Regular Council - 07 May 2024


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: DELEGATIONS/PETITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
3.i: Gullian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory Demylenating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Awareness Month
4: CONSIDERATION OF UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
5: PUBLIC HEARINGS
6: SCHEDULED (TIMED) ITEMS
6.A: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6.A.i: Development Variance Permit No. DVP00024 - 2190 Skyline Drive
7: CONSENT AGENDA
7.A: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.A: Staff Recommendation:
7.A.i: Regular Business Meeting: April 2, 2024
7.A.ii: Special Business Meeting: April 16, 2024
7.A.iii: Regular Business Meeting: April 16, 2024
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 0328 Squamish Community Foundation Re: Neighbourhood Small Grants Now Open
7.B.ii: 0408 Ravi Kahlon Ministry of Housing Re: Bill 16 Affordable Housing
7.B.iii: 0409 FortisBC Re: Update to EGP Project
7.B.iv: 0423 Squamish Community Foundation Re: Annual Fund Statement 2023
7.B.v: Item removed.
7: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
7: Staff Recommendation:
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
7.C.i: Completion of Oceanfront Park (Sp’akw’us Feather Park)
7: END OF CONSENT AGENDA
8: CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
9: BYLAWS
9.A: SECOND READING
9.A.i: District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (The Village on Bailey Street) No. 2671, 2023
10: STAFF REPORTS
10.A: PUBLIC SAFETY
10.A.i: Appointment of Community Patrol Officer
10.B: CORPORATE SERVICES
10.B.i: Councillor Stoner's Leave of Absence and UBCM Parental Leave Advocacy Request
11: LATE AGENDA ITEMS
12: CORRESPONDENCE - ACTION REQUESTED
13: CORRESPONDENCE REFERRED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
14: APPROVAL OF MINUTES REFERRED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
15: BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
16: COMMITTEE MINUTES AND REPORTS
17: NOTICE OF MOTION
18: COUNCIL - STAFF IN CAMERA ANNOUNCEMENTS
18.i: Closed portion of the December 19, 2023 Special Business Meeting
18.ii: Closed portion of the May 7, 2024 Special Business Meeting
19: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
20: OPEN QUESTION PERIOD - CLARIFICATION RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS
21: COUNCIL OR STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
22: MOTION TO CLOSE
23: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:08:43)


SPEAKER_-1
0:00:28 (0:06:59)

e

Armand Hurford
0:07:28 (0:01:14)

e okay hello and welcome to the regular business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday May 7th umum quish OK welcome to the traditional Squamish Nation traditional territory please be advised this Squamish or sorry that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the P to the public to view on the District of Squamish website following the meeting if you have any concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:08:43 (0:00:09)


Armand Hurford
0:08:43 (0:00:09)

can I have someone move adoption of the agenda please moved by councelor French second by councelor Stoner all in favor motion carries thank you

Gullian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and Chronic Inflammatory Demylenating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Awareness Month
0:08:52 (0:06:40)

Miss Lonel took the podium to discuss the importance of declaring a month dedicated to raising awareness for Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), both of which are neurological diseases where the body's immune system mistakenly attacks its nerves. She shared the personal story of her son, Rob, who has been living with one of the rarest variants of CIDP, known as neuro fascia 155, for six years. Despite the challenges, including reliance on an electric wheelchair for mobility, Rob's involvement with the CIDP Foundation and his role as a liaison for the Caribou and Northern BC regions were highlighted as positive steps towards increasing awareness and understanding of these diseases.

The council members responded positively to the request for the proclamation, with Mayor Armand Hurford moving to declare May as GBS and CIDP Awareness Month in the District of Squamish. Councillor Jenna Stoner emphasized the importance of awareness and visibility for those affected by these diseases and pledged to use her social media channels to further the cause. Councillor John French shared a personal connection to Rob, expressing his commitment to learning more about his story. Councillor Chris Pettingill related to the challenges of living with a condition where the body attacks itself, drawing parallels with his experience as a Type 1 diabetic, and commended Miss Lonel's advocacy work. Councillor Lauren Greenlaw also voiced her support, stressing the importance of proactive health advocacy. The motion was supported unanimously by the council, demonstrating their collective commitment to raising awareness for CIDP and GBS within the community.

Armand Hurford
0:08:52 (0:00:21)

our first order of business is a de is a delegation so I would like to invite Miss lonel to the Podium and I'm and this is for actually I'm going to let you part of our education tonight is going to be help making sure I get the pronunciations right for this so I'll turn it over to you to for the topic thank you

SPEAKER_07
0:09:13 (0:02:54)

right and on the way down here I thought CP what does that mean again and I am here tonight and thank you for giving me the audience Council to declare the month of cidp Awareness Month in so part of the pro pronunciate or the proclamation is Gaber you may have heard of that cidp is chronic inflammatory demyelinating poly neuropathy both of these are neurological diseases where the body turns on itself in the case I know I don't know a lot about GBS except I do know that most people or many people that have CP were first diagnosed with GBS and of course when that treatment doesn't work they keep looking and then they come to the next level which is cidp which affects about one in 100,000 people and like Co there's many variants of cidp and my son Rob has one of the rarest and it's called neuro fascia 155 I pled out a little paper tonight just with his story Rob is now six years into the disease he still is Reliant 90% of the time on an electric chair and around the house he can maneuver so long as he's got a wall or something he can bounce off of so but life is pretty good because at one point he couldn't he had to be moved from his room or anywhere else he likely won't get any more back he's been involved with the CP foundation for the last four or five years and recently became a liaison for the caribou and northern BC so that's kind of nice and so what you see there is that the foundation actually had him tell his story and I thought what the heck I mean I know you people have so much time on your hands you'll be able to look at it but in case you find a few minutes you know there his Rob's story so all I basically want to do actually ask for the proc Proclamation I think any anytime we can get the word out into the communities about these two diseases it's helpful because they're not well understood by the medical community even so you know it means a lot to the foundation to have Squamish do this and that's about all I have to say I don't want to keep you any longer you got lots on your plate thank you

Armand Hurford
0:12:08 (0:00:39)

thank you and thank you for your for your time and advocacy on this Council we have a proclamation request which I'm happy to move councelor Stoner seconds and I'll speak to it briefly just thank you very much for the for bringing this forward and providing the link I'll I will find some time to watch it so thank you very much and I'm happy to declare May the as GBS and cidp awareness month in the district of Squamish so thank you very much councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:12:47 (0:00:31)

yeah just briefly thanks for coming for a second year in the row I think one of the biggest components here is awareness and visibility both for those who are suffering with the disease as well as those who may not know that they have it but are working through the system and so elevating the profile as much as we can through proclamations is helpful and I'll do what I can on my social media channels as well having had a friend who has suffered through something similar and tried to navigate the system it's really hard so appreciate your advocacy and bring it forward to us this evening thank you

Armand Hurford
0:13:19 (0:00:03)

thank you I have councelor French next and penel

John French
0:13:22 (0:00:22)

thank you mayor Herford and around my house when one reports one saw the mayor today it's usually referring to former mayor londsdale I I've known Robbie all of his life and lived one block over from him growing up I'm committed to watching this in the next couple of days and hearing Robbie's

