Committee of the Whole - 12 Mar 2024


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: STAFF REPORTS
3.i: Waterfront Landing South – OCP and Zoning Amendment Update
4: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:04:29)


SPEAKER_-1
0:00:28 (0:01:59)

e

Jenna Stoner
0:02:28 (0:02:00)

e we might need one more minute I was my e wonderful good morning everybody welcome to the committee of the whole for the District of Squamish this is Tuesday March 12th 9: a.m. in council chambers I am councelor Jenna Stoner acting mayor for the month of March so I'll be chairing this meeting welcome to the Squamish Nation traditional territory hot squalen quish oako as always we are very grateful to be doing our work on the traditional unseated territory of the Squamish Nation please be advised that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the District of Squamish website following the meeting if you have any concerns about this please notify the corporate officer present at this meeting acting today is Kim

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:04:29 (0:00:23)


Jenna Stoner
0:04:29 (0:00:22)

can I have a motion to adopt the agenda please moved by Council Hamilton second by councelor Greenlaw I will note that councelor Hamilton is here in the room he is having some problems joining us virtually or online but he is here present at the meeting for those who are online I will call the question any opposed motion

Waterfront Landing South – OCP and Zoning Amendment Update
0:04:52 (1:31:13)

Carrie Hamilton, planner for the District of Squamish, presented an update to the official community plan amendment and rezoning application for Waterfront Landing South, located at 1500 Highway 99. The update included a revised rezoning package, which staff sought committee feedback on. Significant changes since the last committee meeting included the addition of M2 marine and P4 Ecological Reserve zoning to the site, an increase of 101 residential units and 186 square meters of commercial space, an increase in market rental units from 75 to 301 units, and a decrease in market units from 860 to 736 units. Two parking stalls for all townhouse units were proposed, and 566 square meters were now secured for childcare, with a million dollars secured for public art.

Council members asked questions about the proposed changes, with Councillor Andrew Hamilton asking about the timeline for the Laurelwood Bridge and the potential for accelerating its construction. Dave Marill, director of Major Works, and Brent McMurry, manager of Transportation, explained that the bridge was anticipated to be constructed prior to 2030, but there may be funding challenges. Councillor Eric Andersen asked about the designation of Laurelwood as a collector road, the type of amenities planned for the site, and the potential for broadening the scope of the interpretive plan and public art. Councillor John French asked about the provision for long-term maintenance of art installations, and Councillor Chris Pettingill asked about the proposed commercial versus amenity commercial space. Mayor Armand Hurford asked about staff's concerns regarding building setbacks and the size of the commercial space. The committee did not make a final decision during the meeting, but took the feedback into consideration for future discussions.

Jenna Stoner
0:04:52 (0:00:48)

carries we just have one item on our agenda today but it is a big one we'll be passing it over to miss Hamilton for the Water fund landing South ocp and Zoning Amendment updates thank you very much I'll let you for your presentation and then we'll do some Council questions and comments

SPEAKER_03
0:05:40 (0:13:15)

