Committee of the Whole - 09 Apr 2024


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: STAFF REPORTS
3.i: Bill 44 (Small-Scale, Multi-Unit Housing) Zoning Bylaw Update
3: TIME 10:00 A.M - 11:30 A.M.
3: RECESS 11:30 A.M. - 11:45 A.M.
3.iii: Valleycliffe Daycare Budget Amendment
3: TIME 11:45 A.M. - 12:30 P.M.
3.iv: Q1 Real Estate Facilities Master Plan / Project Update
3: TIME 12:30 P.M. - 1:00 P.M.
4: MOTION TO CLOSE
5: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:09:19)


SPEAKER_-1
0:00:28 (0:07:39)

e

Andrew Hamilton
0:08:08 (0:01:10)

thank you very much welcome to the district of Squamish committee the whole meeting for Tuesday April 9th 2024 my name is Andrew Hamilton and I am the counselor Andrew Hamilton acting as chair for this meeting first welcome to the traditional territory of the SCH Miss Nation we are absolutely pleased to be conducting our business living playing and generally just loving this place and we recognize that being here we share this territory we share this space with people who have been here long before 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 concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting corporate officer is Carrie Wells

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:09:19 (0:00:13)


Andrew Hamilton
0:09:19 (0:00:13)

so first look for a motion for adoption of the agenda moved by councelor French second by mayor Herford any opposed non opposed motion carries

Bill 44 (Small-Scale, Multi-Unit Housing) Zoning Bylaw Update
0:09:32 (1:41:39)

BR Dy, a planner with Community Planning, and Jesse Fletcher, Manager of Current Planning, presented draft zoning bylaw amendments in response to Bill 44, introduced by the Province of British Columbia in November 2023. Bill 44 mandates qualifying municipalities to amend zoning bylaws to increase minimum density standards, allowing for more small-scale multi-unit housing options in zones previously restricted to single-family dwellings or duplexes. The amendments aim to align with the Squamish Housing Action Plan, funded through CMHC's Housing Accelerator Fund, and include several initiatives overlapping with Bill 44 requirements. The proposed amendments introduce a new R1 zone, replacing RS1, RS2, RS3, and RH2 zoning in most of the district, with adjustments to density, height, lot coverage, and floor area ratios to facilitate the development of multiple dwelling residential units, secondary suites, and accessory dwelling units. Certain areas subject to high flood or debris flow hazards are exempt from these amendments, with separate updates planned.

Council members, including Mayor Armand Hurford and Councillors Jenna Stoner and Chris Pettingill, engaged in a detailed discussion, raising questions about the implications of the proposed height changes for accessory dwelling units, the rationale behind the floor area ratios, and the impact of parking requirement reductions. Concerns were also voiced about the potential for these changes to incentivize the development of larger, more expensive single-family dwellings rather than affordable multi-unit housing. The discussion highlighted the need for further clarification on aspects such as the treatment of areas with flood risks and the integration of these changes into existing neighborhoods. Despite these concerns, the council expressed general support for the direction of the amendments, emphasizing the importance of public engagement and the flexibility to adjust the bylaw based on feedback and observed outcomes.

Andrew Hamilton
0:09:32 (0:00:17)

on to our first item staff reports item 3i Bill 44 small scale multi-unit housing zoning bylaw update I'll leave it to staff to introduce themselves and bring up their presentation thanks very much

SPEAKER_14
0:09:50 (0:09:29)