Armand Hurford
0:13:45 (0:00:02)

story thank you councelor

Chris Pettingill
0:13:47 (0:00:55)

penal yeah thanks had an opportunity to meet with you a couple months ago and hear more in depth about the story it resonates with me a little bit just being a type 1 diabetic and that is another condition where the thought is it's the body attacking itself and shutting down insulin production for whatever reason so in many ways I'm feel quite fortunate to have diabetes but you know understand there's weird things our bodies do which aren't always things we would like but I you know understand this has been very challenging for your son and your family and it's very inspiring to see how you have you know taken on this work and trying to do all you can to make things better not just for your family but for other people that are struggling with this so I think it's a great example of how we can be in the face of challenges and thank you very much for what you're doing here

Armand Hurford
0:14:43 (0:00:02)

thank you c u councelor green

Lauren Greenlaw
0:14:45 (0:00:14)

law thanks through the chair happy to support this it is so important in this day and age to be proactive and self-promoting about your health so I'm happy to help spread the word about and to help raise awareness for those who may be unwi Wily Afflicted thank

Armand Hurford
0:15:00 (0:00:31)

you thank you any other comments seeing none I'll call the question all in favor motion is supported unanimously thank you so much okay Council moving on our next agenda item is number four consideration of unscheduled public attendance this is where if a member of the of the public has a matter that they would like to speak to coun address Council before the next business meeting this is the time to bring that forward seeing none we'll move on we have no public hearings tonight but

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00024 - 2190 Skyline Drive
0:15:32 (0:14:04)

Philip Given from the Community Development Department presented a development variance permit for 2190 Skyline Drive, DVP 24. The property, located in the Garibaldi Estates neighborhood, features a single-unit dwelling with a carport at the rear, accessed from a stub road. The applicant proposed replacing the carport with a single-story detached garage, requiring a variance to reduce the exterior side setback from 4. 57 meters to 1. 52 meters. This adjustment would allow for the garage without further encroaching into the backyard, aiming to preserve green space, reduce impact on neighbors, and facilitate secure solid waste storage and EV charging installation. Public notification was conducted, with no comments received but a letter of support from a neighbor. The variance aligns with official community plan policies and is not expected to significantly impact neighboring properties. A condition for issuing the DVP is the decommissioning of the existing driveway crossover on Skyline Drive to comply with the subdivision development control bylaw.

Council members engaged in a discussion with questions directed towards clarifying the adjacent property's support, the advisory design panel's perspective on hardship, and the implications for future development. Councillor Chris Pettingill sought clarification on the source of the supportive letter and the advisory design panel's stance on the variance. Councillor Andrew Hamilton inquired about the proposed exterior side setback under new zoning proposals, while Councillor Eric Andersen requested details on the driveway crossover's location and its implications. The council expressed overall support for the variance, appreciating the logical rationale behind the request and its alignment with subdivision and control bylaw adjustments. They highlighted the benefits of reducing driveway access on Skyline Drive for traffic flow and safety. The motion to authorize the issuance of the development variance permit was unanimously supported, reflecting the council's agreement with the staff's recommendation and the proposal's consistency with broader zoning changes.

Armand Hurford
0:15:32 (0:00:16)

moving on to scheduled or timed items we have develop development variants permit for 2190 Skyline Drive and I will turn over to staff to introduce themselves and the topic thank

SPEAKER_09
0:15:48 (0:04:14)

you okay good evening mayor and Council Philip given with the Community Development Department I will be presenting on a development variance permit for 2190 Skyline Drive DVP 24 so the subject property here as I mentioned 2190 Skyline Drive in the gabot Estates neighborhood close to gabot way and it is currently developed with a single unit dwelling with a carport at the rear the lot is a regular shape and it is a corner lot as it's on a corner with a stub Road off Skyline Drive as shown on the MPP on the slide the carport which is at the rear currently has access from that stub Road and all the surrounding land uses are residential the applicant is proposing a single story detached garage at the rear of the property this is to replace an existing carport the garage will be accessed from the stub Road at the east of the property and because the property is on a corner lot the exterior side setback for both the principal and accessory buildings is 4.57 M which the existing carport is not complying with and the applicant is requesting a variance to the exterior side setback reducing it to 1.52 M and this would allow replacement of the existing carport with the double garage and this is so that the building does not encroach further into the backyard so the variances so on this slide you can see the exterior side setback in green and the proposed side setback in red and the applicant has provided the following rationale for the variance so preservation of green space on the property preferred s in to reduce impact on neighbors allowance for secure Solid Waste storage and allowance for insulation of EV charging public notification was undertaken in accordance with legislation a development sign was placed on site the project was listed on the development showcase and notification was sent to properties within 100 meters no comments were received ever a letter of support from a neighbor was provided as part of the application and the variance as proposed is aligned with official community plan policies and there appears to be no significant impacts on neighboring properties as a result of the variance and the subdivision development control bylaw only allows for one access point per lot and staff proposed at a condition of issuance of DVP p24 is that the existing driveway crossover on Skyline Drive must be de decommissioned to align with the subdivision development control bylaw and as a result the recommendation is that Council authorize the insurance of development variance permit 24 as presented for 2190 Skyline Drive and that the mayor and corporate officer be authorized to execute DVP 24 subject to decommissioning of the existing driveway crossover thank

Armand Hurford
0:20:02 (0:00:05)

you thank you Council questions counc pill

Chris Pettingill
0:20:08 (0:00:43)

yeah two things the one the letter with the redaction I'm assuming it's the adjacent directly adjacent property but it's not clear is it that property or is it someone just in the neighborhood that the letter is from it's immediately adjacent okay thank you and then the other thing that caught my eye a bit was the advisory design panel seemed to feel there was not hardship in what I took from this is it seemed like they were it was implied they were less supportive of the idea I'm just wondering if you can clarify that and or if you know there was a disconnect between sta P perspective and the ADB perspective on this

SPEAKER_09
0:20:52 (0:00:10)

variance through the May it's a clarification that the Border variants did not there was a hardship

Chris Pettingill
0:21:02 (0:00:11)

wait so yeah in the report I think it said that the ADP thought there wasn't a hardship and I sort of took from that they maybe saying

SPEAKER_09
0:21:13 (0:00:05)

they okay

Armand Hurford
0:21:19 (0:00:03)

sorry we'll just go to staff for a reply and

SPEAKER_09
0:21:23 (0:00:45)

then to the I believe so the Border variants is makes a decision on whether a hardship or not for a b variance application in this case because like it's determined that it's not a hardship so that's where you would pursue a variance through Council through a development variance permit process so there are two Avenues to pursue variances and where a hardship is not seen by the board of variants it's possible for an applicant to then apply through the development variance process which they have

Chris Pettingill
0:22:09 (0:00:09)

done okay thank you I must have misread that somehow I got the idea that advisory design panel had weighed on this I was sort of confused hence my question so all right thank

Armand Hurford
0:22:18 (0:00:04)

you thank you other questions councelor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:22:22 (0:00:22)

yeah I was just trying to look up couldn't get to it quick enough do you remember what the exterior side setback the proposed exterior side setback is for the new R1 zoning that's been

