Council Meeting

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to our council meeting.

On this historic day, I think everyone's or many of our attentions are keeping an eye on the results down south, but we'll do our best to stay focused here for the next couple of hours.

I'd like to begin by recognizing Lakwangan speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This meeting is being held under the auspices of Ministerial Order M192 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health officers' orders prohibiting gatherings in excess of 50 people.

This evening we will hear from the public during public participation and the question period portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, you dial 778-402-9227, and when prompted, enter conference ID 637-565-202 pound.

All that information is on the screen for the live stream.

And if you're wanting to speak under public participation, I would call in now because we will get there very quickly.

Ask you not to use speakerphone, and that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

And you can then begin by giving us your name and address for the record, please.

If you're providing comments through the chat feature, that feature is open during the public participation portion of the agenda for your comments, and then it'll close and later it'll be open in the question period portion.

Again, please provide your name and address.

This meeting will be recorded.

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

Thank you.

And with that, I need a motion to approve the agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor, and the minutes from October 20th.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, moved by Councillor Lemmon, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Any comments, corrections?

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

I don't have any mayor's report tonight.

I would just point out that for the public who's at home, Councillor Mattson is with us tonight.

He's just with us via telephone rather than in person in council chambers.

And so public participation period is here.

Is there any public on the phone stuff?

Your worship, I do not currently have any new callers.

Okay, thank you.

Well, I think you know, I I think we'll just carry on through if if there's no one there, so we're gonna go straight to 8.1A, which is the section 57 notice on title for 17 Eaton Avenue.

Did staff want to speak to this or thank you, your worship.

Sarah Jones, corporate officer for the municipality.

Before council this evening is an item that uh was on council's agenda in the past a couple of times.

Uh the first time that was on the agenda was in July.

And at that time, council made the motion that you see in your report um before you, and that was the request that uh the matter be adjourned for the section 57 consideration for the notice on title for 17 Eaton Avenue until September 8th, provided that the property be withdrawn from the sub from the real estate market, and it was, and um, the real estate agent was notified of that.

The issue returned to council September 8th agenda, and at that meeting, the CAO had conferred with the legal representative who was on the phone with his clients in his office this evening for 17 Eaton Avenue, and that solicitor had requested an extension to the adjournment to allow the owners time to resolve the situation.

And additional correspondence was also put on the agenda in September.

And at that time, council made the motion also that you'll see on the report before you, and that is the consideration for the section 157 uh section 57 notice for 17 Eaton continue to be adjourned until the 3rd of November, which would be this evening, provided that the owners do not list the property for sale and the owners diligently pursue a satisfactory resolution prior to that date, the property remains off the market at this time.

Before you tonight, before we get into the issue, is council should turn its mind to whether the owners have fulfilled the second component of that resolution, C 9320, and that is have the owners diligently pursued the satisfactory resolution prior to November 3rd.

And attached, you'll see a report from the community planner that outlines the activities that have been undertaken and the communications that have occurred with the legal representative over the past two months.

And council will have had an opportunity to review that.

So the activity begins on September 15th with contact from the Mr.

Garillach and continued back and forth for September and October, outlining what the issues were and what was discussed with the representative.

Before council are two options.

Proceed with the hearing, and should council wish to proceed with the hearing, the information from the building official is before you, and that was contained in the July report.

The recommendation is provided an alternative one in my report, and that is pursue and simply file the notice if that's what you intend to do.

The one from July is a little bit longer and contemplated other things about the property and being on or off the market and that type of thing.

And so this is the simpler proceed.

And the second option is don't proceed to consider the hearing this evening.

And in fact, option two would be adjourn the hearing to allow the property owners time to continue their pursuit of satisfactory resolution.

And if council chooses to do that and adjourn the hearing to a later date, the following is a potential resolution.

And council may note that the date listed in the proposed alternative resolution of the option two resolution is that the matter of the Section 57 notice on Title for 17 Eaton Avenue continue to be adjourned until March 2nd.

The date should read 2021, provided the property owners do not list the property for sale and that they diligently pursue the satisfactory resolution prior to that date.

The conclusion of the report is that the options for resolution are limited to either removal or rezoning, as the variance for density is not possible under the provincial legislation, which would see variance for density, which is not allowed legally by the province.

The property owners, through their legal representative, have made some attempt toward resolution, though the development variance application that they did provide at the very end of October is not a viable option.

So this report asks council to consider whether or not they wish to proceed this evening with the hearing pertaining to consideration of the Section 57 notice on Title 4 17 Eaton Avenue.

Okay, thank you, sir.

And are the owners with your suggestion of leaving it until March the 2nd, 2021?

Are the owners in concurrence that during that time they feel that something can happen or change, so that this won't be necessary?

Your worship, I did not have that discussion with the property owners.

Okay.

Thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Counsel.

Uh yes, I could just a question, if I may, through the chair to staff.

If I understand things um uh the way it's um um left, uh there was the requirement to open a space, and that the um uh the proponents or the applicants uh suggestions um are not viable and the space has not yet been opened.

Is is that my understanding?

It's uh still still in limbo correct.

They have made made an application um for for um a variance um and have been in contact with the community planner as outlined in the points of contact provided in the attachment to my cover report.

No, um counselor Lemmon.

Um no comment your worship, except I believe that the the um that the their legal representation is on the phone online if if the question you had could be answered by that person.

Right.

Okay.

Well, I suppose we can ask the question.

It's a little uh out of order.

So I I gather the the homeowner's representative is on the telephone.

And and I suppose our our question is if we leave this until March the second, is there a genuine interest in finding this resolved in a way that it legally can be resolved before that date?

If you wouldn't mind answering that, you'll just need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Yeah, we can hear you.

Thank you, your worship, and counsel.

It's Joe Garelick.

Uh yes, uh we certainly are interested in um using the time to the best of our ad our our ability.

Our problem has been to determine the exact uh site coverage and the amount if over what it is and if not over what uh you know what the r results could be.

Uh I've made some attempts at con at contacting an architect, it's Mr.

Doug Scott, and he was extremely busy and as it turns out most architects are at this time.

And uh I think I'm gonna have time over the next week or two to have a serious discussion with him.

I might be able to determine what the site coverage is, uh in this circ in this current circumstances, but I would much rather rely on a professional to tell me what it is and so I can make um you know a decision and talk to my clients and try and resolve this as quickly as we can.

And we of course believe that we can do it by March of 2021.

And your client is in concurrence about keeping the home off the market for that period of time and until it's resolved?

Yes they are.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

So option number two probably is is the one to to move.

Um you just I don't know who wants to make a motion but I'll I will be opposing it.

Okay.

I'll move option second.

I will second.