thank you chair good morning Committee of the whole my name is BR Dy planner with Community planning with me is Jesse Fletcher manager of current planning today we're here to present draft zoning by amendments related to the changes required by The Province through Bill 44 in November 20123 the province of British Columbia introduced Bill 44 smallscale multi-unit housing which requires qualifying municipalities in the province to amend zoning bylaws in order to increase the minimum density standards by allowing more small-scale multi-unit housing options in land use zones that are otherwise restricted to single family dwellings or duplexes Bill 44 aims to increase housing Supply create diverse housing choices and over time contribute to more affordable and attainable housing across BC local governments must update their zoning bylaws by June 30th 2024 to align with Bill 44 the Squamish housing action plan funded through cmhc's housing accelerator fund includes several initiatives that overlap with Bill 44 staff have drafted zoning bylaw amendments based on the recommendations provided in the provincial policy guidance on Bill 44 the provincial policy guidance is to make zoning regulations as flexible as possible to facilitate the development of these new type forms of housing F on number 3036 2024 proposes to replace the rs1 a rs2 a RS3 and rh2 Zoning in the majority of the district with a new R1 zone areas subject to high flood Hazard or debris flow Hazard are not subject to this amendment and staff are seeking an exemption to the bill 44 requirements to increase density in these areas staff will bring forward appropriate amendments appropriate zoning bylaw amendments for these areas as part of a separate update to the zoning bylaw as this involves a significant amount of work with a flood Hazard consultant that cannot be completed to prior to the June 30th deadline this slide shows the approximate areas that we anticipate to be Exempted from the bill 44 requirements highlights of the Amendments include adding a definition of multiple dwelling residential which means a physical arrangement of three or more attached dwelling units multiple dwelling residential is included as a permitted use in the new R1 Zone as our single unit and two unit dwellings section 4.5 which regulates secondary Suites is amendment is amended to revise the language regarding where secondary Suites are permitted to note they are permitted in a single unit or two unit dwelling as opposed to referencing zoning that permits a single unit dwelling use there are properties in the district that contain existing single unit dwellings that have zoning that does not permit this use for example in Wilson Crescent where there is multiple unit residential zoning and under the current regulations would not be able to add a secondary Suite in their home section 4.38 which regulates accessory dwelling units is amended to reduce the required setbacks and increase the permitted height from 6.7 M to 8 m this will increase design flexibility for accessory dwelling units section 4.39 multi-unit Flex unit is amended to make explicit that they are permitted in a multiple unit residential dwelling unit townhouse or apartment dwelling unit and remove references to the zones that permit this use section 4.52 smallscale multi-unit housing has been added to the general regulations to permit a two-unit dwelling in any comprehensive development zone or rural residential Zone that permits a single unit dwelling is serviced by Municipal Water and sanitary services and is not located within the agricultural land Reserve this is intended to meet the provincial requirement by allowing up to four dwelling units a two-unit dwelling with a secondary Suite on each side to meet the provincial requirement staff have taken this approach with Comprehensive development and Rural residential zones to ensure provincial requirements are being met without modifying those zones because that approach presents an administrative challenge given that CD zones were drafted for specific developments sorry there is a risk that applying the R1 Zone to certain areas of these zones would create unintended non-conformance with zoning there are a limited number of Rural Residential Properties in the district that would meet the above noted criteria most of which are located in the logger East neighborhood which has recently completed a neighborhood plan and are likely to redevelop with higher densities than permitted in R1 excuse me thanks a new Zone residential one will be added to the zoning bylaw and will replace rs1 rs2 and RS3 zoning in the majority of the district permitted uses in the R1 Zone include single unit dwelling tunit dwelling and multiple dwelling residential use the minimum lot size requirements in R1 remain the same as in rs1 and rs2 the maximum height for a single unit or two-unit dwelling Remains the Same as an rs1 and rs2 at 9 M the maximum height for multiple dwelling residential is 11 M or three stories whichever is less which is based on the recommendations in the prental policy guidance maximum lot coverage for a single or two unit dwelling Remains the Same at 33% but increases to 40% if the single unit or two unit dwelling contains a suite and an accessory dwelling unit lot coverage increases to 50% for multiple dwelling residential use which is aligned with provincial policy guidance density in the r R1 Zone allows for four strata titled multiple dwelling residential units on a lot and allows for an additional fifth dwelling unit if it is provided as a secondary Suite multi-unit Flex unit or accessory dwelling unit this additional unit cannot be stratified which is intended to incentivize a rental unit on the property the proposed maximum floor area ratios are summarized on this Slide the floor area ratios in the r R1 Zone increase based on the number of units proposed with a bonus F available if a secondary Suite or multi-unit Flex unit or Adu is provided a maximum unit size of 220 square meters is included for multiple dwelling residential use staff have re reviewed existing triplexes in the district and other jurisdictions who have drafted their bill 44 zoning which informed the 08 to 1.0 f provincial policy guidance does not recommend including an F for the bill 44 changes however Staff feel that it is prudent to apply an F in the initial roll out of the regulations after reviewing existing town home developments through the district and their respective densities should staff see issues related to the proposed F once applications start being processed the fs can be amended in the future the minimum setbacks in the R zone one are as follows front setback is three 3 m rear setback is 3 m interior side setback is 1.2 M and exterior side setback is 3 m provincial policy guidance recommends a minimum front setback of 2 MERS and a minimum rear setback of 1.5 M given that the majority of the properties in the district about a secondary floodway staff are recommending a 3meter front setback which can be reduced to 2 MERS for an accessory dwelling unit staff have engaged a consultant to determine whether a 2 to 3 meter setback is sufficient to maintain flood conveyance for second floodways the front setback may be may need to be adjusted based on the outcome of this work which is anticipated to be completed prior to bringing the proposed bylaws for readings common usable open space is not required in the A1 Zone staff are proposing a minimum private usable open space requirement of an equivalent of at least 10% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit to be provided as private usable open space for multiple dwelling residential use the 10% requirement mirrors the current private open space requirement in multiple unit residential zones such as rm1 to rm3 there is an option to provide the same amount of area required for private usable open space as common usable open space to provide increased design flexibility the second zoning bylaw Amendment associated with the bill 44 update is related to proposed parking reductions bylaw 3035 proposes the following amendments eliminating off- street parking requirements for secondary Suites accessory dwelling units and multiple unit and multi-unit Flex units this is recommended in the provincial policy guidance and supported by staff as a way to continue to incentivize infill rental housing there's a risk that without any incentive to provide a suite properties will redevelop with the maximum number of stratified units and no longer provide secondary Suites reducing the number of new opportunities for rental units in neighborhoods it also proposes to include a parking requirement of one space per principal dwelling unit for multiple dwelling residential use provincial policy guid is to set a maximum parking requirement of one space per dwelling unit but staff are recommending a more conservative approach staff believ that the market will continue to provide parking that exceeds this requirement where practical as units with additional parking are typically more attractive and may sell for a higher amount as part of the Squamish housing action plan staff are committed to exploring Parking Solutions including eliminating and reducing parking requirements as part of the district's housing accelerator fund commitment as the bill 44 zoning update is required by the province of BC staff are implementing an informed level on the IAP participation Spectrum staff will amend the draft zoning bylaw amendments based on committee feedback and conduct public engagement on the Amendments prior to bringing the bylaws forward for readings I'll now pass it over to Jesse to finish the presentation

SPEAKER_12
0:19:20 (0:01:37)

thank you Brian so this project is part of the Squamish housing acceler accelerator plan and is fulfilling two of nine sectors which are highlighted in right on the screen specifically it is aiming to fulfill our bill 44 requirements in relation to permitting up to four units by right in existing single family zones it also seeks to facilitate the construction of accessory dwelling units and secondary Suites by removing parking requirements which is a housing accelerator fund commitment thank you the missing middle housing accelerator seeks to accelerate missing middle housing so that's primarily where Bill 44 Falls this slide highlights that this year we also aim to remove ADP review of multiplexes next year staff will continue to explore Parking Solutions and the possibility of the sixplex form in areas well served by transit the Adu program seeks to facilitate more adus within the community this year to meet this strategy we've engaged in a design competition and proposed to exempt adus from dccc's in our DCC bylaw update later this year today we're recommending removing parking requirements for accessory dwelling units which is a half commitment so this slide just highlights all the ongoing work as part of the shap so above you see the bill 44 in the red box so today we're at committee and we have a June deadline to pass these bylaw changes so we'll be doing public engagement at the end of the month and then come back based on Council feedback for readings in

SPEAKER_14
0:20:57 (0:00:13)

May so staff are seeking committee feedback on the draft zoning bylaw amendments related to Bill 44 and with that concludes our presentation and we're happy to take questions at this

Andrew Hamilton
0:21:11 (0:00:09)

time thank you very much councel

Armand Hurford
0:21:20 (0:00:34)

marford thank you yeah thank you for breaking this into what feels like bike siiz pieces for us to tackle the I'm curious around the accessory dwelling units and the height changes and how that relates I see some inconsistency with the sort of the new allowable Heights in the rs1 given that the same number of floors I think are available or can you I guess what's that height to be used for in the in the Adu maybe I'll start I'll start

SPEAKER_14
0:21:55 (0:00:39)

there through the chair it is essentially intended to provide increase design flexibility for accessory dwelling units to create more well exactly that More Design flexibility to potentially allow for more livable adus and potentially increased in size to you know the majority of the district is located in a flood plane so staff felt it was appropriate to look at options for really trying to increase the design flexibility to continue to incentivize this form of housing given that a number of new stratified units are allowed through this staff really wanted to find ways to increase the design flexibility and continue to incentivize

Armand Hurford
0:22:34 (0:01:12)

them okay so in other instances where we've had some height variances recently we've been ensuring sort of the garage height being functional but that's not the driver of this particular increase it's the overall flexibility of the design that's correct okay so the I'm curious about the if the F isn't quite right and if staff sees a problem with can be amended in future I think was how it was presented we know that when the problem emerges you can see my air quotes those applications would need to treat would need to be treated under those regulations so I'm sort of challenged by this concept rather than sort of opening it up gradually why we're going sort of more I guess more aggressive or more open there and then we need to live collectively with the mistakes for the built for the time of the life of the build of the building rather than starting less and maybe moving forward just can you speak to the attention how you arrived at this particular