okay good morning chair mayor council my name is Carrie Hamilton planner for the District of Squamish and with me today is Dave Marill director of Major Works just behind me and Brent McMurry manager of Transportation who is also just behind me and we also have Jesse Fletcher are here as well for the manager of current planning we are presenting to you today an update to the official community plan Amendment and reone application for Waterfront landing South located at 1500 Highway 99 so this project was first presented to committee for initial review and consideration on the July 11th 2023 Committee of the whole which will be referred to throughout this presentation as cow the update includes a revised resoning package which staff is seeking committee specific feedback on the revised Community amenity contribution offer clarification on development phasing revised parking comments commitments and Commercial area considerations for committee comment so significant changes since the last cow include the addition of M2 marine and P4 Ecological Reserve zoning to the site increase of 101 residential units and 186 m squar of commercial space increase in Market rental units from 75 to 301 units and a decrease in Market units from 860 to 736 units two parking stalls for all townhouse units are proposed which previously 1.65 stalls per two-bedroom tow houses were proposed and 566 M squared is now secured for child care and a million dollar secured for public art so as part of the report a detailed Community amenity contribution or CAC for short calculation table can be found in attachment one the important elements to take away from this table for CAC considerations are the total Market unit increase from what was originally approved in 2017 this is 128 units the other important note is that the total area of Market units which in this case is roughly negative 28,000 Square ft so in summary the South development is proposing to increase the total amount of residential units originally approved in 2017 by a total of 544 units they include an increase of 120 Market units 301 rental units and 25 affordable rental units there is no increase in Market residential area as the increase in Market unit area is below what was approved in 2017 so this table shows a comparison of the CAC committed to in 2017 the CAC proposed at the last committee meeting in July labeled c 1 and the current CAC proposal labeled c 2 so at the July 11th 20123 committee meeting the CAC offer was under the 2018 CAC policy and was not meeting the affordable housing or general amenities policy Target highlighted here in purple so committee generally expressed concern for not meeting both policy targets and advised the proposal to meet the policy in October 2023 a new CAC policy was adopted which removed Market rental as a CAC and included a new child care provision the revised CAC proposal for Waterfront landing South is now proposing to meet or exceed all CAC objectives changes are highlighted in red on the table and include 24 or 25 affordable units now 20% of Market density exceeding the 15% policy Target although Market rental is no longer a c it is added here to show the significant increase from 75 units to 301 units the percentage is based on Market density with 235% showing that market rental exceeds the proposed Market units it also includes 566 M squar of child care space which will be secured in addition to the 18 M squar already secured in 2017 and both will be provided in Phase 3 C on the North site The Proposal also includes an additional General amenity which was proposed by the developer of a million dollars dedicated to public art so at the July 11th meeting committee generally expressed concern for the timing of affordable and Rental housing had questions around the Laurelwood pton vehicle Bridge timing and interest in securing interm activation of the Phase 10 South Park LS to address committee's concern the following changes and commitments have been proposed so to address committee's concern around timing of rental housing phase six has converted all units to Market rental resulting in an increase of 226 rental units in early phasing to address committee's concern around affordable housing timing the development will commit in the LDA to the delivery of 255 affordable units in the first phase of the new additional density on the site and this will be prior to surpassing the original 892 Market units currently allowed on the site to address committee's concerns around the Laurelwood Pim and Bridge timing a review of bridge budget and construction delivery is conservatively expected for a 2030 completion the applicant is committed to securing a clause in the LDA that requires a traffic study be completed prior to exceeding the allowed 9997 units on the site which is expected to be required prior to phase 9A development permit approval to address committee's intern Park activation consideration the development is committing to explore an interm foreshore design which will be provided to council at the time of bylaw readings so at the July 11th committee meeting height was raised as a consideration for decreased Heights at the waterfront Edge in l line with the 2017 Subara plan committee generally made comment in support of these considerations as a result the revised application increased the upper story setback from 5 m to 10 m The cd40 Zone currently supports a height of 12.5 M for buildings within lot 14 and 15 with lot 14 being now shown as building a so lot a is currently proposing a six-story 25 M building with a 10 m upper story setback along the Waterfront staff have identified the massing at this Plaza Corner Edge as lacking in alignment with the current saaria plan policies and are recommending The Proposal consider a prominent four-story height at the North corner of building a to stay in keeping with the original sub area plan and original zoning Heights staff are looking for committee's feedback on this recommendation so the minimum secured commercial space for the South site in 2017 was 2,100 meters squared at the July 11th committee meeting staff expressed concern for the proposed commercial area which was 2,118 m squar and committee expressed support for increasing the commercial area delivery for the site the development is now proposing a total of 234 M squared of secured commercial space an increase of 18 186 mqu of commercial space and they did this by extending the plaza area commercial Frontage along the water Water's Edge and by adding a hybrid amenity commercial area at the South Park staff are concerned with the proposed amenity commercial area along the South Park as it doesn't propose a large enough space to support the original Subara plan's Vision which you can see in these images on the Le hand side of the screen given the overall increase in density of the site staff are recommending an overall increase to commercial for the site as well with a specific recommendation to increase the area at the South Park location staff are looking for committee's feedback on this as well so at the July 11th meeting committee expressed a mixed consensus of private parking comments and more General support for public parking considerations as a result minor changes to the parking delivery are proposed in red please note an error was noted in the report and public parking should read as 156 stalls instead of 136 stalls this is therefore an increase from the last committee meeting calculation for public parking so to address public parking concerns a revised par parking study found in attachment 4 was completed on the site to review current parking capacity and challenges the study confirmed capacity concerns for the free on Street neighborhood public street parking during evening hours as seen on the graph on the left the study also demonstrated sufficient capacity for the existing development as seen by the garage apron graphs on the right the study also highlighted the difference between townhouse parking and open parcade parking use as town homes with garages can be used for storage instead of parking to resolve the current and potential future on street parking challenges the development is proposing a residential exempt parking pass system and adding a 2-hour daytime parking restrictions for all public roads this recommendation will be explored further in alignment with the 2023 Downtown parking study and the exact methodology and delivery of the parking plan will be de detailed in the LDA the revised application went to advisory design panel ADP for short and committee for overall site planning review on February 15 2024 the committee expressed General support for the project with the following considerations on securing areas for site permeability for matrie growth considered dedicated accessible housing units offleash dog park areas solar considerations and keeping a sense of place while supporting variation in building design ADP comments will be considered prior to first and second reading so there are a number of technical reports for this project that have been under review and have been updated or will be needing updates as part of this revised submission they include a new Shoreline bio inventory report to address increased Shoreline restoration areas updated technical engineering reports such as an updated TR Transportation impact assessment report a flood Hazard report and this new parking study as well revised pathway networks and roadway crosssections were submitted with the revised master plan to address staff's comments so the ocp amendment and resoning is supported within ocp policy through several policy objectives in summary the main ones being support for infill development in this particular area preservation and restoration of environmental habitat clustering housing density to increase open space and Parkland adding more affordable housing and encouraging activated and vibrant public space some policy to be strengthened in this proposal would be around the need for more commercial space the project meets the Strategic plan through the connected and livable Community by increasing more affordable housing Park area and commitment to public art for the entire Waterfront Landing site and prepared for the future staff are seeking more Waterfront commercial to comply with creating a net increase of employment lands in spaces both on land and Marine so to inform the community per policy the application was posted to the district's development showcase and a development sign was posted on the site a public information meeting was hosted by the developer on October 12th 2023 at the Adventure Center and another hosted for Squamish Nation at totem Hall on February 8th 2023 in total 37 comments have been received for the project and can be found in attachment six staff's recommendation are that the committee provide feedback on the following which is the community amenity contribution office offer clarified development phasing revised parking commitment and the commercial area considerations and to direct staff to resolve any comments and bring forward for consideration of first and second reading alternatively committee could direct staff to resolve any comments provided by Council in return to another Committee of a whole meeting prior to consideration of first reading that concludes my presentation for this morning and welcome council's feedback thank you

Jenna Stoner
0:18:56 (0:00:19)

thank you very much for the presentation Miss Hamilton all right Council we'll go around with questions first and then also recognizing that there is a list of things that staff are seeking feedback on but we'll come back for comments anybody have questions at this time councelor Hamilton go

Andrew Hamilton
0:19:16 (0:01:09)

ahead thanks very much thanks very much for the staff report and thanks very much for the to the proponent and to staff whove been working hard on this proposal taking into account Council feedback from the last commune of the whole at this point my I'd like to understand the Laurel Woodbridge timeline what are our constraints there and are there ways that we can accelerate it I see what I what appears to be happening here is that we've got an increase in the residential density on that space some of that residential density is going to Market units which is not does not qualify for CAC contributions but obviously does increase the number of people living in the area so there's this we've got attention between something we want to promote as a as a mode of housing because we need it and transportation which we also need so is there a mechanism that staff can see to increase to shorten the timeline to deliver that Laurelwood Bridge

SPEAKER_03
0:20:25 (0:00:34)

sooner I might call Dave marrow if he's interested in coming up here but I just would like to clarify one component is that the commitment right now that is proposed is just that by the time the increased density regardless of if it's Market units or Market rental units that increase of density will be the trigger point to ensuring that we have an updated traffic impact assessment to check that and it also is in alignment with the timeline of the 2030

Jenna Stoner
0:21:00 (0:00:11)

timing we have both Dave and we have a new member of Staff who hasn't been at the council table before so we'll ask for an introduction to Mr MC merry

SPEAKER_09
0:21:12 (0:01:20)

please good morning mayor and Council Dave Meo director of major projects I'll just quickly address that comment and then I'll pass it along to Brent for introductions and some more context as Carri mentioned the pton lwood bridge it's currently anticipated in our financial plan for construction prior to 2030 we have design budget and some capital budget in for 2028 I believe currently 2029 expected construction completion it is expected that we or it's anticipated that we may not have sufficient DCC funds at that time to fully fund it or bring it ahead in the in the time scales ideally this is a this is a good project to seek provincial funding if possible it would be good to try to lobby for that we have made a case in the past that with the provision of this bridge it actually takes quite a load off of the Cleveland and Highway 99 intersection which is a problematic Intersection For The Province so there is a case to be made to seek some higher funding which would help to exped delivery over the bridge with that I'll pass along to

SPEAKER_01
0:22:33 (0:00:54)

