{ "segments": [ { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 775.705, "end": 779.045, "text": "Good morning and welcome to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the rule.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 780.205, "end": 785.725, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 785.865, "end": 786.165, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 786.365, "end": 787.365, "text": "Councillor Clark,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 787.625, "end": 787.985, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 788.125, "end": 792.745, "text": "Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnston,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 794.025, "end": 794.245, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 794.485, "end": 808.205, "text": "Councillor Kelly, Councillor McLean, Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 808.705, "end": 809.185, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 809.365, "end": 809.805, "text": "Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 810.745, "end": 929.205, "text": "Oki Ambawastesh, Danitida, Tanshe. Indigenous peoples have their own names for this area that have been in use long before its settlers named this place Calgary. In the Blackfoot language, it is called Mukinstus. The Eskinakota Westabi First Nations refer to this place as Wachispa Oyede. And the people of the Sutina Nation call it Gutstis. The Metis call the Calgary area Otasquini. We appreciate and acknowledge that we are gathered on the ancestral and traditional territory of the Blackfoot Nations of the Siksea, Pikani and Kainai First Nations, the Ethnicoda, Wikestabi First Nations, comprised the Chinniki, Bearspaw, and Goodstoney First Nations, and the Sotina First Nation. The city of Calgary is also homeland to the historic Northwest Metis and the Antibisak Metis Government, Metis Nation Battle River Territory, Nos Hill Metis District 5, and Elbo Metis District 6. We acknowledge and give gratitude to the many First Nations, Metis and Inuit, who live here and call Calgary home. Welcome, Council. There being uh no request to speak, we'll move to confirmation of agenda. May please have a mover and seconder. Moved by Councillor Dallywell, seconded by Councillor Atkinson. The uh agenda is on the table. I believe we have a couple additions, maybe one or two. Madam Clerk, uh first on the agenda being amended to add the uh item 9.1 water utility to oversight board, compensation and selection as directed from the executive committee. Can I get a mover and seconder for that amendment? Moved by Councillor Panizopoulos, seconded by Councillor Shabot. That is on the table, and this was the urgent business that executive committee had agreed to forward to council. Any further debate on the adding of this business? All right, seeing none, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please, on the adding of this business, amending the agenda to allow for item 9.1 water utility oversight board, compensation and selection.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 940.965, "end": 946.605, "text": "Councillor Dollywall, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 946.745, "end": 947.065, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 949.645, "end": 950.565, "text": "All the votes are in, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 951.105, "end": 967.865, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14th to 0. Councillor Weines is absent. To Councillor Schmidt, please, on procedure.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 969.185, "end": 977.985, "text": "Uh yes. Uh just uh I have received a late public submission. Oh no, sorry, the agenda hasn't been confirmed yet. I need to do it after confirmation of agenda, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 978.445, "end": 986.965, "text": "Okay. All right. Any further amendments to the agenda? Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 986.965, "end": 998.985, "text": "Uh so uh 7.2.4, we're just uh going to be pushing that off to the July public hearing. Uh spoken with the applicant and uh there's a desire to do so. So there", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 998.985, "end": 1018.885, "text": "That's been uh that amendment's been moved by Councillor Atkinson. That's to postpone item 7.2.4 to the July 21 public hearing meeting of council. May I please have a second or Seconded by uh Councillor Ewell. Any further debate on this uh amendment to postpone the item? All right, seeing none, let's engage the e-vote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1029.525, "end": 1030.825, "text": "Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1030.965, "end": 1031.305, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1031.465, "end": 1033.265, "text": "Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1033.745, "end": 1049.265, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 0. Councillor Wine is uh is absent. Any further amendments to today's agenda? Councillor Shabo?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 1051.065, "end": 1060.385, "text": "Yeah, no, I just want to make sure that the C CEO, CAO is also included in that motion for the Water Utility Oversight Board for selection committee, or is that gonna be a separate thing?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1061.145, "end": 1063.165, "text": "Do you mean the CAO recruitment?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 1063.185, "end": 1063.565, "text": "Yes?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1064.885, "end": 1069.045, "text": "Uh over to Madam Clerk. I believe that was being prepared as urgent business for the next.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1069.305, "end": 1076.945, "text": "That will be Yeah, thank you for the question, Councillor Shabot through the chair. That item will be coming to your May 26th regular meeting of Council directly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 1076.945, "end": 1079.585, "text": "As well as the water utility oversight board. Okay, thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1081.445, "end": 1092.185, "text": "All right. Any uh further discussion on the uh agenda as amended? Alright, seeing none, uh we'll close that and move to the e-vote, please, to approve the agenda as amended.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1107.385, "end": 1108.645, "text": "Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1109.305, "end": 1109.625, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1110.065, "end": 1111.185, "text": "Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1112.065, "end": 1138.605, "text": "All right, uh please display the results. All right, that motion is carried. We have an agenda, so we have a meeting for today. Uh give us please a moment just to swap out some of the uh folks as we get into public hearing motion. Uh Madam Clerk,", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1139.405, "end": 1141.365, "text": "Now would be the time to over to Councillor Shab.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1141.365, "end": 1142.705, "text": "I'm so sorry I forgot about you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 1142.705, "end": 1160.325, "text": "Thank you. Yes, just uh uh I received a late uh public submission. It will need to go into confidential, just given that the identifying information was not able to be removed ahead of time. Uh but just for the corporate record and uh our office received this late yesterday.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1162.885, "end": 1183.565, "text": "All right, so we've uh prepared a uh motion directing the uh city clerk's office to distribute the late confidential submissions. That's been moved by Councillor Schmidt. Is there a second or seconded by Councillor uh Kelly? Any further discussion on that? All right, seeing none, let's engage the e-vote on the uh distribution of the uh late submission.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1197.505, "end": 1202.085, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1202.285, "end": 1202.605, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1202.785, "end": 1204.505, "text": "Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1205.185, "end": 1243.305, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On the distribution, that motion is carried 14 to 0. All right. Before we get into public hearing mode, uh it's my great privilege to welcome some visiting students from Third Academy School in Rocky View County. If you can give all give us please a wave. We have 40 students and 10 adults who are joining us from a first class grade four and five, and we have a second class grade six, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Christos Cassias. So please uh stand and be acknowledged by Calgary City Council.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 1253.825, "end": 1259.105, "text": "You you you got the reason we asked you guys to stand, if you look at the monitor there, you'll see yourselves on the monitor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1260.625, "end": 1275.085, "text": "You are on television, yes. And I believe that I am scheduled to join you, I believe, tomorrow or sometime imminently. So I so appreciate you guys uh being here.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 1276.265, "end": 1276.905, "text": "All right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1278.565, "end": 1390.985, "text": "Now we will jump into our public hearing mode. So for all items on the agenda under this section, section seven, reports for public hearing, we'll start with the presentation by administration representing the recommendations of the Calgary Planning Commission. Then we will open the public hearing. The applicant, if present, will make the first presentation. And once the applicant has finished speaking, we'll go to the list of registered speakers, rotating the remaining registered speakers between those in favor, against, and neither. Council is restricted in these public hearings to issues of land use, the use and not the user. And I'll stop you if you aren't speaking to the use. I'll also take this time to remind everyone that for every public hearing matter, council members are amenable to persuasion. Public speakers have a maximum of five minutes to make their presentation. For those that are presenting in the council chamber, there is a timer on the screen at the podium to help you manage your time. And council members may ask questions after each speaker is finished presenting. For remote participants, please set a five-minute timer for yourself. And after your presentation, please remain on the line as we may have questions for you. After your item concludes, please drop off the telephone line and continue following through the live stream. And we may establish panels of up to five speakers if there are enough people registered to speak to an item. And council will ask its questions after all speakers in the panel are done. Panels of registered speakers will rotate between those in favor, against, and neither, to the extent that that is practical. A speaker cannot transfer their speaking time to another speaker. And once we finish with all of the speakers, we'll close the public hearing. And questions of clarification from council members to administration can be taken at this point. Then we will go to council to debate the item. So first up on section 7, we have 7.2.1 Outline Plan, Policy, and Land Use Amendment in Stonegate Landing, Ward 5.", "segments_merged": 20 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 1396.965, "end": 1790.465, "text": "Good morning, Mayor Farkas and Council. My name is Nancy Sanborn, Senior Planner with Community Planning, and I'll be presenting the first five items on the agenda today. The first item is a land use amendment and policy amendments to support the development of a new community. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to propose bylaw 15P 2026 for the amendments to the municipal development plan. Give three readings to proposed bylaw 16P 2026 for the amendments to the Northeast Industrial Area Structure Plan. And give three readings to proposed bylaw 64D 2026 for the redesignation of 194.8 hectares to multiple land use districts. Next slide, please. The subject lands are undeveloped and located in the northeast community of Stonegate Landing, which has previously been identified as an industrial area of the city. The communities of Redstone and Skyview Ranch are located east of the subject site, and Stony Trail is located to the north. The Calgary International Airport is located to the south and west of the subject site. Prior to 2021, the subject site was mainly within the airport vicinity protection area, the noise exposure contour or NEF 30 area, where residential development was prohibited. In August 2021, the NEF contours of the Calgary Airport Vicinity Protection Area regulation were updated to reflect reduced noise from modern airplanes. With this update, residential development was no longer prohibited in the northeast portion of the subject lands. This new opportunity for residential growth in the area was the catalyst for the current land use application before you today. Next slide, please. Industrial development currently in the forms of the Industrial General and the Industrial Business District, as well as some commercial development in the Commercial Regional 3 District, which allows larger format commercial development. To the east is residential development with a multiple multitude of residential districts, and to the west is predominantly industrial development. Next slide, please. There are 13 proposed land use districts within this application, allowing a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial development, as well as the required infrastructure, services, and open space amenities to serve the community. The outline plan figure is easier to decipher, so let's go to the next slide. Thanks. The outline plan includes two residential neighborhood areas located north and south of 128th Avenue Northeast. Each neighborhood has a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development, and each neighborhood is anchored by a neighborhood activity center, which includes a combination of multi residential housing, an open space amenity, and a non residential use, such as commercial development. In the north portion of the plan, a future Blue Line LRT station is located at the interface between the industrial area and the residential area, with proposed transit supportive land uses surrounding the station. In the south portion of the plan, a new school site will accommodate a K 9 Calgary Board of Education School and a K 12 FrancoSud Francophone School. A fire hall is also proposed just south of the school site. The proposed outline plan was reviewed by Calgary Planning Commission on April 16th, 2026. The commission reviewed the outline plan and determined that a public utility lot needed to be identified on the outline plan area along the east boundary adjacent to Metis Trail and the south boundary adjacent to Country Hills Boulevard. This public utility lot will not change the layout of the outline plan or surrounding land uses. Next slide, please. On January 28, 2025, a notion a notice of motion was approved by council directing administration to prepare amendments to the municipal development plan to enable residential development in Stonegate Landing. The map on the left shows the MDP amendments that were approved by Council on March 4, 2025, with the new neighborhood areas following the updated NEF contours. The map on the right shows additional map amendments to the MDP that are proposed for this application, which removes the standard industrial typology and changes it to the planned greenfield with ASP typology. This allows for the additional commercial uses proposed within this application. Next slide, please. In the January 2025 notice of motion from council, they also directed administration to add a comprehensive planning overlay to the Northeast Industrial Area Structure Plan to plan for residential development in Stonegate Landing. The map on the left shows the comprehensive planning overlay approved by Council. The intent of the overlay was to provide direction for additional planning and site design considerations that will inform future amendments to the ASP, which will be brought forward in conjunction with the land use and outline plan application. As these considerations have been reviewed as part of this application, the proposed amendments to the Northeast Industrial ASP are shown on the image to the right. The proposed changes include adding a range of residential uses, including mixed use, multi unit residential, and ground oriented residential. Also defining commercial areas and identifying the neighborhood activity centers, a school site, and fire hall location. Next slide, please. In closing, this application provides for a complete community with a range of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed policy amendments and land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Fargas.", "segments_merged": 21 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1791.385, "end": 1812.345, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll now open up the public hearing. We have a couple registered speakers from the applicant. Do we have Jennifer Duff with us? Then after Jennifer, I have Brendan, Kathy, Kathy, and Ben. Okay.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1819.605, "end": 1823.085, "text": "I just have one presentation and then we'll all be available to answer questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 1823.085, "end": 1823.625, "text": "Sounds great.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1828.285, "end": 2113.785, "text": "Good morning, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Jennifer Duff, and I'm with BA Studios. I'm here today with Ben Mercer and Jessica Anderson with Qualico, Kathy Oberg with BA, Kathy Agar with CASA Developments, and Brendan Stevenson with Watt Consulting Group. We also have Richard McNeil on the line from EXP. I will be presenting on behalf of our team, but we will all be available to answer questions after the presentation. Next slide, please. The site, which includes close to 500 acres, is located in the northeast community of Stonegate Landing. The lands were originally approved for industrial and commercial land uses, and the city of Calgary invested approximately $90 million in infrastructure to deliver services to Stonegate. The land has since sat undeveloped. In 2021, changes to the airport vicinity protection area has opened up a portion of this area to residential uses that were previously restricted. Our proposal is for a reimagined development plan that unlocks the investment made and provides for a complete community in a highly sought-after area. The plan will provide for much needed housing in Northeast Calgary where housing supply is limited. In March 2025, Council supported the industrial to residential conversion and approved the amendments to the MDP and ASP to allow for this project to advance to detailed outline plan, land use amendment, and associated ASP amendments. Next slide, please. Land use and outline plan approvals were previously granted and provided a framework for mostly industrial lands with some regional retail in the north portion of the plan area. Surrounding land uses include low density residential across Metis Trail to the east, industrial land uses with commercial land uses along Country Hills Boulevard to the west, and industrial land uses to the south. Our reimagined vision for the lands includes a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses while also providing parks and open spaces throughout. Next slide, please. We are very excited to share the highlights of this community. Higher density residential and mixed-use land use districts have been located surrounding the future LRT station, and the overall plan includes two residential neighborhoods with neighborhood activity centers. A joint joint use site to accommodate two future schools has been provided, as well as other parks and open space throughout the residential neighborhoods. Land for a future fire station has been included in the south portion of the plan area, and regional retail sites were relocated from the approved location in the north to the south to allow for better access and visibility from Country Hills Boulevard. Some of the regional retail remains in the north as those sites are owned by others. Industrial has been retained in both the north and south portions of the plan area. Next slide, please. The plan area is anticipated to provide for almost 3,000 dwelling units, achieving a density of approximately 13.2 units per acre. This complete community includes a variety of housing types, commercial industrial, schools, parks, and primary transit. The entire plan area is connected to adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial areas through the existing road network and active mode connections. Next slide, please. Our public engagement approach was designed to inform relevant groups, neighbors, and the public about the proposed land use amendment, gather feedback, and ensure transparency. In an in-person house, an in-person open house was broadly advertised and hosted in May 2025. Thirteen members of the community attended and were generally more interested in the project and the opportunities for housing and amenities nearby. There were some concerns with initial proposal not including a school site, as well as overall traffic in the area. Since then, two schools have been incorporated into the plan area, and we worked closely with administration on the traffic impact assessment, including any required upgrades. Next slide, please. In summary, the proposal aligns with city policies and goals in many aspects. It supports the creation of a complete community where residents can live, work, and play, enhances and activates adjacent industrial lands while supporting the future LRT station, contributes additional residential housing supply to the Northeast, incorporates new parks and open spaces, including a site for two future schools, and accommodates commercial and industrial uses in high demand locations. Next slide, please. Qualico is excited to advance development within this community. A development permit for stripping and grading, along with subdivision applications for phases 1A and 1B, are currently underway. These applications include both residential and industrial lands and reflect a clear commitment to progressing development on these lands in the very near future. And next slide, please. We are asking council to approve and give three readings to the bylaws to allow for the redesignation of this site. Thank you, and we are all available to answer any questions.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 2117.405, "end": 2120.625, "text": "Thank you. Over to Councillor Chabot, please. Or sorry, uh Councillor Delaware.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2122.565, "end": 2147.805, "text": "Thank you, Mir. And thank you for your presentation. Um it's uh it's a long time coming. Uh I got some questions. There is no ASP, residential ASP, it's industrial ASP. Uh how were you able to make sure that you're putting a good community, a very complete community? And how can you tell me and residents or the city that this is a complete community?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 2148.665, "end": 2167.845, "text": "Yeah, thanks for the question. We worked really closely with administration on the ASP amendments to ensure they reflected modern ASPs that you see in other communities to ensure that there was a well mix of various land uses, and that is reflective in the outline plan and the ASP amendments that are before you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2168.785, "end": 2219.725, "text": "Yeah, okay. Um it's um I look at it uh when when you look at outline plan, your density is 32.6 units per hectare. That's very high. Um I looked at surrounding ASPs, Cornerstone, I looked at Northeast A communities, uh, which uh Redstone is part of it, that was developed by Qualco. Uh they're not that dense. Why this density and and and 20% of the second legal secondary suites are in board five, and secondary suites are not counted in the density. So you're looking at pretty much 40 units per hectare, in my opinion, and it's not units, it's people. Why we are going so high? Because when I look at density, there is nothing coming with density to accommodate that density from humanity's perspective.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 2220.765, "end": 2260.445, "text": "Yeah, I'll let Kathy speak to some other examples in the city, but one thing that we were trying to do with this plan is achieve a balance of intensity across the entire plan area while trying to retain some of that lower intensity industrial land uses. And so we are proposing some higher density residential closer to the train station, which has then resulted in higher residential density for the overall plan area. And then the entire plan area is actually coming in just shy of the 60 people and jobs per hectare in intensity when you include that industrial area. But I'll also let Kathy speak to some other examples in the city.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 2260.945, "end": 2348.825, "text": "No, it's a great question. Thank you for that. And to Jen's point, we tend to look at an overall area, and so we are kind of balanced between the non-residential and the residential. Things have changed over the time with area structure plans. A number of those area structure plans you mentioned were done before the MDP. The last MDP that was done 2010-2011, kind of in that range, increase the densities that we have to achieve within area structure plans. We also are seeing with the Cal Ray plan and the latest ASPs that have been done, the new minimum is now 10 units per acre. And so that is we've seen that through a couple approved plans that council has seen before today. So the Aurora and the West McLeod, the SATATS ASP. We do have examples that have been approved in the Southeast Ricardo Ranch achieving 15.2 units per acre. But I do recognize the comment that you're making in regards to suites. I do think the the new Calvary plan will be addressing that as well if it gets approved through council where some of those will be qualified as units. We, as Jenna's saying, we're trying to balance those. We do know that the Northeast will run out of supply in about three to five years. We took that as seriously when we were looking at this consideration, especially with balancing the LRT station and the neighborhood nodes. But we recognize your concerns that maybe the population might be higher than some of those other examples that you've noted.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2349.105, "end": 2404.125, "text": "Yeah, I and I don't want to say it, and and apologies if someone gets offended. This is there's a flaw when we put density under the guise of future LRT. I mean, you go along 128 towards Skyview Redstone. It's so dense, so dense parking is an issue just because we one day we will have a Uh LRT coming there. Well, guess what? That one day is subjective. We don't have any money from any provincial government, federal government to extend that. So I know we want to put density. I want to we we have MDB targets, but it's frustrating, in my opinion, as a board Councillor, when density is not coming with proper amenities. There's no library, there is no rec center, there is no commercial nodes around it. And this is not your fault. And I'm not, I'm just trying to get your perspective. What could be done to support this density? So people, yes, they want to live there, but they have amenities so they don't have to drive long ways.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 2405.025, "end": 2455.665, "text": "And it's, I mean, it's it's part of the overall mixture of the framework, right? We do have park spaces and we do have municipal reserves. Um we also have to balance um putting money into fund for high schools so that the non-residential portions of this plan area do go to support um future high schools. We do have uh municipal reserves provided in land, so we do have park spaces and the school sites. Um appreciate that a lot of those no those things you identified are part of the sector, and that's kind of that global conversation, I guess, with administration. Um, but recognizing that, yes, certainly we weren't asked for some of those when it was circulated, and it might be a question for admin as well. Um, when it was circulated to all the departments, nothing came forward as we would like to see REC or we would like to see some other of those formal civic uses as part of the application process. But I appreciate your comments.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2455.665, "end": 2524.305, "text": "Yeah, that's unfortunate. That's very unfortunate. Um, because I've been for the last four and a half years just crying out all the time that we are putting all this density in my ward without proper infrastructure, pro uh uh proper amenities support. And if that was not asked, that's unfortunate. Uh I I want to go to outline plan, please. And uh and and I think we talked about it. I see I don't I don't like when there is no transition between low density like RG built and M1. When I look at this uh outline plan, there's few instances where RG is right next to M1 without proper separation. And it creates a conflict because you don't want uh people, balconies peeking into your backyard and your living rooms, uh, and that's what's happening. And it is happening in my wood a lot, and it's happening across the city. Is there any room to Maybe it's too late to make some transition. There's a few sites like uh M1, RG, MG, RG on the south side too, to even put a laneway or something. Did you consider that seven meter separation?