SPEAKER_14
0:23:47 (0:01:05)

piece through the chair so staff reviewed existing triplexes and throughout that have been constructed throughout the district and as well as other zoning bylaws that were proposed in other jurisdictions I believe only bernabe had was the only local government that did not include an F in their new zoning update so staff thought it was prudent to apply an initial f while it may seem high staff thought that this was appropriate and also including a maximum unit size would not necessarily on a larger property you wouldn't necessarily be able to achieve the maximum 1.0 because you're still limited by this unit size so staff thought that was a way to kind of have a cautious roll out related to the fs but also allow for design flexibility on smaller properties because there are there is quite a diverse range of lot sizes throughout the district so it's kind of hard to stick with one f for the whole District so that was the rationale for staff's approach with the proposed fs and including a maximum unit

Armand Hurford
0:24:52 (0:00:28)

size okay yeah that makes some sense I wonder about the minimum lot size and just if you could speak to that there's a lot of talk about stratification with the style of construction and I wonder about some of our bigger Lots if like it's been unchain it's unchanged from is that right for the minimum lot size and is that what you were working from with the fs and so on

SPEAKER_14
0:25:21 (0:00:05)

yes that's correct the minimum lot size Remains the Same from rs1 and rs2

Armand Hurford
0:25:27 (0:00:42)

okay I'm my last just last question if I can share for now is the flood Hazard piece you showed I think it was Schedule D of the of the ocp schedule D2 is a little bit more granular and shows The Limited densification areas and so on so I'm trying to understand what like how will all those areas be treated I get that was a general overview but will those other categories of flood risk be treated in be captured in this as well or is that not a risk based off the changes that you're proposing with the F and those other checks and balances here

SPEAKER_14
0:26:09 (0:00:21)

through the chair that those areas will also be addressed through this work with the flood consultant Stafford just trying to get kind of a very general map to highlight this but the work with the flood consultant will inform where the areas are going to be exempt and then staff will have to bring forward separate zoning for those areas okay thank

Andrew Hamilton
0:26:30 (0:00:05)

you thanks very much I've got councelor Stoner and then councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:26:36 (0:01:18)

Pettingill thank you through the chair thanks staff for bringing this forward despite it being in bite-sized pieces it still feels complicated and I think one of the things I continue to struggle with as we did I think with the affordable housing resoning is just really understanding the relationship between the changes in the setbacks and the Heights in the floor are area ratios and so I don't know if staff are able to bring back when this comes back some general depiction of like this is what it would mean in terms of a higher building on a regular size lot with the increased setbacks or the reduced setbacks so that's just like one thing that's in my mind as I'm trying to pull these pieces together but on the floor area ratio the provincial policy guidance suggests not to include floor area ratio for a number of reasons one that I find reasonable is that they say it will discourage the development of excessively large and expensive single family dwellings that could be illegally converted to multi-unit dwellings to avoid cost and Regulatory processes so I'm just wondering why Staff feel like including the floor area ratio at this point is a useful

SPEAKER_14
0:27:54 (0:00:51)

approach through the chair essentially staff thought it was appro to include this in the initial roll out because or in order to avoid unintended consequences and if we started with nothing it would be quite hard to go back and then put in a floor area ratio after we thought it would be prudent to take a more cautious approach and apply a FL ratio in the initial roll out and see how that goes and see and see what forms of housing end up being developed and should there be challenges associated with that staff thought it would be thought we could amend it in the future but as you noted there it is very hard to visualize or conceptualize what all of these regulations are going to look like with reduced setbacks and no floor aor ratio and how that's going to integrate into existing

Jenna Stoner
0:28:46 (0:00:36)

neighborhoods so I think building on that we do have a number of lots that in the subsequent to the last ocp update we actually did allow for up to triplexes on Corner Lots Min on the East sort west side of the highway what lessons have we learned there because from my understanding not many of those lots have actually been converted into triplexes in part because of cost I think also because of some of the restrictions on design so what lessons have we looked at in terms of Reflection from 2018 to now on the units that do allow for triplexes or

SPEAKER_14
0:29:22 (0:00:14)

greater through the chair I actually do have a couple slides here if I can share my wait went away sorry that would be some good

SPEAKER_06
0:29:37 (0:00:03)

examples

SPEAKER_14
0:29:40 (0:01:23)

apologies so this is an existing Triplex that was is located in brackendale it is an 860 square meter parcel it has a 05 floor area ratio a 25% lot coverage and the average unit size is550 F feet so as you can see this met the maximum floor air ratio in the existing R rs2 zone but it didn't it didn't even take advantage of the full lot coverage the ne the next example is a duplex with Suites on each side and an accessory dwelling unit also located in brackendale the lock coverage is 33% the floor area ratio was almost maxed out in this at 0. five and each unit is approximately 3,000 ft on each side or 270 M that does include a suite and the parcel size is, 1400 square meters so these are just two examples so and I believe I'm not sure if council is familiar there's also another Triplex going up on the corner of Depot and government which is quite large so staff thought it was prudent to in the initial roll out to have a FL a ratio and a maximum unit size just to you know allow for design flexibility but also you know ensure that there in the initial roll out there aren't too many unintended

SPEAKER_12
0:31:04 (0:00:47)

consequences through the chair if I can add so some of those lessons the what Brian has highlighted here is that the Lots where we're seeing them succeed are much larger so a higher F and a smaller lot is important for them to achieve a similar unit size the unit size seems to be driving very much the ability to build these triplexes also the other constraint that we often see is parking whereas on smaller Lots the need to get two stalls per unit is often the breaking point especially since we only allow one driveway so we've seen them try to be built on Corner Lots with a lane but they still require three accesses to get six cars onto the lot so by reducing parking standards we're hoping to increase that flexibility same with the setbacks for specifically those smaller Lots so in areas like dentville Valley Cliff downtown they're often quite

Jenna Stoner
0:31:51 (0:00:22)

constrained thank you for that and thanks for having some examples that helps flush it out a little bit in my brain it did raise another question now the examples that you provide were all in Brack Andale which all fall within the area that you said this would not apply to because of the limited densification and the debris flow Hazard so can you speak to why we would allow it now but we're not going to allow it going

SPEAKER_14
0:32:13 (0:00:35)

forward through the chair well these are well these examples are forms of housing that are currently permitted under the rs2 zoning so that the flood Hazard work is not necessarily saying that we would not allow that for those forms of housing there it's just stopped me to do more work to understand if it's appropriate and aligned with the flood Hazard policies but yes it seems that the majority of the places where or brackendale has large lots and this is where it has been successful for triplexes to be

