be uh a recommendation to refer that item to uh the committees, could we consider at that time having a discussion about having that on?

And and both items I'm looking at on the business arising.

Counselor Mass.

I also think this is a good opportunity to point out why it's important that the committees can bring agenda items for for discussion rather than just have things sent in the council, because the reason there's only one each at at each committee advisory committee meeting is because that's all council has sent them, whereas they could bring other things to it that are of interest to them.

Thank you, Councillor Mouse.

So here we are.

Okay, I guess we take a vote.

So all in favor of the approval of the agenda with the inclusion of the late items, which is the blue sheet, with the addition of Councillor Rogers' proposal of uh discussion regarding adding an item to refer to committees, and the um discussion to follow on uh councillor Qualwitch's referral to the uh the committees on potential committee restructure.

All in favor.

Um can I get a motion to adopt?

None opposed.

Motion carries.

Minutes and receipt and adoption.

Can I get a motion uh to adopt the minutes of the inaugural council meeting held the first of November 2022?

Second, second all in favor.

See none opposed.

Motion carries.

And I have a motion to adopt the minutes of the special council meeting held November 3rd, 2022.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Just a question.

On the um uh special council meeting of November 3rd, there was a lot of good information, and I wondered if um we could get some uh a copy of the notes or the overheads that were available at that meeting.

We will be supplying copies of the overheads.

Thank you.

And just I think Councillor Rogers was out of order by calling you your worship, since you've thrown that away.

I think I think Councillor Rogers stands corrected.

No.

Uh for the uh the mayor's report, uh, there is a couple items I wanted to include, and that is um I did attend on behalf of the town and the uh uh and the fire chief um the laying of the wreath uh uh remembrance day ceremonies in a squimalt.

Uh it was perhaps the best, even when I was in uniform, the best attended Remembrance Day that I have seen.

I also had the opportunity to speak with our member of Parliament for the area, Randall Garrison, and our MLA Mitzi Dean, which I carried on some discussion afterwards on items that we probably will have um following up on the agenda.

I followed up with another meeting with uh with um with our MP on Monday afternoon as well.

Um I've got another meeting with uh our MLA Mitzi Dean at the handy dart facility on Thursday afternoon.

I will extend that to counselors if you so wish to attend and are available.

It's a good opportunity to meet and discuss other items that may or may not be on our agenda with her to seek uh her approval on some of the uh SAM mitigation uh issues as well.

And I've been asked to MC a um an announcement.

I'm not sure exactly what the announcement is uh for the uh Pacific uh development um uh uh federal body that uh is uh trying to inspire economic growth in the area, and that's I believe on the 28th of November at the new uh Craig Flower Community Hall.

Um so that is a bit of an update kind of on things.

I'll try to keep uh both council and the public aware of some of the things as they occur, as they may be of interest to them.

Um petitions and delegations, and I believe we have one, and I'll refer to staff.

I believe they're presenting uh virtually, and it's uh Mr.

Vanderhorst.

And uh the items in the agenda, it's a presentation uh of the 2022 audit service plan.

Over to you, staff.

I'll introduce to you Cory Vanderhorst of MNP.

He has uh been our auditor uh for the last several years, and he's here to prevent your present the audit service plan for the 2022 fiscal year.

I'll turn it over to Corey at this time.

Thanks, Don, and hello to the mayor and council.

Thank you for uh giving me the opportunity to speak to you here tonight.

Um just before I start, I will acknowledge that I'm coming to you from the um territory of the Snuneymuxw people.

Uh I I don't have a present formal presentation, but in your uh council package starting at about page 26, uh, you have a copy of our uh audit service plan.

Always exciting to start with an auditor talking to you uh to kick off your your council meeting.

Um so a reminder that uh as my role as the auditor um for the town and the lead audit partner uh is to present an opinion on whether the financial statements that uh your your town staff prepare uh in the spring are prepared accurately uh and completely uh in accordance with the appropriate accounting standards for local government.

So we do our work a couple times throughout the year.

We're coming in now at this time of year to do what we call interim uh testing, talk with staff about how the year went, look at controls and if they're giving you accurate finance reporting.

And then we'll come back in the spring when the financial statements are prepared and go through the balances.

So our audit plan that we present uh every year to council, uh, you know, about an eight to ten page document, a few highlights there as you're looking through.

Uh, there are a few things coming up that are changes that are important for council to note.

Uh, one change for this year, there are some new audit standards uh that are effective for this audit for your December 31st, 2022 audit, which means as the auditors we're going to be poking around at the controls uh at the town a little bit more closely, looking at the processes, how does uh money flow through the uh you know your various transaction streams, your payables, revenue, payroll, things like that.

We'll also be looking a little more closely at your IT uh and the uh software and systems and IT systems that you have, and how does that impact on your financial reporting?

So that's some new new things for this year.

The other key highlight is something that will be coming for next year, and we will continue talking about it uh when we meet again in the spring, is something called asset retirement obligations.

So we've already had conversations with staff about this new accounting standard, which requires the town to identify if you have any asset retirement obligations and to record a liability on your foundation statements for those uh obligations.

It's a potentially a significant project, uh but staff has already started on what we'd call a scoping activity or an exercise to figure out what obligations might be out there and then to look at how to record those obligations.

Another important item in the audit service plan uh that is important for us to mention is the concept of materiality.

So as an auditor, I'm not checking every transaction that flows through the the town's books.

That's just not uh cost effective for us to do that.

So we calculate a materiality number.

Um we use your annual revenues as a a rough estimate of activity going on in the town.

And about four percent of that number gives us about $700,000.

So that number drives the audit testing, how much work we're looking at.

We're looking at every transaction that's over that amount.

Usually those are larger capital projects or grant funding.

And then we sample underneath to get ourselves comfort that your financial statements are accurated.

So, as I mentioned, the audit uh team is coming in in early December to start their interim work uh and look at controls.

And then we'll be coming back in in early April to do year end.

And so we'll be meeting with you in late April or early May for completion of and sign off on the financial statements to meet the ministry's May 15th deadline for reporting.

So I'll pause there and open the floor to questions.

Thank you again for uh giving me the chance to present to you tonight.

I do have a question.

I mean, staff give us a great brief on asset management plan that they uh plan on rolling out.

And I realize and appreciate having done a couple myself in government.

It's not an overnight process, it takes some time.

So, will you be recommending about the process and perhaps KPIs to help guide uh that as well in your audit?

Thank you.

It's a great question.

So, we do talk to staff about the asset management plan.

We look at the interplay with your financial reporting.

One thing that's important to note is the financial statements that we're looking at are historical.

So we're looking back, we're looking at the original cost of some of the assets when they were purchased or built.

And the asset management plan is a little bit to the side of that.

And that's probably more important than the historical financial statements in many respects.

But as it doesn't directly come into the financial statements, we don't directly provide an opinion on it.

We have lots of conversations around, you know, how the plan is going, what type of discussions are happening in that asset management plan around the useful lives of assets, when is replacement coming up, or seeing it repairs.

That might feed back into the financial statements.

You know, if a building is gonna last 10 years less than anticipated, maybe there's adjustments coming in the financial statements.

But I know a lot of the conversation right now has been about squeaking out the extra two years and how much maintenance cost does that add.

And so those asset management plans, as you referred to are living, breathing documents.

They don't sit on a shelf, they're constantly revised.

So it it does factor into uh what we look at with with your capital assets and and the infrastructure that's being managed by the town, but it doesn't directly impact on our financial statement audit.

Thank you.

Any further questions thank you very much thank you so i think we're at a point for a public participation period and um just a reminder that we do have a spot talking about the um about canadian tire later on in the agenda so um your uh comments and questions could be best addressed there however, for general um topics that are on the agenda uh for those people in the room first, and perhaps those online, just remember to um state your name and address for the record.

You've got five minutes to speak.

I don't rather not remind you or cut you off prematurely.

And uh just to remind you that uh when you are given the okay uh to unmute by pressing star six.

Staff, do we have any callers on the line?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time.

Thank you.