Brent great hello thanks all BR McMurry manager of transportation and yeah great to be here for the first time today a little bit of additional context is sort of through ongoing conversations and relationship building with the ministry of transportation we we've talked about the Laurel pimperton bridge and identified as David mentioned that there is this potential Time Savings and through our contact at the ministry they said there open to seeking funding or supporting funding opportunities without any sort of commitment so definitely something that we can't rest all of our future planning on but recognize that looking at the cost of infrastructure and the amount of infrastructure in our community that's needed definitely will be continuing to work with Partners to build relationships and find Opportunities to help fund projects that make our community

Andrew Hamilton
0:23:27 (0:00:27)

better thanks Mr Mar you mentioned we might be falling short of our DCC contribu of our DCC it's not a reserve is it fund the amount of money in rdcc is to in order to deliver for 2030 the bridge for 2030 could you speak to sort of roughly the magnitude of that deficit are we talking a million $10 million $20

SPEAKER_09
0:23:55 (0:00:47)

million through the chair I don't have that information currently I know that we have a lot of competing projects Road and active transport Transportation projects that sort of looking into the future we see more projects that we want to include in the DCC funding model which all compete for funds so it's a prioritization really and with that sort of time frame and the you know the scale of funds required for this project it's not unreasonable to think that there may be some funding challenges at that point in time it would be a prior prioritization though so if this were an absolute priority it could probably I don't know if it could be brought forward but it could be potentially funded within the time frame that we're

Andrew Hamilton
0:24:42 (0:00:02)

expecting thanks very

Jenna Stoner
0:24:45 (0:00:20)

much I just have a clarification question on that and then I'll go to councelor Anderson just to confirm that market rentals do also pay into dcc's so they're not they don't pay cac's but they do pay development cost charges is that correct you're correct thank you councelor Anderson go ahead

Eric Andersen
0:25:06 (0:00:34)

thank you in the architectural plan package provided by the applicant I'm looking at 5.3 Street hierarchy plan where Laurelwood is identified as a collector I just wanted to get clear on that designation I would have thought there might be another designation that would apply for a road that will be a second entrance agress from downtown and with the bridge being built is collector a temporary term or is another term or categorization that would be applied to that road when it comes to be realized with the

SPEAKER_01
0:25:40 (0:00:56)

bridge yeah through the chair so current currently in the district we don't have any streets above major collector is kind of the designation that is currently used at for our Mobility oriented streets as part of the transportation master plan there's some consideration around which is ongoing and sort of we'll look to bring a bring a draft to the community later in the late spring early summer but one of the points that has been identified is an opportunity to explore what our street classification looks like and if there's a need to reconsider what some Street classifications are so not something that'll be necessarily a direct outcome from the Transportation master plan but potentially a framework that could be used to reclassify streets within our community in the future thank

Eric Andersen
0:26:36 (0:00:47)

you my second question concerns the section 3.2 ground Flo plan floor plan where there is a site map now on the along Bluff Lane where there's buildings E and F were identified as pink if I'm got the colors right as amenity now that is going to be a very shady area and even as the shade studies do reveal it's going to be a dark corner there I wondered what type of amenities I may have missed it are planned for there are they outdoor oriented and I do support the Parkade entrance there for that reason it's a shady corner of the site what are what is planned for that those areas in pink the buildings in

SPEAKER_03
0:27:24 (0:00:45)

Pink So through the chair the exact details of the amenity space would be something we would review at development permit and the particular locations at this time it's just to show that there's some consideration for that at this time I believe the consideration for that location is to be kind of a bike Hub amenity area so that's why they've proposed it along that Bluff Lane there's also a proposal for indoor there's a requirement in our zoning bio for indoor amenity space and communal outdoor space as well which they have been proposing to put on the podiums so I believe this particular space is just to highlight maybe a bike parking area rather than your typical amenity space

Eric Andersen
0:28:09 (0:01:38)

thank you my final question I'm looking at three sections again of the same package the 1.6 commitment to a digitus values 2.2 Open Spaces in public realm and 2.3 South Park guidelines and I'm my theme Here is site context the storytelling the history the ecological history firstly the pre-industrial ecology was a Estuary salt marsh and for 70 years it was a ranch a hay ranch right up to 1960 and it was the oldest Farm in the valley and then we had a sawmill for 40 years which was the second largest employer in Squamish for that whole period so I'm finding this all missing but my question is and there's I see an exclusive focus on First Nations in interpretive planning and public art my question is do we have a policy and this is really a maybe a rhetorical question if you like for all of us to encourage exclusive focus on Squamish Nation interpretive elements and public art installations there are probably 900 families in this town that had TI to that Mill including our large South Asian Community is there opportunity at DP stage to consider broadening the scope of the interpretive plan and public art and EST identifying and presenting the site

SPEAKER_03
0:29:48 (0:00:38)

context through the chair I yes councelor Anderson your comments have been noted I know you mentioned them in the last committee meeting as well we plan to include that language in the saaria plan guidelines they're currently in the saaria plan language to the industrial Heritage on the site but there hasn't been a lot of guidelines around the first nation element so I believe this is kind of the focus here is to just include that element in the review and that come first and second reading there will be a subar plan with guidelines and we'll ensure that language is included as well to not be

Eric Andersen
0:30:26 (0:00:13)

exclusive thank you Miss Hamilton I should comment that I do applaud the effort that I see being made in the applicants documents I think we're all just lacking in orientation on site context in places thank

Jenna Stoner
0:30:40 (0:00:03)

you councelor French and councelor Pettingill go

John French
0:30:44 (0:00:33)

ahead thanks chair and I want to start with the $1 million in public art funding and one of the challenges that I realized when I served on the public art committee is that really great art gets created and then sometimes left to decay under non-existent or insufficient maintenance budget so we just need to look at the sad state of the canoe shed just a few blocks over to see an example of this so is any of that million dollars in funding available for long-term maintenance of art installations on the

SPEAKER_03
0:31:17 (0:00:25)

site through the chair we plan to provide a bit more detail around that public art contribution provide when it's phased and when a competition would be required per phasing so we'll have a lot more detail around that public art contribution come first and second reading and definitely a lot more details come the LDA but we'll take that into consideration thank you

Jenna Stoner
0:31:43 (0:00:00)

go ahead

SPEAKER_04
0:31:43 (0:00:15)

Miss lecher thank you through the chair just to add that any public art contribution would need to conform with our public art policy which does have a requirement for maintenance to go within that so that will drive the consideration of this

John French
0:31:59 (0:00:37)

okay great thank you the architectural package makes only two references to loading zones that I could find and both references are in building a which is great because that building has a significant amount of commercial space the bulk of the commercial space I'm wondering about Building B or building D it also has commercial space I don't see any reference to a loading zone there so if no loading zone is planned for building D how are delivery drivers going to service that