Jenna Stoner
0:32:49 (0:00:05)

constructed so more work to be done to figure out which places in rck Andale it may or may not apply to

SPEAKER_14
0:32:54 (0:00:00)

that's correct

Jenna Stoner
0:32:55 (0:00:01)

thank

Andrew Hamilton
0:32:56 (0:00:03)

you thank you very much counselor

Chris Pettingill
0:32:59 (0:00:42)

Pettingill yeah thanks a couple things to councelor Stoner point it would be good to just understand a little better the impact of the setbacks and the height and the F and just because when I read this it seemed like we were enabling mcmansions possibly and it wasn't quite clear to me and so just a better understanding of that when this comes back would be helpful I did wonder and I understand a lot of this seems to be focused on smaller Lots so maybe rental zoning isn't appropriate but I did sort of wonder and maybe that is the answer but is there reason why sort of rental zoning or you know that sort of tool hasn't been contemplated as part of this to rather than other tools to make sure everything doesn't just

SPEAKER_14
0:33:42 (0:00:44)

stratify through the chair rental zoning has been considered at this time as it's fairly it's a fairly complicated tool to use for this number of units and it may dis result as a disincentive to Redevelopment under these new regulations it's probably more appropriate on kind of larger projects where you're dealing with an apartment building with a number of units where you'd apply rental zoning there may be a future project where you'd look at density bonus to incentivize rental housing staff did come up with the additional unit to as a as a form of trying to incentivize a rental unit on the property and hopefully folks take advantage of

Chris Pettingill
0:34:26 (0:00:17)

that okay and then U I'm just wondering how what's proposed here aligns or doesn't align or negates our low carbon incentive do we lose that when we implement this or what happens

SPEAKER_12
0:34:43 (0:00:09)

there through the chair the low carbon incentive will be captured through the update to the building bylaw for the energy the low carbon step

Chris Pettingill
0:34:53 (0:00:28)

code so does that mean like the I understand there's the low carbon step code where we can set an emissions intensity but we also had a thing in relation to you know shrinking the buildable I think it was it f or buildable size and then if you committed to no gas you could build bigger I think is that going away and we're just replacing it with the low

SPEAKER_14
0:35:22 (0:00:03)

carbon that is my

SPEAKER_09
0:35:25 (0:00:01)

understanding

Andrew Hamilton
0:35:26 (0:00:06)

oh yes Mr valenz

SPEAKER_06
0:35:33 (0:00:15)

thank you through the chair yeah I can confirm that is the plan is to get away from having it regulated in the zoning bylaw and located it all in the building B because we have those tools now which we didn't have when the zoning changes were

Chris Pettingill
0:35:49 (0:01:07)

made okay thanks just a comment then for me you know there's still a little bit of clar lack of clarity in terms of smaller buildings even if you're at the max can you still try and justify putting gas infrastructure in your home which I think is a problem it's not just the intensity number it's are we putting fossil fuel instructure infrastructure into new home so if there's any mechanism for example a I don't know if this is the right term but a partial amenity zoning or something other tool we can use to make sure we're not getting new fossil infrastructure new building I think that would be helpful to me and I think the planet and our survival but the last piece is parking and right now we have no maximum we have minimums which I think is two cars per unit generally we're talking about going down to one car per unit minimum I'm just wondering why as a middle ground we didn't say okay we're not going to add a maximum but we will take away the minimum and why we went for one car minimum as opposed to just say no mins and Maxes and that'll be our Middle

SPEAKER_14
0:36:56 (0:00:29)

Ground through the chair just to clarify the one stall per unit is only applicable to the multiple dwelling residential use staff have left the single unit and two unit dwelling as at two stalls and then staff El are proposing to eliminate the parking requirement for Suites and Carriage Houses in order to try and use that as a tool to incentivize those still being provided on properties and I don't know if you have anything to add to that

SPEAKER_12
0:37:25 (0:00:22)

Jesse thanks ran through the chair The Province recommends a maximum of one based on our situation parking stall per unit but there are considerations from engineering about future on street parking and the fact that the new Street State Standards will have very little on street parking so by still requiring one stall we can kind of offset the on Street impact of removing required

Chris Pettingill
0:37:47 (0:00:29)

parking okay and then just the last question on this topic my understanding of the $7 million Grant we got and I can't remember what it was called but that a piece of that was being pretty aggressive in terms of reducing parking requirements are we on side with that or just someone more importantly maybe the grant or do they validate or give us feedback on whether or not we're pushing far enough on some of the commitments we made in the

SPEAKER_12
0:38:17 (0:00:30)

grant through the chair the part of the commitment in the housing accelerator fund Grant was to reduce parking there is a project that will be following this one looking at six boxes and reduce parking along frequent Transit networks to align with what will be our future frequent Transit Network pending funding we do check in with cmhc on our half commitments and they will give feedback at this time this is aligned with what we've committed in the short

Andrew Hamilton
0:38:48 (0:00:04)

term thanks very much councelor Pettingill I have counselor French

John French
0:38:53 (0:00:33)

next thanks chair there's one part of the existing bylaw that caught my eye and it's a reference to lot 38 blocks 18 and 19 District Lots 515 I tried to find that property that lot that area and those are difficult to search what is that property why is it noted what makes

SPEAKER_14
0:39:26 (0:00:18)

it through the chair those were if you recall in the recent zoning bylaw update there was two the parcel at the end of Perth drive and the one on Maple Drive and Valley Cliff where we restricted subdivision and allowed up to a fourplex on each of those are the legal descriptions of those two Parcels

John French
0:39:45 (0:00:06)

okay mystery solved thank

Andrew Hamilton
0:39:51 (0:00:16)

you all right and before we go to second round of questions I'll I have a couple of my own first is a very simple clarification is a secondary floodway an engineering plant word for a

SPEAKER_14
0:40:08 (0:00:15)

ditch no it is a actual secondary floodway so in the event of a flood it is the where the flood waters are intended to flow there's primary floodways and secondary floodways most roads are secondary floodways in the

Andrew Hamilton
0:40:24 (0:01:04)

district got it thanks it was take yes take taking my anyways trying to think of this word applying to the whole district and okay second question is on I think this is more of a how we're rolling this out from a bylaw perspective I noted the R1 Zone as proposed lacks quite a few of the permitted uses that is included in the rs1 zone so are those permitted uses going to be added to the R1 Zone I can list a few of them if it's helpful yeah so pull it up once my so for example in the rs1 zone permitted uses Child Care Facility home occupation St Str subject to Provisions and I don't see those in the RS R1 Zone

SPEAKER_14
0:41:28 (0:00:11)

yes through each chair those are all regulated in the general regulations they were just duplicated in the rs1 zone so it's not necessarily not necessary to call them