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 2524.925, "end": 2625.665, "text": "That's a very good question. I was just looking quickly and we'll put the plan up just so that you have reference to it. And I see the ones you're talking about. MG is a little bit different than say M1 or M2. MG is more a townhome, the heights are very comparable to low density. I think what's interesting as well, there are a couple places where I know you're noting where we don't have a lien transition between the product and say that those multi-family sites. It's certainly something through subdivision we could could consider liens being added into those sites. The RG land use allows us to go single semis in towns, and maybe we thoughtfully look at the product type as well to see if there's a different, like maybe it's not a single that's um that's that's backing onto it. Maybe we look to one of those other more in like those other forums, potentially townhomes. Um certainly the M1 also presents itself as being available as a townhome site, so it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a a four-story apartment, three to four-story apartment. Um we have done comprehensive sites with um with townhomes. The market will likely dictate this, as you and I both know. There's many areas in your city where we've got some of these transit nodes where it's the lower density that's more compatible than the higher density, and we've seen some of those form transitions. I think when we get to those phases, we certainly I think we certainly want to work on what those amenities are, which we can do through programming of the open spaces and also work at the land use transitions, and we can do that. Um I'll commit to that. I can have Jessica answer, but I I believe we can commit to working uh closely or with those product transitions just to avoid those serious kind of you know differences in product type. But I'll let Jessica answer that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 2627.825, "end": 2654.465, "text": "Sorry, Kathy. Thank you for the question. Yeah, no, I would certainly echo uh Kathy's commentary there around uh appropriate product type and certainly detailed site design for the comprehensive sites. That's something that's considered a subdivision and development permit stage, as you've heard, and certainly there's a variety of tools at our disposal there with respect to architectural controls, landscaping, lighting, all of those types of things to manage those interfaces between sites.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2655.105, "end": 2698.145, "text": "Yeah, I know. I I mean this is an opportunity to put safeguards then future when council will have no per like. We won't have leverage, let's put it this way. I want to build a good community. And some of the lessons learned, we don't want to create conflict between neighbors. We want neighbors to live there and joy. Would you guys be open to density cap in this application to 32.6, subject to any future changes, land use, going through a comprehensive planning to make sure that density could be supported, and then density is reflective of the population growth, not just the units?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 2701.285, "end": 2754.025, "text": "I think Yeah, and I think we do have triggers that make us look at transportation as well as we go. You're saying could we also have a mechanism to look at the forum and kind of as we build to take a look at it? I mean, certainly our our goal is not to go back into a you know continuous land use amendments, but I think we're we're open to kind of working through the phases and seeing what the implications are, knowing that you know the market will probably change things as we go. Um and and honestly, if the if if the cowry plan gets approved and things change with units, we would might have some of that adjustment as well. I mean, we're open to open to working on that kind of as we comprehensively grow to see if we're um making the situation um more intense or if we're we're balancing it as we go. I don't know what that would look like in your mind, but certainly um happy to discuss it further.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2754.345, "end": 2788.045, "text": "Yeah, I I don't want to stop this land use. You guys have worked really uh with administration. All I'm saying is maybe put a caveat in ASP through motion arising, through density, cap. And this allows us to work even closer together. In the future, if you bring a land use, we can look at these things and bring an amendment to ASB if needed for you to accommodate that growth. But at least it allows a certain uh goalpost to work with. I see Jessica nodding, so.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 2788.845, "end": 2850.265, "text": "Carl, apologies. I just want to make sure I understand the thinking and how that would be incorporated or how that would be achieved. I was going to check, and I believe there is a policy currently presented for the ASP amendment to require a future amendment to the ASP with respect to the staging in terms of the off site transportation improvements. I think there is a policy there now, so perhaps there would be an opportunity to work within that wording language there and offer something. To achieve what you're looking to achieve there, just to make sure that there's kind of I think I'm understanding you're looking for kind of a touch point at some point in the future to gauge that growth, how the sites are building out. As we say, each of these land use districts has a range of available density within it, and so we're kind of making some assumptions at this point. So understand that, as you say, you'd like to see a threshold or a touch point in the future. I think if that was included in the ASP as a high level policy, that would be something we could certainly work with.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2850.445, "end": 2900.085, "text": "Yeah, like what I'm saying is you guys are well above right now. Let's put a cap on it. When we go to let's say phase two, we can reevaluate it, and if there's amendment needed, do an amendment, but at least it gives a certain pathway now that this is the framework we are working in. And if any future land use allows as a ward Councillor to ask those questions, have we looked at transit? Have we looked at all that? So I'll so I'll be working with admin to see what could be done, but thank you. Um my last question is uh again, um And I'm I'm happy to hear that that transition between single family and all that we could be sorted out uh at the uh at the at the subdivision. Um just uh go to the south. Both school sites are uh on the south side.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 2900.465, "end": 2901.585, "text": "That is correct. Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2901.585, "end": 2907.065, "text": "And and was it was it um was it the proposal from you guys or administration?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 2907.125, "end": 2982.265, "text": "It was something, okay, so it started with us. Um I spoke earlier about the combination of cash and loo and residential dedication. It's very important that we put money into our high school fund. It's also important that we provide municipal reserve in land. And so when it was circulated, um it came back to uh with the outputs of Aschool with a strong desire to have two schools. And we said we're gonna struggle because we're we're trying to balance the municipal reserve dedication. There's also been some cash in loop provided already to date because there were previous development agreements. And so we said if we can enable some of the fields on the other side of the NEF line that enables it within the non-residential area, we think we can manage it, manage the dedication of reserve throughout both of the communities. And so we went, um JUCC worked with us, SPT worked with us, and we got to a conclusion where we had an acceptable two school option, and that um satisfied the school boards. So we on a reserve standpoint, we could have provided one and not had enough dedication to provide two, but it we got a positive outcome working with JUCC. So the best place to put it was in the South Cell.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2982.905, "end": 3028.305, "text": "Well, uh my my my biggest fear is in my award I got these two schools. Um the problem is we are already b dealing with struggling with school safety, children, pedestrian crossing and all that. And school having two schools pretty much on the same street uh uh is is creates that incremental safety concerns because the timings are the same, traffic and all that. So uh hopefully um uh this is a discussion with Alberta infrastructure in the future if this is the proposal. Okay, great. Uh last question more of if there's an opportunity to work with the city or Third party on some sort of manatee upgrades is is applicant open to have those discussions moving forward.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 3028.445, "end": 3059.145, "text": "We are certainly open to that. I know we've had discussions in the past on just each community kind of lives differently in their communities. Sometimes there's certain amenities that are beneficial, and I know we've had some discussions about that just in the Northeast itself. We're certainly open to it. That would be kind of a trio kind of conversation as well. If there's some park space that needs different amenities, we'd have to have an open conversation with parks as well. But we're certainly open to working on what's the best outcome for those open spaces within this community.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3059.505, "end": 3063.945, "text": "Great, thank you. That's all for me. Thank you for answering all the questions. That's it. That's it for me, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 3064.505, "end": 3066.325, "text": "Thank you, uh, Deputy Mayor Chabot, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3067.945, "end": 3090.925, "text": "Deputy Mayor, that sounds weird. Sorry. Um yeah, no, 129 prior to release conditions. I think it's amazing. Yeah, it's stuff that you guys have to comply with. Um the cash in lieu uh question, uh 4.065 acres or whatever it is, is that a dedication um attributed to the industrial commercial or is that", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 3092.185, "end": 3102.585, "text": "Yes, correct. We do have the stats as well, and Jen might be better suited. Um it is. It's for the industrial commercial, which is typically what we do in order to put money into the high school fund. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3103.005, "end": 3129.205, "text": "or maybe this is not an appropriate question for you, but in here it talks about the developer shall provide payment in lieu of reserves, dedication. Uh the value of the payment in lieu of reserves the city of Calgary shall be shall be prepared to determine the value of the payment in lieu of reserve. Um and that there's costs here to do the assessment, the real estate development services team. What it doesn't tell me is uh what the land use it's gonna be assessed as.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 3129.345, "end": 3129.665, "text": "Oh,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3129.665, "end": 3130.165, "text": "Do you know?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 3131.125, "end": 3140.085, "text": "land use. I don't know. It's a market rate. That might be a better question for administration and for the for the the team. I don't know. It we just know it's market rates.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3140.085, "end": 3141.805, "text": "Great for commercial and dusty", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 3141.805, "end": 3142.325, "text": "I don't know that it's", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3142.325, "end": 3144.825, "text": "high density has all different values.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 3144.825, "end": 3148.105, "text": "yeah, I totally agree with you. You should probably ask that of administration.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3148.105, "end": 3151.285, "text": "I will. Thank you. I just thought I'd bounce it off you first.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_43", "start": 3151.285, "end": 3152.045, "text": "Oh that answer, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3152.225, "end": 3163.525, "text": "Thanks. No, that's uh that's uh very uh good outline plan. Um lots of uh different uses. I think it's very comprehensive and complete. So good job. No further questions.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 3165.225, "end": 3187.505, "text": "All right, anybody else uh for the applicant? All right, seeing none, uh, I think you're off the hook. Thank you so much. Uh anyone else uh for the public hearing on 7.2.1? Going once, going twice. Last call. All right, the public hearing is closed. Uh over to Councillor Yule, please, for administration.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 3189.745, "end": 3200.565, "text": "Yeah, I'm just looking at the uh the map here. Um so 128th AV uh will eventually have access from Deerfoot, correct?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 3203.545, "end": 3211.065, "text": "Through the Chair Tom Hopkins Development Engineering, that is correct. Uh there will be a future interchange, uh partial interchange at 128th in Deerfoot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 3211.325, "end": 3215.705, "text": "Will that line up with when this is expected to build out?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 3216.805, "end": 3226.225, "text": "Um I believe you'd have to ask the applicant on the build out of of their full project, but it is it has been identified within the potential tenure capital.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 3227.285, "end": 3242.645, "text": "Um The other question I had was on the blue line, end of line. Um this the way that this is outlined, this guarantees that the blue line will be end of line at this point, correct?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 3243.525, "end": 3245.865, "text": "Um from current understanding, that would be correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 3247.045, "end": 3266.525, "text": "Um okay. So that like I I I don't know why we're we're boxing in the the the blue line um at this point. Like it could go further um to the west or to the north. So um I'm struggling with with the way that this is lining up. That's all. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 3269.465, "end": 3270.865, "text": "Councillor Dallywell, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3273.105, "end": 3305.205, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Um, just some questions for administration. Um and and I I want to start with this. Um Um first one is I think Councillor Shabot did ask this, but uh um this uh sorry, one second. Um attachment to planning. What does condition one and two mean? Uh what are we asking for? Why are we asking for cash? And how could this cash be? Will it move straight to the reserve, or this cash could be used for something else?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 3306.685, "end": 3384.025, "text": "Uh good morning. Travis Shaw, Open Space Planning Implementation. Um Yeah, happy to speak to that. So in this case, we have uh as as the applicant indicated, we have a balance of um of land being provided in in land, and uh a balance for the industrial areas being provided in cash. When that land is provided in cash for the industrial area, that goes towards the joint use fund, which is steered by the joint use coordinating committee. So that is there are uh city members of that, but also the school boards are members of that, and that typically goes towards the purchase of uh high school sites, sometimes rec sites, um, but citywide. Um Citywide amenities. So when we're when we're looking at this plan, we took the um the residential portion of the of the site and we we calculated 10% of that. So we we're um we know that we're getting 10% of the land in the residential areas, and then the balance of the site in the commercial and industrial areas, uh we are taking the 10% as cash and lieu in those areas as per our standard practice. So the residential area is getting the full 10% in land as we typically would for a residential area, and then we are getting the the cash and lieu for the for the industrial commercial sites.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3384.025, "end": 3405.625, "text": "Okay, great. I forgot to ask this to the applicant. I should have asked them, but uh I'm just gonna put it out there. Uh there's also condition eight. Uh are there any existing closed right-of-ways? Uh I wanted to ask this to the applicant. If it does not affect their plans, what is their opportunity to convert some of these into local playgrounds, uh play areas for the residents?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 3405.765, "end": 3500.485, "text": "Yeah, so I'm happy to address that. So when we have um we we do have a role closure in here, the role closure was previously approved. So the roll closure uh as a bylaw is not before council today, but it is something that was previously approved, but has not been uh acquired by the by the uh developer yet. So that is why we have the the condition in there is that the the landowner still has to has to go through the um the legal subdivision of the closure and provide the the land for it. But the the closure bylaw has already been has already been approved. When it comes to the the use of of potentially closed lands, um that is something that we can look at is is open space uses. Now, when we're looking at closing roads, often that is an and unfortunately I'm I'm not um maybe someone else is able to bring up the the the plan of just what the road closure is. I don't have that before me right now. But often a road closure is a sliver of land along a road right-of-way. Often it's a it's a stub of a of a road right-of-way and and when we're looking at um when we're looking at um Comprehensive community development. Often those road closure areas are not exactly where we would prefer to see the open space. So we take a we take a comprehensive look at the at the entire community and we see say, hey, you know, where what is this community going to look like? Um and how do we best incorporate the open space into that? And and sometimes that's not uh consistent with the the existing road rights of way that we that we could use. But it is something that we have done before and it's it's something that we do look at.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3500.725, "end": 3521.605, "text": "Yeah, we did one in settled crest area. Uh but okay, so but there is no direction needed. If applicant doesn't need those road closures, uh, is there an opportunity to direct administration to look at opportunity of Designating them open space so they could be maintained and not become uh infested with gophers?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 3522.405, "end": 3538.865, "text": "Uh when it comes to the the management and and stewardship of uh of road rights of way that are not um that are not actively used as roads, yeah that that is something that that administration can do and and have a look at and see how we can we can um best use those pieces of land.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3538.945, "end": 3574.565, "text": "Okay, great, thank you. My other question is more of a planning. Like, why we went all the way to 32.6 units per hectare. What was the rationale? Uh MDP requires 20, but we went above and beyond, and we were heard from the applicant that yes, m like uh some of the ESPs I cited, they were before MDP. I struggle. Uh I mean, for sake of density, we're putting density where and I'm not against density uh in the master plan communities, but I don't see enough amenatees around to support that kind of density.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 3576.785, "end": 3681.085, "text": "Through the chair to Councillor Dalwell. So when we look at density, there is that minimum target in the MDP. But with that in mind, the MDP, you know, is several years old now, and as things progress and change, and as as housing um requirements are are increased in the city, we have seen an increase in density in new neighborhoods, new communities across the entire city. It is not just the northeast, it is everywhere. Alpine Park in the southwest, so that's west of Stony Trail. So the second stage of Alpine Park outline plan was approved at a density of 40.8 units per hectare, so 16.5 units per acre. And that was actually lower density than their first stage of Alpine Park. To put that in perspective, this density for this outline plan is 32.6 units per hectare or 13 units per acre. So it's actually less than even some of the southwest communities are being built at. So that's we just we are seeing that increase that need for housing. Um and and Alpine Park doesn't even have a future LRT station proposed. It's just how dense these communities are. And so we felt that the 32.6 units per hectare is uh reasonable and and can be accommodated in this area.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3682.545, "end": 3765.085, "text": "This is um based on future LRT that we are putting that high density along 128, uh all that. I I looked at Alpine Park, 38.9 units per hectare. How many people per unit live based on our city profile? Maybe 2.4. Whereas Board 5 got the highest, 3.6 people per unit. Saddle Ridge, 4.1 people per unit. It's people who live in units, people who use transit, people who you go to retail, not the units. I know policy is units per hectare, but I just struggle all the time when we do not consider other things like secondary suites, people, that, and hopefully through Calgary Plan we'll fix it. I'm not blaming you. I'm just stating it out. You are doing what is written on a piece of paper. This is for um for uh uh mobility. Uh I see in the conditions uh we are asking for um letters of um uh I believe it's called um uh we are asking for letter of credit for pedestrian actu uh crossing signals and we are asking Dwelper to provide seven, eight of these.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 3765.425, "end": 3769.465, "text": "Unfortunately, you're just at time, Councillor. So maybe a final sentence to conclude.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3769.465, "end": 3781.605, "text": "I just wanna know w why we need to take this and then make a decision and be at mercy how we do that and can't ask the developer to put them in place right from the get-go because community's gonna need those.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 3788.425, "end": 3822.845, "text": "Through the chair, there is a warrant process for identifying the need and the timing of these of these rapid flashing beacons. They are identified at this stage to ensure that they they get recognized that subdivision and development permit in the future and that we can ensure that there are safe um safe streets um tied to these pedestrian crossings. So we typically try to identify as many as we can at this stage, even though this is very high level. But we want to ensure the the safe crossings in these neighborhoods. So trying to identify them up front", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 3826.005, "end": 3829.265, "text": "Thank you. Over to uh Councillor Johnston, please, for recognition.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 3833.545, "end": 3887.685, "text": "Hello, today we have Lake Bonavista School here. And I was lucky enough to uh hang out with them for a bit yesterday and we talked about uh uh civic politics and what we enjoy about the job and um pros and cons and uh we also gotta talk about video games and um a little history about our building here. Um but one of the biggest questions you guys have for us is how do the choices we make contribute to stronger connections to ourselves, each other, and the world? And It really just comes down to being friendly, right? Forgiving people who make mistakes and uh you know, just the little things in our neighborhood like picking up garbage and you know, helping neighbors who need help. Um, but yeah, um if you guys want to stand up and we can give you a round of applause.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 3888.325, "end": 3888.705, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 3899.845, "end": 3903.225, "text": "And thank you again for coming to join us today, okay? Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 3909.585, "end": 3913.045, "text": "Thank you. Over to Council no, Deputy Mayor Shabot, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3916.325, "end": 3930.945, "text": "Not sure how I got in the queue this quick, but that's fine. Um pretty straightforward question. Uh land value evaluation on on uh the cash in lieu. How do we determine that? Highest and best use, or what's", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 3931.965, "end": 3944.725, "text": "Uh through the chair. It is uh based off of the adjacent land uses. So it would be assessed in this case as industrial commercial combination, adjusted for servicing or other infrastructure requirements in place, and then the assessment done on that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3944.725, "end": 3947.865, "text": "essentially where the where the reserve would be taken from.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 3947.905, "end": 3957.105, "text": "Correct. And it that is done uh on the whole city. So if you are doing cash and loo in the downtown, it would be a different valuation than an industrial commercial as an example.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 3957.105, "end": 3974.125, "text": "Can we uh raise the the um uh the designation of the commercial and industrial to higher higher value? No, I'm kidding. Thanks. Appreciate the answer. That was the only question I had. But I do like to reserve the right to debate when it's moved.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 3975.745, "end": 3977.705, "text": "Over to Councillor Penizopoulos, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 3977.965, "end": 4007.365, "text": "Thanks so much for the presentation in the background and recognizing, you know, prior council's uh priorities. We just hear a lot lately, industrial, we're short space and you know, low vacancies and it's obviously an uptick in values, and just just sort of strategically uh taking away adjacent to an airport uh a few hundred meters from a runway and making it residential. Maybe just walk through that in the context of our industrial land strategy and uh how this sort of all uh comes together.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4012.125, "end": 4063.705, "text": "Through the chair to Councillor Panasopoulos. The northeast quadrant of the city does have a large inventory of vacant industrial lands currently. So we have about over 1200 hectares that are currently vacant. So we have been working with the industrial strategy team to confirm that the city will have sufficient industrial land supply after this outline plan is approved. These lands have been sitting vacant for a while. They have been designated as industrial for several years, and that investment just hasn't been there. So this we believe this plan is a good balance between still maintaining some of that industrial as well as then incorporating some residential aspects to bring some more housing to the area.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4064.765, "end": 4069.045, "text": "Uh how long of an inventory, assuming an absorption at current rates for industrial?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4070.885, "end": 4075.525, "text": "I'm not sure that's a good question. I'd have to get back to you on that. If you", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4075.525, "end": 4076.325, "text": "Could that be great? No.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4076.325, "end": 4078.645, "text": "I don't know if we have anyone from our industrial strategies.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4078.565, "end": 4079.205, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4079.225, "end": 4079.605, "text": "Oh there", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4080.885, "end": 4081.265, "text": "Morning.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 4084.025, "end": 4112.805, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Panasopoulos. Through the chair, maybe just to your first question. As part of our industrial action plan, we did a market supply study, and it did indicate that Calgary has more than sufficient industrial land. And so given the airport vicinity protection changes that happened in this area, we believe that this was an appropriate area to consider residential. But I'll ask uh Ms. Chen to address your supply question specifically.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 4113.585, "end": 4143.965, "text": "Yeah, uh thank you for the question. So uh based on the 2023 Industrial Land Inventory, the city uh has uh around 24 hectares of vacant uh land within the industrial area. So based on the projection of the next uh 50 years, the city should maintain at least 1,500 to 1900 of vacant land in industrial area. So uh after this conversion, the city still have uh sufficient industrial land supply for the future. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4144.265, "end": 4179.085, "text": "Thank you so much. I can't remember if it was IPC or a council meeting in an industrial area. We uh there was a school proposed and and council voted it down for the reasons that having schools and residences immediately adjacent or within uh industrial obviously caused concerns, sterilizing area. Uh note there's two schools, absolutely amazing, but they're you know across the street literally from the industrial. There's a multi use potential across the street from industrial. By putting uh residential so close, will it sterilize the go forward uses of the industrial area immediately to the west?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 4181.505, "end": 4184.025, "text": "I'd look to the team to address that. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4185.785, "end": 4208.605, "text": "you through the chair. So the industrial um districts that are proposed beside the school are industrial commercial. That's a bit a lot lighter and more commercial style or light industrial. So it wouldn't be more of the industrial general, which you can get into more of the medium um medium um industrial uses that we would be more concerned about.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4208.725, "end": 4215.625, "text": "What about to the north? There was sort of an MU or M1 or something proposed just adjacent to Stony.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4218.465, "end": 4247.425, "text": "Yeah, so that one is industrial general. We would just look to make sure that we maintain the proper setbacks and look at what types of uses go in. Because it is vacant and those lands aren't developed. We have a little bit more discretion when applications come in for that industrial general district and can can approve maybe more appropriate uses for sites that are adjacent to that residential.