SPEAKER_09
0:22:45 (0:00:10)

proposed through the M it's either 1.5 or 1.2 we can look it

Armand Hurford
0:22:56 (0:00:03)

up is that is that close enough for your

Andrew Hamilton
0:22:59 (0:00:06)

for it's around the setback that we're setting that this variance is applying for yes

Armand Hurford
0:23:06 (0:00:06)

okay thank you other questions councilor

Eric Andersen
0:23:12 (0:00:34)

Anderson I wonder step might be able to help me get a clear picture of the crossover driveway crossover I'm looking at an overhead of an aerial photo if you if you might be able to refer to a map to explain this a little bit I also want the reason I'm asking is behind the lot to the South we have two very large bla Lots which may come forward with development propos in future and I'm wondering if you could just illustrate on the map where that crossover it is and if there is are any considerations relative to Future development of the lots of the

SPEAKER_09
0:23:47 (0:00:37)

South I'm not we don't have the web map eily available

SPEAKER_10
0:24:24 (0:00:15)

apologies neither Philip or I are experts on anything but putting the presentation up on the system so did your photo have it in the map or in the

SPEAKER_09
0:24:40 (0:00:01)

presentation say

SPEAKER_10
0:24:42 (0:00:19)

I can say that we have looked at the you know what whether this would impact future development potential in this area and it was determined that it wouldn't it wouldn't matter it's an accessory building and it's yeah just there's no sideline implications that we could determine

Eric Andersen
0:25:01 (0:00:02)

thank you

Armand Hurford
0:25:04 (0:00:03)

I sorry councelor your mic clicked up

Eric Andersen
0:25:07 (0:00:11)

oh I take it that the driveway crossover is the one currently used by the residents and it's on the on the east side of the dwelling that's where I put my election signs I know the territory a little

Armand Hurford
0:25:21 (0:00:27)

bit the sorry do you want to orient us with that I have a Google Street View in front of me is what I used to make sure that I understood I don't know if we have the ability to feel like there's a solution being worked on right now

SPEAKER_09
0:25:49 (0:00:31)

so okay apologies for the small image however you can see sorry there's a text box on here at the north of the property here this is the existing crossover mentioned currently the carport is accessed through the East here so it would be decommissioning this crossover which is not currently being

Eric Andersen
0:26:21 (0:00:02)

used thank you very

Armand Hurford
0:26:23 (0:00:34)

much thank you on this point the I know the crossover wasn't isn't being used for it doesn't look like it's being used for parking on a ongoing basis anyways but I wonder about the parking requirements if this whole structure if this whole lot was to go from zero to built how many spaces would need to be provided and is this does this do that inside the garage is that the overall I'm just trying to think of the overall parking picture

SPEAKER_09
0:26:57 (0:00:22)

here the M the parking requirement for would currently be two spaces for the existing dwelling so it would meet the current requirements under the signing bylaw okay

Armand Hurford
0:27:20 (0:00:05)

thank you counc Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:27:25 (0:00:04)

I'll move the staff recommendation if there are no further questions

Armand Hurford
0:27:29 (0:00:02)

you're seconding that okay I would to speak to

Jenna Stoner
0:27:32 (0:00:40)

it yeah just briefly appreciate that there's no specific hardship but I think the rationale and the logic behind this variance request makes is reasonable it's just replacing the existing footprint and appreciate staff's efforts to try and align this with our subdivision and control bylaw and closing off the skyline access on the north it's already a super busy and tight area it's one that I B frequently and so having fewer driveways onto that street I think will be helpful just in terms of traffic flow and safety for pedestrians and cyclists and Motor Vehicles alike so I think this makes good sense

Armand Hurford
0:28:12 (0:00:01)

Thank You councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:28:14 (0:00:13)

Hamilton yeah I'll absolutely support this development variants permit it's certainly inconsistent with the proposal for the new R1 zoning that we that I also support So y I'm support this

Armand Hurford
0:28:27 (0:00:02)

thank you other comments councelor Anderson I'll

Eric Andersen
0:28:30 (0:00:15)

also be in support of the staff recommendation and while the issue of safety isn't highlighted in the report or by the in the rationale provided by the applicant I do feel I agree with councelor Stoner that this is a factor here that we have taken into consideration with staff's

Armand Hurford
0:28:46 (0:00:04)

recommendation thank you any other comments Council green

Lauren Greenlaw
0:28:50 (0:00:09)

law through the chair I'll just speak in support of the staff recommendation as well this is just a logical variance to apply given the current up of the property

Armand Hurford
0:28:59 (0:00:37)

thanks thank you just a quick comment supportive of this I think that we're generally going in this Direction with the changes in to our zoning so makes it quite easy to support and like some my other colleagues have mentioned the sort of cleaning up the potential for an access on that on the North part of the property even though it's not being used as such at this point I think is also a win so yep happy to support with that I'll call the question all in favor motion carries thank you very

CONSENT AGENDA
0:29:36 (0:00:16)


Armand Hurford
0:29:37 (0:00:14)

much so Council next we have the consent agenda is there anything that anyone would like to pull from the consent agenda councelor Anderson go

Eric Andersen
0:29:51 (0:00:01)

ahead

0409 FortisBC Re: Update to EGP Project
0:29:52 (0:00:37)


Eric Andersen
0:29:52 (0:00:07)

mayor Herford I wish to pull item B3 in the correspondence under receipt through information that's support BC letter

Armand Hurford
0:30:00 (0:00:28)

please okay happy to do that we'll deal with that in an appropriate spot on the agenda anything else okay could someone I'll move the consent agenda is there a seconder seconded by councelor Stoner all in favor motion carries thank you very much and we'll come back to that item B3 so next we have a presentation

District of Squamish Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 2011, Amendment Bylaw (The Village on Bailey Street) No. 2671, 2023
0:30:29 (1:31:18)

Carrie Hamilton, a planner for the District of Squamish, presented Amendment Bylaw 2671 2023 for the second reading for rezoning file 00004 for The Village on Bailey Street project. The project, initially presented in September 2021, has undergone public engagement and has been revised to address council's conditions from the first reading, including affordable housing targets, details on the hybrid theater, and a revised phasing plan. The development is divided into three lots, proposing a mix of residential and commercial spaces, including 191 market units, 39 affordable housing units, and approximately 10,000 square meters of commercial space. Amendments were made to meet the 15% affordable housing target, expand the hybrid theater, and adjust building heights and densities to align with adjacent buildings and massing.

Council members, including Chris Pettingill, Andrew Hamilton, Jenna Stoner, Lauren Greenlaw, Eric Andersen, and John French, raised questions and discussed various aspects of the project. Concerns included the desire for a no-gas covenant for the entire building, the proximity and height of buildings, particularly the parking structure, and the viability and community benefit of the proposed hybrid theater. The discussion also touched on parking requirements, the potential for decoupling parking, and ensuring the project aligns with community needs, especially regarding the theater. The outcome was a unanimous vote in favor of giving the bylaw second reading as amended, which included adding a no-gas covenant for the entire site and adjusting the maximum height of the parking structure to allow for an additional story. The council emphasized the importance of continued engagement with the arts community and ensuring the project's components, like the theater, meet community expectations and needs.