So we're moving option two which is to defer it until March the second twenty twenty one.

Okay, yeah go ahead.

No, you wish I I oppose the uh the motion to uh to weigh out into March.

Um the staff have been very diligent in working with um uh the uh the individuals uh including the lawyers from what I can see in the correspondence and um you know frankly I think the motion should be amended to um um uh December the first there's been adequate time to sort this out, and all they need to find out is um uh the FSR.

How much of that space of the deck uh is um uh inside or outside, if you like, of the FSR.

And it won't take very long for the architect to make that determination.

In fact, I'm be surprised if staff could make that determination.

This has been going on far too long.

The correspondence is going back and forth, back and forth, and there doesn't seem to be any understanding that it is not possible with the FSR as it is.

So I think this is far too lenient to go all the way to March on this project.

So uh I would um urge move an amendment that um uh the uh delay be until December the first second I'll second for discussion.

Did you second that, Counselor Mattson?

Yes, sir.

I guess I'm looking for staff to comment on the well we need to debate the amendment now, so staff can certainly comment whether the answers could be attained by that date.

Staff that gives seven weeks, eight weeks.

December.

CAO Anima.

Your your worship, the uh the March.

Four weeks, yeah.

The March estimate originates with staff.

Right.

So we're hearing from staff, Councillor Matson, that the March estimate originates with staff.

Okay, got that.

Thank you.

I agree with Councillor Rogers that it's been going on a while, but I'm not sure that by putting uh you know such a tight timeline of four weeks that it's um that it's reasonable at this point, and the owner is agreeing to keep the house off the market, which um gives me some assurance that we will be working to solve it.

So Sarah?

Uh thank you, your worship.

The March 1st date was not necessarily a time just to get the FSR and how much of the enclosure or the deck needed to be removed to come into compliance, but it was to um effect the construction work required to to do that as well.

Oh, I see.

So it was not just a what's the solution, it's a what's the solution and get it done.

Right.

Okay.

So I'm gonna call the question on the amendment then, which is to change the date to December 1st.

So those in favor of the amendment.

Okay, and then those opposed.

Councillor Mattson?

Opposed.

Okay.

So Councillor Rogers in favor and the rest of us opposed to the amendment.

So that's failed.

And then I'll go back and call the question on the main question or the main motion which is to give that until March the first.

So all in favor.

Opposed.

So councillor Rogers is opposed.

Okay thank you.

I hope that working collectively I mean it is it's a situation that's taken a huge amount of staff time and it's unfortunate I think on a lot of levels, and it would be really nice to see it done and and cleared up and the the home brought into compliance before that date so that we don't need to see this on our agenda again.

So moving on, there's a letter to receive from you.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor, opposed that's carried.

So we have committee reports.

So we have minutes of the joint advisory committee to receive.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

There are any comments.

Okay, so all in favor opposed that's carried, and then we have the recommendation.

So we've got one.

Two, three, four recommendations.

Um, but they're all to my way.

Are they just for receipt?

Or do we have to discuss and vote on them?

Well, I don't think we have to discuss and vote on them so much.

I mean the committee's recomm the first one, I suppose we I mean, we already have in some ways dealt with that through staff at at and and director Rosenberg is bringing forward ideas in budget.

Um the view royal parks master Plan is would be for receipt.

I I think the the number four one, which is the the trail, that one we probably need to decide whether we want to direct staff to pursue that.

But I don't know if we want to do that now or when we discuss Erskine Lane.

Yeah.

So why don't we just receive the four recommendations for now?

So moved.

Okay, thank you.

Moved by Councillor Mattson.

Second by Councillor Lemon.

Councillor Rogers.

Just a comment from um the uh the first recommendation with respect to a multi use path from uh from um pheasant lane into a view well park.

Uh I do have concerns uh of the recommendation of for a multi use pathway um that would be combining stallers, bikes, dogs into one path.

Um, and unless it's gonna be as wide as the ENN, um there there could be conflicts in that.

So it's um I'm leery about uh making that a multi use.

Let's sort that one out to make sure that we're happy with the design.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so all in favor, opposed, that's carried, and then we have item C, which is the minutes of the parks meeting.

Move receipt.

Thank you.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Lemmon, moved by Councillor Rogers.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried, and then we also have two recommendations there for receipt.

Move receipt.

Thank you, moved by Councillor Rogers.

And you worship I'm I'm happy to move receipt of the the first.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Kowalowich.

Um I do have concerns about uh designated in the green space entirely uh between the existing uh gardens to the playground being uh future uh an expansion of the community gardens.

Yeah, I agree.

I think we've made it clear to staff that we we think that any expansion of the community garden should be happening to the east, not to the west.

So I think we've made that point, but we can certainly make it again when it when the when the plan comes back.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so that is the advisory committee.

Thank you very much for those.

And so next is 9.1A, which is the speed limits.

The mayor of Sanage wrote me another quite long letter about this, which I've asked staff to put on committee of the whole next week under public works and transportation.

So I would suggest just receiving this tonight and then having the discussion around the other letter that Mayor Haynes has sent next week.

Move or seat.

Okay, thank you.

So it's moved by Councillor Kowalowicz, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor?

Opposed, that's carried.

And then we have A through E for information.

Motion.

Moved by Councillor Rogers.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

So then to the two big issues that we've got tonight on the agenda, which is the number nine Erskine Lane and then 298 Island Highway.

So we're starting with Erskine Lane.

Hello, your worship.

Can you hear me?

This is James Davison.

Hello?

Hello?

Hello.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Uh if you would like a presentation, I have a presentation.

Um otherwise uh our recommendation is to uh give first and second reading to the amendment bylaw and to schedule a public hearing for November 17th.

Is there anything different in your presentation, James, since it came to committee of the whole?

Uh no, no.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, good.

So these these would be uh general questions to I don't know the staff and um sure would fit in.

I have no idea.

So I think there's certainly questions, so why why don't we go with questions and and see how far we get with that?

Okay, so go ahead, Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, thank you.

Um it was uh really well done uh uh for the um open house on site um uh that the applicant had.

Um I think as well received by the community and well appreciated uh uh that they were there making themselves available um to walk it and really understand the um uh the efforts that they've made to uh uh to um address the community concerns and council's concerns.

Um one of the interesting things was um uh in speaking to a few residents there is that they were concerned about um the five-story that's going to be uh in lot A and facing Watkiss Way on top of the hill.

And uh it it's uh going to be rather imposing having the five stories.

And you know, I'm wondering, I guess I've got two questions.

One, if the applicant intends to put a good portion of the 250 trees they plant to replant uh there on that front to help alleviate the um uh imposing nature of it.

Uh that's question one.

Question two is whether a story of um that building, uh five-story, you go down to four.