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4247.425, "end": 4264.645, "text": "So it will sterilize that from an IG, more of a higher intensity industrial. And the city, how do you feel about that? Because I'm assuming that's a little more tougher to get uh land um in existing areas. Just just h how does the city feel about that? Losing that IG, that really um higher use lands.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4266.105, "end": 4299.925, "text": "But for this application, there is that mix. So there is still quite a bit of IG. So sorry, I'll just bring up the outline plan again, and it'll be easier for us to look at it. So that can you um go to page six, please? Yeah, so the dark purple is um where all of those IG lands are. And I'd have to look at the stats, but it's that's quite a large area still of IG. And are you worried about that one dark purple site beside the", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4299.925, "end": 4301.345, "text": "Yeah. Just thinking that to the", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4301.345, "end": 4301.585, "text": "other?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4301.585, "end": 4319.485, "text": "to the west where it says stormwater management, go to the east, that purple, and then the brown, uh, I think it says MU. Um, just they're literally adjacent. So picturing a four or five six-story building next to chemical plant, and now what would be sterilized um on the IG if if we approved this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4320.725, "end": 4351.565, "text": "Yes, so some uses may be limited directly beside that MU site, but there's still a lot of uses in the IG district that could be very compatible beside a multi residential site. So we would just look when we were when we would review a development permit on what would be appropriate besides that site. But yes, we we would see this area as more of a light industrial area and not getting into those heavier uses.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4352.365, "end": 4369.045, "text": "Perfect. And just picking up on Councillor Dollywalls, uh the 32.6 uh units per ha, may you just speak about that in the context of of approvals that we've had in the last few months. You know, if this was a brand new greenfield, north, south, east, or west, how does that uh fit in?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4370.805, "end": 4433.865, "text": "Thanks for the question. So through through the chair, as I mentioned, there as as new outline plans come through, we're actually seeing higher and higher densities, actually, probably higher densities than maybe we even anticipated in the area structure plans for those areas. And I think that's just a reflection of the housing crisis and and then the demand for houses in Calgary. So we look at when we review an outline plan, we look at what amenities are available, what types of transportation networks are around future transit, all those types of things to help accommodate that population growth. We would say that this is in general alignment with other outline plans we've seen across the city for for average densities, they are getting higher.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4434.005, "end": 4443.325, "text": "If this was in a greenfield, you wouldn't be asking the applicant for additional density. You'd be saying 32.6 is is a sweet spot if it was down in one of the quadrants.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4444.565, "end": 4448.425, "text": "Yeah, and I'll I'll let uh Director Goldstein.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 4450.025, "end": 4506.085, "text": "I only came up because this council doesn't have the benefit of the conversation that happened with the last council when they directed us to do the work on this specific area. So this is a pilot project. It would be considered a new greenfield, exactly what you said, because it does not have any existing except for two small pockets of development on the site. And so for consideration, we would treat this exactly the same as any other new community that we were evaluating. And 13.6 units per acre as opposed to nostalgia in the southeast at 15.1 or what we heard for Alpine Park, you know, is very, very consistent. And so at 13.6, even with additional population density that we are seeing in the Northeast communities, it would be very consistent with the rest of the communities that we are approving in under those new communities.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 4506.765, "end": 4510.865, "text": "I really appreciate the context. Thank you so much for the answers, and uh, that's all for me. Thank you, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 4512.285, "end": 4513.885, "text": "All right, Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 4515.125, "end": 4562.885, "text": "yeah, um just a quick follow up on Councillor Yule's questions around the blue line extension. So if we could go to page eight for a second, and then we'll go back to six in a minute here. Um So this kind of shows sort of this longer term plan with the blue line wrapping north through the community and uh and then potentially across Stony Trail there. And then if we go back to six, um I just wanted to get clarification on this idea of like the the line ending and sort of stubbing in this location uh without the possibility of building for the future and making sure that we're we've got that potential future growth in in mind.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 4564.645, "end": 4595.265, "text": "through the chair. Well through the chair. It's a good question. Um, route ahead uh the 30-year plan with transit shows a station at this location and it shows a potential extension. So I misspoke earlier when I said that this would be the end of the line. It could potentially go further, and if you look at the outline plan, there is the line identified similar to what is in when the ASP going north. So there's there is the possibility to go further north, but there hasn't been any stations designed beyond this one.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 4595.425, "end": 4639.045, "text": "Right. But the the right-of-way potentially or whatever would be designed or like with the potential in mind that um that blue line could be extended or or would we be just like if we are starting to build this out, thinking about the yeah, the right-of-ways and the uh roadways and and such through the area, uh how much how much do we build in the idea of the uh the train line coming in? So we have this idea that there would be a stop here. Would how would we approach, I guess, south of that station and the potential connection to the existing blue line, and then uh preparations for north of that station for anything in the future?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 4640.465, "end": 4663.525, "text": "Through the chair, the outline plan has the line going northwards, which is also identified within route ahead. It is identified as as mode to be determined in the future, so there is the possibility for LRT to be extended. To the west, likely there would be a road connection for transit. Whether that's BRT, it's to be determined still.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 4663.745, "end": 4669.345, "text": "Okay. Yeah, but those allocations would be made as a part of the development as it goes forward. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 4669.745, "end": 4673.885, "text": "Correct. That is within the within the outline plan as you've been been reviewing.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 4674.165, "end": 4675.565, "text": "Great. Thank you. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 4678.265, "end": 4702.905, "text": "Councillor Kelly, please. Thank you. I actually wanna pick up right there where Councillor Atkinson was just talking about the LRT. Um, the original ASP for for here had this entirely industrial, correct? And we plan to have an LRT station there. I was just wondering if you could square that for me what the what the thinking was there by placing an LRT station in the middle of an a full industrial park.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 4707.025, "end": 4726.205, "text": "Through the chair, the LRT was to extend to employment areas in this area to support to support the LRT, but also provide connections to residential areas further to the east and south. So it was a long-term plan to connect employment to the LRT versus residential initially, from what I recall.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 4726.965, "end": 4760.285, "text": "And so I guess my question here is really about supporting the development in the in in the area. So uh love the fact we're able to squeeze in some more residential here. I think that makes a ton of sense to me. But uh do we have the ability to support this LRT station with the industrial to the west? I uh when we say employment intensive, like I mean we're not at zoning right now, but uh like if this is sort of the industrial parks that we sort of normally see, I do we have enough ridership to warrant this LRT station to support this station?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 4762.705, "end": 4791.065, "text": "Through the chair, I think it'd be premature to answer that question as we don't actually have funding for any of the LRT to this point. The mix of uses do support LRT in the long term future, but there is no funding for the blue line beyond design to 88th or 88th. So this is this is a long term project, but um the mix of uses would um support the future uh ridership that would be needed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 4791.545, "end": 4855.965, "text": "I I appreciate that. And with respect, I'm more worried about us getting money to build an LRT that doesn't that isn't going to have support of ridership. We almost need to send an LRT to a place where we know that there's going to be people, i.e. Green Line North, looking to be able to get the line up there where we know that we have the ridership. Whereas in here, with it being half in half industrial, um I'm a little bit worried about that. I'll just sort of say that here. Maybe I'll I'll ask the question one other way in terms here, just in terms of uh self-sufficiency of the area as a whole, sort of pick uh picking up on uh Commissioner Harleck's comments that were submitted uh that were uh circulated to us. Uh how long do we anticipate it'll take from like to get to full at fill full build out, will this area be able to be self sufficient just because this is a little bit of an interesting mix for us uh in terms of including uh uh LRT in a station with residential and industrial. I just want to make sure that we're going to uh uh it'll be able to pay for itself eventually operating.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4857.565, "end": 4955.305, "text": "Yeah, through the chair to Councillor Kelly. I can't speak to specifics about Paying for itself, but typically industrial and commercial land through the non-residential tax base does pay for itself. But this combination of uses, so we have an LRT station here. We have other LRT stops in the city that go to commercial or employment areas. 39th Street station on the red line is one of them. Chinook station is another one. You see more residential trying to come around the Chinook station, but 39th is purely an industrial station at this point. Whereas the benefit of this station is it has some of that employment features as well as the residential and the high density on the other side of it. So it kind of maybe has the best of both worlds in that some people can get to work or the high density residential can use it as as well. Um this is this is what we have to w work with. The industrial the purely industrial area of this plan. Wasn't working before. We had a lot of vacant land. So this is a way to get development in this area. While the NEF contours are still limiting how much industrial or how much residential we put in, we can only put in so much residential in that northeast corner, and the rest has to be employment lands. So we feel this is a good balance between the two.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 4956.725, "end": 5024.125, "text": "Councillor Kelly, if I may add. This may feel like we're in a bit of a different spot related to new community growth. Council has certainly seen growth applications in other areas. The reason you don't have a growth application here is by policy under our new community guidebook. This area is located within the growth boundary, and so it's not subject to a growth application. So while it's still a greenfield site, we haven't done a full growth application analysis. What I can tell you though is the team does estimate that under our current operating cost model, this area would likely yield a positive result. based on the current costs that we account for, the densities that are planned here, and the remaining um industrial revenue potential um at the in the in the uh top left corner there. So we do think this is a positive uh If it were to go through a growth application, we do believe it would return a positive operating cost model. There's quite a bit of capital infrastructure required here as well.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 5024.905, "end": 5026.805, "text": "More confident in that, I guess.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5027.205, "end": 5032.965, "text": "We haven't run the full model, but our best estimates are that this would yield a positive result.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 5033.205, "end": 5035.545, "text": "Should we be waiting until we run that full model?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5035.965, "end": 5042.905, "text": "It is not required under our policy to do a growth application in this area, so we're already at this stage of the process.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 5043.405, "end": 5096.645, "text": "What one of the things I do love about this is that we're actually planning a neighborhood with an LRT. That is fantastic. We should be doing more of that. Where I struggle a little bit here is the fact that we're also planning with the industrial. And to to the point from earlier, I don't think any of us would make an argument that if 39th Avenue existed somewhere else in the city, we'd be building an LRT to it. It it kind of was a cheap station that we could put in on our way to better things. And I don't think we're making the argument here that we're expecting this industrial land to have the same employment as Schinook Center. Correct me if I'm wrong on either of those two things. Um I'm happy to approve this, but I just wanted to make sure that from an administration standpoint that as as you said that this we think we have the best of both worlds. I want to make sure that we don't have the worst of both worlds. Any comments or thoughts there?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5099.725, "end": 5108.345, "text": "From a new community growth application, I have no concerns. I think the team has done a really great job in assessing the plan that's before you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 5108.885, "end": 5109.645, "text": "Okay, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 5110.625, "end": 5124.805, "text": "And I would just add to that that part of that is the densities that you've seen there help support that transit. So I would say that the density is important to have around that area to support it.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5127.685, "end": 5130.705, "text": "Alright, over to Councillor Dallywell to start us off.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 5131.865, "end": 5226.865, "text": "Thank you. Yeah, I want to start by saying thank you to the applicant. Thank you to administration. It was a long journey. But we have a really nice outline plan in front of us. I was just going through some of the sites that are gonna have RFPs. They are the sites exactly what I wanted to see. And it's it's it's actually when I was asking complete community, that's exactly what I was getting at. Work industrial, live, residential, commercial, retail, work, play, and shop. That's a complete community to me, walking distance. So kudos to to to uh Applicant coming forward about two years ago with the proposal. Because again, these industrial lands are the dumping grounds of illegal dumping in my vote. You go there, all you see is illegal dumping. Infrastructure is already in place, we're not putting in any extra penny, and it was a sunk cost, in my opinion. It was gonna if it was gonna sit there. What this do is it revitalizes the the area, it's gonna bring people to live there, it's gonna make best use of the infrastructure. And I'm so happy that uh that we are moving forward with that, with this. And uh I will be working with the applicant in next uh hopefully few months to see what amenities we can bring to support the density there. Let's build a community that you guys, I'm pretty sure, want to leave a legacy behind too. Uh so with that I urge my council colleagues to approve it. And like uh Director Goldstein said, this is a pilot, and hopefully, we can get some learnings from it and apply it to the rest of the city so we can start building communities that are more uh uh more complete communities. With that, I'm open.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5228.145, "end": 5232.465, "text": "All right, that's been moved. Uh seconded by Deputy Mayor Shabot and over to you, Councillor Shabot, to speak.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 5233.445, "end": 5296.485, "text": "Yeah, no, I'm also going to support this application. I want to thank the applicant for uh for being very creative in in response to the amendments to the uh AVPA regulations, the noise exposure exposure forecast uh um contours that have been amended by the province, which allowed residential to go into this area. Not just here, but other places as well in the northwest that we've also seen some transitions to have more residential. And of course, I I applaud the fact that they are reaching higher with regards to densities to make them more sustainable. Um course the other uses are not as affected by uh by air air traffic, and so I think it's very um uh very innovative design that you've come up with, and it's uh I I think it's gonna be uh great community. Um Uh and obviously because of the densities and and the industrial commercial uh elements, I I truly believe it's gonna be self-sustaining. So thank you. Good job. Bring us some more of this. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 5299.845, "end": 5344.205, "text": "Councillor Kelly. Yeah, I kind of dove in a little bit in debates in the end of my questions there, so I figured I'd jump in here to make it official. Yeah, building a new neighborhood with an LRT stop in it, like you're blowing my mind. Absolutely. Like these are the kinds of things I'd love to see a lot more of where we're doing this and the density being planned to be able to support that. I assume it's going to be supported by BRT to start with, a max line, and then eventually build out the the the blue line here. Like I said, a little bit concerned as it relates to uh how we might be able to build up the industrial and commercial areas in order to be able to fully support that level of infrastructure investment, but uh willing to try it here. Um thank you. Appreciate it. Happy to support.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5344.965, "end": 5345.825, "text": "Councillor Yule, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_47", "start": 5346.385, "end": 5409.985, "text": "Well, I I feel like I was goaded into this this debate when we say planning a community for LRT. I I turned 40 years old this this week, and uh in my area, Ward 3 has been planned my entire life for LRT to come. And so I I I'm a little I'm disappointed. I I I don't think I can support this. It's um We we gotta have a better plan for that blue line. I think we have an indust like I I do think we need LRT industri in industrial areas, and there is more industrial area across Deerfoot. And I think we're going the wrong way with this blue line. I think if if we are gonna if like my my expectation is this end of line of blue line I'm gonna see before I ever see the green line. And so if we can actually revisit where we're taking that blue line, I think it could go along 144th Avenue, uh the BRT um extension that we're working on right now. I think we really need to revisit that. So I'm I I can't support this uh this application at this time.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5415.185, "end": 5417.165, "text": "Alright, over to Councillor Dalwell to close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 5417.385, "end": 5493.145, "text": "Yeah, no, thank you. I'll keep it brief. This is land use. If we want to change the how blue line is gonna run, that's that is route ahead strategy. Let's work on that. Let's bring an amendment to that. Land use got nothing to do with it. Um so route ahead strategy, let's work on it. And I agree with you. Uh, if you want to take blue line, we want to take it across along 128 or 144. Let's not penalize the land use just because it's shown there. And I don't know how like how far like to your green line. I don't think in my lifetime I'm gonna see this going there to be realistic unless miracles happen. But with that, I just want to say this is a complete community. I just love it. This is the very first community that uh is kind of coming in my career as a Councillor, we're as a community which will be approving moving forward. Other communities I inherited. So thank you to applicant administration for doing such an amazing job. And hopefully, this pilot will be successful and we can move on and use this for the rest of the city. Colleagues, let's support it and let's move to the next item. Thank you so much. And clerks, just a clarification there will be a motion arising that will be after the third, uh, after the approval or the second, uh, first uh I I'll leave it to you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 5493.625, "end": 5503.525, "text": "E motion arising is appropriate to be placed following all the readings of the bylaw. So there's three bylaws here. After the third bylaw has received all the readings, that would be appropriate to make it then.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 5503.905, "end": 5516.145, "text": "Thank you. And uh uh uh chair, I just giving you a heads up. And the motion arising is maybe I'm just bringing it today, maybe well after Calgary plan, we may not need it. But I just want to put a mechanism in place. So with that, please support it. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5518.905, "end": 5525.125, "text": "Alrighty, Madam Clerk, let's uh engage the vote, please, on the recommendations for the three readings for the three bylaws.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 5541.745, "end": 5545.165, "text": "Councillor Tyres, your vote please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5546.065, "end": 5546.385, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 5548.865, "end": 5550.125, "text": "Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5551.145, "end": 5579.025, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried, 14 to 1, with Councillor Yule opposed. Alright, now I will move to the three readings of three different bylaws. And with some luck, I will do this properly. Not luck, preparation, and support from our amazing clerks team.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 5579.205, "end": 5579.525, "text": "All right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5580.045, "end": 5672.525, "text": "First reading of bylaw 15P 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 15 p 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 15P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 15 p 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. First reading of bylaw 16P 2026, anyone opposed, Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 16P 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed and that is carried. Authorization for bylaw 16P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 16P 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. First reading of bylaw 64 D 2026, anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 64 D 2026, anyone opposed? Councillor Yule is opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 64 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 64 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Yule is opposed, and that is carried. Alright, over to you, uh Councillor Dollarwell for a motion arise.", "segments_merged": 19 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 5672.525, "end": 5702.605, "text": "Yeah, just this is very straightforward. It's emotional rising kind of saying let's put a cap in the ESP on the density and bring it back to public hearing for July 21. Again, this is just a temporary thing. I'm pretty sure when our Calgary plan comes in, we may not need this one. It's just to make sure what if there's any land uses coming, we put a holistic uh uh review of those land uses to make sure that uh they're supported uh by proper infrastructure. With that, uh yeah, colleagues please support it. Uh it's just a more of a safeguard.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5703.925, "end": 5709.665, "text": "Alright, uh that's on the table. Is there a seconder? Second by Councillor Clark. Over to Councillor Chabot to speak.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 5711.705, "end": 5733.845, "text": "Yeah, I'm not gonna support this. I'm gonna encourage council not to support it as well. We should not be looking at capping the maximum density. We should be encouraging more density. We want to talk about building a sustainable city. The higher our density that we can we can develop, the more sustainable we'll be as a city. That's it. That's all I have to say to that.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5735.245, "end": 5736.465, "text": "Alright, Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 5739.825, "end": 5756.685, "text": "Uh just a question maybe for administration thoughts or concerns about uh This sort of cap in the ability then of us to sort of execute on the plan as proposed and what we just approved.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 5757.525, "end": 5829.805, "text": "Hi, Council. As I was speaking about earlier on, when we were having questions of administration, the density as proposed of 13 units per acre is completely consistent with our new communities across Calgary, all of Calgary. I would say it's actually lower than some. The community of Mahogany is much higher, 19, I believe it's 19.1. I said Alpine Park. I also spoke about nostalgia. And so we would not be in support of a density cap here. Also to note the guidance for density would come from the area structure plan. So, irregardless of what the Calgary Plan says, we would be required to bring forward a rescindment of this if. Council no longer wanted to use that. So if this if a density cap goes into an area structure plan when reviewing applications, we are required to take that. And if there is inconsistencies between plans, we either have to rectify those or based on plan hierarchy, we have to determine what is the more appropriate policy. And so we are not in support of that. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 5830.325, "end": 5868.945, "text": "Okay, great. Um yeah, I'll just I guess debate. I I worry, yeah, train station going through uh I think density around train stations and also a bit of a concern around if we've made the transition from industrial to residential, and we're hoping to sort of make back some of the tax productivity in the area. Um and I I don't like the idea of having things coming back to council to potentially rescind down the road. I think leaving the flexibility and then doing the Calgary plan pieces properly to then get to this result. So let's work on that process instead. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5870.725, "end": 5872.045, "text": "Over to Councillor Clark, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 5872.445, "end": 5888.225, "text": "Yeah, thank you. Uh pleased to second it um to bring it to uh debate and to the conversation, but I have to agree with my colleagues who've spoken uh to this already. I won't be supporting this either, but uh felt it prudent to share that as I was second. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5891.445, "end": 5893.045, "text": "Alright, over to Councillor Dallywell close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 5893.685, "end": 5962.305, "text": "Thank you. Um it's interesting. That a comment was made, let's keep our city more sustainable through density, and yet we repeal the blanket zoning. Isn't that an irony? That was the density that was also needed to keep the sustainability of the city. So pick and choose is always so nice. And secondly, I urge some of the counselors to come see my vote once in a while, please, to see what density looked like. It's people, it's people per unit, not the unit per uh hectare. So, with that, if you don't want to support it, uh no problems, but I just wanted to let my residents know that density is a problem when it's people, and we don't have a mechanism in place right now to make sure that we are building the right communities with proper density. And this was just a mechanism as a ward Councillor who deal with my residents every day to make sure that we put a cap. And even then, 36.2 is wrong. It's actually giving bigger cap, it should be 32.6 units per hectare. So, with that, if uh you don't want to support it, no problem. Go ahead and vote against it. Thank you. With that, I'm closed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5963.285, "end": 5966.845, "text": "Alright, Madam Clerk, let's uh please engage the vote on the motion arising.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 5981.505, "end": 5984.145, "text": "Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 5985.165, "end": 6007.165, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. Oh no, my teams has crashed. Alright, that motion is uh carried, or rather, motion has been defeated three to twelve with only counselors uh Johnston, Daliwell, and myself in favor.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 6007.265, "end": 6011.525, "text": "All right, let's uh move over to item the next uh item on our agenda.