Armand Hurford
0:30:29 (0:00:44)

now we're on to bylaws second reading or consideration of second reading for The Village on Bailey Street and I will turn it over to staff to introduce themselves and the project thank you

SPEAKER_01
0:31:14 (0:10:39)

okay good evening mayor and Council my name is Carrie Hamilton planner for the District of Squamish and I'll be presenting to you today Amendment bylaw 2671 2023 for second reading for rezoning file 00004 4 for 1331 and 1251 and a portion of 1100 Bailey Street and 38261 Cleveland Avenue collectively called The Village on Bailey Street so this application was first presented at a September 2021 Committee of the whole meeting and presented again on the May 2023 meeting the project has hosted two public engagement events and one Community stakeholder Mee meeting specific to the hybrid theater use it was presented for first and second reading on July 4th 2023 where Council gave the project first reading only with the following conditions to address prior to Second reading affordable housing to meet CC targets more information about the hybrid theater revised phasing plan to address affordable housing and amenity timelines today's presentation will present proposed changes to address all three Council comments from first reading as a quick overview reminder the development project is broken up into three lots a b and c as outlined in the image on the slide Lot C and B are primarily residential buildings with a total of 191 Market units with a small portion of ground floor commercial at the lot B east corner lot a is predominately commercial employment buildings with a rough roughly a total of 10,000 M squared of commercial use with 39 affordable units proposed in total all three lots are proposing 260 residential units and securing 10,000 M squar of commercial space please note thanks to councelor Stoner an error in the bylaw was noted under section 40 uuu .5 density and the commercial area should read a minimum of 10,000 M squared instead of 8,000 M squared a revised bylaw has been circulated to address this error so to address council's comment at first reading the following amendment to bylaw 2671 2023 was proposed to lot a the project is now meeting the 15% affordable housing CC Target by providing 39 affordable housing units in building 2 and as a result building 2 has increased in height from 16 M which was a four-story building to 22 m a six-story building through more detail on the hybrid theater use the project has expanded the hybrid theater Building located in building 3 and as a result the height of BU of the building is proposing to change from 17 meters to 19 meters but is still proposing to be four stories overall in height the expanded footprint of the theater space has removed the Courtyard area between building three and four and requires that the rear building setback for the Parkade ramp to have a reduced rear setback from 2 m to 0.2 M building one is also proposing to increase its height from 20 M which was a five-story building to 23 M which is now a six-story building to better align with the increases to the adjacent building Heights and massing and to ensure the building Remains the predominant Gateway entrance building so these proposed changes have resulted in increased lot coverage density and parking requirements for the site a new provision has been added to the bylaw to support shared use of the required commercial spaces for lock a as the commercial uses such as theater office and child care are proposed on the site will have different Park sorry different Peak operation times a summary of the bylaw changes can be found in table one in the report and are detailed in track changes in attachment 7 so in response to council's comments at first reading the applicant has revised their development phasing plan as followed so phase one is Lot B which is predom the market residential units Phase 2 is lot a building 2 which is all the 39 affordable housing units phase three is in lot a building three and four which includes the theater child care and Parkade phase four is Lot C which is the other Market residential units and phase five lot a building one the commercial office building so the revised phasing plan allows for phase one to help offset initial site and infrastructure upgrade costs while delivering on key District amenities in the phase 2 and three so this application triggers the CAC policy this table highlights changes to the CAC proposal from first reading and R at first reading Council expressed mixed support for the proposed home ownership model concept but generally expressed a recommendation for the project to meet CAC affordable housing Target policy as a result the development is now proposing to meet the 15% of square footage CAC Target for affordable housing all within one building on lot a affordable housing units will offer a range of bedroom types in alignment with the ocp policy and will be secured in the Land Development agreement to meet BC housing minimum sizes for the CAC policy this 15% was based off of the market residential use proposed minus the existing zoned residential GFA or the portion of lot a that's zoned C4 this square footage amount was used to update the critical amenity active transportation and Park C contribution numbers the only additional change is the increased theater space and the 20% weekend dedication to the theater use for Community use this dedication was in response to the community group meeting held in 2023 to ensure to ensure this new theater space could be used to help offset the current Demand on the theater use in our community this is in addition to the CAC policy targets and includes the hybrid theater into the community amenity deliverable although the child care space is proposing no change from first reading it is worth noting that this child care deliverable is exceeding the CSE policy targets a detailed csse table provided by the applicant can be found in attachment 3 so at first reading Council expressed hesitation to move forward with further readings without more detail on the hybrid theater proposal as a result the applicant has hired a theater consultant to provide initial guidance on the resoning proposal and ensure sufficient space for the theater is secured to make it viable and integrate Community feedback received in that 2023 community meeting so with 300 to 325 seats the hybrid theater will be designed to accommodate large audience viewings of films live performances by local National and international performers as well as conventions art presentations lectures trade shows and private functions the hybrid theater will be privately owned and operated but with a commitment to secure 20% oops go 20% of full weekend bookings to local groups and this will be 10 weekends which include Friday Saturday and Sunday at operating costs the theater space requires three stories to accommodate theater height needs and to include important dressing rehearsal storage and meeting rooms to help accommodate the Performing Arts use of the theater more detail on the hybrid theater proposal is provided by the applicant in attachment for so the project is proposing to meet three of our four strategic plans which is connected in livable Community due to the of housing types proposed in this application the improvements Act of Transportation connections and this increase opportunity for arts and culture by adding the hybrid theater it's also meeting resilient people and relationships due to the extra effort the applicants have made to engage our theater community in this theater deliverable and prepared for the future as the application is proposing to ensure it's meeting all the flood conveyance and dp2 requirements so the public for public engagement to inform the community PR our policy the application was posted to the district's development showcase development sign has been up there for quite some time now and a developer has led public information meeting both in May 2022 and again in May 2023 both pims were well attended by the public with a total of 28 comment sheets submitted the applicant also engaged the Arts and theater community group groups in Squamish by hosting an evening dinner on June 14th 2023 and the evening confirmed the need for a new theater and highlighted important considerations in the design of this theater space the feedback has been used in designing the current hybrid theater with important details that will be secured in the LDA all public comments received to date are found in attachment 5 so stack staff are recommending this evening that the District of Squamish amend bylaw for The Village on Bailey Street number 2671 2023 be given second reading prior to a public hearing being held for the District of for this bylaw the following items be resolved and they include the Bailey Street to Buckley Avenue Third Avenue Road connection intersection which is we're seeking a design for that Bailey and Cleveland intersection improvements also looking for a design of their Improvement the approval of the traffic impact assessment and the approval of conditional densification area flood model flood modeling which the which will be required and review of an approval environmental reports and compliance with the CN development guidelines an alternative recommendation would be to defer the project back to staff with following items to resolve and that concludes my presentation for this evening and welcome council's

Armand Hurford
0:41:54 (0:00:08)

feedback thank you very much Council any questions Mr

Chris Pettingill
0:42:02 (0:00:22)