Nothing for seven.

I think uh re should be reminded by item seven recession right here.

Yes.

Of course it is.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

Um I'm sorry about the uh the lateness on this, but um uh we do have a an advisory committee uh meeting coming up um um next week on the 22nd, and um I think it is important to uh refer the active transportation plans um report that we have on the website baseline conditions report.

It's it really is quite a uh a remarkable study up to uh so far.

Um uh and I would like um the advisory committee to to review and um uh understand that report uh both for information and and and process i would um hope that we would could encourage um the members to participate and and help us um assess um the pedestrian network and transit network uh much uh for the same um aspects that the bike tours did you know what's the current state uh what are the key destinations why don't people walk or take transit to those those destinations what are the short term priorities um and then um we could have cdac return their findings um in january so that all keeps uh everything going, moving along nicely, and and um we won't hopefully hold up the uh uh the consultant's report and staff's process.

So um i'd be looking to uh to refer this matter to the advisory committees, please.

Uh so moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Yeah, yes, goodbye.

Sorry for a quiet question.

Please go ahead.

Okay.

Uh sorry, I can't ask my question.

Um so for the uh the bike tour that went on, that was done by consultants.

So I don't know as part of this if you're suggesting that they conduct it, like their own study, the the advisory committee, or is it yeah.

Yeah, I I understand.

And and perhaps uh staff can assist me on this but I think in my understanding and and uh help me here I I think uh we felt it was necessary for the bike tours so uh the town funded that portion it wasn't really in in the project and um which I really appreciate now I'm hoping that the advisory committees can assist us in in the other portions um uh getting some legwork on the pedestrian and the transit components so that we can indeed give uh the community an opportunity to give input.

Um yeah thank you for the question counselor rogers and Councillor McKenzie uh you you're right.

With respect to the bike shop, that was uh initially not in the proposal uh for or in the Casal's proposal as part of the Actors Transportation Network Plan.

Uh however, there was a little bit of budget left, and a decision was made to adopt that bike shops to get uh to hear more from the public.

Uh in terms of engagements that has been done so far for pedestrians and transit, um I can probably uh detail what's been done previous and what's going to happen in the future.

So previously uh two engagement uh events were done.

One was an online survey, which uh had a lot of questions with respect to all modes of transportation.

So that includes walking, biking, rolling, and transit.

Uh and then the second event was the um the ideas fair, which was the two of uh tent events at the Gallop and Goose Regional Trail and the ENN.

Um and from that uh there was a uh the consultant gathered that information in a what we heard summary number one, which is posted on the website.

And quite a bit of information at least from what I've reviewed, there's been a lot of uh evidence that showed that uh there indeed has been some excitement over the need for uh pedestrian transit improvements, gaps in the network, for example, uh, you know, uncomfortable ability, if that's a word, um, for being near busy roads, the need for wider sidewalks and that.

So a lot of that was um was was described in that report.

Um and it's it's fairly fairly detailed.

So I'll encourage everyone to to uh to review that as well.

So that's what's happened in the past.

For transit, uh, we did have a um an interview with BC Transit about gaps in the network, what works, what doesn't work, and that was also detailed in that summary.

Uh moving forward, there's going to be another two more events.

So one is an open house, and that open house will uh display to the public what the short what uh based on the information that we've gotten so far, what maybe short-term projects, short-term endeavors, short-term improvements uh that could also inform in the long term.

Uh, in addition to that, there will be also another online survey that everyone can uh can comment on and provide their feedback with respect to all modes of active transportation.

That is your question, Cassie?

Yes, I think if I understand correctly the proposal to the advisory committee, it's just to supplement the the work that's already taking place.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I I would add maybe with a lens and I'm not trying to tack scope on here, but um obviously it's a provincial requirement for accessibility that we also look at that for people that can't ride a bike or walk um or take a bus without great trouble maybe just to have that lens on it as well I think would help.

Yes Steph.

If I may add, sorry.

If I may add, um we will be engaging with all of our key stakeholders as well with respect to the upcoming events.

So we have a list of key stakeholders that include Walk on Victoria, V Royal Community Association, School Districts PAC, and that as well.

Thank you, Steph.

Yeah, I I think my concern is less the organizational and people that probably are um don't get out very much because of their disability and just to you know create have that lens on it as well.

If you can walk over a small hump that could be insurmountable for somebody in a wheelchair or motorized wheelchair.

That's all.

Counselor Lemon.

Just for clarity, Counselor Rogers, what what would you be asking of, or what would council be asking of members of CTAC?

Yes.

It's a pretty detailed report.

And my understanding is that uh staff does have some business to attend to in preact, but hopefully that's short and and then would be available to the committees for any uh questions.

But I'm I'm hoping that um we can invite the members uh to do their own walkabouts.

Um it's nothing like having um residents and members of advisory committees to get up there like they're walking the dog and make a mental note that that should this and this and this and this.

Um particularly those those portions about pedestrian and transit.

With the view of, you know, and I really appreciate BC Transit being uh involved in this, uh, but whether or not they have a real sense of um uh bus shelters or the lack of um bus shelters to help protect the uh the residents, um those those kind of nitty-gritty things to where we can get some insight.

Okay, good.

I because I I would imagine they, you know, that kind of clear direction, but not but not direction, um, would be helpful instead of just here's what we're doing for referral.

Yeah, yeah, good.

Thank you.

Basically the same methodology that we've uh asked of the bike tours.

And uh I think we did have a motion voted and uh we just to refresh me, we got sidetracked with a couple of questions.

Um all in favor, any opposed?

Motion carries and uh to counselor Quellich for the another item that you wanted to present uh to encourage, I believe I'm just trying to paraphrase what you had said, to encourage the advisory councils to um uh to review and comment on proposed committee structure.

Sounds uh very accurate so if i can say this again uh all in favor or do i have a motion uh to approve a request for the arisory committees to review and comment on the proposed committee structure do i have second or yeah second all in favor any opposed motion carries.

So we're down to reports.

We have a staff report eight one, which was a big ticket item on the agenda for tonight.

It's a development permits with variances uh twenty twenty-two oh five for one five one nine Admirals Road.

Uh report dated November fourth, twenty twenty two from the community planner.

I think we have a presentation.

Over to staff.

Good evening, uh Mayor and Council.

My name's Sterling Scorey, community planner for uh Town of View Royal.

Uh the applicant for the uh for the file, Andy Gaylor, is uh on the call as well.

So if there's any questions after I've done my presentation between the two of us, I think we can we can probably manage.

Um I have a brief presentation uh that uh went along with my report, so I'll uh I'll jump in now.

So, purpose of the report is to consider development permits with variances uh for the application uh to the expansion of existing Canadian tire store located at 1519 Admirals Road.

Um the map to the right shows the uh the context of the site.

The site is uh 19,237 square meters.

Uh the proposal is to add an additional 1978 square meters of retail and warehouse space as well as a new garden center.

The proposal is located within the Craigflower neighborhood and is in the eastern gateway of the community.

To the north of the subject property is the Craigflower Manor site.

To the east is Songhs Nation.

To the south is Nelson Square in Admiral's Walk, and to the west is Glentana Neighborhood.

The existing site is shown on the uh on the screen.

Uh looks to remove the existing garden center and expand uh into that space, as well as uh remove eight existing uh trees uh shown on the plan, and then uh remove the parking in the area next to Old Island Highway for the purpose of creating a new access to the site.

The proposed site plan now shown on the screen shows what those changes look like.

So new garden center at the top, new retail and warehouse space where the previous garden center was, and a new drive aisle access off of the island highway to access to the site.

The previous green space is going to be turned into a new parking area, and the a portion of the existing green space will be improved with landscaping and a new pergola accessory structure.

There are also two electric vehicle charging stations stations added on the site to the existing access off of Admiral's Road.

So front facade.

This would be closest to Glentana Road.

This would be the middle portion, and then this is the garden center towards Island Highway.

This is the proposed building design.

um that requires that it not produce uh above a certain uh decibel uh level.