And um in the rate at the very behind, the rate adjacent to lot seven, that building uh be six stories.

And the reason I um uh the individual suggested that was because uh the property slopes significantly, and um you know the height of um of a six-story at the very bottom would not be um as um uh well it simply wouldn't be imposing.

Uh there would be a great deal of uh vegetative screening, um, and it would help lessen the impact on Watkins Way.

I wonder if both um staff and and the applicant could um respond to that.

Staff.

Thank you, uh thank you, Chair uh again, James Davison.

Um much of these questions could uh and and really should be answered uh at at time of development permit as far as the landscaping goes and trees.

Um they can be refined with a landscape plan in the form of character development permit.

Uh if you would like we could amend the bylaw to be less prescriptive as far as as uh building height now, or those could be amended through a variance at time of development permit.

So council still retains a lot of control with those issues, even if this rezoning goes ahead as planned.

Thank you, James.

Mr.

Hoff, are you able to to speak to that suggestion that councillor Rogers has raised?

Nope, you just muted yourself.

How about now?

That's good.

Hi, good evening.

You know, that's the first time that that has been proposed.

Are we willing to have a discussion with uh staff uh about reconfiguration uh the building on lot A versus the uh the building on lot D.

Um we would entertain that, but what but uh but uh I know right now we're right at the threshold.

I did like what I heard about potentially making the back building a six story and the and uh as long as we don't lose any more units, because right now I'm really right on the threshold of economic viability of the project with a double underground parkade so i agree with james certainly we can we can entertain those discussions um um i think that's it's a reasonable request uh just remember that at some point in time the architect has to we've already sort of designed the buildings and stuff so it it is very fairly onerous to start changing uh heights of buildings but uh we would be very open minded about uh trying to find that compromise okay thank you other questions if i may um and i understand i'm bringing forward to that that particular question but i um on the forehand um i i would be interested if might have impact on uh tree pressure 40 percent tree.

So you know that's um uh as the staff uh applicant assessed that it's um we are we uh lose trees so that's um that's one aspect I guess the other thing too is that um it wasn't really clear to me um as we designed the uh the design of um Erskine Lane whether there was going to be a bike lane going up the hill um can staff or applicant enlighten me.

Thank you uh this is James again um the standard for the road right of way for that type of road in View Royal, as per our um our bylaws is 18 meter with uh what's colloquially known as Sherrows, that is uh not a separated bike lane, uh, but rather a shared uh use lane indicated by paint.

Uh if council desires a different approach to that, that is a separated bike lane or on street bike lane, uh, that would have to go through the variance process.

So I haven't just seeking clarification, you're saying that that we've made a variance for that.

Um, yeah, is is this something that we can discuss at the form of directory at the next phase uh of this, or do we have to sort that out right now?

We we don't have to sort it out right now for sure, because it's road design and we're talking about land use at the moment.

And um, I think it's debatable whether a bike lane is necessary on that short road, personally.

Yeah, um, but I I don't think we should get bogged down with that now.

I mean, we we will be requiring a certain amount of land for right-of-way, and and we can put that together as but we but we do have our subdivision servicing bylaw, which would would govern how that road would expect to be.

Counselor Mattson, you had a question?

Yes and it sort of follows on the same line as as John's.

I mean what we've got is a country lane there that only allows you know s speeds people to travel so fast and now we're going to turn it into you know quite a large road.

I'm I'm wondering if there's and and when it would be appropriate to to talk about uh whether or not we could sort of get the sidewalk and a bike lane sort of along the side of the road uh maybe perhaps even on the other you know on the proponent's property sort of mixed between trees etc.

You know one two things one to save trees and uh sort of keep that same small road but improve the safety for the pedestrians.

And and so I'd hate to s to lose the opportunity if that's what we want to do because of the zoning rezoning, but I I also would like to have that discussion say at the next committee of the whole just in terms of what we can or can't do to you know sort of instead of turning a sort of a little freeway uh that small road into a little freeway.

We have a bylaw that was adopted la I mean Director Rosenberg can speak to this better than I can, but where we classified all types of roads in the town and we put it in the bylaw of the standards that they would be built to.

So that's why James was saying that we would have to have a variance from that in order to to change the layout of the road.

So that would just be a town variance, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Certainly something we could discuss that down the road, but I don't know that we want to get bogged down with it tonight.

No, okay.

So that's I just wanted to confirm that we don't have to worry about.

Well, if if it was rezoned that we'd have sort of edged something on stone, we could still go and make changes if we think that's appropriate as council.

Yeah, that's certainly my understanding.

I'll look to our CAO maybe on that, but I if if council was to want some sort of variance to the the road standard, presumably we can direct that at some point in the process.

Right.

Okay.

So yeah, I think we're good on that point.

Councillor Levin?

Yeah, um, first of all, I just want to thank staff and the applicant for such a thorough, lengthy, weighty um report.

Uh it's impressive and it's good work.

And I've just lost my thing there.

Here we go.

Um, just a question for the applicant that is perhaps um more DP related, but that is the the timeline for um in consideration of the residents for the construction.

Would would it be starting with A and B, then C, then D miss off, Mr.

Off?

And over how many years.

I can't hear you.

You're you're muted.

Terry, you need to press.

There you go.

Yeah.

So uh the answer to your question is that um our our plan is to to to do two phases.

Building uh A and B would come first, followed by C and D.

We would anticipate uh starting on this project probably May June of 2021, and we would likely complete the entire project.

We would do those two buildings in likely 12 to 14 months, followed by the second phase to follow thereafter.

There is a potential, uh, assuming um that there's you know no major, it's really hard to see where we're going uh with uh the the pandemic and it is a big fear in development, but the um we could potentially build all four buildings at once, but just with the the size and magnitude of the project, it's likely that we would do it in two phases, um, which we think would be which would be very manageable.

And ideally, uh three years it would totally be built out all four buildings.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, so is that me academic echoing or is that counselor?

Councillor Matson, you did you say something?

Not for a few minutes.

Okay.

I was muted.

Right.

Okay.

So the the trail on the just to save Councillor Rogers from bringing this up.

The the trail on the water main.

Um I'm I really support us trying to sort that out and and to work with the property owners.

I I've talked to Ted Robbins at the CRD, and obviously he's as high as you can go in the water department.

And um he doesn't seem to feel that there would be any problem with a license of occupation.

And he says they've done it in in other spots.

So I think the CRD would definitely cooperate if we were to formally ask them.

But I think we need to put it out there and see.

The hospital for people who are going to live there and work at the hospital.

I mean, there's just so many pluses.

So I after we receive the staff report, I'll I'll ask for a council motion that that staff do pursue that with the proponent and and with the CRD and with the number two hospital way owners.