Penning yeah a few things on this one I'll start with one of my favorite topics my recollection is that a few of us raised the I guess desire to see a no gas Covenant for the whole building and that wasn't mentioned in the report it's not proposed I'm just wondering where that piece

SPEAKER_01
0:42:24 (0:00:19)

went yeah through the mayor some of the major comments were noted in the motion but we that's some of the other comments may not have been noted in the motion and may have been miss to follow up with so we don't we didn't have direction that way to proceed with any changes that

Chris Pettingill
0:42:44 (0:00:58)

way okay I think that's a bit of a deal breaker for me probably on this and maybe that's a condition of going to public hearing I one of the other pieces and I know there's been some increases in Heights and some desire to maybe leverage if we're doing a parking structure to look at height there but I also look there's only 17 and a half feet I think it was between the two buildings which seemed very narrow between the rental apartment and the parking especially as they get taller and I'm just wondering like are there any best practices or analysis because it you know when I looked at the diagrams it seemed that the first four stories of Apartments might be looking into a parking garage that's like right there and so I'm just wondering what sort of analysis or discussion or thought has been given to that proximity between those two

SPEAKER_01
0:43:43 (0:00:29)

structures through the mayor it's certainly a tight space we do see mid block corridors between 5 meters and 6 meters which is in compliance I believe they're showing 5.3 meter differences so it's not uncommon to have kind of these tight corridors and they do provide still activation for people and they do can still provide windows but the full calculation won't be known until we they kind of get to development permit design and building permit

Chris Pettingill
0:44:13 (0:00:27)

design and is that typical like I sort of in my mind that makes sense you know between the sides the narrower sides of a building but between the full back or front side I guess intuitively I might expect a bit more distance or some step backs or so on are you is 5.3 typical for the sort of wide side of a building for U that sort of narrower

SPEAKER_01
0:44:40 (0:00:20)

space through the mayor I don't know if I can speak to what's typical but I can give a example our laneways in downtown Squamish are six meters so it's it provides a good example of what might be possible or what that quarter would look like and what the window capability could be for that space that

Chris Pettingill
0:45:01 (0:00:29)

helps okay thanks and I just did we leave it up to the proponent to sort of sort out the feedback with some of the arts groups or were we involved in sort of and maybe we're not typically involved but what I guess what interaction or engagement did staff have an understanding whether or not the Arts groups concerns or needs were addressed by this updated

SPEAKER_01
0:45:31 (0:00:36)

proposal certainly through the mayor both myself and our manager of arts and culture were present at the meeting and we worked as a follow-up working group with the Squamish Art Council to review all of the comments that were collected at that meeting and to compare those comments to make sure to ensure that they were being met with this current design so there has been some further followup by staff to ensure that the comments that were raised at that meeting are presented in this revised

Chris Pettingill
0:46:08 (0:00:06)

proposal and when was that work with the Squam Arts done

SPEAKER_01
0:46:15 (0:00:20)

roughly through the mayor probably the meeting was over a year ago so a lot of that work has been done for a while I do know that there was a staff change for the Squam shart Council so we have not engaged with the new staff member but have heavily engaged with the previous executive

Chris Pettingill
0:46:35 (0:00:23)

director okay yeah because I've done some engagement with some arts groups and I've heard I guess some hesitation about whether or not this is or can meet their needs and so I'm just trying to guess wrap my head around is this meeting needs or is it just a private theater and it's not sort of addressing I guess maybe that's more of a comment so anyways thank

Armand Hurford
0:46:59 (0:00:06)

you thank you for the catch there I will go ahead counc

Andrew Hamilton
0:47:06 (0:00:33)

Hamilton thanks very much our favorite topic I guess back to the parking structure so I noticed that all the buildings around the parking structure have increased in height but the parking structure has remained at 11 MERS is there a reason why the parking structure shouldn't rise at all or is it simply that the proponent hasn't requested it that it hasn't been

SPEAKER_01
0:47:39 (0:02:50)

proposed certainly through the mayor I actually prepared a few slides for this one but if we want to get into it again but I know that was it was a topic in the in first reading the revised submission didn't propose an increase to structure however I did reach out to the app an and they can be supportive of that if should Council request that if I may I do have just some considerations if you do want to consider a height increase some of them include just on to the right of the screen is an image from one of the arbis reports that's been submitted and given how tight the building is proposed to that property line and to the CN area it is likely that a number of that those trees will have to come down as part of this development and the arbor prop proposal does show that there is a little section in red where some Alders may be able to be retained but I just wanted to highlight that is away from the parade structure so although this viewscape image here kind of shows a lot of vegetation covering the parade it's likely that there won't be any vegetation covering this parcade so one of the considerations is what will this closed parcade look like from Buckle Avenue it's a four-story structure whether five stories will make a difference to that is debatable but it is one of the considerations that staff have had with increasing the visibility of this structure and making it larger there is a 2 meter setback that's supported to allow for some planting buffer but 2 meters won't really allow for a lot of mature vegetation over time so the parking structure will likely be exposed to Buckley Avenue and the public road another consideration just quickly is just around sorry this is a helpful image here I think so if a larger structure was proposed you it may have implications to the visibility or any kind of finished like Windows or views from that child care space one of the impacts this is kind of the proposed increase to a parking height and this is this would be the New Height at 13.5 M and it would take up the basically the top or cover half of the top floor of the hyperth theater building something Mak sense currently this image is actually better to visualize this see where those windows are so they would cover half of those windows those are considered and I'll put it back to

Armand Hurford
0:50:29 (0:00:05)

you thank you do you have a

Andrew Hamilton
0:50:34 (0:00:22)

followup yeah on the can you go back to the images I'm just trying to figure out what I'm looking at on the image to the left yeah my left that's the parking garage the ramp going up behind the tree there and then the parking garage is behind that large tree

SPEAKER_01
0:50:57 (0:00:15)

through the miror yes unfortunately they've kept a number of the trees there will be one tree that's quite close to Buckley Avenue that would remain and all the other trees that are covering the rest of the Parkade That You Don't See would not likely be

Andrew Hamilton
0:51:13 (0:00:08)

there okay so the image has trees that won't be there yeah okay thank

Armand Hurford
0:51:21 (0:00:04)

you yeah I'll go to councelor Stoner on this point then I'll go to

Jenna Stoner
0:51:25 (0:00:18)

ca yeah just curious and appreciate that we're at rezoning not DP but I am curious if we have DP guidelines that would speak to the massing or design of that building that would like this the size of that building and its proximity to

SPEAKER_01
0:51:43 (0:00:27)

Buckley through the mayor our DP guidelines would apply to this structure and I mean we don't have specific ones to parades but there would be considerations that we would apply to this parade and there is one condition that staff are seeking for in the LDA to ensure that it's a closed parade to ensure that there's not open kind of light spill that happens in the evenings so we can cons secure that in

Armand Hurford
0:52:10 (0:00:02)

regulation thank you Council

Lauren Greenlaw
0:52:13 (0:00:20)

Greenlaw thanks through the chair my recollection is last time we talked about this there is a possibility for the for the Parkade the upper floors of the Parkade to be you know U retrofitted into housing is that still at all being talked

