Special Business Meeting - 30 Jan 2024


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: SCHEDULED (TIMED) ITEMS
3.i: Development Permit No. DP000585 – 38201 Third Avenue - Three Summits
3.ii: Temporary Use Permit No. DTU00048 - Carbon Engineering
4: STAFF REPORTS
4.A: COMMUNITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY
4.A.i: Development Permit No. DP000610 - 38028, 38040 ,38048, 38054, 38062 Third Avenue
5: MOTION TO CLOSE
6: TERMINATION
1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
0:00:00 (0:09:43)


Armand Hurford
0:09:19 (0:00:23)

hello everybody and welcome to the special business meeting for the District of Squamish for Tuesday January 30th as always we're gathered today to do our work on the traditional and seated territory of the sish nation please be advised this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available for the public to view on the District of squish's website following the meeting if you have concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
0:09:43 (0:00:10)


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

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

Development Permit No. DP000585 – 38201 Third Avenue - Three Summits
0:09:53 (1:43:16)

Carrie Hamilton, a planner for the District of Squamish, presented a development permit with variances for the Three Summits development located at 38201 3rd Avenue. The property was rezoned in 2018 to support the construction of 232 senior housing units and a Land Development Agreement (LDA) was secured for a publicly accessible Strat Park. The development permit application was made in 2022 and brought to a committee meeting in February 2023 for a preliminary review and minor LDA amendment to support a sales center on the site. The development is for a mixed-use building broken into three distinct apartment buildings ranging from six to seven stories. The ground floor offers close to 2,000 square meters of commercial space, meeting the 10% employment space requirement. The development supports a total of 204 residential units, almost all units are designed to meet adaptable dwelling unit standards with 20% three bedrooms and 20% one-bedrooms. The application includes three variances for height, entranceway and canopy encroachment, and shared parking use.

Council members, including Jenna Stoner, Eric Andersen, Chris Pettingill, and John French, raised questions about the development. These included queries about accessible paths, the height variance, safety concerns for children in the park, the Eagle Grove driveway, and the removal of mature trees. Hamilton addressed these concerns, explaining the design considerations, the reasons for the height variance, and the rationale for the removal of mature trees. Councilor Andrew Hamilton suggested referring the matter back to staff to reconsider the removal of a Norwegian maple tree. Mayor Armand Hurford confirmed that any changes Council would like to see at this point would require a referral back to staff. Hamilton concluded her presentation by recommending Council authorize development permit number 0585 for the property located at 38201 3rd Avenue, subject to a number of conditions of issuance.

Armand Hurford
0:09:53 (0:00:33)

so our first our first order of business is consideration of the development permit number DP 5854 38201 3rd Avenue the three summits and I will turn floor over to Steph to introduce themselves in the

SPEAKER_06
0:10:27 (0:14:02)