Andrew Hamilton
0:41:39 (0:00:23)

out perfect thank you very much and second question another question on how this is going to roll out first question do dcc's apply to mdrs yes they will and do acc's or will acc's apply to

SPEAKER_14
0:42:03 (0:00:09)

mdrs I believe they will yes we're still in the process of developing that bylaw but it is likely that they will apply to

Andrew Hamilton
0:42:12 (0:00:17)

that will acc's and dcc's apply if with any expansion so if you go from a single dwelling unit to a two dwelling unit on a lot will acc's and dccc's apply or is it only for that threshold to

SPEAKER_14
0:42:29 (0:00:05)

MDR I don't have enough information on that project to answer that question at this time but h

SPEAKER_06
0:42:35 (0:00:27)

i could answer it acc's our understanding and it's new legislation so it's a bit limited but our understanding is that acc's will be calculated the same way the dccs are calculated which is any additional unit so if the property say was developed as a single family home and goes to a duplex you have to pay for that additional unit that hasn't been covered in the past in the previous building

Andrew Hamilton
0:43:03 (0:00:23)

permit thanks and that this additional DCC sorry getting into the weeds maybe but the additional ACC and DCC does not apply if you're doing an accessory dwelling unit is that correct I believe that's correct so that's yep further incentiv foration for rental accessory dwelling units and yeah counselor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:43:26 (0:00:10)

our current DCC bylaw does apply to adus though is that not correct the proposal is that we would remove that fee going forward in an future

SPEAKER_06
0:43:36 (0:00:07)

update that is our commitment but I believe we've already done that in the last DCC update haven't

SPEAKER_14
0:43:43 (0:00:08)

we I believe so I think it's silent on Accessory dwelling units so it is not charged if I recall correctly

SPEAKER_06
0:43:52 (0:00:23)

that's correct essentially we in the past we've had it added as a specific type of dwelling unit and I believe our current bylaw does not define what an accessory dwelling unit is and so it only applies to dwelling units which an accessory dwelling unit in the CC terms is

SPEAKER_14
0:44:15 (0:00:31)

not and if I may add that sounds confusing but the pro the legislation is very specific about what you can exempt dcc's from you know it has to be I believe affordable rental housing not for-profit rental housing or energy efficient housing and so on but it doesn't specifically call out accessory dwelling units so I don't think you can exempt them through the bylaw if it's silent on it is essentially an exemption that's my

Jenna Stoner
0:44:47 (0:00:37)

understanding it's may not entirely put into this conversation we can go back and double check but my understanding is that we brought it back in because for a long time we did exempt adus and then they were being used as short-term rental units and so we brought it back into the DCC bylaw because people were making more profit off of them as short-term rentals as opposed to long-term rentals and then for a while we covenanted adus so that you couldn't do shortterm rentals before we had short-term rental regulation anyways it'd be curious to know where the adus currently sit in the DCC bylaw and some of the rationale behind why we may or may not exempt

SPEAKER_06
0:45:25 (0:00:08)

them we can bring that information back for Council at the next opportunity when we come back with

Andrew Hamilton
0:45:33 (0:00:33)

bylaw thanks very much one another question and I think this is more of a clarification following on counselor pettingill's questions I recognize that the low carbon step code is meant to reduce gas infrastructure within residential units or within building is it possible to require no gas in our building

SPEAKER_06
0:46:07 (0:00:53)

bylaw that's a great question it the bylaw cannot specifically or the building code does not allow municipalities to say you can't use any gas we have to follow the zero carbon step code which allows us to apply greenhouse gas intensity targets to certain to different types of occupancies so say residential is one of them and really low intensity targets essentially just recognize the presence of greenhouse gases in our electrical grid so that is what we can do through the building B but there are constraints around it we can't just say no gas

Andrew Hamilton
0:47:00 (0:00:12)

and where does that where does that rule come from at what level of legislative ability does that come from is that provincial

SPEAKER_06
0:47:12 (0:00:06)

that's correct it's provincial yeah it's under the building

Andrew Hamilton
0:47:19 (0:00:21)

act I'd appreciate further Clarity this for me to understand if it's possible to pull out where in the building act that if you could get us that information where in the building act that sits so we can have Clarity on what is possible and what is not possible regarding fossil fuel infrastructure in our building

SPEAKER_06
0:47:40 (0:00:26)

code we will be bringing this for consideration because we are currently running that project of implementing the zero carbon Step code in our building bylaw so we can do that I think perhaps a better venue then in the zone discussion is to cover that off in those conversations because we'll have the staff who are running that

Andrew Hamilton
0:48:07 (0:00:10)

project absolutely thanks very much so that's it for me going around to second round of questions mayor

Armand Hurford
0:48:17 (0:01:20)

Herford yeah thank you the Adu piece I'm struggling with the height with the height I think the ones the carriage house above a garage that we've seen make sense but considering that we're looking at these other categories where there's the what elevated Cottage and front yard Adu to me those don't warrant the same height piece given that we're not there's not a par there's not parking underneath we don't not trying to fight with the we're not sort of In conflict with the flood control levels and so on and just can you speak to the rationale there to me a cottage isn't a cottage isn't 8 MERS tall it feels like it's a b it feels more like it's a it's like the similar square footage that you'd have above your the garage in a in the in the carriage house but it only needing to deal with a meter of flood control or something more manageable so I'm just challenged by these sort of definitions of adus and this height piece that's being sort of blanket to across them

SPEAKER_14
0:49:37 (0:00:59)

through the chair again this is really intended to try and provide an increased design flexibility for this form of housing you could do outside of the flood plane you could do a an 8 meter tall Carriage home with living space on both floors and this would provide an opportunity for perhaps you know if a family is owns a property and they wanted to build a home for their kids or other family members on site and live there and rent it out this is really intended to really try and increase the design flexibility to see what other forms of adus might pop up you know presently you pretty much have to put it above a garage to get that increased height so you're looking at kind of a pretty small maybe a two-bedroom rental unit so this is intended to allow for increased design flexibility just to see what forms of adus are possible with this increased design

SPEAKER_12
0:50:37 (0:00:43)

flexibility through the chair to just add on to that one of the considerations that we looked at was in areas where there was no flood Construction level that was significantly high so there was normally no garage at the ground level but they were often constrained by lock coverage by allowing FL over two areas you might get a smaller building and less impact on loock coverage which is where the ex excess height comes in hand generally speaking zoning B that do allow two stories residential buildings 8 meters is the max it allows for More Design flexibility at 6.7 meters you can really only comfortably fit the garage on the ground floor and then living space on the second floor so it still does constrain the

Armand Hurford
0:51:20 (0:00:29)

form okay thank you that's helpful and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the Adu design competition to help me visualize some of these if nothing else but also okay and on the flood piece I understand the additional work required can you remind me the timeline of that additional work so we can understand the impacts of the flood controls and so on