SPEAKER_01
0:32:36 (0:00:12)

building yeah through the chair not something that I know any details on and I think we can take a note and potentially either look at it or identify where loading zones could

John French
0:32:49 (0:00:04)

be okay great thanks J that's all I have at this

Jenna Stoner
0:32:53 (0:00:07)

point maybe another way to ask that question is are there any variances on the requirement for loading zones based on the bylaw

SPEAKER_03
0:33:01 (0:00:23)

so through the chair loading zones are required when there's commercial space so that's probably why it's a certain amount of commercial space that would trigger it there is also we'll have to look at development permit gar waste loading areas and all of those details so sometimes you can combine loading areas that way as well and those details get looked at development permit

Jenna Stoner
0:33:24 (0:00:01)

councelor Pettingill go

Chris Pettingill
0:33:25 (0:00:21)

ahead yeah thanks just a few times we've mentioned commercial and other times amenity commercial and so I'm looking to understand is this a question of to us of where we want to see which or can you maybe dig into what is proposed or allowed right now in terms of commercial versus amenity commmercial

SPEAKER_03
0:33:47 (0:00:40)

space so to the chair right now the proposal is that regular commercial would be supported in most of the key Plaza area location there is a proposal right now for a hybrid kind of amenity commercial space at the South Park and that is where staff have some concern around how that actually functions and if the space is large enough and viable for a tenant and I believe the intention was that it would might be strata run in some way so staff have just kind of expressed concern for that particular location and the hybrid commercial amenity approach that they've proposed

Chris Pettingill
0:34:28 (0:00:39)

okay thank you and then just the child care spaces proposed now how does that align with our I think it's an action plan we've called it but our space expectations and I can sort of do the math on the indoor space I'm not clear how that aligns with out required outdoor space and so you know are we talking about space for 1693 year plus kids three years old plus that's sort of what I see doing the math for the indoor space but I'm not clear if that's an

SPEAKER_03
0:35:07 (0:00:36)

accurate so through the chair the commitment right now is for indoor child care space and the understanding is that at development permanent at that detailed design to ensure that you have approval from Vancouver Coastal Health there is an outdoor amenity component that you have to provide related to your indoor capacity those details are not getting looked at rezoning and at the CAC level we are just requiring a commitment for the indoor space but it is something that is looked at to ensure that these spaces are tenable and viable for child

Chris Pettingill
0:35:44 (0:00:07)

care okay and then just relate are commitments to profit versus nonprofit child care any ratio there

SPEAKER_03
0:35:52 (0:00:03)

through the chair no commitment that

Jenna Stoner
0:35:56 (0:00:03)

way thank you mayor Herford go

Armand Hurford
0:35:59 (0:00:32)

ahead thank you in the staff presentation you mentioned the there's mention around concerns of I believe it was building a and around the Central Plaza as far as setback could you run through those specifics of that is it I'm trying to understand is it the setback is the concern the setback from the water or from the square sort of like from the west or from the from the North or both or what's where is staff where the concerns live

SPEAKER_03
0:36:32 (0:01:00)

there I was going to see if I can try and share my screen but that might be too technical for me today this morning but specifically the concern is just that the setback is not really in line with the vision that was prepared or was proposed at the Subara plan in 2017 and that there was kind of this intention that there were four story structures and the way that they've proposed it it's more of a Podium with these 10 meter setbacks at this particular area so you can see the particular section that's highlighted in red here is what staff is concerned around and see how it's trying to mimic the amenity Building height as well in that corner so the concern is just that there's more of a Podium feel and rather than a prominent four-story kind of industrial Marine feel to that particular corner

Armand Hurford
0:37:32 (0:00:13)

so and that setback is from the setback concerns from the water not from the that sorry I forget the name of the street but the plaza there to the north

SPEAKER_03
0:37:45 (0:00:16)

yeah I'll just confirm sorry the setback is that yellow section so it is it's from the 15 M Dyke setback so it's not from the water it's from where the building starts there's 10 meter upper story setback at the at the fifth and sixth

Armand Hurford
0:38:01 (0:00:21)

story so a remedy to staff's concerns would be to lose some elev lose some elevation and maintain that setback we're not looking for additional setback from the from the this the street or the Center Plaza that's kind of where staff's

SPEAKER_03
0:38:22 (0:00:16)

pointing yeah I mean staff the options could be that they are a larger setback or that we highlight a particular section where a building has to be four

Armand Hurford
0:38:38 (0:00:45)

stories great thank you and I'll mull that for a for a second in building I think it's yeah Building C on this map to the right the commercial space there where we're talking about was comments around it being the right size to be functional and to operate do we have a an idea of what the like how far are we from that like how I'm just trying to understand the magnitude of the of the concern we're looking for an extra 50 MERS square meters in that space or does it need to be three times the size of what's proposed to meet the to be operable in staff's

SPEAKER_03
0:39:24 (0:00:51)

opinion so through the chair at the time there's more review that needs to happen at the staff level to and with the applicant to determine what the right approach is there is also a commercial space report that the applicants have submitted that staff are still reviewing and we need to take that into consideration but part of that report recommended that in order to ensure that there's activated spaces restaurants and cafes are kind of these key tenants and that they do need larger spaces to ensure that they're viable so we would just want to ensure that we could have enough space at this location to ensure that type of activation in this area we're probably expecting it to be larger than what is proposed here in the brown

Armand Hurford
0:40:16 (0:00:40)

area Okay I think the on this point and as I'm thinking about employment space ratio like how we express what what's required in a Zone I would like to see my preference would be that this grew rather than redistribute the commercial space from elsewhere in the in the project but I'd be curious to see the demand report to really solidify that but that's where I'm leaning it at this point and I'm G have to give some thought some more thought to that building a setback piece so clear

Jenna Stoner
0:40:56 (0:00:06)

you'll have time CU we're still on questions so we'll come back for comments clarifying question on this councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:41:03 (0:00:20)

Hamilton thanks to the chair so just a clarifying question buildings A B and C on in the image on the right the units listed in Orange there all the small units along the Waterfront those are commercial units or those are residential

SPEAKER_03
0:41:23 (0:00:04)

units sorry through the chair could you confirm what you were

Andrew Hamilton
0:41:28 (0:00:15)

202 we need laser pointers or something how to describe the orange colored units along the Waterfront the large bulk of them is just in front on the waterfront side of Building

SPEAKER_03
0:41:44 (0:00:09)

B so through the chair those are proposed as town houses so they'll have ground floor entrances and also entrances into the larger