SPEAKER_01
0:52:33 (0:00:44)

about through the mayor I believe that was potentially a question in terms of I believe at the time the answer was that we wouldn't be able to the question actually because I just watched the council meeting was around a ground floor converting it and we wouldn't be able to do that due to flood plane the top floor however at this point the bylaw does not support residential use for that top floor so to make any changes like that would require rezoning for this site in the future if that was desired okay

Armand Hurford
0:53:18 (0:00:07)

thanks okay thank you other questions go ahead councelor Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:53:25 (0:01:56)

thank you some of the groups so representatives of them are in community dialogue these days on the status of the current theater available to them and other facilities including Squam Academy Music Academy when they which facility clearly outgrown and there's a lot of lessons learned and concern we have dance groups using West Vancouver facilities it's a shame so we're and I do see these groups have been involved in the discussion focus group of last year and I have a copy of Amy Reid from between ships theaters letter of June 17 last year but I'm finding that the attachment for you refer to M Hamilton is a little bit brief and for the all of the lessons learned that we are hearing about in the community I would I would appreciate more information in particular since we do have a professional that's been advising the project I mean I in cultural facility projects I would prefer to see a space programming report or have with comfort that our staff is engaged with a very with a detailed space programming report for this plan building and why is some of the themes that you've highlighted we want it not only to be viable but it's an integrated design flexible it's going to have to be durable and serve in multi multiple uses because there are some uncertainties as to what gaps it will fill so my question is there more that staff has been able to obtain or review in the way of a detailed space programming report that we might expect for cultural facility in other communities or indeed in this

SPEAKER_01
0:55:22 (0:01:35)

one for the mayor certainly it's a good question to be raised there is definitely a balance that we're trying to strike with this resoning level of the theater use and the comments we received from the community we did our proposal right now is to secure that 20% allocation with some conditions as well as the site plan for the theater so not just that letter but I'll go back to it so there is a number of plans that were proposed in the AR chitectural package that do speak to many of the comments that were raised by the community such as storage unit amounts specifics like making sure there's washrooms in the dressing room the location of those dressing rooms the amount of space for rehearsal space all of those components we are suggesting will be these site plans will be secured in general in the LDA to comply to this and this will give staff leverage at further stages to ensure that we can we're meeting those Community needs and securing this in some form at a resoning level without getting kind of too into the details of how that space will perform what the cost will be all of those details will be much better known once they are able to proceed through development permit and building permit and have a lot more concrete details to come back with

Eric Andersen
0:56:57 (0:00:35)

thank you M Hamilton I guess to sum up for me I'm most I would be most comforted by seeing the team at work the community advisers as well as the expert consultant involved the eagle ey theater by the way was designed by local Performing Arts volunteers who happen to have substantial expertise and Mr the late Mr ban prown in particular and we can see what how the durability of that facility has a lot of issues but in some respects it has benefited from the expertise that was applied to it including local experience thank

Armand Hurford
0:57:33 (0:00:38)

you thank you a couple questions on my own actually councelor St did you have a question on theater are you going on the same theme okay so I was curious about the Bailey to Buckley Avenue Bailey to Buckley to Third Avenue Road connection intersection design what to what parameters there was some discussion around we had mentioned at various points you know securing the right away is the first priority but then what that's used for and thus what designs we're asking for i' just like Clarity on that so what parameters are they being asked to design to for that

SPEAKER_01
0:58:11 (0:01:09)

design certainly so we didn't bring it up in today's meeting because there's been no change since first reading but the parameter is that we are asking for a 20 meter Road rideway for potential future Road connection and they are required to build a multi-use pathway connection through the site and upgrade the site but not to build the road they'll likely be a condition in there that should the development take a number of years or a few years depending on our numbers that we would require them to build the road and that is one consideration but the goal of this rezoning and this being a condition is to ensure that we have a viable kind of 50% engineering design that intersection on both sides and the road through to ensure that we have the lot lines correct and that there's not any future changes to the building that would impact it should this road design not work so that's kind of why we've held it to public hearing that we don't want to introduce any new information but there is a lot more work for the applicant to kind of do to get to that 50% design to have those

Armand Hurford
0:59:20 (0:00:07)

assurances okay thank you that makes that makes sense to me I'll go back to councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:59:28 (0:00:15)

Stoner thank you through the chair just on that is there a similar rationale for the baile and Cleveland intersection Improvement draft design as to why we would hold that to third hearing and not or sorry third reading and not get that in

SPEAKER_01
0:59:44 (0:00:43)

advance yeah through the mayor this entrance design is a bit trickier for this development because it's connected to the downtown entrance study and so it's required a lot of U work with District staff to kind of decide on if we're going to go with an interim design or a design that could work with a Gateway entrance future design for the district and that's particularly why we're aware that it's an issue and we are going to present a solution to it but the timing of it is in relation to the complexity of the site and its mostly complexity with the district as well to confirm those

Jenna Stoner
1:00:27 (0:01:13)

details okay thanks for that context I had a few other questions the first is in the language of the zoning bylaw with respect to securing the at least 20% of three bedrooms so this is section 40 uuu .3 conditions of use section A which reads at least 20% of the residential unit shall be apartment or townhouse doons containing at least three bedrooms and my reading of that is that it could be 20% of apartments or town houses not 20% across the board that and I think what we try and secure is 20% both town houses and apartments and so I'm just wonder if staff can speak to the language there the language in section c there at least 10 10% of all apartment and townhouse dwelling shall be constructed to adaptable dwelling units is much clearer to me so I just want to make sure that we're on the same page that 20% of both the apartments and the town houses will be secured as

SPEAKER_01
1:01:41 (0:00:19)

three-bedroom through the mayor I think we're on the same page the way it's supposed to be read is to give some flexibility I believe a lot of the town houses will be providing the three-bedroom and so it's to allow for the three bedrooms to be both in the townhouse form and the apartment form is that

Jenna Stoner
1:02:00 (0:00:18)

clear yeah but I think what we're trying to secure is a diversity of housing mix and form for three bedrooms so the risk is that they're all three bedrooms are in townhouse forms and they're extremely more expensive and families can't live in them and so I think what we're trying to secure is 20% across all built forms for three

SPEAKER_01
1:02:18 (0:00:27)

bedrooms yeah so through the mayor the tow houses that are proposed here the definition for townhouse is just that it has ground floor access and they are kind of the it is the amount that they will have along that Frontage wouldn't be sufficient I believe to maximize that 20% so they would have to still provide three bedroom apartments as well to provide that diversity if that's

Jenna Stoner
1:02:46 (0:00:30)

clear okay that's helpful some further clarification on that at third reading or when it comes to public heing would be helpful just in terms of the breakdown there my other question was around clarification of the parking so in the staff report for table one it says that the required parking is 240 stalls the proposed amount is 198 stalls that is separate from the parade structure right so that's in addition

SPEAKER_01
1:03:16 (0:00:04)

to do mayor say those numbers again

Jenna Stoner
1:03:21 (0:00:14)

so this at second reading it says required is 242 stalls and the proposed is 198 stalls and I'm just wondering if that includes the 169 from the Parkade