The proposed building materials uh include a uh uh EF EIFS uh materials which are uh kind of a uh cement or uh cement finished uh paneling um that'll be in in white uh here above the uh existing uh service bays uh and the primary access to the uh the building and then um a black uh uh material uh or black painted EFS EIFS uh paneling uh where the new logo sign would be there are existing uh canopy structures above doorways, these are going to be expanded along the front facade of the building and reshingled.

Looking a bit closer at the landscaping, so there will be eight trees removed to the uh uh where the existing access is for the purpose of uh providing expansion.

The new landscaped area will have uh a pergola structure and a uh is intended to be used as kind of an on-site amenity space.

There will be uh excuse me, 10 new trees planted on the site, um and uh further details will have to be provided as part of the tree permit, um, which will be required prior to building permit to uh sort out the details in terms of uh what this looks like, but this is kind of a snapshot.

Um, underneath the the tree permit, there is uh a requirement to plot provide a two to one replacement ratio.

So, with removal of eight trees, um they would be required to provide 16.

Uh with the proposal providing 10, they would be def uh they would have a deficit of six.

Uh underneath the bylaw, they can provide uh a cash and lieu.

With respect to the parking on site, there's a deficiency of uh with the proposal uh 78 total parking spaces.

The applicant is proposing to pay a cash and loo contribution of $504,000 or 15% of the total parking, which is uh equal to 42 parking spaces.

This is underneath the zoning bylaw, uh, which is allows them to do this.

The applicant is then requesting a variance for the remaining 36 parking spaces.

The proposal includes two electric vehicle parking spaces as shown on the site plan and 30 bicycle parking spaces, which are a combination of class one and class two parking spaces.

The projected utilization rate for the on-site parking peak demand during the weekday would be 88%, and the projected peak demand for weekends would be at 102% for the proposed parking.

In review of the application, two things to consider would be how the proposal addresses relevant development permit guidelines and if the request endurances are supportable.

So with respect to development permit guidelines, design character, the main entrance is clearly visible and identifiable for pedestrians.

A large single wall face has been avoided with the use of glazing and use of contrast of the building's front facade and signage.

The appearance of a single wall face, and the proposed landscaping adds a percolus structure which provides on site social space for the property.

And the location of the new parking is likely to reduce internal conflicts and doesn't disrupt the existing pedestrian pathways on the site.

With respect to the zoning bar law, this proposal meets all siting and density provisions.

However, there are six variances that the applicant is requesting to locate an accessory structure in the front yard, to reduce the total number of floating spaces from five to two, to reduce the total number of parking spaces from 283 to 247, uh where the total parking spaces on the site will be 205.

To reduce the minimum number vertical distance from grade, a sign may be located from 2.4 to uh to 1.3 feet uh 1.34 meters to increase the maximum area of a logo sign on a single wall face from two meters squared to 7.4 meters square, and finally to increase the character size of a sign uh for a sign from 45 centimeters to 137 centimeters.

So the first variance uh for the accessory structure can be um supported because it'll be screened and it will probably it will provide a manning space uh on the site.

With respect to loading spaces, the variance can variance can be supported because additional loading spaces uh would require additional uh variances to on-site parking and further reduce on-site parking additionally uh if the applicant was to have to provide loading spaces we would very likely have to alter the existing design of buildings and parking on the site with respect to uh parking uh spaces and the requested variants the peak utilization will uh be between 88 and 102 percent and the parking study provided by the applicant uh uh concludes that these if there will be sufficient parking um in the future.

With the respect to the sign height reduction, the intent of the signage is for pedestrian use and wayfinding, which is why it can be supported.

Having the signage higher at a higher level would kind of defeat the purpose of having the signage and it's its use for pedestrians and shoppers.

Are similar in that the logo sign and the character size can both be supported because they don't have any uh hardship or negatively impact the surrounding land uses.

Further, they uh are similar to what is already existing on the site, and this can be shown in the next image of the of the slide where we have the existing building facade at the top and the proposed building facade at the bottom.

Um there is very uh limited change in the size of the uh of the uh the logo sign or the uh the wall-mounted uh character sign that is being proposed.

So, in closing, the recommendation from staff is that the development permit 2022 uh five be approved as per the report, dated November 4th, 2022 from the community planner, and that the six variances as discussed be approved, and further that the following conditions also be included as part of the development permit.

So the first is a security deposit for landscape, landscaping works, which would be $86,328, a cash and loop payment of $504,000 for a total of 42 parking spaces be provided to the town prior to the issuance of building permit.

And finally, that a section 219 covenant would be registered prior to the issuance of development permit, uh, requiring the landowner to uh provide an underground sewer attenuation system, um, which would be uh uh developed to the or designed to the satisfaction satisfaction of the director of engineering.

Um that concludes my presentation.

If there is uh any questions, I can answer them.

And like I said, Andy is on uh online as well, and uh he's the applicant, and he may be able to answer the questions as well.

Yeah, the one uh variance you're looking at is it says reducing the parking spaces from two eighty three to two forty seven, but there's two hundred and five available, so I don't understand.

It's gonna be two forty seven or 205 to the through the mayor?

Um the the uh the way it's worded is is uh yeah can be tricky.

The the bylaw the zoning bylaw allows uh an applicant to uh provide a cash and loop payment.

So there is going to be 205 parking stalls on on site.

Uh they are required to have 283.

The cash and loop payment reduces the number of parking spaces by 42, and that requires them to have a variance of 36 parking spaces uh to make up for the the remainder.

One quick follow-up if I could.

Yes.

Just the you said acts you're going to have availability for social interaction spaces.

So what are we looking at?

Or just grab green areas for people to hang out with.

The the pergolas structure uh has uh uh more formal uh a green space than what is currently there.

Um what's currently there is a a kind of a large berm uh hill with a uh kind of a uh uh uh electrical uh conduit or electrical unit.

Uh by providing a pergolas structure, it provides more of a a concrete formal social space on the site.

Uh I believe the plans showed that there was going to be some benches uh underneath the berglaw structure as well.

Thank you.

Council Levin.

Thank you, Steph.

Um a question perhaps to the applicant.

Um given that there's reduced parking and and you know, significant more footprint, I'm wondering if, and and I and this certainly, you know, I understand it's not a requirement, this isn't a rezoning, but I'm wondering if um Canadian Tire Corporation has spoken to residents in the Glentana neighborhood about their intentions uh through the mayor to the councilor um no there hasn't been any uh neighborhood engagement outside of the the legislative requirement through the development variance permit um process um I don't believe in ster and Sterling can correct me if I'm wrong I don't believe there's been any significant uh concern raised with respect to the reduction in parking from residents I do believe there is uh there is one letter of opposition um but it doesn't seem to be a a a concern that's as significant in in the uh immediate residential neighborhood okay thank you um I if if I may I I just have a couple more questions um just to be clear there is any any um size changes apart from you know the the uh the size of the building are only to the signs correct there's there's going to be no height difference that will you know impinge on on view space of the neighbors am i right through the mayor uh strolling speaking um the the only size increase will be to the uh the floor area of the of the building um the height of the building will not increase and the the the signage is is what is going to be increasing on the the front building facade yeah okay um thank you and and and um given g given that um you know this this was um oh given that parking is going to be at more of a premium um and you have generously included two e v charging stations which you know we applaud I'm wondering if we could gain one more parking space if you made that a fast charging station and just had one fast charging some people could plug in, run in, shop, run out, unplug, be on their way.

Just thought.

And that's it.

Thank you.

A single one?

Uh through uh the mayor to the counselor.

Um no, I I I think you know, we we did bat around a number of of different um options for for EV charging stations.

Um there was, you know, we've engaged with some partners.

I I think we're at a point now where through some partnerships and and some preliminary costing, we're pretty set in terms of you know, the the two level two charging stations and and the required infrastructure.

Um I mean certainly if if that was uh, you know, a significant um reason for council to support the variance that's something that we could look at but at this at this point you know our plans are are pretty set um and we would like to pursue the uh the two level two charging stations.