Jenna Stoner
0:41:53 (0:00:06)

building so to clarify the commercial area is the pink

SPEAKER_03
0:42:00 (0:00:24)

brown yeah so to clarify the com the exact commercial area is the red which is located more to the North and then there is a small section of that brown sorry the colors are a bit cons confusing but the brown section which is highlighted on the image to the left is the other hybrid commercial area that they had

Jenna Stoner
0:42:24 (0:00:12)

proposed okay I had one clarifying question this and I'll go to counselor green law can you clarify what is a hybrid commercial amenity

SPEAKER_03
0:42:37 (0:00:07)

area we're also not fully aware of what how that would function so

Jenna Stoner
0:42:45 (0:00:09)

no can you describe like other than function and like ownership strata like do we have any sort of vision as to what that would be

SPEAKER_03
0:42:55 (0:00:23)

yeah the so the vision here is that and it is outlined a little bit more in the package I could point it out to you if you want to look but they had some images with it was kind of a storage bike Hub kayak Hub and a and a cafe that might be able to be run by the strata would be seasonal in use that that's our

Jenna Stoner
0:43:18 (0:00:09)

understanding thank you Council P was it on this topic no okay I'll go to counselor Greenlaw then I myself on the list and we'll go back background

Lauren Greenlaw
0:43:28 (0:00:15)

thanks through the chair just following up on some of the child care questions I was just wondering how these Child Care Child Care spaces align with the current needs of the community and the projected

SPEAKER_03
0:43:44 (0:00:19)

growth so through the chair we with the new CAC policy in 2023 we've taken the approach that there are the general guidelines in the CC policy and this app is Meeting those guidelines with their increased density hair and that's how we've been reviewing these

Lauren Greenlaw
0:44:03 (0:00:12)

applications so do you have any comments about how it meets the current needs in the population or the

SPEAKER_04
0:44:16 (0:00:16)

growth through the chair I don't have specific number of the number of children that this could serve however we do know that we are falling quite short of our neighborhood demand of 30% ESS rate so any additional child care helps meet that at this

Lauren Greenlaw
0:44:33 (0:00:33)

time okay yeah I guess my comment well anyways yeah I've seen some comments from the public who are concerned about the existing congestion in the neighborhood and they're concerned about the change in the kind of form of character of what's being proposed now for residences The Proposal states that there's going to be two parking stalls per townhouse unit and I just want wanted to clarify is that going to be basically the same as the two that are provided now for the existed tow houses like the same kind of square

SPEAKER_03
0:45:07 (0:00:43)

footage so through the chair tow houses are defined in arizonian Bala as units that have entrances to the outside but for this in this case these are town houses that are attached to the larger apartment building so they will have access outside but they won't be designed similar to what we have already in the north side which is they have a driveway apron outside and they also have one stall in a garage one of the challenges with the garage doll is that they have tend to be used for storage where in apartment buildings you tend to not get those open parades stalls being used for storage they're used more for parking so they would have a different design than what is proposed in the north

Lauren Greenlaw
0:45:50 (0:00:08)

phase and then for the condo buildings do they have storage rooms associated with the units

SPEAKER_03
0:45:59 (0:00:19)

so through the chair there's no requirement in our zoning bylaw for storage units but it is something that has come up with the public comments which we plan to bring to the applicant to see if there's some commitment that they can make in the LDA to secure storage units okay

Jenna Stoner
0:46:18 (0:00:29)

thanks awesome I have a few questions myself and then we'll go back around going back to the Laurelwood pton Bridge I'm just curious so I've heard from staff that we likely actually won't based on traffic studies won't need the Laurelwood Bridge any sooner than what it's currently in the financial plan but can I can just confirm that is a correct

SPEAKER_01
0:46:48 (0:00:40)

understanding I think like need is a challenging phrase for traffic it it's something that you know we know there's existing problems at the Cleveland Highway 9 intersection as far as Delay from the ministry's perspective and safety with other users so but this development as planned doesn't trigger the need from the ministry's perspective for the Laurelwood pton Bridge until the 947 units that were originally included in the 2017 rezoning are met so from that perspective no it's not needed until it's

Jenna Stoner
0:47:29 (0:00:13)

planned and when we're when is the anticipated Bild out of those 900 units so I know it's always hard to like we have the phasing of 8 C or whatever but do we have an estimated timeline of when that might

SPEAKER_03
0:47:42 (0:00:16)

be so the timeline does align with that commitment at the 9A level so they are expecting that those will those buildings will come into occupancy around 20:30 as well so the timeline right now is

Jenna Stoner
0:47:59 (0:00:23)

matching okay and then finally I was just curious is there any opportunity or have we previously discussed in either this proposal or others negotiating with the developer to bring forward the DCC so dcc's are typically paid at building permit to collect those earlier in order to be able to achieve some of the key amenities such as Laur Pon

SPEAKER_03
0:48:23 (0:00:16)

Bridge yeah it's a good question the challenge here is that dcc's are based off building permit drawings so in order to you'd have to make assumptions on square footage and so that would be quite challenging to do so and I so I don't believe that there's a method to prepay those DCC

Jenna Stoner
0:48:39 (0:00:19)

fees forgot about that critical component thank you okay and then going on to the commercial space thanks for trying to clarify what hybrid commercial amenity area means can I just confirm that the daycare space is included in the commercial area calculation that

SPEAKER_03
0:48:59 (0:00:16)

correct through yeah the chair no it's actually that commercial space has already been approved in Phase 3 C and is not included in this current South proposal of commercial space

Jenna Stoner
0:49:16 (0:00:22)

so the additional 533 meters of daycare is not is in addition to the commercial space okay correct that's helpful thank you and then is it typical for us to allow for like expansion of activated Plaza area as counting towards commercial space or do we typically calculate only on in indoor ameni or sorry indoor commercial

SPEAKER_03
0:49:39 (0:00:22)

space so through our zoning bylaw is calculated as indoor commercial space sometimes through DP Review it's been considered differently or other resoning applications but at this particular the way it's defined here is indoor only so there could be an additional amount for outdoor patio space as

Jenna Stoner
0:50:02 (0:00:35)

well thank you and then some questions on the parking so part of The Proposal is to put in time limited parking and provide parking passes to Residents the existing parking utilization study I think suggests that there isn't so much a parking capacity problem as an appropriate use of parking space problem and so I'm just curious how a resident exempt parking pass with 2hour limitations for visitors addresses the issue of people actually using their garages to park their

SPEAKER_01
0:50:37 (0:00:38)

cars yeah through the chair so looking at their parking study agree that that's not potentially not the best the best approach that time restrictions in regulating the Onre parking on the public right of way is a good way to moderate the use of on street parking we haven't got into the details of what that would look like and so that was just something that was identified by the applicant in their parking review as a as a consideration and I think thinking in the broader context of the recommendations from the Downtown parking study but that the application in this context is