SPEAKER_01
1:03:35 (0:00:12)

yes through the mayor that is only the parking for lot a and it does include the Parkade and it includes they have proposed 169 of those stalls to be

Jenna Stoner
1:03:47 (0:00:07)

public and then there's for Lot B and C there's there it has its own parking that meets our requirements

SPEAKER_01
1:03:55 (0:00:05)

through the correct I just didn't bring that up today because there were no changes to Lot B and

Jenna Stoner
1:04:00 (0:00:30)

C thank you for the clarification my other question was around the max Heights that are in the bylaw some of the six stories are 23 MERS and then another one's 22 MERS and then four stories might be 19 M or 11 me so I'm just curious why there's a differenti between measured Heights and story Heights

SPEAKER_01
1:04:31 (0:00:43)

through the mayor certainly it definitely is a bit complex that way a lot of it has to do with one being the theater height it's quite a unique building and it requires kind of a unique height so that is definitely one of the unique elements in here for the building one which is the predominant office commercial building they are proposing a very high first story to kind of create a very strong entrance and ground floor commercial unit so that's why that one is 23 M where the and six stories whereas the affordable housing unit with the ground floor commercial maybe doesn't need as promi of a ground floor and so that's why it's further reduced and that's why there's some of the variation

Jenna Stoner
1:05:14 (0:00:51)

thanks for that clarification my last question is just around the proposed phasing and I appreciate some of the effort that staff and the pro proponent have come to in terms of the new proposal I think my general concern is that we still don't have enough to Anchor the later phases of the development as proposed so there's a lot of upfront in Phase One I think we're looking at 102 units or 89 units anyways there's a lot of residential in phase one which I appreciate is needed in order to finance the rest of it but what lever or tools do we have to make sure that phase two and three get built because I just I see a risk

SPEAKER_01
1:06:05 (0:01:05)

there certainly through the mayor I'll just go back to one of my first slides might help so they're in Lot B so that's the one that they're going to propose first it is kind of their anchor building and again it's proposed first to there's substantial Road upgrades that are going to be required servicing upgrades significant upgrades to the site so that is going to help them kind of offset those costs but loty has 102 Market units proposed and that is after the phase two and three so that's our phase four proposal so there is definitely that leverage to ensure that particular those amenities get done so that they can actually build lotsy and then the commercial office is a key tenant for them that to kind of complete the site so that they propos that as phase five and we saw that as the lesser of the amenities for everything that we were trying to look at turn to achieve here on the

SPEAKER_10
1:07:11 (0:00:43)

site just to add through the mayor there's always a risk that U the development can you know stall after the first phase there's just no way to really mitigate that sometimes on the big developments we will ask for bonding if there's some significant District infrastructure that's proposed that's coming later in the phase in the phasing plan so that you know there's a chance that the district if development doesn't proceed past the first phase the district can go and do something with those funds for infrastructure wise but there's always a risk that it's not going to be fully built and it could fail at any point in the process

Jenna Stoner
1:07:55 (0:00:34)

I guess I follow up to that and appreciate there's lots of wants out of this project and the phasing is tricky one of the things that we know is typically commercial development is not financially viable and so leaving that to phase five feels also quite risky and so I just wonder if staff have any thoughts on that if it really every single developer that I've spoken to is like unless it's upfront it's not going to get

SPEAKER_01
1:08:29 (0:01:07)

built yeah so through the mayor one of the other considerations I suppose with this phasing plan was their construction plan they are proposing for you know there were a lot of comments from the residents to reduce construction noise and construction impact and they are proposing their main kind of construction site to be on the phase 5 Section and then that would allow interm parking for phase two and be able to kind of build out all the different phases from there it is it's going to I we hear those concerns but the concerns that we did hear from Council were around affordable housing and the community deliverables and we really tried to push those up front and by pushing those up front there's another one that there's something else that has to go behind the developer has expressed an intention to build all of this at once and you know it's they're that's their intention I don't know if they will deliver on that fully but that is what they've expressed to

Armand Hurford
1:09:37 (0:00:02)

us thank you councelor

Chris Pettingill
1:09:39 (0:00:29)

penil yeah couple more things so I gather our normal sort of bike parking expectations Navy charging expectations would apply except I'm wondering how this changes with the sh commercial parking and the parking structure what are the expectations or how do they change in terms of bike parking and EV ruins or actual EV charging

SPEAKER_01
1:10:09 (0:00:18)

availability so through the mayor our regulation for Ev charges are for residential we require 30% per residential we don't require for commercial if that is something Council would like to see added we can bring that back to the app applicant to consider

Chris Pettingill
1:10:27 (0:00:18)

so sorry but I thought the proposal was to share the commercial and residential parking in I think lot a and so just wondering then what would happen and also for bike parking that would normally be there for residential if it's being shared with commercial like what happens to the EV charging and bike parking

SPEAKER_01
1:10:46 (0:00:46)

through the mayor sorry I understand the question there is no shared the proposal is to share the overall commercial office amount use for parking and the theater use there's no proposed to share the residential use the residential would be separate any shared there's no proposal to share the bike parking so all bike regulations would still apply the bicycle regulation for building two for the affordable housing they would still have to provide all the class A stalls all the class B stalls there's significant a number of Class B stalls required for this commercial space so covered parking is definitely something that would be reviewed at DP and all of those details currently there's no proposal to amend anything currently in our

Chris Pettingill
1:11:33 (0:00:24)

bylaw okay and just Switching gears for a moment did I understand correctly that the theater and that whole building that whole idea is not required to meet the cic requirements is sort of being thrown in the cic list but they're actually compliant with the CAC without the theater at all

SPEAKER_01
1:11:57 (0:00:21)

through the May that is correct in our policy we do have kind of a comment that speaks to additional Community benefits and we do see this as categorized in that section especially with the dedication of 20% and that's why we've included it as part of the CAC element but is it is not required in our Target

Chris Pettingill
1:12:19 (0:01:00)

policy okay and I guess maybe this is where I'm struggling because quite frankly speaking to a few art groups what I've heard is that you know in general the idea of a new private theater might be great but there's a great deal of skepticism that this aligns with current community group needs and so I guess I'm worried that we are headed down a road where we are requiring or asking for all sorts of things of this theater that isn't serving the intended use which is community need and so I guess our only way to deal with that really would be to refer back to staff otherwise we may sort of end up with sort of imposing a bunch of restrictions on what is ultimately just a private theater or like is there unless we I guess move something with specific changes to what the theater has to be it would need to refer back to staff to kind of work out what our expectations of a theater

SPEAKER_01
1:13:19 (0:01:12)

are so through the mayor one of the major comments that we came back out of that meeting was that we need more space and that this space was not going to potentially meet everyone's needs but that it would meet a majority of our needs for or some of the needs for different user groups which would then reduce the pressure on the Eagle Eye theater and open up that theater more for other uses so the idea is that having an additional theater space would offer more opportunities and having a larger space would reduce the need to have to go outside of the community or holds several events in order to kind of make sure every parent is able to come see their child by having more seats we can have one performing show and meet all of those needs so those were that was a key component that we heard from our community and that we are ensuring is being delivered in this particular theater space there was a lot of comments we received and staff have done a full review of that and are proposing something that is Meeting those Community needs so unless they have dire of what specific is not being met by the community I'm not really clear on what would be pushed back to