Counselor Mattson yes thank you staff you know I'm a little bit concerned about the 36 the variance for 36 parking spots um just on the face of it I just potentially see see issues there and I wasn't really feeling all that comfortable even after you know reading the report where you know 102% at maximum and uh 80 80 percent you know filled you know for regular times um so that gives me some cause I mean one of the things that make it less more palatable if we actually uh continued on paying for those spots I mean I I know it's not included in our bylaw but um I I just don't I I just sort of see that we're giving away 36 times 12 you know that's what 430 000 or so uh dollars so I'm really not all that enthusiastic about that either so I'm not sure how the applicant feels about increasing the amount of money that they provide us for uh parking.

So I guess that's a question to the applicant.

Uh yeah, thank you for your question.

Um certainly, you know, based on the current cash and loo being provided, it's it's north of of half a million dollars.

Um, speaking for my client, I I think that's a pretty substantial amount.

Um this isn't going to be a cheap uh in endeavor.

Um I think I would have concerns about the the financial viability if frankly if um you know we were to ratchet up the the cash and loo amount to I think north of a million dollars in this case.

Um but uh yeah I mean certainly if if that's council's council's prerogative and um it was important.

We can we can certainly look into that, but but again, I would feel quite strongly that that would it would potentially undermine um the viability of that project.

Further questions.

Counselor.

I'll have some potentially later.

I'll let uh some conversational turn taking take place.

But on the parking uh matter, uh four of us sat here uh about a year ago, and I know there was a bit of a an off the record deal uh for uh parking on behalf of the new Crapeflower construction, the new uh community hall.

And I remember uh listening to how uh guests of that uh that new facility would park at the Canadian Tire.

Uh and that there was a reciprocal agreement there.

And I know that's probably not written down anywhere, and I think that was an understanding, but nonetheless, I think it would be remiss if we didn't at least talk about it tonight because we are proposing the removal of parking spaces on weekends, when likely customers are attending Canadian Tire for their projects and whatnot, and in uh concurrently when the events are happening at the new facility.

So for discussion and consideration in regards to reducing the parking spots.

Councilor Rogers.

Okay, so um you know the the parking um I I'd asked the last time um uh when um we had uh this discussion, how much uh parking from staff is on site.

I I believe that's um the staff of Canadian Tire and not.

Yes, that's question two of the applicant.

Yep.

Uh sorry, counselor, I I don't have that exact number off the top of my head.

I I believe the operator of of the Canadian Tire store is in the audience.

Kim, are you there?

If not, um that yeah, I I wouldn't be able to have that information offhand.

I wonder if somebody does.

Oh yeah.

Sorry.

Can we come to the mic?

Can we have feedback?

No, let me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Kim Ryan Hout.

I'm the franchise owner for the Canadian Tower Store.

I was there in uh 2002 when we built the store.

So I've been through the whole history of the store and can talk lots about parking.

When it comes to staff, uh what I was saying is uh staff come to work in a variety of transportation modes, uh bus, biking, walking, we have a lot of number of staff who live locally, uh, and as well as uh as by by vehicle.

Uh I can't give you an exact count, but if I think about it, uh there's probably maybe 15 to maximum 20 cars on a on a high day where we'd have a maximum of staff on a on a busier day.

I would say on weekends we probably have more part-time staff, so there'll definitely be less vehicles in the parking lot for more staff on the weekends.

Um if I can add a few things, is that okay since parking is a big issue?

Um I can tell you in the 20 years I've been there, uh parking has never as I thought it would be when I when I was there when we built the store in 2002, I thought parking would be a huge issue.

It uh it never has been.

Um the side of the building where you're where we're pushing the building out, the garden centers be basically being pushed out to Craigflower, and they're eliminating that parking rarely gets used, and uh quite often we get more used by uh construction workers across where they're building the new Craig Flower, where they should probably be parking over their there's you know, um over their area.

Um the you're asking about the deal with what's it called, the Craig Flower Highlands building.

Um so he the fellow came to me because then he came to council and I think they requested five or ten parking lots.

Um there is something signed or he signed something, but uh the agreement uh they would not be parking there during our operating hours.

Um the events would be taking place at night, uh so I was told.

Uh here's something different makes me a little concerned.

Um, but definitely would be we close at six o'clock on on Saturdays, Sundays, um, and they the their events he says we basically take take uh be at night.

Um uh the only time you're gonna see the parking lot go crazy is uh Canada Day for the gorge parking lot for the gorge events, which we um we do not we do not kick anybody out of the parking lot.

We simply control part of the parking lot for customers to come in, and we have some people in the parking lot on Canada Day to to park and enjoy the day.

So we've done we've always trying uh be very uh supportive of community events and um and I can tell you uh up to this point uh parking parking not finding a parking spot and going into your canadian local canadian tire store has has not been an issue in the in the 20 years never had a but complaints about other things but not complaints about that for sure so okay counselor rogers very helpful to have sure very helpful to have you and and uh maybe you can stay at the mic and answer some more questions sure thank you um I with respect to loading bays, you know, for the the new expanded store.

Um there's a there's the standard requirement of what I think five.

Sorry, what do you mean by a loading bays?

Sorry um and I think I've got this right.

Uh staff can help me.

Um uh the number of required loading bays um if for this this um would you have a standard requirement of five loading bays and is that unloading my staff?

Are you talking for unloading trucks where we unload our trucks?

Maybe staff can help us on this one.

Through through the mayor, uh loading bays would be your a requirement in the zoning bar law.

Uh loading uh spaces um uh also is what they're called.

Um the the five that are required um in the the zoning bylaw, there's two provided through the the loading spaces for the uh the Canadian target currently, correct?

So sorry, I got a question.

Uh do you mean the loading bays where a customer would park the car and we would load stuff into the car?

Or do you mean where we're unloading trucks and and loading all our inventory into the store?

So we we have two loading bays.

I've never seen a Canadian Tower store with five loading bays.

The biggest in the country doesn't, I don't think, have five loading bays, so I'm not too sure what what they're referring to.

Okay.

Wouldn't they be referring to the other stores on site?

Maybe.

So at any rate, um I guess my question to you is that um um and maybe to the other applicant, uh, with the larger size of retail and wholesale or uh storage warehouse.

Um how how much of uh warehouse um uh loading trucks, uh delivery trucks do you see in uh are these and I'm because I'm worried about whether or not these are going to happen at all hours of night and day um or during the day where you know it obstructs the traffic and and hampers the traffic flow for your your customers.

So so currently there's a bylaw in place.

We're not allowed to receive receive a truck before four seven o'clock, and we're not allowed to receive a truck after I believe six o'clock.

Um and and the local neighbors let us know if one shows up 50 minutes early.

So so we're good with that.

The trucks that currently we receive, very few of our trucks um are full trucks.

So so pretty much our trucks maybe are half full.

So there is you I will not see more trucks coming to the site.

There'll be no more traffic from Canadian tar trucks because our they'll simply put more, sorry, they'll simply put more product on those trucks that are coming to our store.

So okay.

The the the the other thing is um uh and I don't want to get off track, but I apologize.

We're not I'm not we're not looking to to jam the store with more aisles.

I mean there'll be more aisles because there's 10,000 more square feet, but that we'll we're gonna carry the same amount of of uh SKUs pretty much um and be able to have more stock on the floor so our shelves don't empty out as quick and it's a little more convenient for the for the customer in terms of not running out of the paper towel on a busy Saturday that that the stocks and it's it's going to be a much more um friendly or convenient updated store for for our customers for sure.

The um I don't know if I can carry on you okay all right so um the in terms of the the new um uh construction are you adding any more roof structures, um ventilations or cleaning whatever rooftop I the only thing I heard was they were gonna add one more a um a HVAC unit.

Okay.

So that's all they're adding.

Right.

Um, because we've just been getting some recent comments and concerns about noise because the they wish So they're sorry, they're currently replacing the roof is 20 years old and was the end of life.

So they're currently replacing the current roof.

And yeah, it's noisy in the store.

I can tell you that.

My office it's crazy.

I had to leave today.