SPEAKER_14
0:51:50 (0:00:19)

through the chair my understanding is we are anticipating having at least the information related to setbacks completed to inform the zoning bylaw update that has to get completed by June 30th in terms of the timeline for the rest of the work it will likely be brought forward in the fall is that correct

SPEAKER_12
0:52:09 (0:00:14)

Jesse through the chair that's correct we're hoping to get the letter for the province and the information on the setback sooner but in order for us to respond to what we understand in limited areas what can be done that work's going to take more

Armand Hurford
0:52:24 (0:00:11)

time okay but sometime this year is the is the projection not this isn't you know year three of the of a multi multi-year project that this is

SPEAKER_12
0:52:35 (0:00:01)

through the chair that's correct

Armand Hurford
0:52:37 (0:00:02)

okay thank

Andrew Hamilton
0:52:39 (0:00:03)

you thanks very much back to counselor

Chris Pettingill
0:52:42 (0:01:54)

Pettingill yeah just a couple quick notes one caught my ear the attention that we could wave dccc's or acc's for I think it the was mentioned energy efficient building so I'm just wondering if that's an opportunity maybe through Ed to plug any gaps with the zero carbon step code if we find them and I do want to note sort of I am concerned about the timing of when the zeroc carbon step code comes versus when we implement this and I would not like to leave a gap where there's sort of a an opportunity for a few months or year or two to put in fossil infrastructure so maybe even if there's a quick and dirty zero carbon thing if that's what is required to get this over the hump in time for June another timing related thing I'm wondering you know I know what we're trying to do here is incentivize more development but you know a lot of these things we're talking about here theoretically could have been granted to a developer in exchange for some cac's and so I'm sort of wondering a little bit about the opportunity cost I mean arguably they aren't developing much so you aren't missing an opportunity but you know in some cases they did develop things we captured POS possibly some affordable units or other things I assume we'll try and capture that with the ACC bylaw to the degree we can in the future but I'm just wondering you know if staff see a risk are we going to miss out on you know just with all the work we have to do is there you know a significant lag with the ACC bylaw that we're going to miss some sort of key opportunities to capture some of those things we would have otherwise with cac's and again maybe it's just our reality but I'm trying to just wrap my head around the magnitude of that or the timelines or how these things would align there's anything you can speak to

SPEAKER_14
0:54:36 (0:00:34)

that through the chair I think that the reality is that some cac's will be missed through this process that's just the reality given the timelines and the ACC bylaw work but it's pretty hard to speculate on what that might look like because I think this is the first look that everyone is getting at the new regulations so they won't even be in place until June and then you know development applications have to be prepared they have to go through the process so there's likely a sum will be missed but I'm I can't really comment on the magnitude I suspect it won't be a very high amount but if you'd like to add to that

SPEAKER_12
0:55:11 (0:00:59)

Jesse through the chair I think an important consideration on this in terms of are we missing Redevelopment potential by already zoning is that we haven't seen a lot of applications for infill housing generally speaking through speaking to many land economists while we were contemplating this project the land lift on such a resoning is so small that the time in the process generally makes it too high of a risk to proceed on that so by pre- zoning essentially for inclusive housing where you take that risk out and there's more of a chance that we'll see this type of housing be developed the other consideration through speaking with land economic economists sorry was that generally the people that we will see pursue this are going to be families who are looking to build additional units for their extended family on a lot so they'll already own the properties it's less likely that we'll see developers moving forward to try to build this again given that the land lift is so small and there's quite a bit of risk

Andrew Hamilton
0:56:10 (0:00:03)

involved thanks very much councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:56:14 (0:00:10)

Stoner thanks just following up on councelor pill's question our CAC policy doesn't actually apply though above or for projects below a certain threshold

SPEAKER_06
0:56:25 (0:00:19)

right through the chair it does essentially any resoning that adds additional dwelling units would be subject to the C policy it just has different calculation mechanisms for smaller projects versus

Jenna Stoner
0:56:44 (0:00:09)

bigger and we'll still be able to collect dcc's on any of the new builds as per our current DCC bylaw is that

SPEAKER_06
0:56:54 (0:00:03)

correct that's correct yeah

Jenna Stoner
0:56:57 (0:00:27)

thanks for that clarification I want to go back Miss Fletcher to the floor area ratio conversation and one of your comments that said the biggest change that we see is actually the relationship between the lot size and the floor area ratio in terms of making these viable so on the bigger Lots is where we're actually seeing but the proposed bylaw varies the fla ratio with the number of units not the lot size and so I just wonder if we've considered that

SPEAKER_12
0:57:25 (0:00:36)

through the chair yes so currently the floor area ratio for a duplex I believe is 045 so to go to a Triplex and a fourplex plus site you could go up to 1.0 so we are increasing the overall Flor a ratio so there is more available with the minimum unit size of 2 220 so we think a Triplex then on a smaller lot would be viable based on our lot size of 6,000 square fet so we were looking at lot size and incentive in the triplex and the fourplex whereas the duplex may still not be viable on the smaller

Jenna Stoner
0:58:01 (0:00:17)

Lots thank you for that and then I'm curious what is the threshold for requiring Frontage improvements so like where does is it is it a Triplex that triggers it is it a fourplex is it depending on lot yeah when do those costs

SPEAKER_14
0:58:18 (0:00:43)

incur through the chair so anytime a building permit application is submitted or a subdivision application it triggers a subdivision and devel velopment control bylaw and then engineering staff I believe are currently working on a policy on specifically specifying when the frontage improvements are being required I think presently or in the past it hasn't been triggered for single unit dwelling construction but on larger duplexes or triplexes it has so that work is ongoing and more clarification will probably be provided on that in the future you answer your question though any anytime you submit a building permit application technically the engineering department can request Frontage

Jenna Stoner
0:59:02 (0:00:18)

improvements yeah that'll be an interesting piece to all this and then just to clarify adus can't be stratified or sold right they are basically required to be part of the existing ownership structure and or rented

SPEAKER_14
0:59:20 (0:00:01)

that's

Jenna Stoner
0:59:22 (0:00:39)

correct and then finally my other question was just around the informed level of Engagement here and what happens next so we are on a timeline that has been set by The Province it is my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong that we aren't actually allowed to go to public hearing on this zoning bylaw and so what is our level if folks do have feedback and like especially I think our building Community as well as just general concerns that will probably arise through the community what is our level of Engagement there and what's people's opportunity to provide feedback on the functionality of these

SPEAKER_14
1:00:01 (0:00:33)

bylaws through the chair staff are going to hold an open house event at the end of the month and that will be an opportunity and we will reach out to the local building community and other folks and advertise it in the newspaper and on the E news and then folks can attend this event and learn more about the changes and solicit feedback and then obviously the community can submit written comment as they would for any other zoning by Amendment and that will be presented to council as part of the zoning bylaw package when it comes for