Jenna Stoner
0:51:16 (0:00:33)

different okay and then further that how do we address the mix of like strata and Municipal roads if we are thinking about putting in parking restrictions who then becomes respons for enforcement how do we manage the differentiation between the two any thoughts on that I do like they're obviously needs to be something done as we consider increased density here parking is challenging but I also feel like as I think through the implementation of this that gets more challenging with the separation between public and strata

SPEAKER_01
0:51:50 (0:00:28)

roads yeah I don't know all the answers here I think that recognizing our limitations on enforcing on street parking on a strata road that I could see a scenario where the strata implements a resident parking permit system and some sort of other regulations which they are responsible for enforcing and then excuse me the on street parking on the public right of way would remain our regulations and be enforced by our bylaw but maybe Carrie has

SPEAKER_03
0:52:19 (0:00:18)

more no it's a good it's a good question we can definitely look into it further just wanted to note that there's about 20 stalls per proposed on the strata roads so all of the other parking proposed out of the 156 are on public roads so only 20 on the

Jenna Stoner
0:52:37 (0:00:33)

strata okay that's helpful thank you and then I'll ask one more question then go back to my speakers list I'm just curious if all the affordable housing units are proposed to be in the apartments and if the percentages so the CAC policy says that we're at 19.5% of units are affordable but is that based on the unit count or the square footage count and where do we decide whether we account whether we do that calculation based on units or square

SPEAKER_03
0:53:10 (0:00:40)

footage I'm going to look at Jesse if she's correcting me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that we are committing to units with the 19.5% but that we also consider Clauses in these housing agreements and in the LDA that is secure area and we are securing that these areas are meeting the BC housing guidelines of correct areas per bedroom units and they are proposing a mix of units to comply with our policy which is 20% three-bedroom 10% one-bedroom minimums so they will there will be additional language in the Clauses to secure those diversity of

Jenna Stoner
0:53:51 (0:00:04)

units okay thank you I'll go to councelor penil then councelor Hamilton

Chris Pettingill
0:53:56 (0:00:22)

yeah thanks and I'm just trying to build some context here my understanding and maybe it's a misunderstanding was that Red Bridge was brought into the downtown was classified as downtown and therefore met Downtown parking requirements can you clarify is that accurate or do they have a different level of parking requirement than

SPEAKER_03
0:54:18 (0:00:22)

downtown so through the chair your question was about Red Bridge or yeah so Redbridge is also has a CD zone so a comprehensive development Zone and they have a different parking amount that is I believe a bit higher than the downtown standard but again very similar to this calculation

Chris Pettingill
0:54:40 (0:00:05)

here and for cl similar or they have a lower requirement than this

SPEAKER_03
0:54:46 (0:00:15)

through the chair I'd have to go back to compare that I wouldn't know how to be specific about it but I do know that the Red Bridge is less than the regul the zoning bylaw regulation which this one is also proposing to be slightly less than the zoning bylaw

Chris Pettingill
0:55:01 (0:00:30)

regulation okay thanks and then just in general when we're thinking about parking if we're sort of Designing a community said we want to design this for people who we want to be commuting to Vancouver versus we want to design a community for people who we want to live and work here for the most part and experience or participate in the mode shift would that change our expectations around parking

SPEAKER_01
0:55:32 (0:00:52)

generally yeah I big question I think that recognizing that as this community and continues to have improved connections to the downtown core that really looking at Waterfront Landing compared to many of the other communities in close proximity to our downtown has all of the same benefits with easy access from for people walking and biking and improved access for people using Transit as well as driving as the Pimon Laurelwood bridge is added so I think it's a challenge to think about you know identifying specific people when we're designing communities I think overall the goal is to provide options for everyone and hopefully we can create communities that are connected to where people need to go and provide safe opt options for the mode that most appropriately suits that

SPEAKER_03
0:56:24 (0:00:46)

trip even through the chair in the July meeting we did also present a different parking study which spoke to those con comments around the design of this community and the intention of it being walkable and cyclable and close to downtown and it also compared parking studies to other communities and found that the parking proposal was in line with that intention and just do I know councelor Anderson brings this up a lot is that just the Downtown parking standards were not they were designed for increasing activation to the downtown and not particularly maybe around parking studies that way and so this one was reviewed in a parking study to comply yeah go ahead

Chris Pettingill
0:57:11 (0:00:20)

just to clarify you said at the last cow we looked at other communities and that was in terms of the parking proposal at that point as opposed to the current one and as I understand the one at that point had a lower requirement we've since the discussion is increasing the requirement are providing more but the lower amount was consistent with what we were seeing elsewhere is that

SPEAKER_03
0:57:31 (0:00:29)

correct through the chair there were there was an increase in the townhouse parking but there have been some changes and decreases to other unit types so the parking has slightly decreased in some areas and increased in other unit types so it's about relatively the same amount we would have to go back obviously to do a parking study on that particular chain but again there was slight modifications to those

Jenna Stoner
0:58:01 (0:00:14)

amounts all right I have counselor Hamilton and then we probably want to get around to comments just looking at the time and some of the specifics that staff are looking for so we'll do one more I have one more question well two more questions and then we'll do

Andrew Hamilton
0:58:15 (0:00:43)

comments thanks very much through the chair so my question is following my first one is following On The Laurel Wood Bridge staff have said that we believe the timing of the Laurel W Wood Bridge at this point should be aligning with the increased actual arrival of the occupancy of those buildings is that going to be secured in an LDA or is the fact that the Laurel Wood Bridge is a DCC project does that prevent us from linking occupancy in an LDA to the delivery of the bridge because the proponent is not in control in full control of delivery of the bridge

SPEAKER_03
0:58:59 (0:00:47)

through the chair you're correct there is some concern from the applicant that they wouldn't have control over that so one of the measures which we are still working through is that there is going to be an LDA Clause to ensure that there's a traffic study done by the time any increased development is proposed so before a development permit for the for the increased density on the site is proposed there will be a traffic study done to confirm to see what traffic is doing right now with all that density and to see if the site can accommodate more density so that's currently the proposal that we have to secure that to make sure that we're double-checking and addressing traffic at that time when increased density is

Andrew Hamilton
0:59:47 (0:00:06)

proposed so there's no way to link the delivery of the Laurelwood bridge to the delivery of

SPEAKER_03
0:59:53 (0:00:31)

occupancy through the chart there is a way you we can certainly ask for that I think there's just a concern from the applicant around that commitment and just one thing to note as well that this is part of you know this application in 2017 committed to the design of that bridge over the rail yard which was a significant upgrade of that intersection and a road bridge there as well as the pedestrian bridge as well so just trying to keep context of their amenities that they