The uh so they're currently replacing the roof and re redoing all those screenings around the HVAC units.

That'll probably take another, they're currently into their third week.

So they'll probably take another two to three weeks as long as the weather cooperates.

So brand new roof, brand new screenings, and then when they put on the new section, you'll have the same looking roof with just one more HVAC unit.

So it'll be pretty uh, I know we don't like to use the word minor, but it'll be pretty uh um pretty similar to what you have now.

Thank you.

Okay.

And another question if I may the um you know the I council Lemmon raised the point about um going from two to um two EV chargers ordinary ones to a fast charger and and uh council eman raised it a good point it quickly gets the individual in and out it serves the the community in a very significant way and I think that that um uh that allows you a quicker turnaround so that space becomes available.

Um and so I would uh hope um that um you could convince your okay higher ups.

I I would agree with you and maybe they're gonna pull my franchise but putting in two quick EV chargers would make a lot of sense for that type of store.

Our store is known to be more convenient where you're going in out of quick versus going to our hillside store where that's more of a destination place.

We've always been uh we've our stores transferred over the years.

I can tell you back in 2002 we were the we were the big store in town um and then they've expanded the other stores and we would attract back in 2002 attract a lot of people across town because we carried much of the product that was in the flyer.

Now as these other stores like Hillside and Langford have expanded, uh we've really focused more on local being a local local store.

So much more getting the comments where a convenience store get in and out and and very quickly.

So yeah um I guess those things are up for negotiation if uh I I like fast chargers.

I want to get an electric car.

So um yeah.

And he looks at me.

He's not happy with me.

Counselor Mass.

Smile.

So positive one for you.

How many new staff do you have?

Currently we have about 70 staff.

So um yeah we'll probably add oh um well we'll probably add probably 90 probably have to go to 90 staff once we once we expand.

Okay.

I think.

Positive one.

Yeah we had to happen lots of lots of people will hire during well construction will be there to build, but we'll be we'll hire lots of people uh as well to re-merchandise the store because the whole the store will have to get remerchandized and and uh re-re um yeah reset up.

I had one question before you uh mine isn't for the applicant, it's for staff.

So if you if you have one for your yeah um so can you talk a little bit about the transition time or you're closing the store down for a period of time?

The plan is not to close the store.

The plan would be the plan would keep the store open during the okay.

So I will say as they have to take down the one uh outside wall and we have to move inventory around.

I apologize now that may be hard to find a few things that'll get put away or shuffled around and uh we'll go through a few months of of having to try and leave some of our product garden product in particular out on the floor and and that but uh once we get through that that period I think it'll be a it'll be a much much uh much more enjoyable shopping experience.

Okay thank you.

Any more questions for um I have well I have two comments so I'll just say those quickly uh the first is I I totally support the um fast charging as well.

Um I do have a concern for the parking of the on the Glintana road potentially if there is overspill from the parking lot.

Um but my question is around the signs, the larger signs.

I know um in the presentation it did say that there was no negative impact of of these larger signs, but I do imagine that there's light there they're lit and there might be more light emitting from that sign.

Um I was wondering if I don't know, staff maybe if if that's been looked at or if we know how much um additional light will be coming off of uh any additional signage.

I I that's a good question.

I do not think all those signs are lit that they're showing.

I think there's some green signs there that say customer pickup.

I do not believe those are lit signs.

The only signs I believe are lit is the triangle one that sits was on the facade.

And it's not and uh so one will come down and one will go up.

Um and looking at it, what I'm seeing is not much bigger than what current currently is there.

So I I think it'll be a minimum amount of of light going in.

The other thing is there's already already facades that come over the building and there's pot lights this way.

So I'm I'm sure a lot of those signs will not be lit, will not will not be lit up.

Thank you.

One further question cut through it.

Yeah, I I had a little bit of concern about the assign size as well.

It's quite uh gigantic.

Um you know, I went across the gorge and and had a look and you know, maybe because I just know Canadian Tire is there and and uh 20 years ago we never had smartphones.

So whether or not the uh the signage is going to make a big deal or not.

That's the way I would find you.

Um okay so dealing with the CRU, you know the the idea that we're gonna have a drive through whatever and I think that's why we had the additional parking yeah was that we always thought that you know there was going to be somebody they're going to build something on that molehill.

Yeah that old ruddy molehill which has been there for 20 years and and uh yeah it's it's now hopefully we can do something with it.

So I guess um the question to maybe you or to staff, um then we would um by putting if we this were approved and we put in a parking lot, we would be terminating the uh CRU status uh completely from the site.

Yeah, through to through the mayor.

Um if there was an interest in the future uh to develop on the site, there would be an opportunity.

The it would be a very similar process to what we're looking at now.

There would be a development permit, and if there was variances, uh those would have to be approved by council.

It would be a commercial development permit for form and character.

Okay, thank you.

And that's my problem.

You know, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you're going to um put in you know a parking lot, unless of course you have every intention to do an underground parking uh for the new facility.

So um we're gonna have to make a a quick decision.

I think this is going to be our covenant issue uh maybe uh that you know if you're going to go ahead with this project and you're going to put in the parking, then the CRU goes, it's eradicated.

I probably would retire if you approved a CRU after you've if the building were to get expanded and approved.

I pr I probably would retire because it would be silly to put a CR CRU in there.

Well, good to go.

One last real quick one more question.

When I read about the difference in size, it it looked as if the signs would be much larger.

And I'm just wondering if there's any need at all to go to larger signs given.

Canadian tire everyone knows that it's there.

I you know, I knew it was a little larger.

And so I agree.

I I don't know.

I didn't know how big it how much maybe the uh the gentleman from Canadian Tire with the permit can tell us how the difference in size.

Is it he had his plan there?

Was it not on his plan that he was presenting to us?

Yeah, I'll I'll look to uh planner scoring to be confirmed.

But I believe yeah, so the logo sign is is north of seven square meters, and I believe the bylaw requirement is two point five square meters.

So an increase of I don't think the current one's two point five.

I think it's bigger, but okay.

That's what the that's what the the exit what the existing bylaw requirement is for a logo sign is two point five square meters.

So the existing sign would be nonconforming.

So that's so what is the size of does anybody know the size of the I believe I feel like I'm a council member today.

Is there anybody know the size of the uh the current existing sign up there?

Hello Mr.

Kine Terra?

Do you know the size do you know the size?

I'm grilling the Canadian Terra guy I'm I'm really getting in trouble.

Do you do you know the size of the current sign?

Uh not off the top of my head.

Sorry we put a new one up in 2014 and and it was bigger.

So it's currently and it went through council.

So it's a question is how much bigger is the go one going up versus this one.

You had pictures.

Why don't you can you reach Mr.

Planner?

Can you reshow the pictures of the facade?

I guess not.

So well these do you know my concern is it sure looks a lot bigger.

I mean the 2.5 to 7 sounds a lot bigger than it looks on the on the picture.

So I'm concerned that the you know is the picture realistic given what what we are in terms of going from two to two to two point five to seven.

Okay.

So I'm looking at your existing building, and I'm looking what says he's currently saying on the existing building, and the one below it, which is a PRZO, they look about the same size.

So you already got a sign up there.

That's to the mayor.

If I if I can, uh to the mirror, um, I can try to find the what the existing size of the uh logo sign is.

I don't believe there is uh a very large difference.

I think we're looking at a bit of a different perspective with the the images.

Um, but just just bear with me uh a moment.

Yeah, I'm gonna tell you it's currently the if this is the correct pictures, then you have the same size sign that's going up.

I mean, and it's not a very bright sign.

We have we have spotlights that shine on the building uh as part of the parking lot shown in the front, and so um they go off.

We have timers on those, and they go off at well, we usually turn them off at midnight just for safety reasons and because the Dairy Queen is open a little longer than we are.

So parking lots, uh lights, uh, some of those security lights will stay on, like I say, till till midnight.

Your mayor, um, just a point of clarification reading the variance as staff has provided, the uh increased logo sign would be from two meters squared, two square meters to seven square meters.