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6013.925, "end": 6196.365, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item is a proposed land use amendment to support low density residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 52D 2026 for the redesignation of the subject site from residential low density mixed housing RG district to direct control DC district with guidelines. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northeast community of Cityscape, on the northeast corner of the intersection of Metis Trail Northeast and Airport Trail Northeast. Surrounding lands are comprised of developing low density residential areas. The subject area shown in pink is the outline plan area that was approved by Calgary Planning Commission. The actual land use amendment area is a smaller piece of land within this area. Next slide, please. This slide shows the land use amendment area, which is approximately 0.36 hectares in size and is currently undeveloped. The existing land use for the subject site is the residential low density mixed housing RG district, which is intended for a range of low density residential development, including single detached, semi detached dwellings, and row house buildings, along with secondary suites and backyard suites. The maximum building height in this district is 12 meters. Next slide, please. The proposed direct control district is based on the residential low density mixed housing RGM district, which accommodates the same uses and rules as the RG district, but is not intended for single detached dwellings. The DC district modifies the rules of the RGM district to accommodate semi-detached and row house development on shallow lots served by rear lanes with a reduced rear yard setback, reduced parcel area, increased parcel coverage, increased building height to 13 meters, and to allow for live work units. The proposed DC would generally match the existing DC District 260 D2019 to the north and east of the subject site, allowing a contiguous block pattern and built form in this area. Next slide, please. This image shows the approved outline plan and the area of the land use amendment within the orange block. The DC district area will match and integrate with surrounding uses and is well served by a rear lane and collector road and a future multi-use pathway and bus stops. Next slide, please. The Northeast Community A area structure plan identifies the plan area as predominantly residential area, which supports low to medium density housing and encourages innovative housing forms to enhance housing variety. The proposal is in alignment with the policies of the ASP. Next page, please. In closing, this application provides for an innovative housing form, and Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mary Farkas.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6197.505, "end": 6201.485, "text": "Thank you. We'll open the public hearing for this item. Do we have uh Jack Mul with us?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 6214.385, "end": 6227.545, "text": "Good morning, Mayor and members of council. My name's Jack Model with BNA. We are the applicant speaking in favor of this application. With me is Joel of Matime, and we are uh here to answer any questions you may have.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6228.525, "end": 6248.165, "text": "All right. Any questions, colleagues? Seeing none, I think you're off the hook. Alright, uh, we'll continue our public hearing. Anyone else here to speak to this item? Going once, twice, last call. All right, the uh public hearing is closed. Uh could I go to you, Councillor Dallywell? Whooped. Okay.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 6248.165, "end": 6249.385, "text": "Simple. Straightforward.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6248.705, "end": 6256.125, "text": "All right, it's been moved by Councillor Dallywell, seconded by Councillor Shabot. Any questions or debate? Uh Councillor Kelly?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 6258.105, "end": 6275.945, "text": "Yeah, uh just DC. I always yeah, want to get on the DC. Uh my question is just uh uh because obviously we're talking about the innovative housing forum here with the um is there any plan within the update to the zoning bylaw to Create a housing type that this would fit into instead of it being direct control.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 6277.465, "end": 6296.585, "text": "I I would I'll take that Councillor and suggest that the answer is yes. A future where we do not need council to approve direct controls for what nowadays would not be considered as innovative as it might have once been uh is a future we all are looking looking towards. So but for now it does require a DC.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 6297.485, "end": 6301.585, "text": "Perfect. I'll pay attention to it when we get to that point in uh a little over a year from now. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6303.905, "end": 6305.705, "text": "All right, over to Councillor Daliwa close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 6306.385, "end": 6306.785, "text": "Close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6307.805, "end": 6311.265, "text": "All right, Madam Clerk, let's uh engage the vote, please, on the recommendations.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 6324.845, "end": 6336.885, "text": "Councillor Pantozopoulos. Absent. Councillor Tyres. Absent. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6337.625, "end": 6394.865, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 13 to 0. We'll now move to the readings. I believe uh Councillor Tyres and Penazopoulos were absent for the vote to initiate the readings, however, they were present for the public hearing. So we will now go into the uh readings of the bylaw. So first reading of bylaw 52D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 52D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 52 D. 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 52D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move to 7.2.3 land use amendment in West Winds Ward 5.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6396.205, "end": 6561.765, "text": "Thank you. The next item is a proposed land use amendment to support commercial development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 51D 2026 for the redesignation of the subject site from commercial regional 1 district to commercial commercial regional 3 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northeast community of West Winds, which is east of Metis Trail and south of 64th Avenue Northeast. The majority of the subject site is within the 600 meter radius of the McKnight West Winds LRT station. Next slide, please. The subject site is approximately 8.4 hectares and is currently developed with commercial uses, specifically a real Canadian superstore, grocery store, liquor store, and gas station. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses consist of low-density residential uses to the north and east and commercial and industrial uses to the south. The existing land use for the subject site is the Commercial Regional 1, CR1 district, which is intended for large big box single use buildings and requires every parcel to have one building, 3,600 square meters or more in gross floor area, and a maximum of three buildings per parcel. The maximum building height is 15 meters, and the maximum floor area modifier for the site is 0.2. Next slide, please. The proposed land use is the Commercial Regional 3, CR3 district, which is intended to be characterized by comprehensively planned development with multiple buildings on multiple parcels and the opportunity for a variety of building sizes and use areas. The modifiers for the subject site include an FAR of 0.25 and a maximum building height of 18 meters. The proposed application would allow for a broader range of commercial, retail, and personal services offered to the community and provide an additional 45,000 square feet or 4,200 square meters of commercial area on the site. In closing, this application allows for additional and smaller commercial services on the site, enhancing the services provided to the surrounding area. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6562.685, "end": 6567.625, "text": "Thank you. We'll open the public hearing. We have Grant Melshon. Register.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_50", "start": 6576.705, "end": 6585.305, "text": "Your worship and members of council, my name is Grant Mahalsham with me in A Studios, and I'm here in support of the application and to answer any questions you may have.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6586.205, "end": 6589.185, "text": "I think you have uh a bite from Councillor Dollarwell.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 6589.705, "end": 6601.685, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Just briefly, um, we're this is again uh just uh uh cleaning up uh the land use. Uh grant, uh we talked about it. The east development will not go to 18 meters, right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_50", "start": 6602.145, "end": 6607.985, "text": "That's correct. The um the the height is identified to accommodate the existing.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 6607.985, "end": 6614.545, "text": "Yeah, we're sorry. Okay, great. Thank you. That's it. Please keep us in the loop on the DP. I really want to see how this thing works out. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_50", "start": 6614.765, "end": 6615.045, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6616.085, "end": 6631.345, "text": "Okay. Anyone else for the applicant? Seeing none, I think you're off the hook. Anyone else wishing to speak as part of the public hearing? Going once, going twice. Alright, the public hearing is closed. Over to you, Councillor Dollarwell, please.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 6631.845, "end": 6644.505, "text": "Again, simple. Like I said, just cleaning up uh land use and straightforward. Please support it. Uh and I urge uh request applicant to keep us in the loop on the DP to see how this thing works out with that. Colleagues, please support it. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6644.885, "end": 6651.385, "text": "Alright, that's been seconded by Deputy Mayor Chabot. Any further debate? Seeing none, back to you, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 6651.925, "end": 6652.305, "text": "Close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6652.845, "end": 6655.725, "text": "Alright, Madam Clerk, let's engage the vote, please, on the recommendation.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 6671.385, "end": 6677.845, "text": "Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Atkinson, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 6677.845, "end": 6678.205, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 6678.345, "end": 6680.625, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6681.005, "end": 6723.785, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously, 15 to 0. Move now to the readings of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. 7.2.4 was postponed, which brings us to 7.2.5 land use amendment in BAV Trail Ward 7.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6728.745, "end": 6957.725, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item is a proposed land use amendment to support multi residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 63D 2026 for the redesignation of the subject site from multi residential, high density, low rise MH1 district to a direct control district with guidelines. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northwest community of Banff Trail at the corner of 24th Avenue Northwest and 23rd Street Northwest and just east of Crowchild Trail. The site is in close proximity to the University of Calgary, Foothills Athletic Park, and McMahon Stadium, which are identified as major activity centers in the municipal development plan. The site is also about 400 meters or a seven minute walk from the Banff Trail LRT station. Next slide, please. The subject site is a corner lot that is approximately 0.11 hectares in size and is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and rear detached garage. Rear lane access is available from 24th Avenue. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses consist of low density residential in the form of single and semi-detached dwellings, as well as institutional uses across 24th Avenue, and a direct control district across 23rd Street, which is envisioned for a mixed-use development with a maximum floor area ratio of 3.9 and a maximum height of 23 meters. The existing land use for the subject site is the MH1 district, which is intended to provide multi residential development in a variety of forms, with specific modifiers of a floor area ratio of 3.6 and a maximum building height of 20 meters, and a maximum density of 280 units per hectare, which would equate to 30 dwelling units for this site. Next slide, please. The proposed land use is for a direct control district based on the multi-residential high density medium rise MH2 district. The direct control district uses the rules of the MH2 district with a maximum floor area ratio of 5 and no maximum density. However, the DC district provides the following changes: a maximum building height of 26 meters, and it establishes site specific rules for setbacks adjacent to a street, rear lane, and low density residential uses due to the irregular shape of the lot. It also excludes the specific uses of secondary suite, backyard suite, duplex dwelling, semi detached dwelling, and single detached dwelling. Next slide, please. The subject site is within the Neighborhood Connector Urban Form category of the South Shaganapi Community's Local Area Plan, which provides for a broad range of housing types along higher activity streets and may accommodate small-scale commercial uses. The LAP also identifies the site building scale as mid up to 12 stories and includes forms such as apartments, offices, and mixed-use buildings. Next slide, please. The subject site is also within the Banff Trail LRT's core zone, where pedestrian activity and building scale are envisioned to be the highest. Core zones are intended to support transit infrastructure and promote a walkable and well connected neighborhood. Next slide, please. In closing, this application provides for high density residential development near an LRT station and major activity center. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6958.285, "end": 6962.865, "text": "Thank you so much. We will open up the public hearing. Do we have Colin Hitka with us?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 6972.545, "end": 6986.185, "text": "Good afternoon, Mayor. My name is Brian Horton. I'm here with Colinetka and uh Brogan from Moda. We're the applicant team. Uh, we'll be making a quick presentation and uh then we'll be available to answer any questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 6986.645, "end": 6987.245, "text": "Take us away.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 6987.845, "end": 7127.225, "text": "Heike, if you could advance to the next slide, please. So, as described by administration, this site is um fantastically located for intensification, uh located uh just steps away from the BAF Trail LRT station on the 24th Avenue corridor, close to many amenities such as the University of Calgary, um, lots of local parks around it, and well connected uh to the rest of the city. Next slide, please. Development vision for this site is to build a six-story multi-residential building that really fits within the site context and adds housing to this important corridor. Next slide, please. The local area plan is envisioned to create a mixed-use corridor along 24th Avenue. This site is actually designated for up to 12 stories in the local area plan in the mid-building scale and under the Neighborhood Connector Land Use District. Next slide, please. As mentioned, the proposed land use is a direct control based on the MH2. As you can see, this site has a very irregular shape. It has uh it is a well it's kind of a wedge shape site. And so for able to be able to develop an efficiently designed multifamily building, uh what we were what we did is we adjusted some of the MH2 uh rules so that specifically to setbacks, to stepbacks, um, that a that a building that would fit within this site could be developed. Um and so it was really important to be able to develop something that was under the MH2 with these rules. Uh thank you. Next slide, please. Uh for engagement, we um We had a comprehensive engagement strategy. There was on-site signage. We had postcards to the immediate neighbors. We held a public open house and we also met with the community association. Next slide, please. So in summary, we ask for your support for this application. We believe that it provides a diversity of housing, it is transit oriented, it is on the 5A network, and it also aligns with the LAP. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7127.305, "end": 7128.825, "text": "Thank you, uh Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 7130.825, "end": 7149.745, "text": "Um yeah, the you you mentioned setbacks, stepbacks, uh as a part of why you're going for sort of the the changes. So if you can I was trying to wrap my head around the numbers and whatever between sort of the districts, uh MH2, like not using just the standard um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 7149.745, "end": 7205.325, "text": "Yeah, thanks for that question. I'll start and maybe Brogan can add. MH2 specifically requires a step back at 10 meters. And maybe if we could go back to one of the development vision slides, that's the second slide, please. This one. Yeah, so here's the building as designed. And I will mention that a development permit has been submitted by MODA and is in the circulation process. It is ready to be approved once land use is has been approved. As you can see, this building provides articulation, provides a variety of building materials. Because of the tight nature of this site, if we used MH2, we would require a three meter step back at 10 meters, which would effectively shrink the floor plate, and that would be on three sides. So it would effectively shrink the floor plate so much that it would make the building inefficient and probably unbuildable. But maybe I'll let Brogan expand.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 7206.085, "end": 7234.165, "text": "Yeah, I think you uh addressed that fairly well, but especially with like the wedge shape, like if we're stepping back on like all of the sides when we go up, um, it just it starts to make it very challenging to provide like the density that we're looking for, um, to give that mix of like two and one bedroom units. Um we kind of we worked like with the city to kind of establish which setbacks could maybe be a revised uh with like the a DC.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 7235.205, "end": 7262.545, "text": "So, yeah, the LAP in this area potentially allows for up to 12 stories. My sort of read, and just to sort of run this by, is basically you took what could be a tall, skinny building, squashed it down a little bit, and and you're looking for that sort of pushing out to the 24th Avenue and sort of those step setbacks so that we're not going as high. Is that a right read on why you would be doing that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 7262.585, "end": 7270.605, "text": "Yeah, exactly. I think like a twelve story building, even if it was like skinnier, would be quite a change for this site, even if it isn't the LAP.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 7270.845, "end": 7274.305, "text": "Right. Okay. Yeah, that's great. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7275.025, "end": 7292.645, "text": "Anyone else for the applicant? All right. Seeing none, uh, we'll continue the public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak to this? Going once, going twice. All right, our public hearing is closed. Over to Councillor McLean, please.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 7293.205, "end": 7308.285, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. I wasn't going to ask any questions today, but I question for administration. This intersection, was is there not a proposed interchange? I thought I've seen that on our tenure capital plan. That might uh maybe enlighten me.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 7308.685, "end": 7318.525, "text": "Through the chair, there is a future interchange planned at uh 24th in Crochild um that was uh an initial design was done with the Crochild Trail Study a few years ago.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 7319.225, "end": 7342.765, "text": "Yeah, which take up a lot of rooms. I know I'm talking all the time about interchanges. There's one in fiftieth and McLeod. We've owned the land around it forever and and there's a lot of things that could go in there, but I'm told that we can't do anything because of future plans ten, twenty years down the road. So how does this work then? If they acquire this property and develop it, is there going to be room for a future interchange or again, I just this seems a little bit that they don't work together.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 7343.585, "end": 7352.305, "text": "Uh through the chair, um this site is unaffected by the design. um the current property lines on the north side would uh align with the future interchange.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 7353.345, "end": 7359.025, "text": "Perfect. I was thinking that was going to be the answer that you guys had thought that out, but I just wanted some clarification. So thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7362.645, "end": 7364.865, "text": "All right, can I go over to you, Councillor Atkinson?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 7366.445, "end": 7446.265, "text": "Yeah, uh happy to move. Thanks for that question. It was good, good, good thought on the interchange. And I think my understanding is that yeah, it's more on the north side where it impacts and we've got Capitol Hill Crescent. It's not super clear because we've got the train and whatever going in there, but it's uh it's got a little bit of a buffer. Um I think the six-story instead of the 12, which is allowed within the ALAP, this is will really be kind of the first, one of the first buildings that will be built sort of up in this area. So I think actually as like a as a move towards the densification around Banff Trail train station, uh, this is a good step. It's right on 24th Avenue, which is sort of the main um main throughfare uh between the north and south sides of Banff Trail. Um, and uh appreciate that the applicant is actually already going through with the DP, and so there's a little bit of clarity uh on what is to to potentially be coming into this site. So happy to support uh you know, landing this and uh and having the setbacks, I think, actually might even help with some of the issues of uh of sort of speeding um that we're having around 24th Avenue and just match a lot of what we're seeing further down the block uh with this coming in. So happy to support.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7446.745, "end": 7449.745, "text": "Alright, it's been moved by Councillor Atkinson. Seconded by", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 7452.525, "end": 7453.225, "text": "Councillor McLean.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7453.605, "end": 7460.685, "text": "Alright, uh any further debate? Seeing none, uh, let's engage the evote.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 7504.965, "end": 7506.105, "text": "Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7506.845, "end": 7521.805, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously. 15 to 0. I'll now move to the readings. First reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Or sorry, uh Madam Clerk.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 7522.445, "end": 7527.065, "text": "Apologies for interruption. Just want to confirm not proceeding. Okay, so sorry about that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7527.185, "end": 7527.305, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 7527.305, "end": 7530.405, "text": "There was a potential amendment. Wanted to make sure we weren't going to miss it. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7530.665, "end": 7569.185, "text": "Sounds good. We'll uh move to the readings now. First reading of bylaw 63D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Let's move on to item 7.2.6. Line use amendment in L Hearst. Forward seven.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 7569.905, "end": 7818.565, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item and the last one that I will be presenting today is a proposed land use amendment to support high density multi residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 46D 2026 for the redesignation of eight parcels from direct control DC district to multi-residential high-density high-rise MH3 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northwest community of Hillhurst, immediately south of Riley Park and west of 10th Street Northwest, which is identified as a neighborhood Main Street in the Municipal Development Plan. The site is in proximity to St. Polytechnic and the Southern Jubilee Auditorium, which are identified as a community activity center in the Municipal Development Plan. The site is also about 400 meters or a seven minute walk from the Hillhurst Sunnyside LRT station. Next slide, please. The subject site consists of eight properties and 0.31 hectares, forming one block between 11 and 11A Street Northwest on the north side of Fifth Avenue Northwest. There is an existing lane located between the subject block and Riley Park to the north. There's also a bus stop immediately adjacent to the site along Fifth Avenue, as well as an on street bike lane that is part of the Always Available for All Ages and Abilities 5A network. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses consist of multi-residential development along the north side of Fifth Avenue and along 10th Street, and lower density residential uses in the form of single detached dwellings located south of 5th Avenue. A direct control district directly west of the subject site, 52D 2011, provides for multi-residential development based on the multi-residential high density low rise or MH1 district with a maximum floor error ratio of 4 and a maximum building height of 20 meters. The subject site and the block to the east are currently designated a direct control district, 34D 2016, which is also based on the MH1 district with a maximum floor error ratio of 4 and a maximum building height of 26 meters. Next slide, please. The proposed land use is the multi-residential high density high-rise MH3 district, which provides for multi-residential development with high intensity and is located on strategic parcels, including landmark locations and transit and transportation corridors and nodes. The modifiers applied to the site include a maximum floor area ratio of six and a maximum building height of 40 meters, or approximately 12 stories. Next slide, please. The subject site is within the Neighborhood Connector urban form category of the Riley Community's local area plan, which provides for a broad range of housing types along higher-activity streets and may accommodate small-scale commercial uses. Next slide, please. The LAP identifies the site's building scale as mid up to 12 stories, which includes forms such as apartments, offices, and mixed-use buildings. The subject site is also within the Hillhurst Sunnyside LRT's transition zone. While the transition zone is less intense than the core zone, the entire transit station area is envisioned to continue developing as a mixed use neighborhood with densities that support the transit infrastructure and promote a highly walkable, well connected neighborhood. Next slide, please. In closing, this application provides for high-density residential development, near a neighborhood Main Street, an LRT station, and a significant open space amenity, and is in alignment with the local area plan. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Fargas.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 7819.565, "end": 7823.125, "text": "Thank you. Let's open up the public hearing. Do we have the applicant with us?