Andrew Hamilton
1:00:34 (0:00:05)

readings thank you very much counselor Pettingill did I have another one

Chris Pettingill
1:00:39 (0:00:26)

yeah I just want to ask a little bit more about the frontage improvements because I have had would be developers ask me about or speak to the challenge with those is that the sort of thing where with the ACC changes and so on that those could be captured in dccc's or acc's as opposed to some other mechanism or just do we

SPEAKER_14
1:01:06 (0:00:58)

know through the chair I will take a stab with my understanding and then Yas if you want to add anything so DCC the DCC bylaw is based on identified projects and those are costed out and there's you know a ratio for existing folks and new development and then you pay your dccs when you get your building permit Frontage improvements can be required through the subdivision and development control bylaw so anytime you submit a building permit or subdivision staff can request that you bring your current Frontage up to the standards in the bylaw so it is it is separate from the DCC bylaw I suppose if you were doing some sort of say you needed to upgrade the water main for fir flows or something like that for your project then maybe you wouldn't have to pay the dcc's related to water for that project but they're separate items

Andrew Hamilton
1:02:04 (0:00:20)

all right thank you very much any more questions from Council before we go to comments no okay comments for feedback comments I'll start on my right here with counselor Stoner and we'll go clock

Jenna Stoner
1:02:24 (0:02:11)

clockwise thanks for bringing this forward and for trying to help me wrap my head around what it's actually going to look like I think that there inevitably will be some questions lots of questions as this continues to roll out but I think where we're Landing is a rational Place given the timeline that we have and the end goal that we're trying to achieve along with the province on these changes a few things is I think going forward a Redline version or at least a contextualized version of the bylaw update would be really helpful what's in our package is really hard to understand what the actual Zone will look like when we incorporate it into the zoning bylaw and so I think especially in advance of any sort of public engagement on that it' be I think it's really difficult for folks just to wrap their heads around what this looks like so a redlined or contextualized version of the bylaw would be really helpful as well as any even if they're super simple schematics or examples of some of the ones that you brought up in Committee of the whole today Mr daily so that folks can really just try and wrap their heads around what this means and what it might mean I am not overly concerned about the height increase to the Adu but I do think that some further contextualize a of it I think the trade-off between having a lower setback to the neighboring properties and increasing that height is somewhere where we might get some tension and so just better understanding that relationship and being able to justify it to the public will be important and I think with regards to the parking standards what staff are proposing is a good middle ground I think it doesn't go quite as far as the province would like us to but I think the reality of our community and some of the limitations that we'll have with off Street or sorry offsite street parking over time I think this helps balance that out so generally supportive of the direction that it's going

Armand Hurford
1:04:36 (0:02:30)

thanks mayor Herford thank you thank you for the for the presentation and I agree with councelor Stoner as far as the as much as we can to contextualize this whether that's you how the regulations presented I do appreciate staff coming with the slide with the extra slides anticipating the questions around you know what does this look like but like my questions around the height of the adus for instance and how all this interacts with the fs some rough conceptualization there would be would be great given that we know we need to we need to change so it's not you know that status quo is the you know is an option in this in this scenario but just understanding you know what this could really could really look like would be would be great I don't know what a standard lot looks like for this you know quick sketch for that visualization given all the variables but some additional help visualizing that would be would be great I think the I think the parking strikes a good balance and you know isn't seen maybe in this context to be as aggressive as it could be but I think that our community is going to view it as being quite aggressive and you know to live up to sort of the aspirations of the province it does take commitment from The Province to fund things like Transit expansion that we've been fighting tooth and nail for to be able to justify even actions such as this but certainly going further so there's a lot of moving pieces here and all of them need to move in my opinion to really get us to where we need to be the I was happy to hear about the flood piece and the timeline there I think it's really important to give Clarity to the community as soon as possible in these times of substantive change as these roll out and I think I'll leave it there for now so thank you I look forward to next to next steps and for me mostly it's this visualization fece thank

Andrew Hamilton
1:07:07 (0:00:08)

you counselor green

SPEAKER_08
1:07:15 (0:01:36)

law sorry technology and I don't superg along okay yeah thanks for bringing all this information forward and trying to distill it in a way that U we can digest I appreciate that I am curious to see what the public feedback will be on this and in particular to counselor stoner's comments about the Adu setbacks and Heights I suspect we'll have quite a few comments about that and of course about the parking and on that note in the spirit of hurting cats which is the conversation of parking I realized there are differing opinions about parking on Council but I disagree with the approach of being more aggressive on the parking requirements in my opinion there should be at least one spot per dwelling unit including auxiliary dwelling units we're already having a lot of concern around the Overflow parking options and I think this direction will exacerbate this issue and I'd like to Echo mayor herfords comments about requiring Transit expansion to kind of support some of these cutbacks to parking because right now the reality is a lot of people are commuting to Vancouver to support the houses that they're buying in Squamish and though ideally they can work in town play in town live in town unfortunately right now without that Regional Transit piece we are having households that almost require two vehicles really in a lot of cases and I know I'm going to hear about this from another counselor member but yeah okay well thank you for all that that's those are my comments thanks

Andrew Hamilton
1:08:51 (0:00:02)

thank you councelor green law councelor French

John French
1:08:54 (0:01:17)

thanks chair and thank you to staff in the spirit of March Madness this looks to me like a project that is like full team full court press all the time and I can see some great work has gone into it very quickly and I'm generally supportive of everything we've seen today floor area ratios I'm comfortable with parking the heights I'm also supportive of more engagement within the parameters that have given been given to us by The Province and not less so as much engagement as we can and I'm with mayor Herford in being supportive of visuals we really saw today how super helpful those visual representations are with the examples that we saw in brackendale in particular so very much looking forward to what comes next and with the understanding that Transit expansion and Transit frequency are really important to this entire project in supporting the directions we're looking to go