Any other questions?

Councillor Rogers?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Again, my uh my um deep thanks and congratulations both to staff and and the applicant for um working on on uh the traffic uh challenges of you know traffic coming in and out of Erskine Lane and Watkins Way and the idea of the roundabout.

One of the um uh key things that uh both uhskin lane and Stonerbridge had um had petitioned was uh uh safe uh means of pedestrian crossing um uh across uh Watkiss Way.

And uh staff had pointed out um the flight lines are really uh a problem and uh so pedestrian controlled um uh lighting uh is definitely something that um needs to be seriously considered um uh so that traffic does indeed stop for pedestrians um again is is this something that had already been incorporated in the design of the traffic circle is that something that we're gonna have to look at John Rosenberg are you I mean I think you were looking at that all season but are you able to answer that for Councilor Rogers?

Thank you, Your Worship.

Um, we're certainly uh a long ways away from actually looking at design drawings.

Um I do know that the developer has um looked at the configuration of the alignment to make sure it fits within the right-of-way, and they've told us that.

Um, but we certainly haven't looked at the drawings from a design standpoint.

What I can tell you is that at a minimum, staff will ensure that it meets any kind of traffic warrants that ensures the public safety.

Um I can't speak directly to whether that would include uh lighted pedestrian crosswalks or not.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes, thank you very much, uh Mr.

Wisember.

Uh um put in the uh well they put in the necessary conduit in the design of the of it so that if it at the future gate we figure that some kind of lighting, safety lightning is going to be necessary, we don't have to dig up the road or the or the roundabout again.

So that might be just some forward thinking.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers, through the viewership.

Um that is typically the standard that we do.

We generally put in one or two extra conduits on all legs of roundabouts or intersections uh because you never know, you know, with regards to when it's a traffic light, uh what kind of technology is gonna come forward with regards to videoing or radar detection or those types of uh amenities.

So certainly um at a minimum, there would be some additional conduits to allow us to do it in the future.

Anyone else?

Councilor Rogers.

Just um, you know, I appreciate staff giving us the um estimated CAC's uh community um amenity uh fund um if uh staff at some point could also give us uh a breakdown of the GCCs um from this project as well.

Sure.

Thank you.

Councilor Lemmon.

Okay, so receipt of the report is moved by Councillor Lemmon.

Seconded by second councillor Rogers.

Okay, thank you, staff.

It's not yeah, and so all in favor, opposed, that's carried.

I I think it'd be a good idea to have a motion on record.

Um just that we are, if that's council's wish, that we are interested in pursuing the the trail through the CRD water right of way to the hospital.

So moved.

Okay, so that's moved by counselor rogers.

The staff and the proponent work to facilitate that trail.

Seconded by Councilor Lemon.

So that's all in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

And so then we have first and second reading of bylaw number one zero five nine.

So who'd like to move that?

I would move that.

Okay, so moved by counselor rogers.

Secillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um as I say, quite happy with the uh um the matters that's said going forward.

I I know that we had um uh taken a couple of times, a couple of tries to uh to get to this point, um, and now we are I think very successful in in being able to present something uh for um that's uh I think the community would be uh happy to look at.

The um I guess my question is to staff um with that discussion about uh um giving some flexibility in in the um in the bylaws so that if building heights needed to be changed on one building or another, uh that flexibility would be uh incorporating thanks thank you, Chair.

Um the the changes at the time of development permit would have to be uh available within the the bylaw heights so i i believe they would be um the the heights of the buildings can be varied uh we have to make sure that the um the the maximum density uh would not be exceeded in in doing that which if if the if the subzones that are proposed uh the the changes are made within those subzones, that is uh one building is lowered and another is is raised, that will be fine.

There will be no need to change the zone.

Counselor madson, do you have a comment?

Sure.

Um in terms of the proposal, it's certainly gone a long way uh from when we first saw it, and so I'm I'm pleased to see that.

Uh I just wanted to sort of point out to the proponent that depending on what happens at the uh a public hearing, should we vote that in favor to go to public hearing?

Uh that'll certainly do a lot in terms of swaying what my final decision is.

So I'm I'm not I'm not uh I'm not sure which way I'm gonna go at this point, so it's up to see what the public reaction is.

Sure.

Yep, fair enough.

Okay, on my left, Councillor Lemon.

Thank you.

Um what my um my take on this proposed development or proposed rezoning over the first two um presentations but with uh by the developers um it was it was simply too too much too soon to my view but I think I and I thank the developer for this he's he's taken our um concerns and our interests and the communities and the neighborhoods concerns and interests on board and addressed virtually all of them.

Right down to you know counting the trees um so I thank you for that and um yeah, I'm I'm pleased to see this go go to the next stage.

Thank you, Your Worship.

So thank you.

Counselor Kowalowicz.

I I do want to acknowledge my colleagues, this is a very significant rezoning application.

This is one of the biggest that we've had in a while, and maybe the biggest we're gonna have for a while.

I will say this, it's a great location.

It's it makes sense for for the higher density.

I do have some reservations about kind of how the process started.

I wasn't exactly overly impressed with the developers's lack of engagement with the community.

Um that has since improved, which is a good thing.

Uh specific to land use, um there's it's it's still uh it's still very imposing in some locations that uh that are a concern for me.

But um I'm I'm excited to see where it takes us to the next stage and see what the public thinks.

Good.

And just from me briefly, I'm I'm happy to support this.

I think it's uh it's an exciting project.

I think it's come a long ways from what was first proposed, um, and is a good fit for that property and a good fit with our OCP and um all sorts of reasons to put put density there.

So obviously we have to hear from the public at the public hearing, but um I'm I'm certainly happy to support it as a as it moves along.

So I'm gonna call the question unless anybody else has a comment.

Okay, all in favor, opposed, so that is carried, and then we have a motion to set a public hearing for November 17th, I think it was.

So moved.

Thank you.

So that's moved by Councillor Kualowicz.

Second.

And um all in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So the next one is 298 Island Highway.

And Councillor Lemon.

I will repeat self, your worship.

Okay, here could just for the minutes, Councillor Lemon's recusing herself of the conflict because she lives very close to this proposal.

So who's which staff members handling this?

Is that Mr.

Chow?

Thank you, Your Worship.

Yes.

So go ahead, Jeff, when you're ready.

So I do have a presentation based on the report if council wishes, or I think your presentation on this one, I think, because we're less familiar with this one.

Okay, thank you, Your Worship.

So this uh this uh presentation will talk about the uh issues that were previously uh discussed at previous committee to the whole and council meetings and uh describe the two the two bylaws and if necessary the the development concept.