topic good evening mayor and Council my name is Carrie Hamilton planner for the District of Squamish and I'll be presenting to you today a development permit with variances for Council consideration for the three summits development located at 38201 3rd Avenue so 38201 3rd Avenue was rezoned to a comprehensive development Zone 91 in 2018 to support the construction of 232 senior housing units at 38275 3D Avenue the reone included a Land Development agreement LDA for short which secured a minimum area for a publicly accessible Strat Park the development permit application was made in 2022 and was brought to a committee of the whole meeting in February 2023 for a preliminary review and minor LDA amendment to support a sales Center on the site Council had the following General preliminary comments regard regarding four key topics General support for the M mature tree removal on site as long as sufficient space is maintained for future mature tree growth General support for height variance with a with a request for additional visuals and details to illustrate variances and massing change General support for intersection and eaglewind Boulevard revisions to support safe use and active transportation and general support for combining commercial and visitor parking stalls and generally not supportive of res residential parking reductions with some counselors supportive of residential reduction so the subject property is a corner parcel my apologies located at 38201 3D Avenue with a frontage on Third Avenue pton Avenue and eagin Boulevard the property is within the downtown residential land use area and subject to DPA 3 Universal guidelines review the property is also Within dpaa2 flood Hazard area and DPA 11 Wildfire Hazard area these DPA areas are Exempted from the reg with a registration of a section 219 Covenant which are listed as conditions of this development permit issuance the site is not within an environmentally sensitive area and does not trigger dpa1 Environmental Protection review this DP application is for a mixed use building broken into three distinct apartment buildings ranging from six to seven stories the ground floor offers close to 2,000 M squared of commercial space meeting the 10% employment space requirement the development supports a total of 204 residential units almost all units are designed to meet adaptable dwelling unit standards with 20% three bedrooms and 20% one-bedrooms the three residential buildings are connected by Central Courtyard space that connects internally and to the and to the street at three corners identified by the red arrows on this plan the development is providing as required 1,46 meters squared of publicly accessed strata park at the corner of eigan Boulevard and pton Street and this is outlined by the green circle on this plan it's also provided providing 408 M squared of private indoor amenity space outlined by the yellow circle on the plan hidden into the interior of the development is a three-story parcade with one level sunken into the ground housing a total of 400 parking stalls the application includes three variances for height entranceway and canopy encroachment and shared parking use which I'll provide more detail on in the coming slides the original height and massing proposed at resoning consisted of two buildings and a public park space connected to a strata Courtyard the Massie included one floor of commercial five floors of residential and a two-story parcade at TP the massing of the building and orientation changed SL slightly by Shifting the building massing as seen by the arrows and proposing an opening at the Southwest Southeast Corner shown in red Dash lines the openings breaks up the building into three distinct massings in keeping with development permit guidelines as a result the building along eaglewind Boulevard was reduced in length as seen by the blue area on the slide and the building along pton Avenue was shifted over to the West pushing the public park space further into the into the southwest corner of the site the shift in building massing and a desire to keep housing units and a varied roof line in keeping with DP guidelines resulted in a variance asked to increase Building height from the approved 22 M to 22.95 M this increase can be seen by the area in green on the slide and also articulated in the architectural package in keeping with advisory design panel and initial Committee of the whole comments upper story massing was reduced along the park southwest corner and 3D Avenue Northeast Corner the building proposes a quality cultured stone base grounding the building while applying a lighter white tone to the top of the building to soften and bring Dimension and depth to the overall massing glue lamp beams and wood sofits are proposed to bring further softness and natural tones to the building in keeping with DPA 3 guidelines prominent entranceways are proposed at each of the building Street frontages the entrances encroach into the building setback more than is allowed in the zoning bylaw and require a variance from 0.91 meter encroachment to 2.85 meter encroachment to support this design this TP application falls directly outside of the downtown parking requirement the development is proposing to meet the required off- street parking requirement for 347 residential stalls with 349 proposed and is Seeking a variance to allow for the required visitor stalls which are 51 and required commercial stalls 40 to be combined and shared if supported the total parking delivery for the project would be 400 stalls staff are supportive of the compliance to residential parking regulations to address the existing public parking concerns in the Eagle One neighborhood and are supportive of the variant for shared use of visitor and Commercial stalls as typically the two uses have Peak usages at different times of the day in keeping with the resoning commitment 1,46 M squared of public publicly accessible strata Park is proposed at the corner of pton Avenue and Eagle Boulevard the park is designed to meet District neighborhood park standards and has been reviewed by the district Park planner regular maintenance upkeep and replacement of the park will be managed by the strata and will be outlined in the Park rideway Agreement which is a condition of the DP issuance the corner Park includes Play features for 1 to 5 and 5 to 12 age groups and incorporates a variety of play equipment and diversity in keeping with District neighborhood park standards the park also includes a variety of seating areas and rest stops including a covered structure seating area and open lawn space it also includes active commercial space with two commercial patios proposed beside the park space and a central staircase provides access from the corner Park to the upper story Courtyard Park the courtyard is designed for strata residence use and includes a mix of Community Gardens scening areas Lookout areas unstructured lawn space and an activated children's natural play area DPA 3 guidelines include a guideline to preserve mature trees on site where possible both Committee of the whole and advisory design panel were asked to comment on if the guideline should be followed for the site both committees generally supported the removal of mature trees to the due to the location and impact it would have on the development but recommended to ensure areas for large mature tree growth were preserved and considered in the site design the tree replanting plan is included in the landscape package and is shown to the right of the slide in summary the mature trees on site will be removed and 70 new trees will be planted on site so as part of the development Frontage and intersection updates are expected to follow with this development and will be reviewed further at servicing agreement Third Avenue and pton Avenue will be updated to provide a bouard space and separated bike Lanes along the frontage in accordance with the active Transportation plan and official community plan the made Parkade entrance for the for the development was not recommended on either of these streets due to the high risk of conflict with cyclists and the streets higher vehicle volumes Eagan Boulevard is a local Street designed in 2005 as the entrance to the eagle win community and provides the safest vehicle access point for the development it is a unique Road design with large one-way roads and parking and lawn landscaping area in the middle adding vehicle and pedestrian traffic to this area highlighted concerns for lack of pedestrian and vehicle safety with the current roundabout design and a lack of cycling and safe pedestrian Crossing infrastructure along eaglewind Boulevard in the intersection as a result staff are recommending securing an update to the Land Development agreement to ensure improvements are made to the eagle Boulevard and the intersection at servicing agreement the current draft intersection Improvement is still under review and is shown in draft here and in attachment 8 as a result of the development's entrance of Eagle Boulevard there was concern from staff and the public regarding Highway bound traffic using Eagle strata roads to enter an exit the development site a traffic memo was requested to explore these concerns further and the traffic memo indicates that inbound vehicle trips from the highway are faster and shorter using pton Avenue which is the blue route on the screen and that about 95% of inbound trips will take this route outbound trips are slightly shorter through the eagle and strata Road roads which is the red route and slightly faster during morning Rush Hour however during evening Rush Hour outbound trips are equal to or worse than the blue rout depending on traffic and the Bailey Cleveland left turn delays as a result is it is expected that 30% of the morning traffic and 15% of the evening traffic from this development may choose to travel through the ego and strata roads which is the red route to further reduce this potential vehicle use through the eagle and strata roads a local traffic only sign is proposed so the development was presented at the September 21st 2023 ADP meeting which is the advisory design panel The Proposal was well received for its design and density including its variances the project was overall supported by the ADP with some minor resolutions to address with regards to accessibility reduced massing and park activation all of which were addressed the development is meeting the Strategic plan of connected and livable Community as the development creates a new parks space commercial patio spaces and new active Transportation infrastructure the ocp amendment and rezoning is supported with within the ocp policy through several policy objectives so primary primarily to support for infield development in this particular area encouraging pedestrian oriented retail space encouraging activated and vibrant public and park space and maintaining reduced parking standards in the downtown this development was posted on the online development Showcase with three development information signs posted on the site as per the district Land Development Communications policy a public information meeting was held on September 20th 2023 at the new Westwind senior housing and there were over 40 people in attendance at the time of preparing this report courts staff have received a combination of 46 comments from members of the public regarding this application all public comments to date can be found in attachment 11 variance notices were sent in accordance with legislation so staff are recommending Council authorized development permit number 0585 for the property located 30 38201 3rd Avenue subject to a number of conditions of issuance they are registration of a sidewalk RightWay Covenant for public access for sidewalks on the property an amendment to the Land Development agreement to further secure the intersection upgrade registration of a park RightWay Covenant for public access to the park registration of a flood protection and Wildfire protection Covenant in accordance with the district's Hazard po policies and reg registration of a shared parking use Covenant to ensure the visitors and Commercial stalls remain shared use for the life of the building the development permit includes three variances as follows for height projections into the required setback and shared off street parking alternatively council could refer the development permit back to staff for further review as an alternative recommendation that concludes my presentation and my poor job of rolling my RS this evening and welcome public and council's comments thank you

Armand Hurford
0:24:29 (0:00:14)

thank you very much so Council before we go to the public do you have any qu any questions at this point councelor Stoner start us

Jenna Stoner
0:24:43 (0:00:25)

off yeah thank you thanks to staff for the presentation a few questions I'm just wondering if staff can confirm if there is an accessible path from the public park into the courtyard on the corner of eagle Boulevard and pton or are we expecting folks to travel to the corner of pton and third to access the

SPEAKER_06
0:25:09 (0:00:28)

courtyard so through the mayor there is no accessible park or pathway from the park to the Courtyard from the southwest corner of the development there are accessible Pathways in the site and you can find them in the architectural package that they've highlighted them and those Pathways will allow for accessible pathway for commercial parking to access the commercial

Jenna Stoner
0:25:38 (0:00:17)

units okay and then just to clarify that the courtyard is intended for strata resident use only but the staff package says that the stair access won't be gated and so I'm just curious how people are meant to understand that is where the public versus the private realm

SPEAKER_06
0:25:55 (0:00:32)

is through the mayor there was a desire to kind of keep that open to per se that if visitors of the of the residences in the strata wanted to use that to access to or to access the residences to keep it open there could potentially be signage that might they might choose to put on there to inform the public but it is intended to be just these path the staircases to the court

Jenna Stoner
0:26:28 (0:00:26)

yard okay that's helpful another question just on the height variance when we saw this a few months back the height variance was for a greater request of 25 M and that's been dropped to 22.95 M I'm just wondering if staff can confirm the final height of the commercial units as well as the final height of the