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7833.345, "end": 8091.385, "text": "Good morning, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Jennifer Daubin with Daubin Consulting, and I'm the applicant on the file. I also have some of the owner group here willing to answer questions. I have a brief presentation. The rendering shows here it reflects the design direction for the Harriet on Riley Park, developed through extensive engagement, technical review, and urban design refinement over the past year. I've had the pleasure of working with DAS Architecture on this project and I wanted to note their thoughtful and responsive work on this project. The presentation is brief, but I have a lot of their materials here if council would like to see things or have questions. Next slide, please. This application implements the Riley Community's Local Area Plan and reflects the growth direction established by Council. The LAP anticipates higher density development along the Fifth Avenue corridor with building heights of up to 12 stories as shown on map four. While MH3 is the highest standard multi-residential district in the land use bylaw, it is intended for locations with strong transit access, significant amenities, and excellent walkability. These characteristics are all present at this site adjacent to Riley Park and the Sunnyside LRT. This is the type of inner city location where the city's policy framework anticipates significant residential growth, and this is a location where many people want to live and work. Next slide, please. The proposed floor area ratio has been discussed in several public submissions and the community association letter, and I'd just like to briefly note how it relates to the local area plan. I note that the LAP does not prescribe a specific FAR for this site. Instead, it regulates development through urban form, building scale, setbacks, stepbacks, and building and public realm interface. The proposed FAR of six is a reflection of the building form and massing strategy, which has been shaped through engagement and UDRP review. The proposed form supports affordable housing units, live work units, public realm, and off site infrastructure improvements. Next slide, please. Significant engagement has been conducted over the past year. The project has evolved significantly, responding with revisions to massing, servicing, circulation, shadowing, and public realm. Importantly, the project remains subject to further refinement and controls through the development permit process, including urban design review panel review. Next slide, please. This slide summarizes the main feedback items and developers' responses in the what we heard and what we did engagement framework, and the engagement report is included in your materials. Notably, rather than a uniform monolithic 12 story form, the building steps down to eight stories along the east edge near Ezra, include increasing to 12 stories to the east. This approach reduces shadowing on Riley Park by about 40% above the eighth floor and establishes a gateway condition on the historic 11th Street Northwest entrance to Riley Park. Next slide, please. This slide shows the site circulation and public realm strategy. Key elements of the site and project design include building placement shifted to the west to respect the park entrance with primary pedestrian entrance on 11th Street, consolidation of access and servicing shared with Ezra on 11A Street, a loading stall and staging area for residents moving in and out, integration of the existing bus stop and bike lane, a public plaza and potential commercial cafe, enhancement to the historic 11th Street entrance to Riley Park, and a commitment to heritage integration within the public realm areas. Next slide. This project delivers purpose-built rental housing, with the majority of units being family-oriented two and three-bedroom. The project also includes 25 CMHC affordable units, which are subject to affordability requirements and reporting obligations over a 10 year period. Next slide, please. In closing, this application implements the local area plan, delivers housing in an amenity rich, transit oriented location, uses standard zoning as directed by administration, has evolved in response to community and city feedback, and contributes to public realm and infrastructure improvements. For these reasons, we believe this is a reasonable and supportable policy outcome. Representatives of the ownership group are here and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 8093.225, "end": 8100.025, "text": "Thank you. Anyone here or anyone wish to speak with the applicant? Council members? Councillor Panizopoulos?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8100.985, "end": 8139.085, "text": "Thank you so much. Just gonna grab my notes. Thanks so much for the presentation and uh that broad engagement going all the way down to the south. And uh I think I saw a thousand homes or something, you know. Usually if we're if we get a hundred meters, that's a good day. So I mean a thousand homes. Uh maybe that that engagement, obviously, uh this appeal I'm sure to your renters and and investors would be the public realm being to the north, Riley Park, and and lots of Calgaryans use that. So maybe just talk about did you ever contemplate or engage with the users of the park? Um You know, sort of the work you're doing and anything a pop-up shop, if you will, to talk to folks. But how how did you think about the users, uh the dog owners like myself that it and so on?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8139.225, "end": 8197.785, "text": "Um there was a lot of interest in the shadow studies and how it affected Riley Park. A lot of um people had written in about it. The intention is when there's a a building with massing, we're hoping that DOS is able to do uh like in location, three-dimensional the word is slipping my mind, sorry. But to be able to see it like through your phone while you're in the park to understand more about it, more intensive engagement to be done during the development permit process when there's a building for people to see and have feedback on. But we did rely on just the the amount of people we engaged with, and we had quite a bit of people show up that were nearby residents and users of the park. Uh the primary drive was focusing on not overshadowing the park too much, which informed some of the massing decisions that were made and pushing the building further south to reduce it. I do have some shadow studies if you would be curious to see them, but they're also in your materials. But yeah, the intention is to do more engagement, significantly more engagement when there's a building to look at that's designed as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8198.125, "end": 8234.585, "text": "Got it, got it. Um you know, maybe just come back that you mentioned the FR and thank you for doing that, because I know the community association, um you know, four, and then they said five is appropriate, and I think six is the final. And and maybe just sort of loop in um, you know, what considerations on the final design and the plan? Uh How did you incorporate all that engagement with individuals? It was pretty clear six was from the first and six was again. So I'm just trying to curious what other changes. You alluded to, we made some changes, but you never identified what were some of the changes that were made specific to this amended application based on engagement with community.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8234.985, "end": 8327.825, "text": "Yeah, um one example was the originally we talked about the we rec recognized that with the bike lane there we don't want the entrance to be central like it was on Ezra because people are stopping in the loading zone. So we knew it was going to be on one end or the other. Originally, we had we had heard back from the community that they would prefer to have the parquet entrance onto 11th Street so that it was not loading on with the Ezra cul-de-sac where their parquade comes out. So we had done that and then heard back from the community that uh and then from the city that 11th Street being a historic entrance to Riley Park and they wanted they have it slated for improvements that this developer wants to participate in, moved it all back over to the other side and made sure that there was loading zone. We heard from Ezra residents that they are having trouble with moving and move out, so added a loading zone while closing the lane on the back to match Ezra's pedestrian realm that they have changed that lane to. It won't be vehicles anymore. Also, the original materials that came in and designed with a different architect was two towers with a slim division in the middle to reduce shadowing, but it was found when transferred over to DOS, it was actually a bigger impact to reduce shadowing by taking part of the building down and making it monolith on the bottom. There's on the circulation plan, we also got a lot of feedback from UDRP that was incorporated into it. So the circulation plan that was shown shows those implemented, not what was originally proposed. But there's been quite a bit of back and forth with the community and good feedback from the community on what they're concerned about. Privacy, shadowing was the biggest one, height was a big one, and that it aligned with the local area plan. So some education had to go back and forth.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8328.625, "end": 8340.485, "text": "Um one thing that jumped out, and I can't remember if it was the CA or a resident. They talked about precedent. And I totally understand that. You know what the precedent was set at three, four stories, and now potentially uh ten stories?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8340.485, "end": 8340.965, "text": "Twelve story.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8340.965, "end": 8357.885, "text": "So you you can see that as once you the cats out of the bag, it's an amazing so so just maybe talk through that. You know, to the east, or excuse me, to the west, you said there's some issues, density, like like all that. Um yeah, that precedent it that stuck out at me, that one word. So", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8357.885, "end": 8401.425, "text": "It is. It is and I understand why they're coming from. We hear that often from community associations. What I would say is that this is not seeking to uh break or exceed the local area plan, and I was involved in both the developer and public side of that local area plan engagement. It was extensive. And I remember watching when the 12 stories came through, and I expected to see more engagement on that, but there were so many things for the community to be talking about on the local area plan. But this application is in direct response to the policies that are set in the local area plan indicating 12 stories could be achieved. And so that's where the alignment is coming from. That's where the response and that height is proposed from, is in response to the local area plan that was just completed last year.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8402.345, "end": 8443.185, "text": "appreciate that. Uh the CMHC, that twenty five, fifteen, twenty percent, you know, obviously great. It's it's a need. Um uh how do we know that? You know, after this approval, a year later when you start construction, the economics change. I think I saw somewhere that said the economics are impacting. You need this density for economics. I'm assuming that gives you a lower cost of capital you borrow at one or two percent and you know it all sort of works together. So maybe just talk through that community guarantee. If if part of the thought process for council is we want that non market housing, I'll just lump that in. I I hope it's you know the right out uh uh uh definition. But how do we get some certainty that it's not a year later something changed when it's sort of outside of this council floor?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8443.185, "end": 8447.385, "text": "Yeah, c like could it be converted to all condominiums and not go through C M H C for an", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8447.385, "end": 8449.845, "text": "Exactly, yeah, because that's a business decision and yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8449.845, "end": 8505.805, "text": "Yeah, um this originally came in as a direct control guideline because at the time the local area plan indicated that direct control guidelines that had the community amenity funding in it would have to, if a new DC came in, it had to use that again, and then the plan changed. Through a direct control guideline, even that way you'd have trouble forcing a developer to include the affordable housing. I haven't seen that written in in a DC, but unfortunately, the way that the system works, it could be approved as MH3 with this height and density, and then the developer could pivot. They're not going to pivot to a commercial building, but they could pivot away to condos. That is an that is always an option with these. This particular developer is trying to access CMHC financing because it's lower interest rates, but also going through all three streams. So they're not just doing the affordable housing, they are seeking to do an accessible building as well as the green initiatives that are there. So they're pretty motivated to stay in that in that approach.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8506.345, "end": 8530.525, "text": "And I think maybe finally I was I had to read it a few times. The uh uh the point nine, usually we look for relax parking, usually we look for relaxation from you know point five to point four or something. And this is going the other way. Uh maybe just just talk about that rental. Um as the market changing, like what was driving that is it.5 or 0.65 going up to nine? Like that's obviously more parking. Just talk through that logic.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8530.525, "end": 8592.345, "text": "It is and the original inspirations on this building were looking at, you know, New York City and Central Memorial Park being on such a beautiful park. So they're looking to be, although there will be affordable units mixed in, they would be hidden for lack of a better word, but fully mixed into it. But the intention of the building is a very high amenity, high rental building. And so those people are always looking for parking at least one. It's a little bit underparked. I think we're at you said 0.92. And then the other end of that is just what we wouldn't have enough parking with one level. And by the time you go down to a second level, doing a split level isn't very cost efficient. So you do two full levels and you end up with 163 parking stalls. So one of the feedback we did integrate was that Ezra residents had indicated that visitor parking was desperately needed. So we've pushed some down in there and would be open to more if needed. But I think we've currently have six visitor parking stalls. There could be more. But it's sort of a factor of efficiency in building design. Once you go down to the second layer, you get all the stalls that you get. Yeah,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 8592.345, "end": 8606.305, "text": "No, it's a yeah, like I said, usually it's relaxation the other way. And uh, you know, look, you seem to thread the needle. Uh a biker in Walker Paradise and a.9 compared to a point five. So so you obviously this seems to be uh hitting all sort of three for three. So thanks so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 8607.985, "end": 8610.105, "text": "Thank you, uh Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 8611.845, "end": 8650.465, "text": "Uh yeah, Councillor Pancelopolis hit on my affordable units question. So uh maybe I'll actually get clerks to go to admin's presentation of uh on page 17 because that does show the shadow study, which is was one of the big sort of concerns um heard from community. And if you wanted to just speak uh to some of the uh you mentioned how you changed the design from being two towers divided to sort of this um Sort of more like base eight and then twelve on the one side, and how that's affected the shadowing outcomes.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8651.145, "end": 8684.145, "text": "certainly. You can see when you look in the fall and spring where you see the longer shadows, that with two towers you had a much deeper sweep of shadow into the park, even though there was a sliver of sunlight that would come through between the two of them. With the eight story height, it's just shorter and you get less of a sweep across the depth of the park. So it felt like although we are going for 12 stories in one portion, there's less portion of shadow for the totality of shadow across the park. So it stays in much closer to the building itself on the eight story area.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 8684.925, "end": 8714.565, "text": "Right. Um, and then there has been this change where there is no longer the uh community amenity fund within the area, um, but you you are also talking a lot within your own proposal. Um Around sort of improvements. So the bike lane improvements, the improvements on 11th Street. How do you how are you looking to make those things a reality if not through sort of the mechanism with the community association?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8714.905, "end": 8781.085, "text": "Well, I mean if it was a direct control guideline, you could write those in, those participation in, but it can certainly be enforced through the development permit as well. The developer remains committed to it. I mean, the line item was there understanding the levy would be about a quarter million dollars. And then through discussions, we're finding that there's uh we had found and been informed that 11th Street is intended to become a more formal and beautified entrance to Riley Park, connecting it into the Fifth Avenue bike lane and that. And so I've encouraged the developer and they're in agreement that in investing into improving uh that that entranceway would be in that realm of money. Uh and then also we've been talking to the mobility group and the community association, they would like to see the Fifth Avenue bike lane for some portion of it to actually be divided with you know the curb and the stanchion so that it's safer. They get a lot of people parking in that bike lane, which is unfortunate. And so the developer would like has committed to doing that. I think that could be locked in in the development permit phase, but it might be a question for administration how that mechanism exactly works. But the developer would like to and intends to participate in those.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 8781.305, "end": 8793.445, "text": "Right. My final question is around uh the live work units that are sort of proposed along Fifth Um Avenue. What are you imagining those like to be?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8793.645, "end": 8873.185, "text": "So all of the units on Fifth Avenue are two-story townhomes. And so the imagine imagining would be that the main floor entranceway you would go in, and there this might be your living room, dining room, or it might be a meeting area that's available there. There's also, and Callie might speak to this as well, but there's an idea that within the building amenity spaces, there's a great amount of amenity space in the core of the podium area. There's intended to be uh open working area with desks and a printing area, things like that, and then um some smaller uh office spaces sort of that can be tied to your lease on your on yours, and you can use it for something like massage therapy or Therapy, if you're a therapist, you can meet with your clients in your dedicated little area within the podium. So it's sort of a creative way of looking at how to make this building very, very live work. The cafe on the main floor was first discussed about being private to the building with discussions with the community. It was it was a they thought that a cafe would be nice for people to actually use it there. But the idea had originally been that that would be a meeting area with exterior access so people could come. Of course, it can still be that as a commercial amenity that's available to the public. Yeah. But the idea is a building that very much lets people live and work in it and have meeting areas, a conference of board remote for rental, those sorts of things.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 8873.245, "end": 8873.565, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 8873.565, "end": 8876.445, "text": "Starting to get into DP, not land use.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 8876.265, "end": 8878.845, "text": "Uh point of order. Uh sorry, Councillor Weinus, you can go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 8879.525, "end": 8892.605, "text": "Yeah, we're going into DP, not land use. Like when they're describing amenities, then you are way beyond the scope of zoning it. And I just hope the chair is listening so that we can sorry, like you're you want to get this across the finish line. Let's not get into", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 8892.605, "end": 8897.045, "text": "Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wynus. Point taken. I'm back. I'm good. Councillor Atkinson, you're good?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 8897.045, "end": 8897.745, "text": "That was it? Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 8898.985, "end": 8900.465, "text": "All right, uh, Councillor Jameson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8904.325, "end": 8918.305, "text": "Thank you, Chair. I just want to quickly just go over some parking ratios. So right now you guys are I believe it's at 0.9 stalls per unit. So there's 162 stalls and 175 units.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8918.965, "end": 8923.985, "text": "I think we're down to 171 units. I think some of the penthouses might have been rearranged a little, but yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8924.065, "end": 8925.165, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8925.165, "end": 8925.605, "text": "Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8925.845, "end": 8932.265, "text": "Um so do you see that as a as a concern that there's less than one parking spa stall per unit?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8932.945, "end": 8964.305, "text": "Um no, but as has been mentioned earlier, often we see in transit-oriented development areas you see more like a five, a half, half of them would have units. So it's actually overparked by a lot of transit-oriented development expectations, but we're trying to meet this sweet spot in between. There could be less parking, but again, it's a function of doing a level of parquade is X number, and then you double it when you do another level of parquade. So we've ended up with quite a few stalls. There could be more visitor stalls. And we've also made sure we did all the the biking stalls as needed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8965.845, "end": 8980.545, "text": "Um do I understand it correctly? I was reading on on on page uh page one of uh attachment four, um, just so I understand correctly that the CA actually wants less parking. That's what they're Asking for?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8981.125, "end": 9011.845, "text": "It's it's interesting and it's um The community association was hoping and what their concern is it makes sense. Their concern is that more cars means more traffic, means more people driving across the bike lane, coming in and out of the cul-de-sac. What we would hope as developers is that it's such a walkable neighborhood. People may have a vehicle, but it's two blocks to Safeway, it's two blocks to the C train. It's certainly going to be easier for them and cheaper for them to not drive into downtown and park there, that they will utilize the transit-oriented development without the enforcement of not having the option of having a car in Calgary.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9012.245, "end": 9041.805, "text": "That's fair. There is public opposition uh b because of the parking though. You know, it's already very difficult to find a spot around there if you're able to. So would would this not just really exacerbate the problem because there's not even enough for the you know the the new people that are gonna live there? Like where so so what happens if all hundred and seventy one units have a vehicle? You know, w that they're gonna have to find street parking.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9042.505, "end": 9072.705, "text": "Yeah, and that that's the balance between TOD expectations and the renters' users' expectations, and we're hoping that being just slightly under park will work. There'll be some that are maybe people are taking them for their students who are up the up at SAIT and things like that. But we're also finding, as we're all finding, that having a car is more expensive than it used to be. So I think that there's a balance that's struck there. There is the option to have less parking if you did a split parquade uh for the bottom level, that might drop it down to a hundred, hundred and twenty parking stalls.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9073.005, "end": 9077.085, "text": "Well I I don't I don't think less parking is better, but that's what I'm trying to say.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9077.085, "end": 9077.485, "text": "Yeah,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9077.485, "end": 9100.185, "text": "I I think you know universally this is probably what even during uh you know blanket rezoning this was was parking was one of the you know one of the biggest issues that o overdensity leads to. And if there's not sufficient parking, it leads to a lot of issues on the street and in the community. And and I I'm just trying to understand how this uh what wouldn't add to that already existing problem in that area.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9100.365, "end": 9121.585, "text": "yeah. Well and I mean if you took away the six visitor parking stalls, that would cause less security concerns with the parquet having public access to it and would put them back into the inventory and and get us up to a little bit higher parking ratio. But and visitor parking isn't required for the multifamily, so they could be put back into that inventory as well and gain a few back.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9122.565, "end": 9122.925, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9123.165, "end": 9123.665, "text": "Welcome.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 9124.905, "end": 9138.345, "text": "All right. Anybody else for the applicant? Seeing none, I think you're off the hook. Is there anyone else who would like to speak uh on this public hearing? Yep. Please approach.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 9150.545, "end": 9438.205, "text": "Morning, Mayor Farkas, uh Councillors. Um my name is uh Philip Bryden, and I'm presenting on behalf of the uh Board of Directors of the uh ESRA on Riley Park, which is the condominium corporation that uh uh owns and operates the um uh condominium that's immediately to the west of the proposed development. Um if we could move to the next slide, please. Um let me just give you some brief context on uh our building. Uh it is uh two eight-story towers with 99 residential units. It was built in 2017, um, primarily owner-occupiers, but some of the building some of the uh uh suites are are rentals, uh investment uh investment properties. Um the our submission is uh the views, the unanimous views of the board of directors of the condo corporation. We don't purport to um represent the views of every resident in our building, but we have talked to a large number of people in our building, and I think most of the people in our building would uh share uh the views, but technically I'm just speaking on behalf of the Condo Corporation. Next slide, please. So our main concern is that we would like to see the height restriction retained at the sort of 26-meter level or roughly eight stories. We're not in principle opposed to high-rise development on the site that's in question. We simply want it to be in character with the other buildings that are on the south side of Raleigh Park. Ours is the tallest at eight stories. There's a six story apartment building, a three story apartment building, and this development. would significantly be uh higher than our building or um uh any of the other buildings. Uh next slide please. Um We note that you're going to receive a presentation on wind impact, so I won't speak to that. I'll let the the clerks uh uh speak to that, but that is a uh concern for us. And we believe that even though the um uh 12 story limit is acceptable within the the larger community, that the area that's immediately to adj adjacent to Riley Park is special. And that we should try to preserve that eight-story height limit in the developments that are immediately adjacent to Raleigh Park. Next slide, please. There's one other point that I would like to speak to, and it was raised by the developer in their presentation. And that is that the developer has been directed by city staff to put the parquet entrance. Of the proposed building on 11A Street, which is also the small cul-de-sac where our parquet entrance is, and that puts a lot of traffic on a small uh cul-de-sac. And the rationale for the city's staff's not wanting to have the entrance on 11th Street is that they want to have a heritage entrance for Riley Park. And we're not opposed to a heritage entrance uh for Riley Park, but we don't see why you can't both have a heritage entrance, an attractive uh entrance for the park, and have uh uh cars exit and and enter off of uh 11th Street, and that's uh if I can just ask you to put up the last slide. Um it seems to us that creating a heritage entrance for Riley Park is not inconsistent with having uh some vehicle traffic on 11th Street. So thank you very much for your uh time and attention. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 9438.825, "end": 9449.385, "text": "Thank you. Colleagues, uh we're just at uh time for a break. We have multiple registered speakers, so I'm gonna bang the gavel now, come back at 1 15, and we'll follow up with any uh questions and and future presentiers.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14027.985, "end": 14031.145, "text": "Welcome back to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14032.325, "end": 14039.645, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 14039.765, "end": 14039.965, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14040.245, "end": 14041.345, "text": "Councillor Johnston,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 14042.265, "end": 14042.465, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14042.745, "end": 14048.825, "text": "Councillor Kelly, Councillor McLean, Councillor McLean,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 14049.125, "end": 14049.725, "text": "That's me.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14051.265, "end": 14060.025, "text": "Councillor Panchezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt. Councillor Tyres. Here. Councillor Ward. Councillor Wyness. Councillor Ewell.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 14060.165, "end": 14060.385, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14060.385, "end": 14064.485, "text": "Councillor Atkinson. Councillor Chabot and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14064.625, "end": 14065.065, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14065.085, "end": 14065.665, "text": "Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14066.565, "end": 14096.385, "text": "All right, uh, we are still on 7.2.6. We had heard from Philip Bryden. There was no questions of Philip yet. Uh before we go back to potentially Philip or uh more presenters as part of the public hearing. Uh, just a quick uh process question here. What council members, we had heard from uh CO Duckworth uh likely the need for to receive a confidential update uh from our chief administrative administrative officer. I'm gonna go over to Councillor Tyres.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 14097.865, "end": 14117.725, "text": "Yes, I'm putting forward a uh notice of motion so that council waive notice and add item 9.2 update with CAO verbal as an item of confidential urgent business to be dealt with following item 7.2.6 land use amendment in Hillhurst Ward 1. Sorry, Ward 7.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14118.525, "end": 14126.305, "text": "Okay, so that that won't be a notice emotion, it's just the the waiving of the notice because uh this is not something that was advertised on our agenda.