Um this application went forward to community hall and council, uh a couple items that were identified were contaminated sites, public consultation, computation capacity, and traffic impact assessments.

Uh council may recall this proposal is for a uh six-story building at the corner of Island Highway and Helmkin Road on the uh current Namas State restaurant site.

And the proposal is for a building that has that steps back the upper two stories of the building.

So it reads more like a four-story building at the pedestrian level, and it is in a location where there is a uh large boulevard area that they propose to construct a pedestrian plaza.

And there would be two levels underground parking, one level of at-grade parking, and 54 residential units and roughly 6,000 square feet of commercial space.

So the identified issues.

Contaminated sites, the provincial land remediation section has given approval to consider this rezoning application to go through the zoning price process.

So a site investigation won't be necessary until after rezoning uh in terms of public consultation and notification the applicant uh did a door knocking campaign for residences within free blocks in April uh when the application that before the application was submitted uh an open house was held in May for the residents of Lions Cove next door and in October over 500 flower flyers were distributed to properties within the 400 meteor radius that uh that the public hearing uh notice will be sent to and a website with email address has been set up to receive comments to date they've had conversations with um three different people, and those uh conversations were uh attached to the report um the sewer lift station does have capacity for this project, and uh with respect to transportation, uh I can hand it over to John Rosenberg, Director of Engineering.

Thank you, Jeff.

Uh the original transportation impact assessment was submitted uh several months ago.

Uh we had it audited by a Bunt and Associates on behalf of the town.

Uh, they were hired to review that uh impact assessment.

Um we subsequently sent back comments to the uh developer who resubmitted in October a revised impact assessment, um, and that's what currently council is seeing.

Um, the current impact assessment um really does have a a narrow focus on trying to improve uh traffic flow through the intersection of Helmkin at Island Highway.

Um, and it doesn't really look to the to the expanse and the impact of say uh further intersections, Stormont, Fuoral Avenue, um, and then moving down the line towards uh Callwood Interchange.

Um that being said, um, we've never really uh tried to push traffic through the island highway.

We have uh philosophically um designed it to um you know carry uh enough traffic to be safe, but not so much that it says, hey, come this way.

So the proposed changes I'd be a little concerned about the safety impacts.

If we go to the next slide, Jeff.

These changes tend to try to push traffic through the intersection, which would just either cause a problem in either direction, either up towards Stormont, because it wouldn't get through the Stormont intersection or Viewer Avenue intersection, or push traffic towards the Calwood Interchange in that PM peak.

As we all know, the the merging of traffic post intersection, similar to at Shoreline Drive and Admiral's generally causes confusion and certainly causes safety issues with regards to potential for conflict.

We definitely would not want to see this occur here.

This also doesn't meet the intent of the current subdivision servicing bylaw, and it would also require the purchase of private property for this to be done.

And we currently don't have the ability, especially on the southwest corner where the doctor's office is already completely developed, it'd be a tough uh sell to try to purchase land there.

Next slide.

This is what we typically are trying to do on that corridor from Admiral's to the Culwood Interchange, and this is currently what you see up around Stormont Avenue and View Royal Avenue, where we've got the dual left turn lanes where needed and where appropriate, we've got the rain gardens to filter storm water.

And this is what we're trying to do in that corridor, and this provides consistency throughout.

So if we go to the next slide, this is what uh council had asked staff to take a look at a few years ago, and this is currently what we're looking for from a grant perspective.

Um, and here you can see that the there's a rain garden in the center of the uh paved surface.

This does fit into our current road alignment uh as it sits with some modifications, obviously, with the traffic laning, um, but it would fit within the current right-of-way in the land area that the town owns.

Um, and this would give us the consistency that we're looking for.

Um, we do have within the capital budget a proposal, I believe it's in 2023 to have this kind of design go from Hamilton to the island uh to the Calwood Interchange.

So this is the kind of corridor treatment we are currently looking for philosophically.

Uh next uh slide, please, Jeff.

Um, where staff does have a concern is with regards to access to the site.

Um, as a previous slide showed, you we were going to be able to physically um prevent left turns in and left turns out of the development, which is appropriate because they'd be traveling over several lanes of traffic.

And we definitely don't want that.

And I don't believe that paint goring would provide the adequate safety restraints that we'd need.

So the physical restraint of the rain garden would provide that for us.

If we go to the next slide, Helmkin's a little more problematic because it does not have any kind of physical barrier, and we currently don't have any design there.

But it would be staff's intent that the blue lines that you do see on this drawing would be some kind of small um concrete type curb, and we'd have a couple of knockdown posts for delineation to make sure it's seen.

This would physically prevent left turns out of the development heading onto Helmkin or heading off a Helmkin onto the site.

You will have basically to have uh right in and ride out only onto the site as far as access goes.

Um next slide.

With regards to the transportation demand management, um, we do think it's uh uh paramount that we try to get all the bicycle parking on ground level.

Um the current uh proposal has them putting traffic on two levels of the parquade, and generally speaking, people that ride bikes don't really want to ride their bike up or down a parquet, so it's suggested that they find a way to design uh the the area so that the park bicycle parking could all be on one level.

Um we'd also recommend uh to help promote that mode shift uh and indoor bike repair stations so that anybody that does need to make bike repairs, if they are commuters, has the ability to do so.

Uh, it is uh well placed uh with regards to uh proximity to the in and rail trail, and we do think it's uh an excellent opportunity if the right facilities are provided uh to really um have a chance at uh doing well with regards to mode shift and getting people out of cars and onto bikes because the in and rail trail is nice and close.

Um we are a little concerned with regards to the traffic data that was used.

They did traffic counts during the pandemic, which we know were lower than the counts were.

We also know that they base their counts and then use a factor based on traffic counts that town staff had done, which were during July, which is not a peak time for traffic.

That being said, staff doesn't have that much of a concern.

The fact is that the traffic counts would likely be light with regards to overall traffic volumes on Island Highway and Helmkin.

We know they're significant.

The impact of the development itself is minimal.

We do agree that their number of around 3% is probably correct.

It is a small amount of traffic that'll be added to the uh area.

And overall, our um issue would be more with the access of the site with regards to the left turn and right turn, not so much the volume generated from the development itself.

And I would say that's about it.

Okay, thank you, Director Rosenberg.

Thank you.

So I can now either we can either talk about the bylaw or I can uh give council refresher on the development concept.

W why don't you go through the development concept and then we'll see what questions there are.

All right.

So the uh development concept is for uh again for a six-story building, and this is the elevation from the island highway and the one from Helm from uh Helmkin Road.

These are typically things that are uh be more formally investigated at the development permit stage, but just to give the um the uh the applicant's intent for the property for the rezoning, and so the zone has been crafted to sort of accommodate this development.