SPEAKER_06
0:26:54 (0:00:58)

Parkade through the mayor I don't have the ex exact Heights of the commercial units on me right now but we can come back to confirm that but what I can confirm of why that change occurred is that originally the application did have an elevated access to the commercial unit so you had to walk up staircases and ramps to get to the commercial units and what we asked for is we asked for that streetcape and Commercial streetcape to be reduced to the streetscape level to avoid having staircases and ramps and as a result the parcade actually sunk further into the ground to create that which is why the whole building shifted down and the request of the variance is actually reduced from 25 to now 22.95 and I can confirm that the parade we do have a requirement in our zonian bylaw that it meets 2.3 MERS clearance to allow for these larger vehicles to park in this parcade and they are meeting that requirement

Jenna Stoner
0:27:53 (0:00:42)

okay that's super helpful thank you and then one last question for now I'm just want wondering if you can speak to how the intersection at Cleveland and Bailey is being addressed in some of our larger Master planning process I suspect and some through some of the comments that I read that we've received to date if more folks are going to use kind of that route two option the red one that you presented we already know that intersection is challenging and there's other developments in this area and so I'm just curious on a broader perspective I don't think it's necessarily specific to this DP with variances but it'd be helpful to know how we plan on addressing that over

SPEAKER_06
0:28:35 (0:00:46)

time so through the mayor the traffic memo was intended to address the community concerns about that use and what the traffic memo found was that there was not there was reduced not as many car vehicles that will be choosing this route so there's small percentage during the am 30% and 15% during the even evening so not a huge impact to that intersection but we did not ask them to do a full traffic impact assessment as we are that intersection is currently being reviewed under the downtown entrance study that the district is doing and we are also reviewing some upgrades to that development through another rezoning which is along Bailey Street as

Armand Hurford
0:29:21 (0:00:22)

well and just on that point before I go to councelor Anderson if there's up grades considered there as part of another development would that change the timeing like how was that a how do we sort of figure out what is the appropriate snapshot in time to take when we're making assumptions around traffic flows like the traffic

SPEAKER_06
0:29:44 (0:00:29)

memo so good question mayor and this is a development permit so rezoning would have been a great time to kind of review the impact of the density at the time of resoning they had expected I believe 194 units so we've already proved that kind of density for the site and a resoning on the Bailey Street development is a great time just to review further impact to that

Armand Hurford
0:30:14 (0:00:05)

intersection thank you I have councelor Anderson then penil thank

Eric Andersen
0:30:19 (0:00:29)

you firstly a couple of our correspondents have brought up the issue of safety concerns for the younger children in the park at pton and eaglewind and I've pointed to the example of Stan Clark park across the road from us where there's is fencing and in my view that fencing has contributed to the success of that Park and the safety for those that are using it can this be a consideration or is it a consideration for three summits and the small children

SPEAKER_06
0:30:48 (0:00:34)

Park to the mayor that's a great question and something staff and the park planner also reviewed in the design they designed design here is heavily vegetated and providing a number of treed and vegetation barriers which and the park is offset from the street so not as close as the Stan Park design Stan Clark Park design and so the park planner felt that fence wasn't necessary at this location given how pushed back the park was and the thoughtful use of the vegitation to provide a

Eric Andersen
0:31:23 (0:00:23)

barrier thank you another topic that Sprout up from the public input is the U entrance to Eagle Grove and it's been being emphasized that it's not a through Road and is essentially a driveway and there's a suggestion that there may be appropriate signage to indicate this has this been taken into

SPEAKER_06
0:31:46 (0:00:16)

consideration through the mayor certainly it's a great question and definitely something that our engineering staff will be reviewing at servicing agreement at detailed design and they are very much aware that signage would be required to further support that it's a driveway residence for the eal Grove

Eric Andersen
0:32:03 (0:00:25)

residents thank you and finally as I looked through the architectural and Landscape plans I found some inconsistency in the renderings regarding the facade that is the cultured stone facade I'm in favor of color and I wasn't sure whether the plan had landed on a splashing of blue I think it is color to that facc is that the

SPEAKER_06
0:32:28 (0:00:36)

case so through the mayor we do have development permit guidelines that speak to natural colors but that does speak to adding some vibrancy colors to a development we specifically asked this question of advisory design panel to see if they wanted to support a bit more splash of color in this development and the panel came back strong to support the existing design as is and did not recommend any use of color so to clarify there is no splash of blue it might look like a hue of blue which is the stone culture that might come up

Armand Hurford
0:33:05 (0:00:04)

thank you thank you chair thank you I've got councelor petting Guild in

Chris Pettingill
0:33:09 (0:00:16)

French yeah thanks a couple things the first one we made some changes to our bylaws around the step code last year I'm just wondering if the changes we made with the zeroc carbon step code will they apply to this development do

SPEAKER_05
0:33:25 (0:00:08)

know through the mayor they would apply at building permit if they chose to go for the

Chris Pettingill
0:33:34 (0:00:07)

reduction okay thanks and there's no commitment from this developer at this point to go all electric or no gas is that

SPEAKER_06
0:33:42 (0:00:07)

correct so through the Merit it is in a small print in the legend but it does say that they are going all

Chris Pettingill
0:33:49 (0:00:26)

electric okay great fantastic now I'm just trying to clarify the large mature trees i' had understood that there's 12 of concern from the written report I thought we were losing four from the verbal report I thought I heard seven I'm just wondering if you can clarify in terms of the sort of large mature trees we've heard about what the numbers are in terms of what we're retaining and what we're

SPEAKER_06
0:34:16 (0:00:38)

losing through the mayor certainly I believe then this is there was some discussion of about this in the committee of the whole meeting about which trees staff had highlighted four trees that we had thought could be retained so that might be the clarification but I believe there are a few more trees on site that would be considered larger and part of our tree permit that for removal I can't confirm the exact number of that but it probably is around your seven number and to confirm we are proposing to remove all of those

Chris Pettingill
0:34:55 (0:00:19)

trees okay thanks and then the last thing the memo does speak to the road through ego in but it is a strata road so does the strata have the ability to gate or put much more significant traffic calming or do we regulate the level of traffic calming or control of access to those

SPEAKER_06
0:35:15 (0:00:09)

roads through the mayor I believe we would not be regulating any access through that

Armand Hurford
0:35:24 (0:00:04)

road ccor French oh sorry on this on this point councelor Stoner yeah

Jenna Stoner
0:35:29 (0:00:06)

just to clarify is do we know if there is a public rightaway on that strata road

SPEAKER_06
0:35:36 (0:00:16)

though through the mayor I know we have public rways when we have utilities through the road and I know that we do have utilities through some of those Strat roads at the moment I cannot confirm if that particular one has it or not