Jenna Stoner
1:00:24 (0:00:06)

provided thank you mayor Herford with a question or question list has been extended

Armand Hurford
1:00:31 (0:00:49)

yeah thank you on the topic of the parking the parking ratio assumptions in general I I'm align I'm trying to reconcile a couple things one is so I get that the visitor parking calculation can be done as a was it Point .1 per whatever it is per unit type but when you get into to a two-bedroom where it's a 1.65 or if it's a two-bedroom plus Den or 1.5 if it's a if it's a straight two bedroom where do those partial parking spots get allocated and how is that managed because you don't when you when someone purchase or rents one of these they're going to have a one or one or two spots so like how do those get distributed or managed

SPEAKER_03
1:01:21 (0:00:48)

so through the chair this gets managed at the strata level and one of the benefits of an apartment Design This Way is that you can allocate units to the needs of the community so with a townhouse you have two stalls each for each unit and whether or not you are you need those two stalls you have those two stalls and you typically don't share it with your neighbor where in this case in apartment buildings you can you know if one unit only needs one stall then another unit can needs two stalls they can share those units so what when you have a 1.5 or a 1. 75 it just means that that's how the parking amounts are calculated but we do ensure that there's full stalls we round up whenever that number is and that these get distributed for the need of the

Armand Hurford
1:02:09 (0:00:05)

strata okay so strata left to man to manage that piece okay thank you

Jenna Stoner
1:02:15 (0:00:00)

councelor

Chris Pettingill
1:02:16 (0:00:18)

Pettingill yeah I just want to clarify from the discussion that some dcc's and timing around the Laurel Bridge Laurel Wood Bridge has been identified but there's no this isn't the project to build the bridge or it's not a requirement or an amenity of the project it's really a separate project is that

SPEAKER_03
1:02:34 (0:00:26)

correct through the chair correct however we do need Ministry of Transportation infrastructure sign off on this rezoning and ocp Amendment and as we noted in the report there is some concern just around the increased density and what that impact is and it just to further explore that so we are meeting with them and working through that component of it so would still be a requirement to get their

Jenna Stoner
1:03:01 (0:00:09)

approval thank you I have two hopefully quick questions one are there any public washroom facilities in any of the public parks and amenity

SPEAKER_03
1:03:11 (0:00:37)

spaces yeah so in the South or sorry the North Park and the amenity space that was just recently approved by this Council they have committed to I have this written down two washrooms they have committed to two different public washrooms and there are four separate General neutral public washrooms and two of the washrooms are universally accessible and the location if you look on the site map it's about 300 meters away from the South

Jenna Stoner
1:03:48 (0:00:30)

Park thank you for that clarification my other one is just around our zoning bylaw which allows for up to eight stories but the max height proposed for all the resoning or all the buildings in this resoning are six stories and I'm just trying to think about variability in form and as we talk about that commercial area on lot 14 potentially reducing the height there to four I'm just curious why none of these buildings are proposed at eight stories to help provide some variability and

SPEAKER_04
1:04:19 (0:00:38)

height through the chair great question it's something that staff have been working on for many years we have one or approved eight-story building there is a body the NFPA that puts out policies right now the fire department has determined that they don't have the Staffing levels to adequately and safely fight a fire in all the time in an eight story building so right now a tall building is defined as six stories and 18 M so that is the Comfort level with we can regularly fight a fire in this building but when it comes to eight stories we would need to increase Staffing significant ly at this

Jenna Stoner
1:04:58 (0:00:32)

point thank you all right Council there is a long list of things that staff are looking for feedback on specifically in our report they're asking for Revis feedback on the revised Community amenity contribution offer clarified development phasing revised parking commitment the commercial area and then also perhaps some of the step back on lot 14 building a was also requested during the presentation so who would like to kick us off with comments at this point councelor Anderson go ahead

Eric Andersen
1:05:30 (0:04:35)

thank you I'll start out with the issue of phasing and our common interest in advancing the timing of the bridge in 2020 Mr Maro and colleagues were involved in an application with the Federal National trade corridors fund a grant submission with Squamish Terminals and the goal of that fund is to improve the safety efficiency and performance of the Squamish Gateway and this Laurel Wood Bridge would certainly assist in that another project that would fit into that is the site B Highway 99 intersection my idea just briefly toss it out work with the Squamish Nation with such a fund or equivalent Pacific Gateway type funding envelope to address a package try again this time with the Squamish Nation it's just an idea but I think that we do need that if not provincial Federal assistance should also be considered with respect to the density and building Heights and a lot of the comments we've received from the community I think we should refer to a little bit of History here the second to last Council changed the vision for Waterfront Landing with lower density and I think today in hindsight we might consider that to have been not very well advised because of not only our goals with housing in Squad but also what we sacrifice with those very valuable employment lands which is going are going to be very costly and quite a puzzle to address we need to replace those employment lands we're well aware of that and we're looking at the chekai fan so we made a tradeoff here I think we my preference is for density and to keep the building Heights as proposed by the applicant I do respect that the that staff have considered going to a four story in a certain location I think that's probably something to consider with respect to parking I believe that Carrie Hamilton our planners responses to community comments I think that they are very coherent and well supported by the parking study I am convinced by the parking study's conclusions however we always must be careful to in drawing comparisons between Squamish and Lower Mainland communities and also I'm sure that Lower Mainland communities too are still trying to figure out what does rental what is the parking demand in rental units with respect to the CAC offer and I'm also going to comment here on the question of whether there should be more commercial area I think that we might consider not necessarily commercial but also cultural facilities we received a letter Council just a couple of weeks ago from between ships theater quote during these past 65 years of Community Theaters we have constantly struggled to have a proper location to build sets rehearse and perform I believe we have three dance companies in Squamish that are working in light industrial area on a temporary basis we might consider cultural facilities whether it's more commercial or cultural facilities we'll have to consider the parking demand implications also in the CAC package of course we have the habitat restoration and I'm going to quote from the applicant's package the existing Bluff that is there's a little stream there and when they built the Sawmill they were fishing salmon out of it is in a degraded state with stagnant water flow poor oxygen and water quality conditions contaminated sediments poor fish accessibility lack of habitat complexity that describes the upper mam blind Channel it describes the downtown Waterfront as well and I believe well I know that I've seen correspondents from one of the two companies behind this project which is also involved over at Scott Crescent offering monies towards some selective dredging and waterf flow Improvement in the upper blind Channel and I just think that I can't help but make the observation that makes sense after all the problem originated on the water lots for this project The Sawmill wood waste was dredged up and dumped up on Scott Crescent and the upper blind Channel and that's one of our problems the rock dumped at the end of Laurelwood on the Channel end is all turned brown right away it tells you what the water quality conditions are so maybe we can could think more broadly about that aspect the habitat cont