Andrew Hamilton
1:10:12 (0:00:01)

councelor Anderson

Eric Andersen
1:10:13 (0:03:46)

thank you my comments will be fairly General and we'll focus on the provincial policy background since 2021 in the open doors report the expert panel on the future of housing Supply and afford ility report I have seen and I continue to see a big city lens being applied by the provincial government perhaps not even they being aware of to the extent that they're applying a big city lens firstly with respect to parking I see in the provincial policy manual and site standards all of the references and contexts referred to are big cities even explicitly local government requirements often being dated and resulting in parking being substantially overbuilt I think that's a big city lens the cities and local governments referred to are Edmonton Toronto San Francisco and Portland I think that we need to U realize that our context for ex for supporting modal shifts are not comparable with large Urban centers I lived in the city of Vancouver for over two decades and that's my personal experience we need to understand why people own and use cars and trucks and be careful not to make assumptions or get ahead of ourselves we can do real damage to our street safety and other environmental issue factors in our in our neighborhoods environment I mean living environment in our neighborhoods and function of our streets on to the related to this I think that we have to understand that in Squamish with our topography we have an quite a number of areas with difficult terrain and 1940s or 50s roads and they simply cannot accommodate some of the I'll just be heavy-handed the assumptions being made in provincial policy we have to be careful about our local circumstances we need mainten in Squamish Solutions the report the frequently asked questions document the problems is put out addresses protecting biodiversity and ecosystem health and focusing increased housing Supply within existing urban areas critical to efficient use of land preserving and tact natural EOS well what we've done in our Valley Val Valley bottom just a couple of examples Seven Peaks and parts of loggers Lane East are and were angulate winter range that will never be replaced any local naturalist can point out the higher values of Valley bottom habitat relative to the hillsides any naturalist here in Squamish so these are General comments I appreciate this and I'll end up with Heritage we are not advancing Our Heritage strategy and I hope that we can make progress on this before we confront some real issues with Heritage properties and buildings these are also addressed in a prenal policy manual and related documents I find that they're applying a very broad brush and the background to them is kelal and not the individual houses at Wilson Crescent or dentville that we might be concerned about we do have property owners that are trying to make efforts to in fact through the in introducing an Adu to support the maintenance and protection of Heritage assets and we should learn from them we have a ways to go but I think we have people property owners in the community that are wanting to work with us and introduce solutions that are in fact in line with the province but in ways that we need to come up with a ma in Squamish perspective on that as well so these are General comments most importantly I'd like to emphasize my support for staff's approach on parking taking a more conserv ative approach than what is being proposed by The Province thank

Andrew Hamilton
1:14:00 (0:00:03)

you thanks very much councelor Pettingill

Chris Pettingill
1:14:03 (0:02:14)

yeah thanks I look forward to the public engagement I think and I assume it will be there but it from my perspective be really important to have a lot of education for the public on the changes in the provincial requirements and also the grant requirements I think that context is really important for the success of seeing some public support for this I think we've spoken about understanding the setbacks Heights unit count and so on lot coverage and what does that actually mean does that facilitate mcmansions or is that really more tailored towards multi-unit more affordable units and I think another piece that's come up a few times over the last couple years is I know the building code largely dictates accessible units but I I'd like to understand how these changes will allow us to facilitate accessible units especially in terms of flood Hazard concerns and so is there enough room for ramps and so on to make if buildings have to be raised up for flood levels or are we sort of Designing in the fact that none of these can be accessible units I think yeah something to pay attention to I would not like to see asle gaps even for a short time frame in the great low carbon work we've done as a municipality and I would like to go further with parking for me that is a maiden Squam solution we are a very outdoorsy very active community and so moving away from Vehicles is something that we can do really well here I think you know the question is are we trying to respond to what people have been doing for the last 40 years or are we trying to design for where we actually know we all need to go for survival and so I don't see us and what the province is talking about as big city stuff I think these are things that for better Force we all have to figure out how to do I do recognize that more parking work is being done soon and it is a real challenge that we haven't had room for local Transit expansion which I see is the bigger obstacle here not Regional Transit but because we're doing more parking work in the near term you know I can live with these suggestions being made and I also appreciate the possible incentive aspect for some of the rental units with what's contemplated right now in the parking changes thank

Andrew Hamilton
1:16:17 (0:03:02)

you thanks very much counselor Pettingill so some final comments and thoughts from my side thank you very much for the thorough presentation this is a huge piece of work and it is amazing how big an impact this change is going to have across our community I sincerely hope that our community takes this opportunity to engage with us give us feedback on it clearly apply their mind to what changes are being applied and how we might make them more or more amable to the to where the community wants to go so from my side I'd like to see more clarity on the ACC and the dcc's as being applied to all the various pieces here I recognize that's a piece of work that's somewhat separate and might be on a slightly different timeline but any Clarity on that we can have when we bring this back next time would be great I'd also like to see I also seek Clarity on where the regulations on app where are we in what ways are we limitting from applying a no gas requirement in our building by law I'd like to understand exactly how we are limited there regarding the staff's approach to the F the Heights and the setback I completely support those approaches I think it's quite sensible to apply an to have an F requirement but have it quite large I do agree while I scratched my head about MDU versus single and double heights differences being there I think I can I do rationalize it now and I see why there's a difference and while I do see potential concerns with setbacks being particularly side setbacks being as small as 1.2 MERS I do think that there are spaces in our community where that is certainly viable and justifiable regarding parking I would support a No Parking requirement more than a minimum requirement and by that I don't mean that we require that they no parking I mean that we do not apply a requirement I think we should allow people to purchase property without parking if they want when we set a minimum requirement we remove people's ability we remove their freedom of choice from buying a piece of prop buying a condo buying a strata without a parking lot without a parking spot and I think we should give people that choice so my regarding parking I would like to see us go halfway between the maximum and maximum of one and minimum of one and say no parking requirement at all with that I seek a

Jenna Stoner
1:19:19 (0:01:33)

motion I have one further comment and I also am curious of staff have Clarity on the parking thing because I think there's a variety of feedback that I've heard from around the table that might be helpful for staff if we try and consolidate but my additional comment that I had as my colleagues were speaking was I don't know if this is possible but to have any sense of the number of duplexes triplexes and forp plexes that have built have been built since the last zoning bylaw update in 2019 because I do think that this is one of those things where it can feel like it's going to be a really immense change and I do hope that it Sparks some level of new forms of development and different forms of development but often what I've heard is actually it's just really expensive to still build this form of housing given our land values even with the changes that we're proposing and so I think going forward to public engagement having some sort of contextualized numbers of how many duplexes and triplexes we've seen come forward given that they have been allowed in our zoning on areas would just help people provide like have a little bit of understanding as to like this isn't going to happen overnight like you're not all of a sudden going to have six plexes all the way down your street there's still a fair we're trying to find that balance of like yes enabling this to a certain level but also I think comforting the community that it's not just going to happen overnight and totally transform the way that our community looks and feels yeah and I don't know how you want to handle the parking component

Andrew Hamilton
1:20:53 (0:00:42)

chair thank you thank you for that reminder I'll ask staff are there any issues any topics that you would seek further Clarity on council's feedback just the parking so not sure how to come I'm not sure that we can come to a council can come to a consensus here I think that would so perhaps a way to do this would be to move around the table and have each counselor give a short comment on their parking perspective May her

Armand Hurford
1:21:36 (0:01:17)

yeah just quickly on this in other aspects of this we've sort of acknowledged that it's unlikely to be perfect F we may need to adjust I would say that approach can be taken is sort of implied with all of this so I know that we want to get it as close to right as we as we can around the table but I wonder yeah where we you know where we what's our opening what's our opening move here as a as a group