Armand Hurford
0:35:52 (0:00:01)

but

John French
0:35:53 (0:00:36)

thank you Council French thanks mayor I want to follow up on councelor Anderson's query about the Eagle Grove driveway and I think you may have answered my question in answering councelor Anderson I just want to check in on it that would be a private driveway so in the additional work that you indicated is to be is one possible scenario that the conclusion could be it's up to the private land owner to put up their own signage that talks about the private

SPEAKER_06
0:36:30 (0:00:37)

driveway yeah through the mayor the intersection is within the district's Road RightWay and so the changes that we make to that road RightWay how it connects to the private strata area there's a there's a large piece of land between that and so we would have to be to provide access to the Eagle Grove strata we would have to build a driveway on our road R of way to connect to their Drive driveway so I believe the signage and the improvements and the exact design details will be something the district engineering team will look at and be proposing as part of those

John French
0:37:08 (0:00:22)

upgrades okay great and I'd like to know where in the proposed development are the eaves and awnings that require the extension to up to 2.85 meters is there a specific place in The Proposal where this variance is needed is this going to provide overhang onto sidewalks that will protect pedestrians can you just talk a little bit about that

SPEAKER_06
0:37:30 (0:00:49)

certainly through the mayor there is a there is a site plan in your architectural package that speaks to this and highlights particularly where they are there's going to be three of them that require the 2.85 and those are the ones that I showed in the visual this evening which are the large glue lamb beam kind of entranceways they are the lobby entranceways to the Residential Building they do not come over into the sidewalk the public sidewalk area they do come out into kind of the commercial private pathway area and encroach over that but we did ensure that they don't impact Street trees and they don't impact the sidewalk area that we do need for the

Armand Hurford
0:38:20 (0:00:34)

public thank you on the I just have a few questions of my own on the parking the shared proposal in the cd91 zone what uses were sort of assumed there that would be I've seen shared parking be successful when there's a sort of a nin to-5 use and then a you know an evening use is generally when the visitors come what are the assumptions there for the operation of the commercial spaces that led to this

SPEAKER_06
0:38:54 (0:00:49)

recommendation thank you mayor for the question Miss Fletcher is currently pulling up cd91 and I will speak from memory in as I wait for the exact details I do know that the cd91 supports neighborhood commercial and that supports uses such as restaurants and cafes personal service establishments it also includes Fitness Center pet grooming Artisan arts and culture assembly uses Business Services Educational Services and institutional indoor

Armand Hurford
0:39:43 (0:01:09)

Recreation thank you so some of those uses the restaurant use Education Services and their fitness center those are things that seem to happen have volume sort of in the after workor hours and sort of the visiting hours and I just wonder so I'm thinking about I know this is on the edge of the Downtown parking standard so I'm sort of reconciling that fact that they're far exceeding the downtown standard even with this reduction but I'm wondering around like who would is it up to the strata then to enforce whatever parking restrictions are going to put on the commercial use or the visitor use because normally you're going to have a two sort of piece for commercial space something like something like that but then visitors might be there overnight or you know or longer there for dinner so H how do those like the success of this proposal I think comes down to like that manage like how it's actually managed how what could we expect to happen in the in this space in that in that

SPEAKER_06
0:40:53 (0:00:48)

regard yeah it's a great it's a great question and currently right now with our visitor parking stalls we leave them to stratas to manage some stratas choose to do parking passes to manage them and others don't we have not stipulated in this Covenant that we're suggesting that they have to have a management plan that way but we have stipulated that you can't have commercial parking signages with which is what we also sometimes see in these Stratus saying this is this parking spot is reserved only for this commercial tenant we have strictly put that we are proposing to strictly put that in the Covenant to ensure that they do not have that signage so that this the parking stalls remain open for varied

Armand Hurford
0:41:42 (0:00:07)

uses okay thank you I'll Mo I'll mull that over ccor

Andrew Hamilton
0:41:49 (0:01:52)

Hamilton thanks very much and it's interesting to me this is this was one of the first DPS that I saw when I started on Council almost a year ago and it's interesting to me to reflect when I when I saw staff the staff perspective regarding the mature tree removal yeah and I thought to myself that wasn't my recollection of our of our conversation so I actually went back to the video and watched the video and thought oh okay it there was a near you know a general acceptance of the removal of the mature trees except there was some opposition to the removal of the Norwegian maple yeah so in my own reflection I absolutely see that this is a balance between maintaining the mature trees in our community that are loved by our community and allowing our community to have residential density at the level that we need in our community so that we don't sprawl out further so I might this is actually is not a question for staff but a question or a signal for counsel that I might suggest a I don't know if I can amend this because it's quite the Deep the motion is quite thorough but a possibility of refer refering back to staff in reconsidering of this Norwegian saving or keeping the Norwegian maple just to make it very clear what council's perspective is on this one

Armand Hurford
0:43:42 (0:00:31)

tree I think in I'll speak to sort of procedurally before I go into the rather than comment on the intent I think any changes that Council would like to see at this point would be a refer back to staff to see how they can be incor how they could be incorporated going forward so that would be the that would be the direction that I that I would suggest

Andrew Hamilton
0:44:13 (0:00:14)

so if I wanted to understand the perspective of all of my Council colleagues I could propose a motion to refer back to staff to reconsider the keeping of the Norway maple is that

Armand Hurford
0:44:27 (0:04:01)