Jenna Stoner
1:10:05 (0:00:01)

30 more seconds councelor Anderson

Eric Andersen
1:10:07 (0:00:32)

all right the ADP addresses trees let's make sure they're wind firm it's a very windy site especially on the waterfront Edge there's reference to economy it's not only jobs but local jobs local trades and local supply chain for this major construction project that will be ongoing for years and finally I hope that for the Waterfront program programming and activation we're involving the paddling Club people that can inform us about what the real demand is for those kinds of facilities for non-motorized watercraft thank you

Jenna Stoner
1:10:40 (0:00:07)

thank you very much councelor Anderson I saw counselor green Law's hand so we go there next

Lauren Greenlaw
1:10:47 (0:01:10)

oh yeah through the chair I'd like to agree with some of councelor Anderson's comments about the historical content prior prioritizing the informing the public about indigenous history yes and also including some of the his some of the industrial history I personally I find that very interesting and I think it's important information for representation having lived in a small condo for 10 years I would advocate for the addition of storage units for sure especially in a town where people are likely to have multiple bikes and in this area possibly multiple watercrafts my comments around the child care would be yes any additional child care space is welcome what I am asking is does this child care center meet the needs introduced by the increase of population because if it doesn't technically that's still leaving us in a deficit and I would like to plan out of this deficit at some point and the question was more from a future planning perspective and a curiosity around how these amenities are calculated and Justified yeah and then I'd also like to Echo some of the comments that councelor Anderson just made about yeah he just made yep thanks

Jenna Stoner
1:11:58 (0:00:06)

bye thank you councelor Greenlaw go to councelor Hamilton next and mayor

Andrew Hamilton
1:12:04 (0:02:52)

Herford thanks very much through the chair so the laurwood pton bridge to me that's an important component of this extending density in this area and I would be in favor of tying the delivery of that bridge to the occupancy in those build buildings I absolutely recognize that that's putting a significant uncertainty on the developer but I believe it is an uncertainty that we need to bear just as we would when we're planning a neighborhood in some other area we want to make sure there's enough Roads connecting that neighborhood and I think that's so I'm in favor of putting into place an LDA or some connection that Laurelwood pton Bridge must be in place before additional occupancy is permitted I'm not in favor of a free residential parking pass on District roads I believe I'm open to the possibility of a paid residential parking pass but not free one I'm in favor of reduced height or larger setbacks for that Waterfront part of building a so I see staff's concern I recognize staff's concern about the massing of building a at the waterfront there regarding the Waterfront space in front of buildings A and buildings B in the first committee of the whole meeting that we saw this I requested I asked that space be invitingly public I still don't see that here there's a reasonably narrow pathway that Waterfront pathway and you're going to be walking in front of people's homes it's not going to feel like a public space it's going to feel like their neighborhood I think activating the space the Waterfront space in front of buildings A and B with commercial I see that as the way to make that invitingly public and regarding the CAC offer I'm very thankful I see that the proponent is making a big effort to get all of the cac's in place regarding the one million and one of the places I see some flexibility is in the $1 million for public art I'd be open to having some of that money shifted to other amenities to be making the space either more connected more invitingly public more active transport the $1 million in public art is not a crucial piece for me thanks

Jenna Stoner
1:14:56 (0:00:03)

thank you I will go to count sorry mayor Herford then councelor

Armand Hurford
1:15:00 (0:04:27)

French thank you so on the I'm happy to see that I'm happy with the CAC cont contribution I think it's I think it shows some responsiveness to our to our feedback and securing the additional child care spaces with that Covenant is great and so I'm happy with that the phasing I'm happy to see some a lot of rental relatively early in the project so I'm think that's good the parking I think is also in general I agree with the ratios and rationale behind them I am challenged with the residents parking piece I think whatever policy gets deved veloped that way needs to sort of speak to the downtown whatever it gets implemented in the downtown and how that's approach so there's a reasonable approach more broadly at this at this point I'd have to say that the strata roads managed by the strata is appropriate there's TW with I think staff said 20 spots in the strata roads that could be maybe for some sort of resident permitting piece but given the style of these of these buildings that and the rationale behind the in general not being able to use their garages for storage more of the apartment style I think I'm hoping that load won't be as won't be as high as what we're seeing currently with a lot of the spaces used for storage inside folks garage the commercial space in general I think is overall feels like a reasonable amount except for the piece in Building C I want to make sure that works I think that given the given the location it's not in a main it's down at the end but it's right in front of the park it's going to be beautiful but it can't be just functional in just maybe functional in size so I would like to see that sort of concept flushed out a bit more whether it's whether the built space needs to be larger than there or we're combining the amenity and the commerci something there needs to be I'm unclear whether it needs to be more but I think it's crucial that works so that deserves some additional refinement before it comes back to us I guess for readings and I actually on the question of the elevation of building a I think that having some The View not just from the water but of course from the down the downtown side and from the bridge when I think about how all these things interact I don't have the height the same concerns with the height there I think the setback is sufficient and the and it will create some varied some variance in the in the roof line so I think that's I think that's reasonable I think you know I would like to be in a position where as councel stoner questions around the around the height to put to be able to have something higher further back in closer to the closer to the buff and maybe offset that way but that's not where we are so I think this is a this is reasonable at this point I do think that having some ensuring that sort of C Courtyard piece there right the at the entrance of the pedestrian bridge though so like the north side needs to be given some lots of consideration to make sure that it's that it's as f as functional as possible whether that's patio spaces or what have you but that's my more of my concern there than the consistent roof lines from the waterite that's it thank you

Jenna Stoner
1:19:28 (0:00:02)

thank you I'll go to councelor French and councelor

John French
1:19:31 (0:03:36)

pingale thanks chair I I'll start with Community amenities generally support what we see there I think that the million dollars for art is very generous and find myself aligning with counselor Hamilton's comments about maybe sharing some of that million dollars into other needs and then just on a higher level I have challenges with using unit counts and or square meters in determining how much space and how many units are dedicated for blow Market housing and I'd like to see us migrate fully over to square meters as opposed to determining measure as the determining measure and eliminate numbers of units completely I'm calculating unit numbers doesn't work because developers seem to gravitate towards one bedroom units for below Market use and then that has Council fighting to get greater affordability for three and four bedroom units that work better for low-income families and by using square meters as our guide instead of number of units I think that there's greater flexibility in the unit types ultimately that are selected to be dedicated as the more affordable homes and also on this I think that we should do anything everything we can to deliver that Laurelwood Bridge sooner as soon as we can on phasing never easy with a large project like this juggling multiple priorities like blow Market homes daycare spaces Parks public plazas and critical vehicle Bridges there's in my mind no ideal phasing because no matter how