So I'm gonna I'm sorry, I was incorrect in in terms of the size.

The current one is not two square meters.

I would tell you that it's bigger.

Okay.

So so clarify a clarification on the the variance uh through the mirror, the the the clarification on the variance, the variance that's being requested is not to the existing sign.

It is what is permitted as the maximum area in the sign bylaw.

So the maximum permitted area is two meters square.

The proposed sign is seven point two meters.

It has nothing to do with what the existing sign is.

All right.

Okay.

No not changing the free channing sign.

No.

No.

Okay.

This would be the sign that's on it's on the building.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I'm I'm confused as to what staff what what staff just said I under I heard what they're doing.

I understood the that the that there the maximum allowable is two square meters, and this one uh the proposed sign for Canadian tire, the triangle will go to seven point four meters square.

So it will more than triple the maximum allowable signage that we have.

Okay.

So my question would be is if the signage is going to be approximately the same size, why would we go up to seven then and not to to what it's you know, just about what they're planning to put in.

Because it sounds as if they're gonna be put in something that's a lot smaller than what was the maximum allowable.

So I just have a concern of having a maximum allowable that's nowhere near what they're planning to put in.

At least I f I think what staff is has said in terms of the signage size.

Through the mayor, I I've yet defined what the uh the existing sign is for the logo sign, but the as I said before, the proposed sign would be uh 7.2 or sorry, 7.4 meters square.

Uh the maximum permitted in the sign bylaw is two meters square.

Um I I I can't find the the signage what what is it is currently the logo sign.

So we're assuming it already exceeds the maximum allowable through uh some other approval.

So I think that should be clear for everybody that's already and that they're asking for another increase.

I think that's the bottom line to seven point four meters squared.

Or replace if it's the same size, just replace what's there.

Yeah, that's that's a massive size.

That's huge.

Um if it was the same size or slightly bigger, I was you know, I would say this is an area I'd approve if we don't.

That's huge.

That is a large area.

So I'm just wondering if we could modify this document to say that it's uh you know the the same size as the what's currently up there.

Do you be happy with that?

Yeah.

Okay.

So I think we've got some other things on the agenda.

If we're uh counselors are are done their questions, I think some more may be revealed from some comments from the uh the public as well, related to this agenda item that might uncover some of our questions or repeat the questions.

So if we're happy to carry on with comments from the public.

Sorry, Chair.

I just don't want to lose that when we make our final motion.

Uh that the applicant's happy to have the sign the same size and not seven meters square.

Noted.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So at this point, we'd uh invite any comments from the public, um, and we'd start here in the room if uh you're here to speak specifically on agenda item uh 8.1, the variants for um Canadian tire.

Good evening.

Good evening, uh, for the record and for those that haven't met me.

My name is David Whitzer.

I live at 1501 Glentana Road.

I've lived there since it was a horse pasture.

I was through the rezoning process.

Uh I've lived there longer than most of the trees are old around there.

First, I want to thank you for your service.

There's some quick answers I can give you.

You asked about the number of stalls.

There's going to be eight less than current stalls there already.

You asked about uh Councillor Lemon, you asked about uh would it impede anyone's view?

Well, if I hold my hand here, it doesn't impede my view.

But if I extend it, it does start to impede my view, but the height hasn't changed.

That's the same as this extension.

It might not exceed the eight meters that it is now.

Um, but by extending it, you do impede the view.

I want to also say that I'm a patron of Canadian Tire, and they're no less than three times a week.

I love that store there.

I I'm happy that it's there.

Uh, they're generally a good neighbor.

Um, and I I I'm not adverse to an expansion, uh, but I did write a letter of my concerns because I did have some concerns.

Uh, you know, the rooftop uh surrounds are being redone.

That's one thing to surround it visually, but there's a noise factor.

When they came to my home when they were looking at it, the acoustic people, the experts, defined that in my home, the sound of that machine was equal to rush hour traffic.

So those signs were specific to noise reduction as well.

So surrounds need to not only be screening for visual, but for sound, especially in the proximity I am.

I live right above that roof.

So there was a bunch of more information that came since uh I saw the first PDF that went on file.

And I know staff is responsible for going through those things, going through the rezoning and going through the commitments that Canadian Tire have already made through that rezoning and original development permit.

But the one thing that caught my eye is that they gave a number for parking, how many cars were parking there, and it seemed fairly low.

And I looked at the date, it was in February of 2021.

When I think of February, I don't think of cycling, outdoor sports, barbecuing, exterior maintenance.

I don't think of the things swimming.

A lot of the stuff, the merchandise, is for outdoors summer activities.

I don't think of Dairy Queen with ice cream in February.

So it seems that the numbers that they gave from February wouldn't necessarily represent a high level of use.

And I see the use.

There is space there, but I'm not sure that it is the same kind of space room that they suggest in their numbers that they offer.

As far as delivery, yes, there's two bays.

And they're very good Canadian tire about their deliveries.

But there's no bay for the garden center.

And there's always delivery through the growings and planting season of delivery nursery vehicles parked along that parking area, which will now be a retail area and a driving lane only.

So where is the parking gonna be for the garden center deliveries?

They're not going to take it from the loading base and run it through the store.

Dairy Queen has none.

The restaurant has none.

There's none for that current CRU building, and to serve it.

Sometimes they park on Glintanum Road to make their deliveries, blocking the through lane so that they can deliver to the rear of the restaurants where that the stuff is needed.

So there is conflict as soon as somebody comes aright on Glentana Road of a delivery there, forcing a moving vehicle to go around, which might put in conflict oncoming.

So these are just issues that I think need to be thought about carefully by staff before an approval is given.

I'm not saying don't approve an expansion, but it needs to be reasonable.

If they can reduce the height and protect the views, like you're suggesting, might be impeded, then that would really go a long way to making me feel good about this development of permit application that they have.

So I trust that you'll go through my letter.

I I appreciate your time and this opportunity, and I appreciate your service.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any others that wish to speak from the public here with us?

Is there anybody on the phone?

Mayor Tobias, we have a caller.

Last four digits 1953.

Hi.

Hello, can you state your name and your address, please?

Oh, hi.

Hi.

Okay, hi.

It's Deb Hayes, and I'm at 32 Demos Plays.

I've got a question about the cash in lieu for the trees and the parking.

What where does that cash in lieu go?

That's a fine question.

I'll push it to staff.

Thank you, Mayor.

Ivan the Young Director of Engineering and Parks.

I can speak specific to the trees.

Uh the trees, there's a cash in loo based on the bylaw of $500 per tree.

And so it's a two to one ratio.

And that goes towards our tree planting program that is currently that has recently launched and is uh a lot of residents have actually called in to um to purchase trees from actually not purchase trees from us.

We actually purchase the trees and give them to them to plant.

But there's no guarantee that they will actually plant the trees then.

So the yeah, and that's a good question.

So the the those trees will get planted onto the properties of those that want those trees.

So the applicants would give the engineering department a call asking for trees and we would supply them and the applicants would then take the trees and plant it on their properties.

Okay, but there's no guarantee that the trees would survive.

Okay, I'm I'm just wondering this this this cash in lieu of trees.

Um okay, so how many people actually call and say they want trees on their property?

And the mayor last week, well, at the last meeting, stated that there were X number of trees needed to supply oxygen per year per person.

And if we are going to take trees out of development, allow them to pay cash in lieu of the trees, how does that fit into responsible development and sustainability of the area when there's no guarantee that the trees that are paid cash in lieu for are not actually going to be replaced somewhere.

I can speak with respect to the tree planting program.

Um with respect to them planting it, uh you're right there the oversight there is uh not as rigor, it's not rigorous.

However, um, for many of them, especially with respect to people who uh who have to plant trees as part of replacement, that is, if they take out a tree in the property, they have to replant with two.

Uh there's usually a one-year uh period that needs that needs to be reviewed.

Uh for the tree planting program that you're speaking of, um, I can't remember recall the top of my head whether that's uh that's a requirement.

I don't think it is.

Um, but that said, uh the uh we have had uh quite a few callers come in uh requesting trees.