correct that would be that would be one way to get there I also think that this evening we have a public piece so I would want to make sure we go through the next steps before we consider any motion so not particular to your to that topic so I'll go around Council if there are any other questions for our staff at this point before we go to the public portion and then we'll come and then we'll have some time following that to sort of dig into what we've heard already and what we may hear from any comments from the public so do you have any other questions on this point okay so Council any other questions before we go to the public portion seeing none we'll move on now I do have I do have a bit of a script for this for this piece so the proponent and members of the public will be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to council's consideration of the development variance permit number DP 5854 38201 3D Avenue known as three summits there are three proposed variances to the zoning bylaw which are outlined in the staff report which was included as part of the agenda and available on the district's website members of the public are reminded that you may only speak to the variances during this process the variances are section 40e point2 maximum height so maximum height be varied from no principal building shall exceed a height of 22 M to no principal building shall exceed a height of 22.95 M B is section 411b projections into required setbacks be varied so varied from Eaves and awnings May extend to a maximum of 0.9 1 M to Eaves and awnings May extend to a maximum of 2.85 M and section 41.7 off street parking requirements be varied from visitor parking at 0.25 spaces per townhouse or apartment dwelling unit for visitor parking which shall be clearly marked visitor parking only within the parking space two visitor parking 0.25 spaces per townhouse or apartment dwelling unit for visitor parking and can be combined with commercial parking requirements for shared use which shall be clearly marked visitor or commercial parking only within the parking space and cannot be restricted for a specific commercial tenant use so those are the variances we're discussing we're trying to make this a safe place for everyone to voice their opinion without interference from others therefore I ask that members of the public maintain order and quiet during the process please do not applaud or interrupt any speech or action of members of council or any other person addressing Council all speakers will be given a maximum of 5 minutes to address Council for all speakers please start your remarks by clearly stating your name and neighborhood I'll first call on the speakers participating in person please raise your hand and wait to be recognized to approach the podium details to participate via telephone or the WebEx platform are displayed on the screen for those who have logged in from your computer or are watching the live stream of the meeting instructions are also included on the district's website there will be a moderator who will communicate with people participating online please note that this meeting is being recorded and web streamed live and the recording will be posted on the district's website media may be present at the public and the public can advise the media if they don't want their picture taken so with that I would give the if there was a representative of the proponent that wished to speak this would be the opportunity to do that before we move on to the public I don't believe we have I'm looking to our

SPEAKER_14
0:48:29 (0:00:08)

moderator thank you mayor Herford there are two people online but neither have their hands raised

Armand Hurford
0:48:37 (0:00:14)

okay we'll start in the building then yes sir I can just see your hand please approach the podium and our Tech folks will turn the mic on for you and if you could start by stating your name and your neighborhood and then you have five minutes to address Council

SPEAKER_12
0:48:52 (0:00:44)

hello my first time at thisy Council so great and I voted for some of you I'm my name is Rob bwell I live across the street from the proposed development and the variance on parking that's good the variance on the rain protection for people coming in into the building that makes sense the only thing that wasn't clarified is why the building which I think is two stories too high anyway is Raising from 22 M to 22.95 which is 72 ft to 75 ft did the developer give any reason for that because I lived in Falls Creek and I watched them disappear the mountains on me in Vancouver and I would hate for that to happen

Armand Hurford
0:49:36 (0:00:22)

here thank you for that and just a bit of Coach one of the things that was left out of my script is it this is your opportunity to make a submission to council and then after a few speakers Council will pick up if there's specific questions we'd like answer just so it doesn't turn the aim is so it doesn't turn into qu a question answer or debate about that but we'll absolutely I feel like we'll pick up on that s it's

SPEAKER_12
0:49:59 (0:00:18)

more of an existential question about what kind of City sorry town we want big changes even in the few years I've been here and projecting out what the changes will be I that's all I just wanted to know that why the developer wanted to raise the height up a little bit

Armand Hurford
0:50:17 (0:00:30)

thank you for that so and for the for the rest of the speakers we'll after a few speakers we'll go back to council and we'll see which question get picked up so we can have a get some the perhaps get some clarity on any outstanding questions is there anyone else that would like to make a submission not seeing any in the room I'm going to their moderator we have a couple online

SPEAKER_09
0:50:48 (0:00:03)

participants there are still no hands to

Armand Hurford
0:50:51 (0:00:18)

speak no hands to speak anyone else in the in the audience before I go back to council so oh yes please approach the

SPEAKER_10
0:51:09 (0:00:49)

podium hi my name is Gloria and I am from Eagle Grove I did submit a letter and I'm just and I know that probably everybody's reviewed them so we don't need to readdress what we've already submitted correct all right so the other thing is that on the original plan there had been some communication about what we would like to see in the boulevard the new Boulevard so now the way it is we're just wondering what will happen there is there going to be any new planting or is it just going to be the remaining two trees that are on the current roundabout and

Armand Hurford
0:51:59 (0:00:09)

grass okay thank you we so any other submissions y go

SPEAKER_14
0:52:09 (0:00:27)

ahead hi my name is Nicole bodry and I live at Eagle Grove my partner and I we both need our vehicles to work I'm an essential worker so I need to have my vehicle and my partner Works in and he right now is parking on the boulevard will that be disappearing or that's my concern so

Armand Hurford
0:52:36 (0:00:23)

thank you thank you for that okay so Council we've heard a few questions I'm going to start with we all start us off with I can we go through the height rationale one more time I know it was in the present I know it was covered in the presentation but just to make sure that we all grasp what's happening

SPEAKER_06
0:53:00 (0:01:01)

there yeah so with the height the difference between 22 M and 22.95 Metter through the viewscape study that was what was done as part of the package does show that doesn't make any impact to the impact of views at 22 M we are losing Mountain views at some particular areas for the high that does show that The increased height does provide some variations for roof lines which is in keeping in the DP guidelines that we have we want to create kind of varying roof lines and not just flat roof lines so that is one element of it and I believe the other element of it is just that they are kind of pushing the massing of the development into kind of smaller massing blocks and as a result they've had to increase the amount of units that they're providing in each of those blocks which has required an increase to that

Armand Hurford
0:54:01 (0:00:02)

height councelor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:54:04 (0:00:17)

yeah thank you for further clarification on this point I'm curious if this has resulted in more buildable area for the developer or if the buildable area the floor area ratios have remained the same it's just the massing form of the buildings that are

SPEAKER_06
0:54:21 (0:00:23)

different thank you mayor through the mayor that's a great question And to clarify the rezoning was approved at 1.8 floor area ratio and the development is proposing 1.8 floor area ratio there's no difference in the density and they are proposing relatively close to what how many units they had proposed at

Armand Hurford
0:54:45 (0:00:34)

resoning thank you so I remember in an earlier interaction with this project the some of the rationale was to protect the views of the existing building by moving the park to the corner and pushing a little bit on and on the that building sort of making it more I don't want to say dense because that's not the right actual the technical phrase but more condensed and is that one of the other dri the driver of that height the height

SPEAKER_06
0:55:20 (0:00:19)

variance yeah so they are pushing the building back along Eagle wind Boulevard which will open up more views for the Eagle Grove residents I can't particularly say which ones we but it will open up the building a bit more along that side so you are

Armand Hurford
0:55:39 (0:00:32)

correct thank you and then the there was a few questions around the boulevard design and the one that we saw today was a little different than the than the first iter iteration that we saw so how is that there's questions about the plantings and parking and what's the process for that particular piece is am I correct to say this isn't the one touch point for that there's some other considerations and another process or where do we see that final