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 14126.525, "end": 14128.685, "text": "Okay. Yes, waiv of notice", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14129.045, "end": 14135.605, "text": "Great. And this would uh be an update received like immediately after this land use.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 14135.565, "end": 14136.645, "text": "after this item. Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14136.665, "end": 14146.305, "text": "So then the intent uh councillor tires would be to conclude this land use item and then go to our confidential update with CAO and then come back and resume the rest of the public hearing", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 14146.305, "end": 14146.985, "text": "That is correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14147.645, "end": 14158.465, "text": "items. Okay, that's been seconded by Councillor Kelly. Any further debate on this? Okay. Seeing none, uh Madam Clerk, I believe this requires 10 votes.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14160.425, "end": 14161.265, "text": "No, it's majority.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14161.445, "end": 14166.645, "text": "Oh, just simple majority. Okay. All right. Uh let's go to the vote, please, on this.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 14171.065, "end": 14173.105, "text": "I'll save you the effort, Madam Clerk. Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14183.585, "end": 14191.685, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14192.045, "end": 14246.145, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with uh Councillor Schmidt opposed. So to be clear, we're gonna finish up 7.2.6. Uh we're gonna conclude, we're gonna go through the presenters through the public hearing. We'll have the questions for administration, the debate. And then after 7.2.6, we will go in close session with uh Chief Administrative Administrative Officer. So we last heard from uh Philip Bryden. Colleagues, were there any questions for Mr. Bryden? Okay, seeing none, uh, we'll continue through the registered speakers. On 7.2.6, do we have Kim Pfeiffer with us? Okay, please approach, and then after Kim, we'll go to ask if there's any other members of the public present who'd like to speak to this. Thank you. Please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 14247.405, "end": 14556.185, "text": "Um for being here today. I got a slide deck in there somewhere. There we are. I thought this might be an appropriate joke for today to kick things off. Um it's uh on the construction aspect of peop what people go through. So um next slide please. Uh I'm here for three purposes today. Um I want to talk about uh loading zones and bike paths, and this is in relation to this development with the Harriet. Talk about the Harriet entrance to their parquade and the responsibility of council. So next next slide, please. So in this section uh next slide, um what we have at Ezra where I live, I'm a resident in uh Ezra and owner. I've lived there for the past five years. Um I let um during that period of time I've had a lot of frustration with um the front entrance of the building. With I was on the condo board for a long time. We don't have a loading zone in front of our building. People stop there, and then I've had altercations with people on bicycles who say you can't park there and things like this. And there's plenty of room there. That sidewalk on the left picture is 11 feet wide. That green strip that you see there is also something that's we can't maintain properly because trucks keep parking on it and driving over it. So it's just been a constant headache to the maintenance of our building. And there's limited street parking across the street on fifth on the uh on the south side of the road. Uh so this is, you know, this is not an easy place to get dropped off or get a Uber or picked up and that kind of thing. So perhaps the next slide. What I'm proposing is that we have enough room there to create a loading zone where um an Amazon truck could park, uh, a Uber could park, and people could get in and out of the U out of vehicles safely. There's plenty of sidewalk there. So that um I think it's it's sort of uh nonsensical that we don't have a loading zone in front of the building. So next slide, please. Um I did some AI research on on this whole um land use amendment to save myself some time. It seems like um that there's been a lot of um back and forth uh going on with respect to the um integration of this bike path. Uh it seems to be uh constantly in the news or in the in the in the mix here. Maybe I'll go to the next slide because I want to show you some things. There's been a lot of talk about having barriers against this bike plane. There's already that's impossible for somebody to cross to get across to get into a cab or whatever. There aren't any uh if you look at the far right picture, that's 10th Street heading north. There are no barriers on 10th Street, and if there was any place I think you wouldn't have barriers for bike paths, it'd be up there. So I think that this is a bad idea. This is going to further restrict traffic. Next slide, please. My solution. This could apply permanently and through construction of the Harriet is reroute the bike path on the north side of 5th Street Avenue to Riley Park. Um there's plenty of room there. Uh that's what it uh the b the pathways have been paved in the last couple of years in there. They're regularly cleaned of snow, um just as uh as fast as they do all the bike paths. And so that is my proposal on what should happen permanently with this bike road. It's not a big deal, in my opinion, to reroute it through the park. Maybe take the next picture or the next slide, please. This is how wide that is, it's 20 feet wide. The pathway through the park. There's plenty of room there for bicycles, and this would remove all this issue of having this bike lane in everybody's mind in the planning and construction. Next slide, please. Now we talk about the Harriet entrance, which uh Philip uh Bryden had spoken earlier. Uh next slide, please. This um this is what seems to be the driver behind this is this heritage entrance to Riley Park. And that being um uh to me is a is is not there's 10 or 11 10 or 11 entrances to Riley Park already. Some of them are nicer than others. I don't see what's it what the issue is with this entrance preventing the access to Harriet's parkade off this c that cul-de-sac on 11th. Maybe next slide, please. If you look at the the picture on the right, that I measured this myself. The two roadways are twenty feet wide each.", "segments_merged": 43 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14556.185, "end": 14559.545, "text": "You're just at time, but perhaps a final sentence to conclude your thoughts.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 14560.565, "end": 14578.645, "text": "Okay. I'm here about the the the the entrance to this building for the Harriet. The the Harriet's design team can't go on with um com completing their work to get the development permit unless this issue is settled to where this entrance is. So I'm here to lobby", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14578.645, "end": 14579.205, "text": "Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 14579.205, "end": 14579.665, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14580.605, "end": 14583.165, "text": "Any any questions for the presenter?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 14584.785, "end": 14585.045, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14585.065, "end": 14611.845, "text": "We will continue through our public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to speak to 7.2.6? Going once, going twice. All right. We shall close the public hearing. Any questions for administration? Okay, seeing none, uh, maybe I can go to you, uh, Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 14613.565, "end": 14805.905, "text": "Yeah, I'm I'm just gonna be moving a slightly altered uh set of uh A slightly altered motion here. So as you've heard, like this site is, I think, it's a pretty it's a pretty special site backing onto Raleigh Park, a beautiful asset within the community. There is some concerns that I think the the applicants have been really working with community to try and address from community, but a lot of that comes in through the development permit side of things. So this is, you know, we heard around uh affordable units, we we've heard pieces around sort of the shaping of the building. The the trick with this is that what's being asked of us is to go to basically approve a full land use change that goes to a 12 story height building. Um but as you saw, there's this stepping down on the sort of west side of the site to sort of Have more of a gradient and a matching of the height of the Ezra on the one side and then bring it up to the 12 story on the other side. So what this uh this uh amendment is is sort of proposing is that we give first reading of the proposed bylaw um to to sort of this what they've what the uh the applicant has asked for, but it um Then allows for them to to we withhold the second and third readings of the proposed bylaw until the development permit has gone through an approval process specifically with uh the Calgary Planning Commission. So they'll be able to really sort of see this through, see some of the really technical specific pieces of this site before we would then uh release second and third readings of the bylaw, and then everything would come through. So it's it's because of the complexity of this site uh and some of the pieces that community has been sort of asking for, what we heard from sort of the community association. How do we make sure that when we're here today with a land use change that we're not just uh putting through something and then having a 12-story building on site that uh no longer hits those contextual sort of pieces that we've we've heard? Um this file, if you read through all the attachments, um you know we had uh urban design review panel comments, we had comments from multiple CPC members, uh, lots from the community in and around. And so we really want to make sure that we don't just do a land use change and sort of throw it up in the air and then we kind of get railroaded on the other side. So this allows for the um the team to continue their path, go through the development permit process, but without us just releasing higher density on the site, uh, without those contextual pieces that I think are such an important part in terms of the shading of Riley Park and these kinds of elements that are all baked in. This uh is something that I've uh I've worked through uh administration with. Um uh but uh yeah, I can answer any questions in close if you have any any questions about it.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14807.665, "end": 14835.085, "text": "All right, that's been moved by Councillor Atkinson. Uh may I please have a second her? All right, seconded by Councillor Ewell. And this is a revised uh recommendation. It is to give the first reading, but it's to withhold the second and third reading and until a development permit is at the point of approval and it's directing that uh Coward Planning Commission. Be the development authority. Any discussion on this? Uh Councillor Shabot?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 14837.045, "end": 14841.705, "text": "I'm just curious how administration would manage this request.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 14843.605, "end": 14895.665, "text": "Yeah. So thank you for the question, Councillor. So should this motion as written be approved and uh council does give first reading, it would signal to the applicant that there is some of somewhat of an intent for the land use to be granted. It would be contingent on numbers two and three being uh being met. So what would happen here is that once so it would delegate the planning commission to be the development on authority on this item for the development permit portion. Uh once it goes to CPC and it's ready to be approved, should CPC provide approval to the development permit, a condition uh prior to the final approval being issued would be that we would come back through a bylaw tabulation, which previous councils have seen before. This one has not yet, so this is the first time. That's the order of operations.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 14897.085, "end": 14915.925, "text": "The the only reason I'm asking this question is typically development permits being approved by the Planning Commission is only in special circumstances on typically a very large comprehensive project. So I don't know if this actually meets that test. Is this a standard process or", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 14916.045, "end": 14925.965, "text": "This is not I would suggest this is not a standard process. This but nothing precludes this council from delegating uh administration to bring this forward to CPC.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 14926.045, "end": 14952.165, "text": "well maybe maybe the mover can address uh some issues in his clothes because just um curious as to what the outcome, what the intent is, and what he hopes is gonna get accomplished through this process. And uh if there's an opportunity for uh some further input from some of the adjacent residents, like in regards to the entrance that we just heard, uh, or other issues, then maybe maybe it's a worthwhile process, but maybe you can address it in your close.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 14954.225, "end": 14992.405, "text": "Alright. Anyone else uh wish to speak to this? Yeah, I'll just jump in briefly and say thanks for your uh leadership, Councillor Atkinson. Uh this type of approach was undertaken a bit more on the council where I sat as a elected city Councillor and I had the opportunities, I'd say at least three or four times, to do something similar and to work with the community and come up with something that much more broadly reflected the consensus of the community. I think uh makes a lot of sense for us to support you and uh as long as you're personally committing to to be engaging through that and to address some of the concerns that the community has. Let's uh see what uh you can deliver for us. Okay, over to you to close, sir.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 14995.945, "end": 15121.165, "text": "Uh yeah, that's that's great. Uh so yeah, this um gives the the question around specifically CPC and sort of the be making them the development authority. Uh as you you sort of see in the in the package, there there have been a number of concerns, some of which have been, I think, uh, you know, met through the back and forth between the applicant and community, things like the massing of the building down to eight stories on the one side, twelve stories on the other, these kinds of elements, but there are still some outstanding concerns. Uh, and so by delegating this through uh CPC, it allows community to sort of work through this process uh by having it going through the Calvary Planning Commission, which is gives it that sort of extra level of oversight. Uh, and it's just really given this very unique spot. I wouldn't actually make the this kind of, we don't want to necessarily be um doing this, I would say, on, I'm not gonna be proposing this on any other applications today, and probably not many, to be honest, in the future. It's specifically because uh it's related to Raleigh Park, a heritage asset within uh the community, and making sure that we really sort of see uh a beautiful and and community contextual outcome with uh with the what we're getting from the applicant here. So that's that's why there's that higher level of uh of uh CPC uh direction within within the uh the motion here. So uh yeah, uh hope you'll support. I think this is a great way to start um landing some more density. Really happy to see some of those pieces like the affordable units potentially coming into play, uh, like the idea of having people living in uh in higher density units, having Raleigh Park as their backyard, you know, folks from the Ezra uh have have sort of spoken to that. It's a bright, beautiful spot to to live and and sort of have that uh that amenity right next door. Uh and I think that we can find that path. We just want to make sure that there's that proper level of oversight, and this helps us to do that. So thank you. Closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15124.925, "end": 15158.425, "text": "All right, uh that's been closed and again colleagues this is to give first reading to the proposed bylaw only. It's to withhold the second and third readings until a development permit is at the point of approval and it's directing that the Calgary Planning Commission be the development authority on the associated uh development permit and and just to make that crystal clear uh madam clerk it would come back to council for the the second and third reading at that point it's not debatable for the readings but uh we would get that chance to vote yes or no based on what the development permit was", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 15158.705, "end": 15164.765, "text": "That's correct. The way that this is framed, the matter would be coming back for second and third reading of proposed bylaw.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15165.085, "end": 15165.205, "text": "okay", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 15165.965, "end": 15174.725, "text": "On a point of procedure, your worship, um amendments can be made prior to second reading. So when it comes back, there's still an opportunity to make amendments and then subsequently debate it, right?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15174.925, "end": 15175.525, "text": "that's right yeah", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 15175.525, "end": 15176.245, "text": "Okay, thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15178.505, "end": 15180.365, "text": "alrighty on that uh let's engage the evote please", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 15194.765, "end": 15201.265, "text": "Councillor Kelly, absent. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15202.025, "end": 15246.525, "text": "thank you please display the results on that the motion is carried unanimously 14 to zero i'll move to one reading only of the proposed bylaw and that's First reading of bylaw 46D 2026. Anyone opposed? And hearing none, that is carried. All right, that concludes item uh 7.2.6. We have a time specific uh agenda amendment for the uh update with uh Chief Administrative Officer. Can I please have a motion to move into closed session? Moved by Councillor Tyres. Second by Councillor Pantozopoulos. Any further debate on that? Actually, we'll have that up on the screen to know the uh Legislative authority.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 15253.785, "end": 15259.565, "text": "Mr. Mayor, don't we usually include who's gonna be attending from administration? We ran into that issue. Does that need to add or is it", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 15259.565, "end": 15262.145, "text": "Only external members. Councillor Pantasopoulos.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15262.265, "end": 15276.825, "text": "Yep. Typically when uh we move into closed session, if it's a member of administration, the CAO has the ability to bring the appropriate person in. It's only when there's an external guest who's not part of the city of Cowry. All right, that's his on the table. Over to Councillor Johnston, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 15279.965, "end": 15295.425, "text": "Yeah, I get why we're going on camera kind of on this, but Um if we go in camera on this, is that gonna make it confidential or is it already confidential before we go in camera?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15296.305, "end": 15329.645, "text": "It really varies on the matter that the chief administration spirit of officer is going to bring to us. He's providing advice, and uh I'd say we hear him out on the on the topic, and then you have the the latitude to choose whether to keep the discussion confidential or not. Uh voting say for example, if it was um I'm just brainstorming a potential idea. If if if there was say a confidential matter that he was bringing to us in a closed session, it would still remain confidential uh regardless of us having a meeting about it.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 15332.225, "end": 15333.065, "text": "Okay, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15334.225, "end": 15341.405, "text": "All right, uh any further debate on this? All right, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 15348.325, "end": 15359.485, "text": "Councillor Jamison, your vote please. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Kelly is absent. Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15360.165, "end": 15360.485, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 15361.025, "end": 15363.185, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 15367.965, "end": 15377.005, "text": "Okay. Uh please display the results. All right, that motion is carried 13 to 1 with uh Councillor Johnston opposed and Councillor Kelly absent.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 17690.865, "end": 17694.765, "text": "Council will be resuming in public meeting shortly. Please make your way back to chamber.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18025.645, "end": 18028.105, "text": "Welcome back. Uh Madam Clerk, please call the rule.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18028.345, "end": 18030.725, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the roll. Councillor Dolly Wall.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18031.685, "end": 18031.965, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18032.525, "end": 18035.285, "text": "Councillor Jameson. Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18035.285, "end": 18035.425, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18035.425, "end": 18036.525, "text": "Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18036.605, "end": 18036.945, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18037.085, "end": 18055.585, "text": "Councillor McLean. Councillor Pantasopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Shabot,", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18055.745, "end": 18055.925, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18055.985, "end": 18056.805, "text": "Councillor Clark,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 18056.885, "end": 18057.265, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18057.405, "end": 18058.545, "text": "and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18058.605, "end": 18058.925, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18059.025, "end": 18059.565, "text": "Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18062.085, "end": 18090.005, "text": "All right. I believe we have a motion to rise and report. Uh moved by Deputy Mayor Chabot, seconded by Councillor Kelly. On that are we agreed? Any opposed? Councillor Johnston is opposed, and that motion is carried. All right. Next, I believe we have another uh item, or rather, uh holding in. Confidence, the closed meeting discussions. We'll get ready.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18091.445, "end": 18096.885, "text": "That's right. It's just coming up momentarily. Thanks for your patience. It will be third as", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18098.145, "end": 18127.145, "text": "Okay, and this is to direct that the closed meeting discussions be held confidential. Alright, moved by uh Deputy Mayor Chabot, second by Councillor Panasopoulos. Any debate on that? Seeing none, uh let's engage the vote, please. You don't have enough tabs open.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18129.265, "end": 18138.545, "text": "Councillor Ewell, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18138.765, "end": 18151.405, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Johnston opposed. Alright, we can now move to item 7.2.7.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 18153.585, "end": 18358.265, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas, and good afternoon, Council. My name is Lindsay Ganzar. I am a senior planner in the Community Planning Department, and I will be presenting the next portion of items on the agenda today. Item 7.2.7 is a land use redesignation application to enable a townhouse development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 49D 2026 for the redesignation of 1601 Bonus Road Northwest from the Mixed Use General or MU1 district to the residential grade-oriented infill or RCG district. Next slide, please. The subject parcel is located in the community of Hillhurst and falls within the plan area of the Riley Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The parcel is located on the south side of Boness Road, adjacent to 14th Street Northwest to the east. It is currently vacant and has rear lane access, but no direct access onto 14th Street. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of low density residential developments shown in yellow and orange, multi residential developments, shown in brown, and commercial developments shown in red. 14th Street and Kensington Road, which is located two blocks to the north, are both neighborhood main streets and form part of the primary transit network. They offer a wide variety of commercial, retail, and health services. The subject site is currently designated as the MU1 district with an FAR modifier of 1.0 and a maximum height of 13 meters. The district is intended to accommodate a mix of residential and commercial uses, either in separate buildings or in the same building, and allows either residential or commercial uses to be located at grade facing a commercial street. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the parcel to the RCG district, which would allow for the site to be consolidated with the adjacent parcel to the west to increase the amount of developable land. The district allows for a variety of low-density housing forms, including row houses and townhouses. The maximum building height is 11 meters and the maximum density is 75 units per hectare. Based on parcel area, this site would allow up to five dwelling units with suites. However, if consolidated, the applicant intends to develop nine dwelling units with suites. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Riley Communities LAP, which identifies the site as being within the neighborhood local urban form category. Neighborhood Local is intended for a range of housing types and home based businesses. The LAP also identifies the site as having a limited building scale, which allows for up to three stories in height. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing in an inner city area that is close to amenities and public transit. As such, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 19 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18359.665, "end": 18365.465, "text": "Thank you. With that, we'll uh go to the public hearing. Do we have Lee Wang with us?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 18366.825, "end": 18368.485, "text": "Hey Mayor, yes, this is Lee Wang.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18368.965, "end": 18370.165, "text": "Thank you. Uh please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 18372.185, "end": 18474.185, "text": "Thanks, Mayor. Sorry I'm not in the console chamber. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Lee Wang from Horizon Land Development and Consulting Inc. I'm speaking in support of this application. As you can see, this is a downward zoning from the current mixed use one with flow ratio one and maximum height 13 meters to RCG. The initial mixed use zoning was approved back in 2019 to accommodate the existing business use on site. At the time of this mixed use application, there was a lot of opposition from the Residents and Community Association. Since then, the buildings, the commercial buildings have been demolished. The site has sitting vacant for quite some time. Our proposal is to change the zoning to RCG back to residential zoning. And then the RCG will reduce the maximum height from 13 meters to 11 meters and also remove the commercial use. The uh with the consultation with the Community Association, the Community Association has made clear that their intention uh is their preference is for residential use uh for this specific lot. This lot is also within the uh Main Street corridor. The uh the proposal fully aligns with the local uh local ready communities local airplane. The only comments we mostly hear uh is with regard to heritage guidelines. I want to make it clear we're going to fully adhere to the HIRIT guideline and then development permit uh that was sued for the uh for the contacts of the community. Uh with that I I hope counselors can support that uh this project. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 20 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18475.485, "end": 18495.785, "text": "Thank you so much, Mr. Wang. Any questions for the applicant? All right, hearing none. Uh anyone else uh wishing to speak to this item as part of the public hearing? Going once, going twice. Last call. All right, we shall close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Atkinson?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 18496.645, "end": 18534.725, "text": "Absolutely. Yeah, happy to move this. Um this line use actually makes a lot more sense based on sort of uh accessibility to the site, uh to have it just based on residential rather than sort of the MU1 um District that it it currently is sitting under, there's not really access to and from 14th Street. So to have people sort of coming to to uh commercial business, uh you'd actually be putting a lot of traffic down through uh this area of West Hillhurst. So um to to to take it back to an RCG style development there, uh I think this this makes a lot of sense.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18536.505, "end": 18538.165, "text": "Already. Uh do I have a second or please?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 18539.485, "end": 18579.945, "text": "Second by Councillor Schmidt. Uh Councillor Kelly for debate. Yeah, as we are sort of moving forward with the uh the notice of motion that's coming to council next weekend to do some more local area plans. A lot of people have sort of said, well, the city council just does whatever they want anyway. They don't pay attention to the local area plans. This is one of the ones that I look at this and I'm like, I I think we got the zoning for this site wrong in the local area plan, but what is before us today from the applicant aligns with the local area plan, and so To everybody who is worried the council's just gonna go off and do other things that aren't in there, no. This aligns with the local area plan. I'm happy to vote in favor.