I don't have the numbers in the top of my head.

I think that's around you know five to ten trees in the last two, three months that the program's been launched.

And how many trees would have been paid for in lieu of not being replaced?

Total for this year, sorry, uh maybe you can click if you can clarify.

Okay.

Well, for example, say money's being paid in lieu of instead of replanting, say, okay, the 10 trees are only planting eight.

How many times has that happened that money's being paid in lieu of planting trees taken out?

How many times have they actually been replaced?

And how many people in View Royal actually know that they can phone and say, hey, guess what?

We want a tree.

And you guys will provide.

How many people actually know that?

So that would guarantee the replacement of trees?

I think with respect to this file, there is a combination of 10.

Um now with respect to the entire program, uh, I don't have that number on the top of my head yeah because I I I don't I wonder if if the amount of trees that are actually lost and are supposed to be replaced by X number of trees I wonder how many like I don't I think there's going to be a huge discrepancy there.

So I'm just I'm concerned about that.

Again for the the community um livability and just the preservation of of what the trees provide us and whatnot.

So I just thought I'd throw it out there.

Thank you for taking my question I really appreciate that.

We'll uh try to get back to you with the number for trees once staff has an opportunity to uh to digest the data.

They didn't have that right on hand, as well as uh as bringing up uh potential ways that we can advertise um the tree replacement program.

Was there any other questions?

No, I did just thank you.

Thank you.

Like I said, thank you for taking my question.

I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Staff, are there any other callers on the line?

Mayor Tobias, we have no other, we have no other callers at this time.

So correspondence.

There's a number, I think we've had uh some late correspondence on your blue sheet.

Move your shade.

All in favor.

No opposed.

Motion carries.

And now to Helmkin.

No, we've got to we've actually got to um discuss this one a little bit and figure out whether we're at a point right now.

The staff recommendation is in front of us.

Um I'd like to make an amendment to this, at least one to start with, that the the whole issue about the two meters to seven meters, just as we discussed it, that the sign be the same size.

And just in terms of the applicant agreed to it, and it seems to remove a lot of the confusion about the signage that way.

And so to be crystal clear on this, this is um a replacement sign with the same dimensions luminosity of the current signage that is there.

For that triangular to big the big one, yeah.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Seeing none motion carries.

Like I think a another amendment uh to um provide uh some a report uh on the some noise abatement for the the roof areas in addition to the uh the visual there is multiple ways of abating noise from from from that type of uh structure there so we want assurance for noise in the form of a motion yeah tougher one take a run at that counselor matzon i just that's a tougher one given where we are because you normally have to ask for something specific because we're already at the point where we're approving this so I don't know staff has some suggestions how about uh we add on that um that that the noise emitting does not exceed the current level of uh emanated noise.

Staff to to the mayor, um, there is a covenant existing on on title for the property.

Uh, I can't remember off the top of my head what the decibel uh rating is that may not be exceeded, but um that would carry over to this new uh HVAC system staff.

Yeah.

Um and um just in addition to that, um there you so that covenant that is registered on title does uh specifically say that the decibel DBA does not exceed 55.

So that's already in the existing legal agreement that's registered on title, and that would, as Sterling said, we'll carry over to the other HVAC system that is proposed on the addition.

I'll withdraw my motion and that's appropriate.

So that seems to be covered up.

Councillor Matt Lennon.

Okay, first of all, I would like to thank Mr.

You may.

Witzer for his very cogent input and letter.

So thank you, sir.

Um given that there's this is going to be more of a uh destination store and we're reducing parking.

I you know I I I don't that doesn't really compute for me.

So um I would propose that we forego one electric charging station and ask Canadian Tire to put in one fast charger.

Yes, but we would gain a parking spot.

I thought he already agreed to two.

Manage fast.

I mean the turnaround the turnaround to the fast station would be um allowing you know much greater access.

So just sorry, I thought he already agreed to two of the level three, the very fast ones.

No.

Didn't you?

Jim Jim, the manager said he'd like that.

Well he's the franchise owner, so oh okay.

Yeah yeah yeah i it's I love I love electric.

It's the thing we'll figure out go but I think what council says you'd like an extra parking spot which is also fantastic because on those and every first days your parking spot's gonna count so basically decide you want one fast one two fast ones or just one and have an extra parking spot okay so I think that's what she does if if I may you know what one of the things we we have a regular one here and you know that that that takes a couple of hours of charging and so you lose that parking spot maybe they should have one there and upgrade the share that's a different conversation.

I I think staff had a response that probably would be relevant.

Um thank you, Mayor.

I'd just like to clarify that the applicant is proposing to provide two level two electric chargers, not a level three.

Right.

And so if if I may, so level two is not a fast charge.

That no, correct.

Right.

So I think we could probably before we move on, let's settle the issue with the fast chargers first.

Um and and if that's uh a requirement that we would like to um uh have the applicant take into consideration is are we asking for two or one fast charger?

And I think Councillor Lemon specified that we could have one fast charger and give one of those spaces back into general parking.

Sure.

So all in favor of that discussion.

Can we ask the applicant too if that's Mr.

Can you?

Yeah, I would sorry, I would oppose the motion.

I would prefer to two uh rapid charging stations rather than just one general parking spot.

Uh I don't think it's that much more expensive.

And with the volume of people going through there, I know we only have one here, but we're not, it's not a big parking lot.

So I would prefer if if councilman would change your motion to two rapid charging stations, I would gladly uh level two or three.

Three.

All right.

Okay.

Uh any comment from anybody else?

May I?

Yes, council.

Other comment.

Um with respect.

Uh there's not always two cars in a parking lot of that size.

I can't imagine needing to be charged at the same time.

And then you don't have, but but that needs to be available then.

And so you lose the parking space in case someone actually wants to go in and shop and doesn't have uh an electric vehicle.

But looking forward to the future, there's gonna be a lot more hybrid and electric vehicles.

Okay.

So the um, and I from for the applicant, and I want him to jump in, but you know, the uh the cost of a level three is far greater than two level twos.

So Rogers.

Thank you.

It's really that much more.

Um so having said that, however, I think that it's reasonable for Canadian Tire to put in a fast charger.

Um, because um, you know, and and I think Canadian Tire could look at it this way.

Um, you're still asking for a variance of 36 parking stalls.

And it's a trade-off.

We're horse trading here.

If um if you want to have that variance, I think it's an incentive for us to have that variance of 36 parking stalls would be to um improve the store's um viability and attractiveness of having uh a fast one fast charger.

I understand the cost, but you're you're getting the benefit of having you know the the variance of the uh 36 parking stalls.

And in terms of the other fast charger, that can be a future discussion for Atmos Walk Shopping Center.

I'm just confused where we are.

Motion wise.

The motion is is to instead of having two uh ordinary fast ordinary chargers, level two, we would have one level three fast charger.

Mayor, if I may oh, sorry.

Right.

Mr.

Yeah, I just would like to quickly jump in here because this is important information.

Um, the zoning bylaw does require two electric chargers on site.

So if you reduce it to one, then you're triggering another variance.

And so we're that is uh that is an issue.

So the applicant is required to provide two on site.

No, I know and I appreciate that.

I appreciate that we're uh we're requiring two slow chargers, but you know, the the benefit of having one fast charger is the equivalent of having two fast charger, and I know the numbers, but I'm just saying the end result is is I think uh superior.

And and I think she's just talking about the processes that are current bylaw is too.

So we're actually asking for something that um is they're trying to plan to.

Um, but uh but we're changing the plan.

Counselor McKinsey.

Um I think I just wanted to address Councillor Lemon's uh concern about uh the getting rid of one or you know having a regular parking.

I guess it doesn't preclude someone from using it, even if they're a regular car.

So I I would be up for having still the two at the higher that's what's it called, three at the higher charging.

Um I'm not sure if it would be how much additional money it would be to do it now.

Um I think it would be difficult down the road or probably cost more to add an additional one later on.

So thank you.

I think the applicant had a comment as well.

Uh thank you, um, Mr.