SPEAKER_06
0:56:12 (0:01:16)

design yeah that's a great question and it was something that did come up in the public information media as well which we talked to Residents about it is a unique situation here where we do have this really wide Road right of way and technically our servicing agreement allows for Redevelopment of their side of the frontage of that of that road and so it kind of creates a very unique situation for this particular area so at this point we have negotiated with the developer to ensure that they are doing the intersection upgrades and the upgrades along that road section adjacent to the development they will be re kind of planting that area for grass but they are not committed to activating it or you know beautifying it through with other trees or planting our shrubs at this time it would be it is District area and we would be looking to do any upgrades to that through a park a park plan or part of our parks and wck master plan once we've do that work and to identify when and when we can budget and when we have should be updating that

Armand Hurford
0:57:28 (0:00:40)

area thank you and just on this point there was in earlier sort of concepts of this those two sort of the boulevard effect was gone and it's a two-lane both directions and then which I thought was interesting and potentially made that the remaining park space to the West more usable it would take parking configuration you know changes and there was some talk around that have we landed on this design that sort of just merges that one South I guess said be the southbound lane pinching over near the near the roundabout and leaving the parking and the rest of that sort of Boulevard effect as

SPEAKER_06
0:58:08 (0:00:40)

is yeah so this redesign encompasses all the work that the developer will do as part of this development it will allow the district should in the future we want to use that other lane and redesign the space as we had originally looked at if we wanted to spend the money to do that to create bigger spark space we could the area is there and then the intersection is now there as well to do that and support that but right now we didn't have we weren't able to negotiate that large of an upgrade to the

Armand Hurford
0:58:49 (0:00:38)

space so I'm just thinking on this point I don't want to there's many pieces of this I don't want to go spend too much time in one spot but when we're doing the part the traffic the traffic memo and you come out of the new their e the exit are you going to be able to make a left or are you going to have to turn right and then like you're going to go out through the road that we're looking at that signage to control the local use only we're going have to do a right and then a left to loop back around to get to get out like is that flow there and does it make

SPEAKER_06
0:59:27 (0:00:45)

and those are all really great questions and questions our Engineers have also asked and it is we don't wanted to get into the weeds at the development permit this is a servicing agreement review and that those details are definitely getting looked at servicing agreement the design right now is preliminary to ensure that we at least ensure that we get the upgrade to the intersection and upgrades to Eagle Boulevard but those specific details will definitely be reviewed at servicing agreement including the final details of where the grass is going to grow where's Where the Sidewalk is and those will all be reviewed in detail by our Engineers which will be asking those really detailed questions on how parking exits and ex and enters the

Armand Hurford
1:00:12 (0:01:10)

site know I appreciate that and I think you know there there's curiosity and rightly so from the public on this particular piece and this is the One Touch point that we have so what how do we set the parameters that the engineers will take to execute to me that left turn out of this development is crucial to making the whole having that left turn available out of the development to head southbound is that needs to be the most convenient thing to do not to start your journey the way that we don't want them to go and then have to loop back loop back around to get out so to me that's an important consideration as to how this whole piece works so how do we set that those types of expectations without getting too far in the weeds I appreciate that I'm on you know that I'm that it is stuff that happens outside of the DP process but I want to make sure that we that intent is set as that they know which problem they're solving

SPEAKER_06
1:01:23 (0:00:37)

for my only suggestion with this is to provide particular wording about that concern within the one of the Clauses for DP issuance which is the amendment to the Land Development agreement to secure a new provision under works and servicing agreement and a Schedule D to secure a draft plan and conditions you could potentially provide more warning to just ensure that left turn parking is resolved in the detailed design review but at this point the intention of that was to cover kind of the detailed design at that later

Armand Hurford
1:02:01 (0:00:42)

stage okay thank you for that are there any so go back to the public and to the folks online have any of those online or on phone folks raised their hands yet no bit of a housekeeping note counselor Greenlaw has joined us she's on we have her vote we have her voice but not her face she's on her way on her way back from another engagement is there anyone else in council chambers that would like to make a submission on this before we move on to resolutions oh Mr vesus good

SPEAKER_00
1:02:43 (0:01:13)

to see you thank you may not a submission but maybe just a little bit more context for Council as it pertains to that Norwegian maple so it is something that staff had spent quite a bit of time working with the applicant to see if that's possible to retain at the beginning stages of the application and as councelor Hamilton noted we talked about it at the committee of the whole meeting for context I believe the developer is proposing to replace that Maple with three mature Maple so they obviously won't be of the same size but there will be three mature Maples and the other piece of context is that if we were to go back to that to the idea of trying to retain that Maple it would require a significant redesign of the project the courtyard the parade the probably the corner Park as well because things have to fit on site a certain way so just want to note that it's it wouldn't be it's unlikely to be an easy task so just for context thank

Armand Hurford
1:03:57 (0:00:14)

you thank you for the for the context so if there's no further comments from the public we'll close this section of our of the evening but we'll go to councelor

Jenna Stoner
1:04:12 (0:00:43)

Stoner yeah I have a few outstanding questions I'm wondering if staff can just speak to so there's a section our development permit guidelines 3610 O A that reads where there are multiple buildings in one development individual building identity should be reinforced to provide Variety in the built environment and the staff's assessment is that this proposal meets that particular guideline Can staff just speak to their rationale as to how they see that this that the what I would say or otherwise fairly similar three buildings would meet that guideline

SPEAKER_06
1:04:55 (0:00:39)

yeah through the mayor the building along pton Avenue is actually one story lower and is scaled to kind of provide a bit of diversity there they've also made some reductions in their massing at the building ends with variations you're correct that the materials itself are quite similar guidelines are intended to they can be interpreted to materials or to building massing and staff kind of interpreted to Pro provide that bit of diversity on the ends and that reduced building along pan to comply with that

Jenna Stoner
1:05:34 (0:00:33)

guideline okay that's helpful and then my other question was just a procedurally it says that the adherence to DPA guidelines I think it's two and 11 are waved through adding a covenant on title and I'm just curious how we can do that like DPA 11 guidelines are specific about like the roof and the type of materials that can be planted are we still making sure that the right materials are being or the right type of landscaping is being provided and why doesn't have to meet the DPA

SPEAKER_06
1:06:07 (0:00:55)

guidelines so through the mayor yes it doesn't mean that it's not looked at so the policy the hazard policy itself allows us to remove that detailed review because of the Covenant on title requires that it's done and that it meets the policy so IT staff are still reviewing it to ensure it meets compliance and as well as the architect or landscape architect is reviewing the plant selections and those details but the Covenant is an extra security to ensure that the strata is aware of this as well and that they have to continue to follow these Hazard guidelines and just to clarify the flood Hazard report is done for this project and has to be reviewed by District staff and is approved and attached as part of that flood Covenant too so it's not just an exemption it just means we don't technically review it in today's