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18582.945, "end": 18590.305, "text": "All right, any further debate? Seeing none, back to you, Councillor Atkinson. Alright, let's engage the U vote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18604.085, "end": 18610.045, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote please. Thank you. Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18610.045, "end": 18610.325, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 18610.605, "end": 18612.205, "text": "Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18612.585, "end": 18660.005, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Jameson opposed. Alright, we will now move to the readings of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 49 D 2026. Anyone opposed? That is carried. Second reading of bylaw 49 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 49 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 49D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, we'll move to 7.2.8, land use amendment in Hillhurst Ward 7.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 18660.905, "end": 18882.485, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to enable a mixed use development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 53D 2026 for the redesignation of 207 and 211 14th Street Northwest from the Commercial Corridor 2 or C Corps 2 district and a direct control or DC district to the mixed use active frontage or MU2 district. Next slide, please. The subject parcels are located in the community of Hillhurst and fall within the plan area of the Riley Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The site consists of two parcels and is located on the west side of 14th Street Northwest, south of 2nd Avenue. The northern portion of the site is currently vacant and the southern portion is developed with a two-story commercial building. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of residential, commercial, and community uses. 14th Street and Kensington Road are both neighborhood main streets and form part of the primary transit network. They offer a wide variety of multi-residential housing, commercial, retail, and health services, as well as access to transit. The subject site currently has two designations. The northern portion is designated as a DC district based on the MU2 district. It contains density bonusing opportunities outlined in the previous area redevelopment plan for the community, which has since been repealed and replaced by the Riley Community's LAP. The maximum building height in this direct control district is 26 meters, and the maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, is 5.0 with bonusing provisions. The southern portion of the site is designated as the C Corps 2 district, which is intended for a mix of commercial and residential uses in a mid rise built form and where vehicular access is acceptable from the street or the lane. The maximum FAR is 2.8, and the maximum building height is 16 meters. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate both parcels to the MU2 district with a maximum FAR of 4.0 and a maximum building height of 24 meters. The MU2 district enables street oriented developments with a mix of residential and commercial uses, but requiring commercial uses on the ground floor to promote activity at the street level. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Riley Communities LAP, which identifies the site as being within the Neighborhood Flex urban form category. Neighborhood Flex is intended for a mix of commercial and residential uses in standalone or mixed use buildings that are oriented towards the street. The LAP also identifies the site as having a mid building scale, which allows for up to 12 stories in height. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing and amenities in an inner city area that is located on the primary transit network. As such, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18883.305, "end": 18889.445, "text": "Thank you very much. Let's open up the public hearing and I see we have the applicant with us, so please approach.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 18895.925, "end": 18910.945, "text": "Good afternoon, Mayor Farrakus and Council. My name is Brian Horton. I'm with O2. We're the applicant team. With me is Stefan Slot from Port Communities and Colinekka from O2. Stefan's going to start with the presentation, then Colin will go, and then we're all here to answer questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 18911.545, "end": 18911.925, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 18913.625, "end": 18999.445, "text": "Good afternoon, uh Mayor and uh Mayor and Council. If I we can go over to the second slide, please. Um my name is Stefan Slott, and I'm here today on behalf of the applicant, Port Communities. Uh, Port was founded back in 1968, and for nearly 60 years, we have been uh we've built a reputation for integrity, responsible development, and long-term ownership of the communities that we help uh we help create. What makes us different is that we are not simply developers, we are long-term owners and operators of the properties that we develop. We stay invested in our buildings and in the communities where we work long after construction has been completed. That long-term perspective shapes how we approach design, construction quality, but also relationship with residents, commercial tenants, neighbors, and our municipal partners. Today we manage over 1,100 rental homes and have delivered over 3,800 homes across British Columbia and Alberta. Here in Calgary, we have active been active since 2020, and we continue to grow our presence thoughtfully. This application would represent our seventh residential development here in Calgary. And alongside projects such as our Madison and Harrison projects in Marteloup, our projects recently approved on 17th Avenue and our Curry Barracks project. We are proud to focus us on mixed use uh rental communities that contribute to complete and livable neighborhoods, and we appreciate the opportunity to bring another thoughtfully designed project to council today. Thank you for your time. We're here for any questions. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19000.625, "end": 19002.905, "text": "Thank you. Any follow up colleagues?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 19003.965, "end": 19004.985, "text": "Sorry, I'll just continue.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19005.045, "end": 19006.145, "text": "Oh, sorry, go ahead. Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 19006.505, "end": 19254.365, "text": "Next slide, please. The site is located along the neighborhood Main Street of 14th Street and just north of another Main Street, Kensington Road. It benefits from strong connectivity with direct access to surrounding arterials and an internal laneway. The area is rich in amenities with access to the Bow River, parks, schools, and community services all within walking distance. Kensington Road and 10th Street are a short distance away and act as commercial corridors, offering convenient access to services and employment. The site is also well served by transit and active modes, with the Sunnyside LRT station nearby and regular bus routes directly adjacent to the site. The Bow River Pathway Network is just south of the site and provides a direct connection to the surrounding communities and downtown. Next slide, please. The proposed land use change enables a new mixed use development that will add both housing options and neighborhood amenities along 14th Street. By requiring commercial uses at grade, along the street, and locating residential uses on upper levels, the project strengthens the walkable and main street vision of the area while creating an active and engaging street edge. The rendering shown here illustrates the current development permit design, featuring a six-story building that aligns with the MU-2 district rules for setbacks and stepbacks. Parking for the development would be underground and accessed from the rear lane, keeping the streets focused on pedestrians and active uses. Next slide, please. The site is currently designated Commercial Corridor 2 and a direct control. The proposed redesignation to the mixed-use active frontage MU2 district would enable development up to six stories with a maximum floor area ratio of four. Notably, the north portion of the site already permits a height of 26 meters under the existing direct control district. Next slide, please. These diagrams compare building heights between the local area plan, the existing land use, and proposed land use. The proposed massing reduces visual impact, shadowing, and height, resulting in a more contextually appropriate built form relative to existing policy and land use. Next slide, please. Under the Riley Local Area Plan, the subject site is designated Neighborhood Flex with a mid-building scale modifier, allowing development up to 12 stories and supports a mix of commercial and residential uses oriented to the street. The proposed MU-2 district and modifiers reflect the LAP's vision for the future mixed use development with Accurate Activation, while supporting the neighborhood Main Street designation through enhancements to the public realm and pedestrian experience. By increasing density, this proposal will help the city better leverage its Main Street investments, creating added value for both future residents and commercial tenants. Next slide, please. A semi-concurrent development permit application was submitted alongside the land use in December. To support a transparent process, details of both applications were shared during engagement, including at two public open house events, ensuring the public had a comprehensive understanding of the proposal. Development permit is anticipated to be approved in late spring to early summer. As part of our engager process, we met with the Hillhurst Sunnyside Community Association, which expressed support for the proposal, installed on site signage as per the city of Calgary, noticed posting requirements, hosted an in person public open house with postcards delivered to nearby residents inviting them to attend, and delivered follow up postcards as the development permit evolved, inviting residents to a digital open house to provide updates on the project. Next slide, please. In summary, this application provides an opportunity to diversify housing options in an amenity-rich century located area. It supports neighborhood Main Street growth by enhancing the public realm and reinforcing pedestrian-oriented streetscapes. It introduces the MU2 designation to support mixed use development with commercial frontage at grade. And lastly, it aligns with the Riley community's LAP and broader city planning objectives, including focusing mixed use development near the primary transit network and neighborhood main streets. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for the time, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19255.885, "end": 19258.345, "text": "Thank you. Over to Councillor Jameson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19265.525, "end": 19285.145, "text": "Oh, there we go, I got it. Thanks. Wasn't working. Uh can you just provide uh me with a ballpark um of what the final parking ratios will look like? Um the the submission doesn't mention parking, and I want to understand uh what residents and businesses can expect, even at this early stage.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 19287.265, "end": 19302.825, "text": "I believe we'd be going for an MU2, which would have a parking ratio of 0.75 stalls per unit, along with a 0.1 uh visitor stall uh per unit as well ratio. Um yeah.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19304.065, "end": 19310.565, "text": "Have you had um um any any engagement specifically about parking and the concern there?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 19310.625, "end": 19350.725, "text": "Um in general, typically when we hold public public open houses and uh speak with the community association, uh parking is typically something that comes up. Um so there is underground parking which will be accessible thro through the rear lane. Um, and there were no major concerns brought up with that ratio. There's typically people like to see a one provided, but um going by the land use, that's typically accepted accepted. Um they were mostly concerned about. Traffic adjacent to 14th Street, but there is no traffic study required for this permit as well, so we can't speak to an increase of traffic from that perspective.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19351.025, "end": 19351.785, "text": "Okay, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19352.925, "end": 19372.025, "text": "Anyone else for the applicant? Seeing none, uh, thank you so much for being with us. Anyone else wishing to speak as part of the public hearing? Going once, going twice. Last call. Alright, we shall close the public hearing. Over to you, Councillor Atkins.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 19372.905, "end": 19422.605, "text": "Yeah, um happy to support this application. Um they The the site is so this is a combination of two sites. There's there's one building on sort of the south side that has that commercial corridor zoning. And uh I think MU2 is actually much more fitting and in context with the rest of 14th Street, which largely just has commercial on the main level and then residential above. Uh commercial corridor would require multiple levels of commercial uh before you get to the residential on top, and really for 14th Street in the way that it's developing, this is a much more fitting fitting building. So, yeah, the MU2 seems to fit. Uh happy to answer any questions if anyone's got any concerns and close.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19423.805, "end": 19438.525, "text": "All right, that's been moved. Uh, can I have a second or please? Second by Councillor Schmidt. Any further debate? Seeing none, I think we can call the e vote. Let's engage the evote, Madam Clerk. Please.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 19449.865, "end": 19455.965, "text": "Councillor Tyres. Absent. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19457.065, "end": 19457.385, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 19457.825, "end": 19459.405, "text": "Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19460.285, "end": 19511.185, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 to 0. Councillor Tyres is absent. First reading of bylaw 53 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 53 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 53 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 53 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, let's move on to 7.2.9 Policy and Land Use Amendment in Downtown Commercial Court.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 19512.565, "end": 19715.725, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for a mixed use development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 14P 2026 for an amendment to the Eau Claire Area Redevelopment Plan and to proposed bylaw 58D 2026 for the redesignation of 728 Fourth Avenue Southwest from a direct control or DC district to a new DC district. Next slide, please. The subject parcel is located in the downtown commercial core and falls within the plan area of the Eau Claire Area Redevelopment Plan, or ARP. Next slide, please. The parcel is located on the north side of 4th Avenue between 6th Street to the east and 7th Street to the west. It is currently being used as a surface parking lot. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of high density residential developments, commercial uses, and public open space. The site is within a five minute walk to either the 7th Street or 8th Street LRT stations, and is within an eight minute walk to the Kensington Village area. The parcel is currently designated as a DC district based on the former CM2 Downtown Business District that was replaced in the land use bylaw in 2014. The intent of the DC District is to create a transition from the downtown core to the south to the residential neighborhood of Eau Claire to the north. The district also includes requirements related to the Plus 15 pedestrian walkway system, which were established before council approved the Plus 15 policy in 2021. Next slide, please. This application proposes a DC district based on the Center City Mixed Use District, or CCX. It is intended to update the bonus density rules and provisions and restrict building mass adjacent to residential developments. The proposed district also eliminates any plus 15 requirements for the site as it does not fall within the plus 15 policy area. Next slide, please. In order to support the proposed redesignation, a text amendment is required to the Eau Claire ARP. The commercial policies currently state that any floor area ratio or FAR from 0 to 5.0 for residential or commercial uses requires contributions. And then any FAR from 5.0 to 8.0 for commercial uses requires contributions. The proposed amendment allows for a base density of 5.0 FAR without any contributions, and then any FAR from 5.0 to 8.0 for commercial or residential uses require contributions. That's confusing. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing downtown, close to amenities, and public transit. The Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation and the policy amendment. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19717.065, "end": 19722.085, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll uh now move to the public hearing. I believe we have the applicant with us.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_51", "start": 19728.845, "end": 19943.645, "text": "Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Brian Horton with O2. On behalf of Trico Homes, who are the landowner of the site, we'll give a brief presentation, then happy to answer any questions. If you could advance to the next slide, please. As mentioned, the site is well located in the Eau Claire area, just steps away from the Bull River Pathway, LRT access, and all the amenities that downtown has to offer. Next slide, please. As mentioned by administration, we're proposing to change the land use designation of this site from an outdated DC to a new DC based on the CCX land use district. A DC is required. It's really the only option for a site in Eau Claire, and there's a couple reasons for that. One is it to implement the policies of the Eau Claire ARP. It has to either to bring over a downtown district such as CCX. We have to use a direct control district. Then we also use the DC, as mentioned by administration, to remove the requirement for the plus 15 access, which would normally be required of CCX. And then we also use the DC to shape the building to be very site-specific. So we're using the DC to implement uh floor plate sizes that decrease as as the uh as the as the stories rise. And this is specific in relation to the residential building that you can see to the north, so that there's some separation between that building and also that there's a an existing uh slab block tower uh to the west. So it's a unique condition and unique site condition that we use the direct control um to uh to craft a specific uh rules that will result in a building that fits within the context. Next slide, please. So I want to include this side that shows the land use districts in in Eau Claire. As you can see, pretty much all the all the parcels are direct control. We're hoping that with the with the new land use bylaw uh things can be cleaned up and as we move forward with uh land use applications in Eau Claire, we don't have to use direct control in the future, but that is where we are today, and so uh it is consistent with uh all the all the land use districts that are in the Eau Claire area, um uh specific obviously to the north. Next slide, please. As mentioned, we uh have one small amendment to the to the ARP. Um again, it it's a very outdated uh ARP. It needs some updating, so we had to effectively do a small amendment to bring the ARP in alignment with our direct control and the bonus density rules that were uh that are that exist in the CCX. Next slide, please. So, in summary, we're asking for your support today. We believe this is an appropriate land use for this site. It will enable development, it will allow TRICO to build homes in this downtown location on the west side. Diversity of housing, as I mentioned, it's very close to transit, so it's transit supportive. It's also mobility and active modes with the Bull River Pathway so close, it's walkable to downtown. It's mixed use, it'll offer mixed use development, retail like grade on the avenue with a with residential units above above. And with the ARP amendment, it is compliant with the with the ARP. So with that, thank you and happy to answer any questions. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19945.325, "end": 19950.085, "text": "Great. Any questions for the applicant? Councillor Kelly?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 19950.785, "end": 19971.245, "text": "I just want to say thanks for taking the time to meet with me previously because uh knowing that I'm not a huge fan of uh direct control, you you definitely introduced me to, I think, my least favorite part of town, apparently, because the DC's everywhere. But uh, thank you for the explanation for why it's required in this particular case. And I I do look forward to administration us hopefully being able to clean that up at some point in the future. But for now, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 19973.545, "end": 19984.785, "text": "All right. Uh we'll continue with the public hearing then. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Going once, going twice. Last call. All right. Uh public hearing is closed. Uh over to you, Councillor Atkins.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 19986.165, "end": 20002.325, "text": "Yeah, uh this is gonna take a surface parking lot and turn it into housing and maybe a coffee shop for folks in Eau Claire. It's uh it's a pretty no-brainer in my opinion, but happy to answer any questions that anyone would have in my clothes if needed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20006.885, "end": 20013.905, "text": "Second by Councillor Kelly. Any further debate? Seeing none, uh, let's engage the vote.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20027.305, "end": 20033.345, "text": "Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor McLean, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20033.545, "end": 20033.885, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20033.965, "end": 20036.145, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20036.285, "end": 20036.565, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20036.845, "end": 20038.245, "text": "Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20039.125, "end": 20109.525, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. We have the policy and the land use to go through. So first reading of bylaw 14P 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 14P 2026, anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 14P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 14P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. First reading of bylaw 58D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 58D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 58 D. 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 58 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, on to 7.2.10, Landie's amendment and belt line ward eight.", "segments_merged": 21 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 20111.165, "end": 20302.785, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for supportive commercial uses within an existing multi-residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 56D 2026 for the redesignation of 310 15th Avenue Southwest from various direct control or DC districts and the Center City Multiresidential High Rise District or CCMH to the Center City Multiresidential High Rise Support Commercial District, or CCMHX. Next slide, please. The subject parcel is located in the Beltline and falls within the plan area of the Beltline Area Redevelopment Plan. Next slide, please. The parcel is located at the northwest corner of 15th Avenue and 2nd Street Southwest. It was recently redeveloped with a six-story multi-residential building. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of high density residential, commercial, and community uses. 17th Avenue is located one block to the south and offers a wide variety of commercial, retail, and health services. It is considered a neighborhood main street and forms part of the primary transit network. The subject site currently has four designations. There are three direct control districts, all based on the previous land use bylaw 2P80, that allow for multi residential uses with limited office or retail use. The fourth designation on the site is the CCMH district from the current land use bylaw, which is intended primarily for residential uses with a very limited range of health and care uses. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the entire site to the CCMHX district. This district is very similar to the existing CCMH district, but allows for a limited range of small commercial uses such as retail stores, restaurants, and cafes. Next slide, please. The proposed redesignation complies with the Beltline ARP. As per map 3 seen here, the subject site falls within the primarily residential area, which allows for small scale commercial uses that provide additional amenities for the community. In this particular location, policies require that any non residential uses be limited to street corners and not mid block. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would allow small scale commercial uses to be located within an existing multi residential building, providing accessible on site amenities to its residents and surrounding community. Therefore, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20304.185, "end": 20309.045, "text": "Thank you. Let's open up our public hearing. Do we have uh Paul Needham with us?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_45", "start": 20329.945, "end": 20429.805, "text": "Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Paul Needham with Civic Works, the applicant representing our client Truman. Next slide, please. This land use redesignation proposal is minor and technical in nature. It applies to the property at 310 15th Avenue Southwest, a development known as the Broward, as seen here in this photo. As the building is already constructed and occupied, the purpose of the redesignation is to consolidate and modernize the land use districts that apply to the site to allow a limited range of small-scale commercial uses within the existing corner unit at grade. The intent is to create flexibility for a neighborhood serving commercial use, such as a coffee shop, cafe, or small retail space based on market interest. The site is appropriate for the proposed change as it is located on a corner and aligns with the policy direction of the Beltline ARP. The proposed redesignation and contemplated commercial uses would support street corner activation, encourage pedestrian activity, and provide a small neighborhood amenity within an already completed multi residential building. Outreach was appropriately scaled to the minor nature of the application. Information was shared with the Ward 8 Office, the Beltline Neighborhoods Community Association, and the Victoria Park BIA. No community feedback was received through the outreach process. So, in summary, this is a modest technical change that creates the opportunity for a more active community scaled corner frontage while maintaining and respecting the multi residential function of the building. That concludes my presentation. We respectfully ask for Council support and happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20430.625, "end": 20445.705, "text": "Alright, any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, let's continue our public hearing. Anyone else uh here to speak to this? Going once, going twice. All right, public hearing is closed. Uh can I go to you, Councillor Schmidt?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 20447.765, "end": 20452.945, "text": "Uh I will open and then I will. Close at some point.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20453.065, "end": 20461.485, "text": "Okay. Uh that's been moved by Councillor Schmidt. Can I please have a second? All right, second by Councillor Kelly. Seeing no debate, over to you to close.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 20461.905, "end": 20468.645, "text": "This is a great idea. Commercial near 17th Ave on an already completed building. Let's do it.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20470.045, "end": 20474.165, "text": "All right, thank you, uh Councillor Schmidt. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the Evo.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 20501.365, "end": 20502.765, "text": "My computer just monky.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20503.485, "end": 20505.225, "text": "Counter Pantasopoulos, your vote please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 20505.765, "end": 20506.085, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20506.405, "end": 20508.265, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20509.125, "end": 20509.705, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20510.865, "end": 20512.445, "text": "Councillor Dollywall, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20513.145, "end": 20513.685, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20515.185, "end": 20517.165, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, absent.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 20523.765, "end": 20525.245, "text": "My little wheel is spinning. Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20527.565, "end": 20530.505, "text": "If you have encountered a technical difficulty, one moment, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 20530.665, "end": 20532.385, "text": "My big wheel keeps on turning.