Chris Pettingill
1:14:32 (0:01:20)

staff well some of the feedback I received is a great deal of uncertainty about the affordability and so definitely there's a desire for space but it's not space at any cost and at cost of a build like this could be well Out Of Reach for many of the groups what I heard I heard that we are next week Council should be receiving a needs assessment and the community should see it a couple weeks later and what I heard is that this is not aligned with meeting those needs you know this could be again as a private theater that might be great and well supported but it's not sort of neat and so for looking at this hey it's a private theater and we're happy with that and we don't put sort of restrictions that make it hard for it to succeed then maybe that's the way to go but if we're viewing this as here's the thing to meet all our community Arts needs we're not necessarily getting that success story here so I'm trying to sort of understand is this a CAC amenity and we should be really sort of sweating the details the cost and the availability of the space like who gets to use it and when and who decides or should we be looking at this it's not a CAC thing but it's just nice and it's a private theater and we should be thankful we're getting a private theater and let's not restrict the details so it can be successful

Armand Hurford
1:15:53 (0:01:05)

and go ahead Mr guess I think yeah go ahead well I think that the yeah I think there's a qu there's a question there specifically to the folks we have in front of us but there's also a question in there around the overall needs of the of the Arts community and I think that we heard earlier that staff is put us is trying to put us in a position to have the biggest impact possible but I think it's acknowledged that this isn't the only solution it's part of the of the puzzle so I don't know that your question that was in there is necess necessarily for the planning folks on this on this file but rather for the broader Arts community and the work that we're doing with that we need that needs to be done needs to be done there whether it's Al arts and culture strategy or other facility planning or whatever that looks like so I just want to make sure we're asking a fair question of the folks and the expertise we have we have in front of us with this application but with that in mind I'll go to Mr vkus and

SPEAKER_10
1:16:58 (0:01:03)

thank you and you're absolutely correct this is a private theater with a public component to it that's proposing to address some of the needs but not all of the community needs and I think at the what I would suggest is important is that at this stage we're going for second reading and then public hearing you know at the resoning stage this is pretty much the detail we're going to get to it's just it's a pie in the sky right now because there's so much uncertainty with this development I think the real details are going to we're going to get to the real details what the building is being designed at development permit stage that's when we would start diving into you know the operating agreements and all of that and the building design and making sure that it can fit the some of these needs at this point we're just looking to if this development proceeds to get some commitments in the Land Development agreement to do that work later on

Chris Pettingill
1:18:02 (0:00:22)

essentially yeah I guess I'm I know I'm waiting into debating the issue and I guess I guess where I'm at and I think I know the answer is if I have some of these concerns it may be a referral back to staff so we can have a bit more discussion on these things and maybe I'm alone on that but I guess that's my Avenue here essentially

Armand Hurford
1:18:25 (0:00:26)

I'm not going to try I'll leave you to I'll leave you to ponder that I will say that I think this is something that my opinion is this something that moves the dial and the mission is to see by how much and but What mechanisms we used to do that are is up to us so I'll leave you with that counselor Stoner that your hand no yeah go ahead yeah will go

Jenna Stoner
1:18:52 (0:00:47)

ahead thanks just going back to something else that I raised previously we have successfully negotiated Sunset Clauses into some of these Land Development agreements especially on the CAC component and I'm just curious if that's something that we can explore for example if like the DP for phase four hasn't been applied for within 10 years then we renegotiate at that point but I just am trying to think about creative ways that we can secure some of the longer term components of the phas es for our community and or reset the conversation at an appropriate amount of time and expectations so that this doesn't just linger like we've seen many ldas linger over

SPEAKER_10
1:19:39 (0:00:20)

time through the mirror yes we would expect to have some subset laws in here we just have to make sure that it's enough time for this development to reasonably get going and we've seen some developments you know take a very long time to get going but they do get going in the end so 10 years sounds about

Armand Hurford
1:20:00 (0:00:24)

right and where would that get where would that find its way in at what point in time would we understand that detail is that something that would be we should add to the list at this point for the to be sort of con U part of the package at the at a public hearing or like how does how does that come how do those details get surfaced

SPEAKER_10
1:20:25 (0:00:07)

we can bring that public hearing just as a concept and then it would show up in the Land Development agreement at

Armand Hurford
1:20:32 (0:00:02)

adoption okay thank you go

Jenna Stoner
1:20:34 (0:01:01)

ahead and then my other rambling thought going back to requirements B and C in the staff recommendations so the Bailey and Cleveland intersection and the traffic impact assessment these are elements that we saw in the public comment so far as being a significant an area of concern which parallels I think another development that we saw recently on tanellis and we did request that the traffic impact assessment be completed before it get to third reading so that we could have some clarity and some answers for our community on this isn't just in the process of being designed but it will actually have some sort of solution to it and so I'm just curious about staff's recommendation here in terms of the timing of receiving those at public hearing and the risk that derails the process more if those traffic impact assessments if Council and the community haven't had time to digest them or provide feedback before public

SPEAKER_01
1:21:36 (0:01:24)

hearing through the mayor yeah the this has been brought up and there's a difference in this particular application just given its time that it's been with the district here in review it having not the Tia timing brought up at the last first and second reading as well as just the consideration that this is a complex downtown area currently still under review with the district as an entrance study and it's not that their Tia is not complete at this point they have submitted it but it is how do is it relate with all the other changes the district is doing and so there's more detail to kind of get looked at and there is a lot that this applicant has to do prior to public hearing and I think they're seeking kind of some insurances to move forward with this second reading and then U we'll have to kind of invest more to flood modeling and a number of other the conditions there and what we wanted to do by raising as a condition to just raise awareness that we are aware of the concern that the public has and that we feel that we'll be presenting some solutions and options to address those public comments especially with the Bailey Cleveland intersection by public

Armand Hurford
1:23:00 (0:00:08)

hearing do that satisfy at this point councelor okay Council I'm not seeing oh yep go ahead Council prel

Chris Pettingill
1:23:09 (0:00:21)

I was going to test a motion if I think we're at that part go ahead okay I was going to try referring back to staff and basically it's to have a bit more discussion without painting us into a corner is my ambition and leave us room to go in a different direction if we want to if it's seconded would speak further to

Armand Hurford
1:23:31 (0:00:26)

it is there a seconder for this motion I'm not seeing one I think I'll give the Mover an opportunity to maybe add a add a list as to why without having that speaking opportunity to sort of put those pieces out if we're referring it back to staff I think it should be clearly articulated to what end and so if you could provide that detail and might solicit a second her

Jenna Stoner
1:23:57 (0:00:03)

yeah I'll second oh sorry did you say You're Gonna second it for discussion

Armand Hurford
1:24:01 (0:00:11)

no I just the motion is to referred back to staff so I thought if the motion referred back to staff included to address some concerns that's what I'm fishing for with this at this point

Chris Pettingill
1:24:13 (0:00:23)

yeah and I guess sort of my understanding is if we do a motion to refer and that's not the direction of people we can at least