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

meeting thank you for the

Armand Hurford
1:07:07 (0:00:04)

detail okay thank you for that councelor penil yeah thanks

Chris Pettingill
1:07:11 (0:01:02)

if I take a simplistic view of the diagrams it looks like we have two floors of parking below flood Construction level and one above and so in my mind I'm thinking oh well that's a floor that could be housed instead of parking is that theoretically possible or is it it's a little bit hard from the diagrams I'm looking at to tell if that sort of third level is actually underneath the central Courtyard or if that you know technically could be available for housing

SPEAKER_06
1:08:13 (0:01:01)

sorry through the mirror we're trying to just confirm oh that's the slide I want one second so through the mayor for the question the third layer so the let's say the bottom parking ground parking level is below ground the second parking layer is within the fcl area so it could not be residential the third layer could potentially be residential you would have to remove the whole level because the courtyard is also on top of that so if you did want to have Courtyard you could potentially put residential units along that perimeter but it wouldn't be residential units for the whole park a area hope that answers your

Armand Hurford
1:09:15 (0:00:11)

question thank you okay Council we have recommendations before us here councelor Stoner yet

Jenna Stoner
1:09:26 (0:00:20)

so I have one additional question the staff have mentioned a few times that this Falls just outside of the Downtown parking requirements can you just remind me if it were included in that parking requirement standard how many parking stalls they would have to

SPEAKER_06
1:09:47 (0:00:13)

provide through the mayor there would be 204 parking stalls

Armand Hurford
1:10:00 (0:00:14)

Council any other questions councelor Greenlaw has joined us councelor Greenlaw do you have any questions on this go

SPEAKER_09
1:10:14 (0:00:14)

ahead I'll unmute her just in case she's not able while she's in her car

Armand Hurford
1:10:28 (0:00:18)

councelor green law any questions on this point oh it's not you're not unmuted yet okay all right ccor Hamilton your hand

Andrew Hamilton
1:10:46 (0:02:12)

yep yeah if there's no other questions I'll propose a motion and I want to recognize that we are a long way down the road of the design of this development and it's a major thing to ask a developer to change at this stage in the game but that seemed true a year ago as well and that probably seemed true as soon as the application hit our table so at what point do we balance the ocp guideline or ocp policy 1020e which asks us to protect mature trees and vegetation with our ocp 12.6 residential infill this is this is a b this is the balance we're making and the argument that we're too far down the road is hard for me to digest because it always it almost always feels like we're too far down the road to make a change like this so I want to ask my staff my Council colleagues to make an explicit decision on this one issue on this one residential development that will have a very significant impact on this development but could perhaps signal to future developments that we do value mature trees in our downtown area and that they need to take them into consideration from the start of their development plans so with that I'm going to propose a motion that we refer this DP back to staff with a request that they consider the inclusion of the Norwegian maple in the plans or to not remove the Norwegian

Armand Hurford
1:12:58 (0:00:20)

maple is there a seconder for the motion councelor Stoner seconds for discussion I feel like you spoke to it in your Preamble counselor comments on this councelor French then

John French
1:13:18 (0:01:29)

Stoner thanks mayor I won't be supporting the motion I to Value mature trees and I also value the need in our current housing crisis we need more housing units we need them quickly and I just don't feel we can justify holding up this project to explore the possibility of preserving this one tree and one of the reasons I feel this way is because the landscape plan indicates for Norway Maples some Mr vincus had indicated earlier that it was three but I double checked the plan and it's calling for four and the plan indicates the replacement trees will be 8 cm Cal so I think I think that's 8 centimeters I don't know what the calal is it's landscape jargon I'm guessing but some of the other trees proposed in the landscape plan are to be as high as 2 MERS so you know based on the information I'm seeing in the landscape plan the four replacement Norway Maples are going to be substantial and we'll definitely have us remembering that prize tree that exists there now which will be turned over to the men shed folks to get turned into benches and other wood items to preserve the memory of that

Armand Hurford
1:14:48 (0:00:03)

tree thank you councelor stoner

Jenna Stoner
1:14:51 (0:01:48)

thank you through the chair appreciate my Council colleagues Direction on this although I won't be supporting the motion on the floor I do think we had an detailed conversation about this almost a year ago while there was some mixed opinions around the table and we heard a lot from the community at the time I do think that we did our due diligence and weighing the pros and the cons and providing Direction to staff and to the developer to move ahead I think one of the challenges is that we do have conflating policies at times that's the nature of the work I think for me undoubtedly mature trees are critical and important I think we need to be clear in defining for what purpose is an isolated mature tree in the middle of downtown is not going to provide habitat value it's not going to provide environmental value it'll provide Health wellness and some shade and I think a replacement value of what was the replace 8:1 4:1 is relatively High in trying to address the unintended consequences of losing a mature tree and so for me I think that is a reasonable place to go I also think that we are doing work currently in assessing our Ur our Urban canopy and for me that broader work in terms of figuring out where these mature trees are most valuable where we want to keep them over time how we create that canopy in the downtown core through our replacement plantings is a better way to move this work forward than to withhold or delay this particular permit so that's why I won't be supporting the motion on the floor thank you

Armand Hurford
1:16:40 (0:00:03)

thank you councelor soner councelor Anderson

Eric Andersen
1:16:43 (0:01:45)

thank you I too will not be supporting the motion on the floor however I wish to raise an issue that hasn't been addressed and that is that the that the Norway maple that is there today on pton Avenue is a Heritage tree and we are discussing within our district a future Heritage policy and a Heritage commission and this tree is definitely would be a candidate for consideration under that future policy for the reason that the tree was planted to commemorate the achievement of Squamish delivering finally a senior housing project a long awaited project by the mid 70s when that tree was planted and there was not only grants involved but there was Community fundraising and the organization that planted the tree with art Reynolds representing the senior's Housing Society was the house on Fall Fair Association which is one of the groups that donated money towards the achievement of this senior's housing complex The Manor and the Cedar in fact my mother was one of the tree planters but I just point this out as that there's also Heritage value in trees and I'm not in support of saving mature trees simply because they're mature this tree for example is about 45 46 years old which isn't that long trees grow and they have their age so I'm not concerned either with the idea of planting Norway Maples because this was the tree that was that we lost or will lose but that the we do ACH aim for quality and best standards in our Landscaping plan that's the point but the other aspect is Heritage and it will come before in future something for us to consider thank