Uh so the development is for a uh again for a project that is for 54 units, 103 parking spaces are are would be provided, which of them would meet bylaw requirements, and same with uh bicycle parking.

Um the ground floor would be commercial use, and the upper floors would be um would be residential use.

And the unit mix is a mix of one and two bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit.

This is the uh the general site plan, which shows uh that there are two access to the property, one off island highway, which uh which is the uh commercial parking, and and one driveway that comes from Helmkin Road that leads down to the two levels of underground parking.

On the ground floor, we would have a uh a commercial uh commercial space that the applicant's intent is for a uh sort of a neighborhood grocery or food market, something akin to the Red Barn market, which has uh food and some sort of uh some blank food services as well and there would be some uh space for utility rooms for the residential including an amenity room uh that would allow like a a work um like a workspace uh shared workspace for residents these are some renderings of the project from uh from different angles and an illustration of what the plaza could look like.

And this uh the these elevations show the uh height of the building to uh to existing buildings.

So on the on the highway frontage, we see that the height of the building is similar in elevation to the roof elevation of the Lions Cove next door.

And on the other side on Helmkin on Helmkin frontage, there is a single family dwelling, but these properties on Eltham are designated neighborhood mixed use and are expected to rezone to a higher density use in the future.

Another I would take note here is there is a two-seat transit shelter right near the frontage here, and BC Transit recommends that it be upgraded if this development moves forward as it can be expected there will be additional uh users for this uh additional ridership at this stop.

The site is part of the Helmkin Harbor Community Corridor under the official community plan.

It's basically a kind of a commercial neighborhood center for uh for servicing the neighborhood and leads to the uh the future uh town center at Fort Victoria.

The site is currently designated neighborhood mixed use, as are most of the properties around it, and beyond that, there's the mixed residential designation, which uh these both these designations anticipate additional residential density in the future.

The neighborhood mixed uh mixed use area also allows commercial type use.

So this proposal is in keeping, although it is changing the land use designation, um, it is in keeping with the policies of the corridor in the official community plan in terms of uh intensifying mixed uses and providing public space at that intersection.

Uh the concept of a grocery deli is something that would uh serve the neighborhood and is not as much a uh regional draw as say a shopping center might be or other type of use.

Um this plaza would uh would support pedestrian safeties and connections across across both roads, and it provides a high-quality built environment that uh that becomes a uh public uh gathering space for the neighborhood.

Um this the policy supports higher residential densities and this zone would would allow that it would not compete or or uh would would complement not compete with the future town center and would not inhibit the uh eventual development of the uh town center desired at the Fort Victoria site.

So, in terms of density, residential density, the proposed residential density is 291 units per hectare.

Uh it is a little bit more than uh than other developments have that have um been approved or under construction uh in in the area.

So uh which are the newer ones are mostly in the two hundred 220 unit per hectare range.

Um and it is a lower density than the Lying's Cove next door.

But in terms of the actual number of units, we're talking about 54 units versus um versus 37 for the other two properties, the Maya London and the recent the rezoned property at 242 Island Highway, which uh which for slightly smaller sites or roughly same size sites, uh proposed 37 units.

So the difference here is what we're talking about is 17 units.

Um consultation we talked about, and the proposed zone would accommodate uh this development.

Uh community and managed contribution, the the policy target is three three thousand five hundred dollars per unit, which would be a total of 189,000 dollars for 54 units, and this would be security and covenant.

And once those funds come in, then the decision can be made on potential uh potential improvements and some uh and through some ideas for there are some ideas for some local improvements.

So the bylaw first bylaw is the official community plan amendment bylaw.

And what that bylaw does is it would allow commercial and residential land uses which is what the current neighborhood mixed use land use designation supports.

It would allow a maximum floor space ratio of 3.0 to 1 and up to six it up to six-story buildings.

Properties in this land use new land use designation would be subject to the neighborhood mixed use development permit area requirements.

So under the current land use designation, the same development permits would apply.

And finally, what it would do is also assign this new neighborhood centered land use designation to the subject property.

rezoned the property to that new zone.

There is a recommendation that the covenant uh to secure the community contribution be uh be registered at the time same time as this bylaw.

Uh this is the zone description and uh again it's it is um it is designed to accommodate the development concept that we just saw.

Uh the thing of note here is that there is a uh front yard setback and flanking lot setback.

So basically the setbacks on Island Highway and Helmkin Road are at the zero lot line so uh so the buildings address the street more um but the upper the upper two stories, so fifth and sixth stories are required to be set back at least two meters from the property line.

So the recommendation is to uh there are recommendations in the agenda package to to uh that support the bylaw and the this report uh is recommends the registration of the covenant for the community manager contribution along at the same time as the rezoning bylaw so that completes the report I believe uh the applicant may be online if there are any questions and that completes the presentation.

Okay thank you Jeff Counselor Matson you had some questions.

Yes, thank you.

Um at the last meeting where this was discussed, the uh developer had mentioned that he wouldn't he wouldn't be opposed to um having the zoning stipulated for the first floor for uh basically a food market with a coffee shop in Delhi in it and and I didn't see that when I was looking at uh the latest zone.

So did I miss that staff or has that been included?

Okay.

Uh through you your worship uh the intent of the land use designation and the zone is is for a building that has limited commercial uh limited commercial space being on the ground floor only um and the but the intent here is for to allow uh uh some flexibility for uh other uses that may be suitable to the neighborhood so um there are um other tools that can be used to ensure that other businesses that are not desired may uh to operate here so for example um one of the community charter powers that council has is to is via the regulation of of of business and one of those powers is for hours of operation so um so perhaps uh if uh perhaps a covenant where the hours are limited would uh would prevent certain undesirable uses such as a late night restaurant or a 24-hour convenience store.

So that uh if that's council's wish, um that could be something that could be part of a covenant, a covenant that would be registered in con in con in concert with the rezoning.

So just for clarification, my my understanding is one of the things that we were allowing this the higher density, etc., is to get uh you know a a red barn style food market coffee shop deli.

And so I'm would have a hard time approving that this go forward unless there are uh assurances in in in terms of the zoning that uh those use that that's a the initial floor would be sort of restricted to those usage.

Yeah, I I tend to agree with you, Council Matson, and I and I certainly agree that we need to make 100% sure that no, you know, that there's no possibility that a franchise fast food operation or anything like that could open in that spot.

Um and we need to, I mean, before we go too far to make sure that that's that's that's bulletproof.

But I guess for the proponent, this did come up last time.

Um the idea of ris restricting the commercial use to uh, you know, I don't know what the word would be but a but a community style grocery store and you had expressed a willingness to to do that so the counselor matsen is asking you if you would be amenable to that sort of restriction that's to the proponent who I believe is on the line hello.