Mayor.

I just wanted to, again, I was gonna make the the point I believe the planning director made.

Um the fact that you know we've been trying to follow the zoning bala uh to to the best of our abilities.

The zoning bala requires the provision of two EV charging stations, which we provided.

Uh you know, working with staff, uh, we've we've gone and solicited a partnership with an EV charging provider.

Uh we have started to look at that required infrastructure to support those two EV stalls.

Um so uh again, I I I can't speak to what the cost of two level three or even one level three charging station will be.

Um, but but frankly, it's gonna set us back uh quite a ways.

And and and I frankly think it's it's a little bit changed in the goalpost given that you know we've we did set out in earnest to follow the zoning bylaw.

So that would be my comment.

Thank you.

However, the goalpost didn't include reducing 36 parking spaces.

Indeed, and that is significant.

So options, suggestions.

Here we are.

So do I understand we have a motion for changing the two level twos to one level three?

So that's the motion that's currently on.

It's we can vote that that motion would in fact trigger a bylaw change.

Yep.

Or variance.

Yeah, um, so just to clarify, uh Mary Tobias, it would be an additional variance, which then will trigger a new notification and another opportunity for public comment so mic well, I'd much rather have the two level threes as a motion.

Okay, council may doesn't oh that yeah that I would like to raise a different or modify the motion to have two level three charging stations.

Second okay so you know it's and I again I have to bring in the applicant on this one.

I think we are dramatically increasing the cost to the applicant by having two level three charging stations probably enough to kill the um the uh the retro renovations that's my guess um and what if the applicants can speak to that well we're still under discussion I know but we need to get that understanding loud and clear on this assumption so applicant could you provide um your insight into um the cost and balance of two level three charging stations and what would that do to your application uh mr mayor that hasn't been frankly hasn't been considered uh again we've um we've set our sights on on meeting the zoning bylaw requirement um we've gone about again secured partnerships with with e v charging providers we've we've started to look at what the power capacity is is needed.

Um we would have to go back and and start from scratch to to understand what those costs would be.

I I I think i think there's a recognition on all parties that that's that cost is going to be significant, whether or not it's enough to make or break the project.

I I wouldn't be able to comment on that at this point.

You have three options.

You trickle charge, it takes eight hours.

Level two takes four hours.

You don't type spots tied up for four hours.

Level three, a level two is about uh between a thousand to twelve hundred bucks.

That's not talking dil uh installed in your home.

So to me the cost compared to the whole overall project is is pretty minuscule.

Okay.

Um so let's focus on where we need to right now do with this application.

Uh instead of solutioning for the applicant, let's focus on what we want to do with this application.

We've had a number of motions to, but this one uh there appears it's going to take some time to for the applicant to find that well except right now we've so we do have the motion for on and then John spoken and so and just to follow up on what uh councilor Brown said, you know, 36 spots at 12,000 is a lot more expensive than this than the uh level two or level three charging would ever be.

So I'm still support the motion for two level threes.

The the you're supporting the amendment to the amendment.

Yeah, yeah.

Oh you wish up.

I just want to um uh voice my opposition.

Um, you know, it is a fast charger is important, I agree, um, but I do not want to jeopardize the uh the project.

Um and you know, I think we we're getting we would have a significant win with um with the one fast charger.

So I would be opposing the motion.

Okay.

Uh councillor Qualins.

Thank you.

And uh I think we're we're getting close and uh we're moving in the right direction here.

I I have concerns that uh we will jeopardize uh this project moving forward.

Uh a long-standing large business in our community with a large tax base.

We have uh I think uh met the concerns of our constituents.

We're we're trying to do that, and there's been some bending on behalf of Canadian Tire already.

Uh we've been moving forward in that regard.

I I personally uh would be comfortable with the one fast uh moving forward.

Council Lennon.

Um if I could speak to the original motion, I I do think even even if it's only uh you know a psychological um two fast charging stations, if I will never park there as long as I'm driving a fuel combustion and um internal combustion engine so I it it it I I will not support the motion for two fast chargers I'm gonna stick with one please sounds like there's we still need to vote on one of them and I think the motion on the floor was for two.

So all in favor of two fast charging stations.

And I think uh that's four to three, so Carries, and uh those in favor were could you raise your hands again, Swair?

So Matheson, Rogers, myself, Mackenzie, and Brown and uh against were Lemon and Kowalewich.

And you had your hand up before.

What are you talking about?

I was opposed to it.

Oh, you were opposed to it.

Okay, so we had three opposed to Rogers as well.

And that includes a reduction of parking spots.

Yeah, sorry, whatever the bylaw or or whatever the we currently have along with those two amendments that we've just made.

You're moving that second.

Oh staff.

Sorry.

Because the bylaws pretty generic with respect to the type of charging station.

So electric charging station.

So if you're wanting something like a fast charger, then there's two ways we can make it as a condition of the development permit or um secure it in a legal agreement, a covenant.

Recommendation from staff.

Um through the mayor.

We can make it a a condition of the development permit.

I think that's more appropriate than a legal covenant honestly.

Like the recommendation with the amendment.

Staff recommendation.

I have to move that with the amendment.

And we have we have those two amendments associated with our three amendments associated with it, right?

I withdrew mine on the on the sound on the sound abatement.

Okay.

So we have two amendments on the table, the for the two fast charges and the amendments for the size of the site.

Yep.

Correct I guess we'll mayor um so do we need a motion at all with respect to the CRU uh if if they're going ahead with um with this and we're going to give the approvals for the variants and whatnot and they're going to be put parking on that CRU site then isn't it appropriate then to have a motion to remove um the CRU designation so that no other no future building or it doesn't get developed.

So through the mayor um I mean if council would like to put that sort of encumbrance on the property, um typically that would have to be usually done through a legal agreement.

Um that that site is not redeveloped.

Um and just for clarification, um the the reason for that is you don't want to see that surface parking to be a future building.

Well, because it would um to have a have a future building, the future building would have a reparking requirement, and there is no ability to give any parking to that site anymore.

It's all been used up entirely uh for the Canadian Tire building.

So have another building with a parking requirement.

So I um just thank you for that.

And one thing just to consider as well.

So if we do ever receive a development application for the CRU site, it would go through a similar, a very similar council process, a development permit process.

There's other ways to locate parking on the site, like underground parking.

So that and that can be done through reciprocal reciprocal agreements, and um, so that surface parking that you see today could be located underground.

So that is just something to think about um before putting some kind of encumbrance like that on on the property so now are we happy to consider the staff recommendation any further comment comments discussion one more finally one more 30 seconds one more page to have clear clarification and and I guess this is to the applicant as well one of the uh the the challenges um for using up parking spaces was there was a lot of parking spaces being used in the past for garden materials and whatnot um so is there do we need to have any requirement or condition that um now that we've got an expanded garden center that no more parking spaces will be used for display storage anything other than that must be used for parking?

So is it is sorry.

Through the mayor, um there yes I mean usually how a town, city, municipality finds out about um parking spaces being utilized for unenclosed storage is through bylaw complaints.

And so when we see a complaint um a staff person by law enforcement officer will go out and and have a look.

We can add that sort of layer uh and add a condition in the development permit that um no park parking shall be used for unenclosed storage or storage materials, that sort of thing we we can we do that um or again there's there's there is the legal agreement option as well so securing that in the legal agreement but a DP there's a notice that is registered on title for a development permit so it it it does have I would like to add it so moved I think you just ensured that the remaining parking spaces wouldn't be encumbered by any storage and that we would secure that agreement with in the agreement with the applicant.

So parking is parking.

Since we have, you know, we're already working at a bare minimum, uh, we don't want to have any parking being used up for non-parking use.

Second that motion.

It's a motion, I assume.

I did not all in favor.

Motion carries.

No, I'm still to I'm not sure I support that.

I mean if there's if there's time where they have to drop something off before they can put it get it into the uh into the building and they just drop things off, leave it there for a day and then put it in I I just don't think we should be encumbering them with a requirement that they can't ever use that for for for putting materials on for any time.