Armand Hurford
1:18:29 (0:00:07)

you and other comments I'll Venture oh yeah go ahead C SP

Chris Pettingill
1:18:36 (0:01:06)

yeah to be honest I'm a little bit torn here I my recollection from our discussion was that we might retain some of the mature trees I'm not necessarily you know we may have to be flexible on which one so it's a little bit disappointing to hear that we won't be retaining any of the large mature ones I think it takes it does take trees a while to grow and so I'm somewhat heartened by the fact that there's plans for larger trees to be planted but it takes it takes a while and we're in a time where we can't really afford to be without trees but we are also in a housing crisis and we did have a fair bit of discussion and differing opinions on what we're willing to conf romise and give up and so this may be a tough but necessary compromise I think there are some other compromises we're making here that I'll maybe speak to in a next resolution but yeah I'm still thinking on this

Armand Hurford
1:19:43 (0:03:07)

one thank you councelor green law would you like to speak on this and I just want to take a moment procedurally here for councilor green law who's participating online if you silence during a vote is a vote in favor so we need to hear if you if you oppose you'll need to vocalize that otherwise it'll be assumed that you're in favor of whichever motion we're discussing today including this one so with that said do counc green any comments on this not yet I'll Venture my own and I'll leave space to see if she would like to chime in I think when I think about all the concerns that we've heard here tonight councilor green I'll just have my comments and then and then I'll go to you when I think about the all the comments we've heard here tonight and the concerns around earlier we heard around viewscapes and around how the inter sections work and all these other all these pieces that are all very important considerations I think about that tree and where it sits mid block and The Proposal as it as it sits puts a the park use on that corner which is what protects the view from Eagle Grove and protect moving to protect the to retain the tree I think would is as Noble as that concept is with the approved cut lot coverage and density there I think you would see a building occupying the park space and thus really negatively impacting the view the viewscape of the overall so I think on balance with the mature tree PL ings going in I think I'm comfortable with moving forward with this as presented and I think that over 70 new trees will be planted on the site they will take a while to mature and that tree as we heard was planted to celebrate the realization of having a senior's facility and I'd like to remind everyone involved D in this that this is also achieving and celebrating the new senior facility we have at West wi and some sacrifices we made and some new trees are going to be planted and some new housing provided both in that senior site that this whole piece was part of so I won't be voting in support of the motion for those reasons councelor Greenlaw are you

SPEAKER_15
1:22:51 (0:00:04)

there I'm sorry I just I can't really

Armand Hurford
1:22:56 (0:00:03)

no you're doing great we can hear you now go ahead

SPEAKER_15
1:23:00 (0:00:23)

okay good yeah I'll be speaking in support of the motion I do think that if we have regulations and guidelines that they should be adhered to I also think that it sends a message to Fusion developers that we do take our guidelines and regulations seriously and that yeah they need to be accounted for in design thanks

Armand Hurford
1:23:23 (0:01:20)

okay thank you so with that I think everyone's spoken to this I'll call the question all in favor and opposed counselor Anderson Pettingill French Stoner and may Herford oppose motion fails so now I'd be looking for we have recommendations before us and I'd like to move the staff recommendation with one change and it's to just under Section onea so the amendment of Land Development agreement at the end of that sentence or at the end of that paragraph it says at servicing agreement I would add that ensure traffic leaving the parade can make a direct left turn onto Eagle wind Boulevard and there' be no other changes to the recommendations is there a seconder seconded by councelor Stoner else sorry what was

SPEAKER_06
1:24:44 (0:00:19)

that fth may sorry I just want to make sure with that specific language direct left turn because it's a one way I just don't know if we're going to be able to achieve that specific language and I just want to make sure the motion we can we can our Engineers can actually deliver on that

Armand Hurford
1:25:03 (0:03:07)

motion I feel so I'll speak I'll speak to it and it'll cover that it'll cover that point but thank you on the I'll start I'll speak to the motion I'll start with the additional language I think the left turn out of this out of out of the parade is incredibly important if we have we've already talked about ways to deter people from making that from going into Eagle Grove and into the and Bailey and so on with some signage but we can get ahead of that with design and ensure they never head that way then have to turn back around so in earlier recommend earlier design and recommendations around that Boulevard design had the two lanes combined into two-lane traffic in a larger Green Space on the West Side that's one solution that I that I see and I that made the whole piece work for me in my mind with where the entrance is and the design we see we see now has just the southernmost portion of that adjusted which fixes the intersection which is really important I actually go through that intersection daily and it is it makes very little sense currently so I get that that's an improvement but I think to ensure the traffic flow that we are after here that the that the residents and visitors we can train residents maybe but the visitors commercial use folks can make a clean a clean exit from there and the smoothest way for them to go is left turn southbound and Away to not interfere with the neighbors to do our best to limit the impact to the to the neighbors so that's that one point broadly I think this is really an interesting development I was happy to see the parking all numbers and everything accommodated on site and under that cental Central Courtyard I think the height variance one of the pieces with that for me is keeping that building as far away from the sight lines as possible so that we can see over through the park and to the to the and protect the views as much as possible so I think that variance is very modest and I think has a good impact on the overall I also think the variance to the required setbacks for the eaves makes total sense and I'm optimistic that the parking is manageable it does far exceed the Downtown parking standard there even with this with this reduction so I feel it's I feel it's supportable so I'll be voting in favor councelor Stoner and then French

Jenna Stoner
1:28:11 (0:00:09)

thank you I'm just wondering if the minute taker could reread what the amended languages for section

SPEAKER_09
1:28:21 (0:00:10)

A I have after servicing agreement that ensures traffic leaving the parade can make a direct left turn onto eaglewind

Armand Hurford
1:28:31 (0:00:17)

Boulevard I'm gonna say that sorry did you want to speak to it now or do you want to mow that over and I can come back to you

Jenna Stoner
1:28:48 (0:00:02)

I'd like to propose an amendment to the

Armand Hurford
1:28:51 (0:00:02)

Amendment to the motion

Jenna Stoner
1:28:53 (0:00:01)

Amendment to the motion

Armand Hurford
1:28:54 (0:00:00)

yeah go

Jenna Stoner
1:28:54 (0:00:06)

ahead just to remove the word Direct in front of left

SPEAKER_01
1:29:01 (0:00:01)

turn

Armand Hurford
1:29:02 (0:00:08)

Okay is I'll second that or do I consider it a friendly Amendment I'll consider a friendly

Jenna Stoner
1:29:10 (0:03:18)

Amendment with that I will support the motion on the floor and I do think that minor Amendment although it feels nuanced and perhaps unnecessary I do think it provides a little bit of flexibility for our staff and the proponent to go away and figure out the best way to ensure that there is an opportunity to left turn out of there recognizing that there's already a lot of built infrastructure and so this might be a really challenging to actually achieve and so that is one of my concerns with the specificity of the direct left turn it may mean that cars will have to go in between the parking spaces that are there but so I will