Hello, sorry.

I uh this is Jeff Snegueris uh speaking.

I uh yes, uh your worship, that is absolutely uh uh our position.

We want to create something beautiful for the town of V Royal.

We want to create a space uh for the community to gather, uh high quality space.

It is our absolute vision uh to uh make make the area very, very community friendly.

We we would like a high-end uh grocer, uh boutique grocer to have that uh offering of uh of a deli of a coffee shop where people can come and they can meet their neighbors, they can mingle, gather in the plaza, uh enjoy uh the beautiful area of U Royal.

Uh and it is absolutely completely uh not our intention whatsoever to bring in anything less than uh than a very, very high quality uh artisan high-end grocery store to anchor uh this part of the community.

Okay, thank you very much.

Well that's certainly a clear answer.

So then staff, is there no is there any reason why, presuming that this is going to move forward, that we cannot put a very restrictive use on what that commercial space can be used for.

Council, this is Lindsay Chase, Director of Development Services.

Um in this situation, I would recommend um um a covenant.

Um uh is probably going to be our best tool to most clearly outline the types of uses that council does not want to see.

So a a a a covenant is is written in in the negative form in terms of articulating what it is that you don't want to see.

And in that we can also be including things like powers of operation, etc.

Um, as opposed to in in zoning requirements, um, which uh it it tends to be a lot more difficult to write appropriate language to preclude the types of uses that council has articulated as not wanting.

Mr.

Chase, I guess I have a hard time understanding why, if the property owner is prepared to accept an extremely limited zoning, that we would just simply not do that.

And um rather than some sort of document that could presumably be challenged down the road, but also the document that we could miss one negative use that we didn't put in there.

whole project is built around.

So if C Lanima maybe can does anyone want to take a shot at that?

Your worship, there's no part.

Sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Kim.

There's no reason why we can't limit the zoning to a single use or a very limited use.

The um the opportunity that uh Lindsay described is is to create more opportunities than just narrow it down to one, but avoid those uses that are um not desirable at all.

But you are correct, we can create a zone very limiting.

And if um if for some reason the proponent is unable to contract with that particular, then we'll end up having to rezone.

And I think what um Director Chase was trying to advise was to make sure that should that happen, there might be other opportunities that are also acceptable.

Okay, thank you.

Um Councillor Mattson, did you have more questions?

No, just to I guess follow up on what you were saying is, you know, again, I feel quite strongly we need to have something etched in stone and if they for somehow their plans don't work out and they want something different, then they'd have to come back to council for a rezoning as opposed to us potentially missing or or writing something to restrict everything we don't want.

That the your suggestion just makes much more sense and it's probably the only way I can support this initiative.

Okay.

Thank you.

Counselor Rogers?

Yes, sir.

Well, that that was certainly uh one one aspect, and and um, you know, quite frankly, and until I see that that kind of wording, I'm not sure sure I'm interested in entertaining any audience at this point.

Um, you know, the the that's a huge concern I have.

Um I first off, I want to say I really like the looks of the building.

I like the uh um the connectivity uh with the street, the plaza, um, and that you know is very classic, and obviously having more uh accommodation is great.

However, as Mr.

Um Rosenberg pointed out, um traffic is a really, really a worry, uh a concern of mine.

Uh this is probably the third most uh busy intersection, uh busiest intersection in View Royal.

Um there's not gonna be any uh left in or left outs.

Um and you know, just even looking at um the rear parking lot, and and I got I gotta say that the Red Barn on Glen uh Glanford is based on um and the success of that Red Barn is the eyes uh into that and is there parking?

Is it uh available to go in?

And and that's one thing about this.

Um Red Barn is very transient, uh kind of use in and out, and um the all this parking underneath, uh it's kind of like a wrestling role.

First off, I have to figure out how I'm gonna write into this building, then I'm gonna go underneath and in the parking lot.

Maybe there's a parking spot.

Uh, and then when I get out, I'm gonna have to ride out.

So if I was uh coming in from um um uh chocolate, uh that would be really interesting.

How I'm gonna write out and I'm gonna give up and uh maybe I'll go to quality foods.

But you know, somehow if I'm gonna get back to um uh Chilco, I'm gonna have to go down Island Highway, or sorry, down Helmaken, and it's a classic uh Red Yard Stormont Circle.

Um and we talked about people perhaps going down to the Pheasant Lane roundabout, which I I doubt very much that that's gonna happen.

So it's it's um I I really do think that the viability of a um uh uh a food market um uh that needs a lot of patrons, not just those of V Royal, but a lot of patrons, um, is is kind of uh fantastic but naive.

Um the so that's one of my concerns.

The other the other concerns of I have with the rear parking lot is is the visibility um um sight lines, you know, as you're trying to ride out, and and there's all these vehicles going like heck um to make that right turn onto Helmican.

So that's one challenge.

And then when they make the right turn of Helmican, who knows who's coming in or out uh from the residential parcade.

And I'm and I wonder about that parade because it seems like it's not only an access for uh the residential 54 units, but it also seems like it has a commercial um uh access uh for that, you know, in in looking in the details.

And then whether or not individuals are gonna be able to make that ride out because there's a bus in the way.

So it's um you know it's a really compounding situation uh that um I'm not satisfied that we've worked out any kind of uh uh solutions here um yeah you know to um to address and this is this is uh when I look at the predictions of 2023 this intersection is nothing but ENFs you know failures and gridlocks um so as um as much as I really want to have this building here um I don't think we've addressed the um um the access.

I am a little concerned about the applicant um wanting something like 60 parking stalls being small car.

I don't care about the number 103 being met, but is that a 103 standard parking stalls, or was that um uh an okay formula to have a percentage of those?

It sounds like a variance.

They want to vary the number of parking stalls um uh from standard to small.

And it also looks like we want to variance um on the loading base.

There's one for commercial, but where's the loading bay for those people that want furniture in and out?

Um it's um there's a lot of questions about this, and I have you know, we've we've the um we really challenged number one.

We challenged you nest on electric vehicle charging stations and and um, but I I don't know how many are EV.

I don't know how many of the of the bike stalls are EV.

Um there's there's far too many questions um about this.

Uh and we haven't taken this to advisory committees yet.

So how can we go to a public hearing unless we would just simply want to bypass the advisory committees?

Well, in in fairness to that, it did come to committee of the whole, and it was not suggested at committee of the whole that it go to advisory committees.

So if if there's any shortcoming there, that was council's shortcoming.

And and I I believe it's it's my own shortcoming.

And I think it's important tonight to be focusing, we're focusing on land use.

Um you know, the access and equal problems are always going to be there no matter what redevelops on that site.

Well um, and I think it's important not to get too caught up on them when when we're talking about land use.

Well, I think you worship um you're right.

The but we are um you know allowing uh an increase uh from four to six stories.

We're allowing the FSR to go 1.5 to 3.

Uh so we are permitting you know that that density and any other location, um, you know, Fort Platoya, yeah, I'd have no problem with this.

But like I say, this is one of the busiest intersections, and the egress in and out um already is limited to right in, right out, which puts already spells a uh a business failure.

Um, and um so I I think you know, land use is based on um on a whole poly different things, and and success is one of those.

And I don't think this is gonna be a successful project unless we really do understand um all the challenges and the implications of this project.

Yeah, I would point out it's it's staff's job to deal with the road management issues.

Direct Director Rosenberg, do you have any brief comments to Councillor Rogers' list of concerns?

Uh not really, your worship.

Uh I would agree that uh the site is challenged from uh an access point of view, and and I don't see how there's any way to make left safe left turns uh based on our current philosophies on island highway, certainly, and on Helmkin, there's just not enough road right-of-way to entertain any kind of area where we could make something happen, or I don't even think we could move this uh bus stop uh maybe a couple of feet towards Eltham, but I don't think that bus stop could be moved much further north on Eltham.

So um I would concur that the the the site is what it is, and and you are looking at any kind of future development.

I mean, even the restaurant now basically has a write in, right out only.

Um, and any future developments would have the same challenges.

Right.

Yeah, go ahead.

So w one of the one of the thoughts um Director Rosenberg was um, and I'm I'm just brainstorming here, but I wonder if um the left in, left out might be uh um addressed might, if we put a roundabout at Eltham.

Any thought I have absolutely no thought on that.

Um I would suggest if you if you insist that I say something, I would say I don't see how that would work.

Um that area is uh certainly smaller in nature.

Uh there's a significant vertical curve, so you'd have some sight line issues for sure with regards to accessing that uh roundabout would be uh sloped significantly.

Um I don't think that would help.

Um I guess if you're thinking of like that slingshot of making a right and then coming right back down and making a left at the light, it has some uh um merits, but certainly I I I couldn't tonight say that that would be a viable alternative.

Um, I could certainly say that might be something that could be looked at, but I couldn't speak to the viability.

Yeah.

John, without wanting to get into designing roads tonight, because I I do think we should focus on the land use.

But what what if Helmakin was made a hard right from island highway rather than the soft right?

Would that would that help at all?

I don't think it would that much.

I I think part of your problem would be that you you're now gonna have a longer queue coming back up island highway.

So I I think that would exacerbate certain issues.

Um it might help with regards to um perhaps uh ease of use getting out, but I I think there'd be more consequences to that that are undesirable than the results being desirable.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have anything?

I uh I think it's a wonderful intersection to start developing that gateway.

I hope that we can work with the developer to fine-tune some of the concerns that council members have.

I share some of them as well.

I'm excited that this could be the catalyst for the area and uh propel new developments for the corridor.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, from from me, I'm I'm certainly prepared to support it moving forward, but I'm only prepared to do that, which means I think that we can't give bylaw readings tonight if um if we can have that zone very restrictive for the commercial.

And I'm gathering that councillor Madsen is is in agreement with me from text that he has said as well.

So I think that is kind of a deal breaker.

The traffic woes I mean whatever goes I remember when we developed the old fire hall site we went all through this, and we were convinced that it was going to be a fiasco and and it's worked.

It's a it's a challenging site, but it works, and I have no doubt that in in the long run that this can be sorted out.

And yes, a lot of people are going to drive there, but hopefully, one of the key points of doing a development like this is that people are going to walk there as well.

Um, and that's really the whole idea of allowing a little bit of a deviation.

So I don't know if what council's position is on the on the zone, but like to see that.

Lindsay, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um based on council's comments this evening, I think it is necessary to write new definitions to be included in this zone, which means that no readings should be given this evening.

We'll bring back a new bylaw with um uh better wording in it for for your consideration.

Okay, thank you.

And then if there was a wish to send it to committees, we could do that while waiting for the public hearing.

Right?

We could send it to the advisory committees to a joint presentation in between.

That is correct.

There should be a uh a regularly scheduled advisory committee meeting in November.

So that that would be reasonable timing.

So okay, so I think there is there's cautious support for moving this along.

Obviously, you've heard concerns about the the access and the egress, and and certainly concerns that the the zoning be restrictive in terms of the commercial.

So I think if staff want to work on that and bring it back to a future meeting that that's great.

So if we could get a motion to receive the report.

So second okay all in favor opposed that's carried thank you to the proponents and thank you to staff and we look forward to to seeing it come back and if someone could let counselor lemon know she can come back in let's finish the agenda now.

Yeah, well, we're just going to go in in camera, right and um we've got one more bylaw.

Yeah, yeah.

So, folks, if anyone at home is thinking about question period, it is going to come up here very fast.

So, this is your opportunity to call 778-402-9227, and then the meeting ID is 637 565 202 pound.

And um, so if you did want to call in with a question, this is a good time.

Um, and the question can be about anything, it doesn't have to be about something that was on the agenda.

So we're going to item C, which is the amendment bylaw number one zero five seven.

Thank you.

Seconded by Councillor Kualovich.

Moved adoption by Councillor Rogers.

Everyone's good with this?

Okay.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

So we're at question period.

Um is there anyone on the phone stuff?

Uh your worship, we don't have any callers, but I I think there's some pretty stiff competition for council tonight.

Um, but I do understand that uh Jennifer does have a question that was posed in the chat feature.

Okay, thank you very much.

You mean you think people are more interested in the American election than us?

Hard hard to understand, I'm sure.

Yeah, that's right.

Jennifer, is there a a question in the chat feature?

Thank you, Mariscreet.

Yes, we do have a question from Sylvie Gannam of 2255 Highland Road, who says, Good evening.

The one-lane Watkis Way is an emergency disaster route and a direct access to the hospital, which serves all of Victoria.

Can Watkus Way support the vehicles from the elementary school, the alternate handy dart route, plus the new development of high-density buildings?

Well, I mean, certainly to answer that as best as I can, the the traffic studies that have been done certainly suggest that Walkers Way can.

As there's, yeah.

So I mean, that's the traffic reports I think formed part of our agenda tonight.

If you wanted to to read them, you'll find them on the town's website.

And so if there's still no other callers on the phone, I think we will do the closed meeting resolutions, Director Jones.

Thank you, your worship.

For the closed meeting resolution, there's a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of council, officers and employees of the town, and those identified under section 912 of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 91G.

Legal.

Okay.

So that's moved by Councillor Lemmon.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.