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20538.485, "end": 20540.125, "text": "Councillor Tyres, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 20541.585, "end": 20542.045, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20544.685, "end": 20551.045, "text": "Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 20551.045, "end": 20551.405, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20551.665, "end": 20556.025, "text": "Thank you. Councillor McLean, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 20556.425, "end": 20556.705, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20559.265, "end": 20564.245, "text": "And Councillor Atkinson is absent. Okay. Mayor Farkas,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20565.285, "end": 20565.605, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20565.965, "end": 20566.725, "text": "all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20566.885, "end": 20568.325, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20584.825, "end": 20586.165, "text": "You may not be able to display.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20586.165, "end": 20589.505, "text": "We can't even blame it on Mondays anymore because", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20589.565, "end": 20589.905, "text": "Tuesday", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20589.905, "end": 20592.245, "text": "Madam Clerk, you moved the council meetings to Tuesdays.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20592.845, "end": 20598.165, "text": "we practiced on Monday. Um, I can let you know what the outcome was, Mayor Farkas. If you don't", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20598.165, "end": 20599.565, "text": "Madam Clerk, please read the OCAM.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20600.085, "end": 20606.005, "text": "so the motion was carried 14-0 with Councillor Atkinson absent.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20606.385, "end": 20636.305, "text": "Alright, we'll now move to the reading of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 56 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 56 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 56 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that's carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 56D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right. Let's move to 7.2.11.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 20642.845, "end": 20877.945, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for a density transfer from one parcel to another. Next slide, please. The recommendation before Council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 57D 2026 for the redesignation of 721 13th Avenue Southwest and 1302 14th Avenue Southwest from a direct control or DC district and the Center City Multiresidential High Rise District or CMH to a new direct control district. Next slide, please. The subject parcels are both located in the Beltline and fall within the plan area of the Beltline Area Redevelopment Plan. The source parcel is located to the east and the receiving parcel is located to the west. Next slide, please. The Source Parcel is located on the south side of 13th Avenue between 7th Street to the west and the Lawheed House and Bolia Gardens to the east. It is currently developed with the Moxon Apartments, which is a three story residential building that is a municipally designated heritage building built in 1912. In order for a heritage site to transfer its unused density, it must be legally designated, and this site has been since 2018. The receiving parcel is located at the northwest corner of 14th Avenue and 12th Street Southwest and is currently undeveloped. Next slide, please. Each of these parcels is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including multi-residential developments, commercial and retail uses, community uses, and parks. The source parcel to the east is currently designated as a DC district based on the CCMH district. The maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, is 4.04, which resulted from a previous density transfer. The receiving parcel to the west is currently designated as the CCMH district and has a maximum FAR of 5.0. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate both sites to a DC district that would enable a third party agreement between landowners to transfer the surplus density on the source site to the receiving site. The existing heritage building on the source site currently has an FAR of 1.53, which is approximately 2,090 square meters less than the maximum FAR allowed on the parcel. The DC district would allow that 2,090 square meters to be transferred to the receiving parcel, which would increase its maximum base FAR from 5.0 to 7.1. Next slide, please. The proposed redesignation complies with the Beltline ARP. Heritage density transfers are encouraged in the policy as a mean to conserve heritage resources. The policies also allow receiving sites to exceed their maximum FAR by 10%, where density transfers have come from municipal heritage sites within the plan area. Next slide, please. In closing, this application would help facilitate the transfer of additional density for new development that would provide additional housing while also enabling the conservation of a historic resource. As such, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 21 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20878.905, "end": 20891.665, "text": "Thank you. Council, can I have your general consent to conclude this item before we go to our afternoon break? All right. Seeing no objection, we'll continue. Let's open up the public hearing for this item and uh hear from the applicant.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 20898.645, "end": 20920.085, "text": "Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Aaron Van Wyck, and I'm a heritage planner with City and Regional Planning Business Unit. As this land use redesignation is city initiated and solely for the purpose of tracking the density transfer, we are the applicants. In addition to Ms. Gansar's presentation, I'm also here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 20928.525, "end": 20939.485, "text": "All right, so seeing no questions uh for the applicant, uh we're still in the public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak to this? Okay. Come on down.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_57", "start": 20950.805, "end": 21086.805, "text": "Mayor and counselors, uh good afternoon. My name is Chris Weeb with that At Large Architecture. I'm here on behalf of the owner of the receiving parcel, um, Globe Capital Management. Mostly here to answer any questions about the uh intended use of the of the receiving site, uh which is 100% uh residential rentable units. Uh we have planned uh 66 units um in a 12 story building with underground parking. Um the uh The owners also own the neighboring Chelsea estates, and this would sort of be uh uh a pairing to that uh residential um uh dense development. Uh we believe it's consistent with the Beltline ARP. We've been in contact with the uh Beltline Neighborhoods Association, uh have their support. And we also have a uh traffic and parking study on hand. Right now we're in the early stages of uh design development, uh working towards a development permit application. If we could go to the next slide, please. We have a preliminary landscape plan. This is on the corner of 14th Avenue at 12th Street. It's a very tight site. It's hard to squeeze enough density to make this project feasible. Six suites per story, hence the need for increased density. Next slide, please. Just another uh drawing of the main floor, a covered plaza opening up the corner, a very modest lobby, and uh all the suit, all the uh floors above. Uh if we go to the next slide, please. Um six suites uh per floor. Um uh again adding to the housing density in the belt line enclave, which uh we believe is uh um in keeping with uh with the planning. Uh to the last slide, please. This is uh a very preliminary uh rendering. Of the corner uh and just to indicate uh stale uh scale of the building. Uh with that uh thank you and we're here to answer any questions.", "segments_merged": 40 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21087.725, "end": 21090.325, "text": "Thank you. I think we have uh Councillor Schmidt interest in you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21090.825, "end": 21099.925, "text": "Yes, I actually just I missed uh administration saying this, but you're going from seven FAR to seven point one far. Is that correct? Did I mishear that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_57", "start": 21099.925, "end": 21116.125, "text": "It's uh 7.7 we've we've 7.7. Yeah, we've gained um two FAR points uh based on landscape uh contribution, and the additional uh 7 per uh 0.7 percent is 10% of that seven FAR.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21116.325, "end": 21117.885, "text": "And is the landscape contribution", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21117.885, "end": 21120.125, "text": "The floor area ratio for the folks. Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21120.245, "end": 21130.725, "text": "uh oh yes, I knew that though. Um the land the landscaping is that coming from density bonusing from additional height that was sought as well?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_57", "start": 21130.725, "end": 21131.045, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21131.045, "end": 21136.105, "text": "Okay, perfect. And then are there there's no plans for commercial", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21136.105, "end": 21136.265, "text": "No.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21136.265, "end": 21138.985, "text": "in this? Okay. Those are my questions. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21143.145, "end": 21152.605, "text": "Thank you. Uh we'll continue with the public hearing. Anyone else wish to speak to this? All right, seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Back to you, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21153.465, "end": 21161.625, "text": "I will move the item and save my words for close, but I do have some questions of admin after I get a second here.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21162.485, "end": 21165.605, "text": "Uh seconded by Councillor Atkinson. Yeah, go ahead, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21165.605, "end": 21193.465, "text": "Uh with this, so these transfers that the the applicant didn't mention they're getting density, they they have density bonusing for the landscaping if When you do these heritage transfers and then go above the floor area ratio of the building, uh does density bonusing still apply or does that is that does density bonusing only apply if there's additional density above the transfer from that heritage transfer?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 21194.045, "end": 21249.225, "text": "Councillor Schmidt, if I could clarify, so the CCMH district, which is the existing district on the receiving site, and then the direct control district will be based on that, the base FAR floor area ratio is 5.0. And with the amount of square meterage that they're receiving from the historic site, that bumps up their base FAR to 7.1. And then at the development permits or permit stage, after this hearing, if it goes forward, they have the opportunity for that 10% increase that the beltline ARP allows for if you've received density from a heritage site. And then there are also the density bonusing opportunities within the land use district as or within the land use bylaw as well. So we're simply today talking about their base district, and anything above that will be dealt with at development permit.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21249.265, "end": 21276.765, "text": "I see. So these transfers just functionally change the base number that they're working on, and then density bonusing would function if they go above that base number. Okay. Thanks. That's good to know. And then um I could have looked at the policy and I didn't, so I apologize ahead of time as far as the uh finer points, but the building, the source building is already heritage on on the municipal heritage registry, correct?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 21276.885, "end": 21278.325, "text": "That's correct, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21278.365, "end": 21284.885, "text": "So how does this transfer um further protect the heritage status of that building?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 21285.645, "end": 21326.125, "text": "So the first of all the density transfer will now limit that heritage building to exactly the form that it is in now. They have no more FAR to expand the building. In these cases, though, it is a historic building, so we don't imagine them wanting to make the building larger or expand on it any further. And then also what this or what the third party agreement does is there is monetary change of hands for that extra density. And typically we see that money being used to help conserve the building. So they can use that for repairs or what have you in order to maintain the building as it was approved as a historic building.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21326.165, "end": 21335.425, "text": "I see. Okay, perfect. And then does this uh policy only apply within the beltline ARP or is this a citywide policy that can be used?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 21335.645, "end": 21342.565, "text": "This is only within the beltline area redevelopment plan area plan area, excuse me.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21342.665, "end": 21344.945, "text": "Okay, perfect. Those are my questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21347.505, "end": 21352.865, "text": "All right, I'm gonna consider you have as opened. I'm seeing no further debates, over to you to close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 21353.865, "end": 21368.365, "text": "Um like we added commercial with the last one, preserving heritage whereas it exists is a good thing, and we get more housing as a bonus, and a density bonus is another bonus. So uh this does feel like a win win. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21368.665, "end": 21371.685, "text": "Alright, you have closed. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 21386.265, "end": 21387.965, "text": "Councillor Dollywall, your vote please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 21392.625, "end": 21393.345, "text": "So yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 21393.725, "end": 21397.405, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Yes.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 21397.325, "end": 21397.705, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 21398.045, "end": 21400.105, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 21400.465, "end": 21449.265, "text": "Yes. Whoops. Oh my gosh. Yes. I'm Yes, they are. Alright, uh, please uh display the results. That is carried 15 to 0. Alright, uh let's do the readings. Uh first reading of bylaw 57 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 57 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 57 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 57 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Um, I'm gonna bang the gavel. We'll be back at 350 for 7.2.12 land use amendment in Klarney Glengury.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 23385.405, "end": 23392.505, "text": "All right, welcome back to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the rule.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 23393.165, "end": 23401.365, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Jamison. Councillor Johnston. Councillor Kelly. Councillor McLean.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 23402.445, "end": 23402.845, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 23403.105, "end": 23412.645, "text": "Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell,", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_46", "start": 23412.785, "end": 23413.005, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 23413.425, "end": 23428.545, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Clerk, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Johnston,", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 23429.305, "end": 23429.485, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 23429.965, "end": 23431.005, "text": "and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 23431.785, "end": 23432.225, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 23432.325, "end": 23432.885, "text": "Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 23434.145, "end": 23439.345, "text": "All right, I believe we're on 7.2.12 land use amendment in Clarney Glengarry Ward 8.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 23440.345, "end": 23600.145, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for grade-oriented housing. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 50D 2026 for the redesignation of 3036 and 3040 29th Street, Southwest, from a direct control or DC district to the housing grade oriented or HGO district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the community of Killarney Glengarry and falls within the plan area of the Westbrook Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The subject site includes two parcels located on the east side of 29th Street, one block north of Richmond Road. Each parcel is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and detached garage accessed from the rear lane to the east. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of residential districts. A park and the Killarney-Glengarry Community Association facilities are located two blocks to the northeast, and Killarney Elementary School is located one block to the west. A commercial center with a variety of amenities and services is located one block south along Richmond Road. The subject parcels are currently designated as a DC district from the 1990s for the purpose of accommodating low density residential development in the form of single detached and semi detached dwellings. Next slide, please. The proposed HGO district allows for a variety of grade-oriented housing forms that are contextually appropriate in low density areas. The maximum building height is 12 meters and the maximum floor area ratio is 1.5. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Westbrook Communities LAP, which identifies the site as being within the neighborhood connector urban form category. Neighborhood Connector is characterized by a broad range of housing types along higher activity streets that may accommodate small-scale commercial uses. The LAP also identifies the site as having a low modified building scale, which allows up to four stories in height. Next slide, please. In closing, this application would allow for appropriate residential uses that would provide more housing options in the community. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the redesignation of the subject parcels. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 23601.285, "end": 23608.985, "text": "Thank you. We'll open up the public hearing. We'll move through the registered speakers list. First with uh Tony Grigoff, the applicant.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 23616.065, "end": 23922.405, "text": "Uh hello. Good morning, or I guess it's uh afternoon here, Mayor and uh council members. My name's Tony Gregoff, and I'm the applicant of LOC 20 2025 uh 0179 at uh 3036 3040 29th Street Southwest Calgary. Thank you for taking uh the time to listen to me here. Um my wife and I have owned and managed real estate since uh 2002. Um and the company that manages that's Greg Off property, so our name's right on the properties. Self-representing intentionally today. These properties are intended to be long-term family investments because our name is attached to them, as I've said. We take responsibility, like we take this as a very serious redevelopment plan. Our goal is to contribute positively to communities where we invest and take this approach in a thoughtful and responsible manner. In terms of a little bit about myself, I'm an environmental consultant with GCL Environmental. GCL Environmental is a company I founded in 2008. We represent uh literally uh thousands of sites that are being reclaimed across the province. I've been involved in brownfield redevelopment and understand the land use and regulatory context of cleaning up sites and also dealing with land use changes and the public interest process and respect uh the policies and and all of the appropriate framework. So, in terms of today's application, it's uh Specifically, it's an HGO status from the DC, which you guys heard, which is an old outdated land use that's not really appropriate for this area in terms of uh so I'll get into some of that. So, in terms of the proposed uh, you know, the proposal it aligns with the M MD or the Municipal Development Plan LAP and the sitters city's uh broader policy direction with this uh gradual intensification. And inner city communities. So we did a site test with the architectural firm. I can bring up some of the details if we need to today, but it does conform to what we've put forward as has been recommended. The site is located in inner city with moderate growth and increased choice over time. This is not intended to be a large scale apartment style development. It's intended to be moderate ground oriented housing. That uh is evolves and you know being sensitive to the surrounding properties, there's a couple that uh that are already in under uh development in this accord. So the site is uh is uh along 29th Street, so from a mobility standpoint, uh high kind of traffic area that's uh interconnected with walking distance to Richmond Road, um transit, as well as 26th Avenue. So there's lots of amenities, parks, schools, infrastructure in the area. And I know that transit will continue to evolve over time. Another important point in this application is it's not occurring in isolation, as I alluded to. A portion of Clarney is already transitioning with near nearby redevelopment projects, similar forms of density emerging in the area. In the context of the proposal, yeah, so it's yeah. I wanted to acknowledge uh the concerns from the community. I've definitely gotten an opportunity to meet Richard, and I know he'll be representing a number of other residents. In particular around parking, traffic, height, and fitting in with the neighborhood. So today got a good chance to chat with them about some of that and hope there's an opportunity in the future that we could uh you know maybe even you know have a future conversations around uh what the development permit would look like. So, in terms of our community outreach, included signage, uh flyers, and uh direct communication with the community association that we didn't get response from. We also offered to, yeah, like I said, meet with them and have a conversation. So I'm glad I had a conversation with Richard today. With respect to parking and transportation, we recognize the practical reality. Residents will continue to own vehicles. Our intent is to balance the reality with the city's broader mobility goals by incorporating a rear lane access, on site parking, secure bicycle storage, as well as mobility storage. With respect to height and massing, We understand their sensitivity, sensitive topics within the community, and we'd want to ensure that it's aligned with HGO framework and the LAP. We make sure that the development permit process includes considerations around shadowing, overlook, overlook, landscape. I know there's a couple trees that we'd probably leave in place. Architectural treatment", "segments_merged": 78 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 23922.405, "end": 23926.625, "text": "Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, you're just at time, but perhaps a final sentence to conclude your thoughts.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 23926.725, "end": 23939.865, "text": "for sure. Thank you. Ultimately, our intention is not to disrupt uh to disrupt be disruptive in terms of the redevelopment and uh to make sure that it's a like aligned with the policies. Thank you again, Jeremy.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 23940.085, "end": 23945.465, "text": "Thank you so much. Are there any questions for the applicant? Uh Councillor Panzopolis?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 23947.445, "end": 23965.945, "text": "thanks so much uh for coming in and presenting? Just wanted to pick up uh a couple of your comments that you made. Um a gradual density. Do you want to speak to ten units next to you know single family homes and and where that Logic comes from this is sort of a the gradual density that uh comes in a neighborhood.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 23966.505, "end": 24002.045, "text": "Yeah, yeah, 29th Street's already seen a number of the single family homes that have been taken down. So there's uh there's a number of infills, and then there are some H GO houses on that lot like along that uh corridor already. So, in terms of the gradual piece, um you know I think this is just part of the evolution of that whole street, is it's gonna be Evolving and changing over time. So some of those uh infills are up to four units, and so it's not just two units, it's four units, and then obviously there's the the HGO stuff that's ongoing.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24003.825, "end": 24025.045, "text": "The context of uh you your neighbors, you said you mentioned um what did you hear from residents and you you wish you would have talked to some. We'll make some changes later. Maybe just speak to that engagement. So the folks you met, they just live sixty-one meters from your contact, or what was the this, you know, why didn't you engage with those folks earlier if they were directly impacted?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24025.825, "end": 24061.485, "text": "Well, the the only opposition that we did receive was an email that uh we received from the city of Calgary. However, I did watch um the previous kind of applications go in, so and you know, and then I wasn't surprised to see um Richard here, and I did reach out to the the association. We did uh the flyers. Um you know I have you know historically I talked to the the neighbors um right beside the one property but uh in terms of actual direct communication there hasn't been too much. Um I don't know if you've got a follow-up question on that one.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24061.745, "end": 24070.305, "text": "No, I'm just curious, you mentioned, you know, looking forward to engaging with them after on a development permit. You know, this is obviously a big land change, so we're just trying to reconcile engagement with uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24070.305, "end": 24110.125, "text": "So So on that note, I'll just quickly respond to that. I think the key to me is, you know, currently today we're dealing with uh land use change. I do believe that in the process of development permit that there could be a condition or conditions associated with some engagement with the community to ensure that it, you know, is more in alignment with what they're looking for and makes sure that there's a consultation piece to uh to address some of the items that I've talked about because there isn't details today. And I get that there isn't details, but I didn't want to put forward an application for land use without having certainty before I actually went to development permit, if that makes sense.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24111.185, "end": 24115.465, "text": "And you chose HGO. Why uh H Go classification designation?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24117.345, "end": 24157.325, "text": "You know, I looked at uh the overall landscape of what's happening in the community and I felt that that would be the best blend use, gives the most flexibility. It doesn't mean that, you know, that that's where we'll end up in terms of the engagement process, but I thought that it was a you know, in my opinion, it it fit. You know, there's other properties that are H go and Um given the affordability pieces that uh the you know, because that's something I didn't touch on, is that you know obviously we would want to look at, you know, and and I know affordability can have different definitions depending on which user group and audience, but wanted to have that flexibility built into this at the land use stage.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24159.405, "end": 24166.845, "text": "H CO g allows a little more uh density, like you're you're allowed that five which triggers the same HC, right? That that's the issue. The reason like like", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24166.845, "end": 24167.205, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24167.205, "end": 24171.225, "text": "all that aside, you wanted that for those reasons, like squeeze as much as you can into the lot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24171.245, "end": 24244.185, "text": "Well, the CMHC piece, if you guys have been following it, has changed a lot with MLS select product. Um, so the conditions around How you get financing related to those products continue to evolve and and it's real time. So you know now you know you need it used to be that it was part of the you know financing of the construction. It's no longer like there's a lot more strings attached to that. And then in addition to that, you need to have certain lease rates up. So you know you know, that again, you know, if you put that with the DP and you actually put that forward, it might all collapse if you didn't actually go through this in kind of a rational logical process. So I wanted to slow this down, get land use, create some. Maybe even some allowance to have some conversations with the public if there is a string attached to the land use change where the DP requires that, so at or some form of communication with the community. In conjunction with that, is looking at the landscape as it continues to evolve with different financing and then just the whole landscape of what's happening in the city with blanket rezoning, et cetera.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24246.045, "end": 24278.705, "text": "Maybe just finally, the the CA um had a comment about transit and they said, you know, absolutely uh Richmond is on a you know primary transit network, but the bus, this is relating to parking and the point five and the two developments, it's gonna be really tight. So so what was your comments and address back to the CA where you've got a bunch of density adjacent, so the street parking will be diminished. Um the logic is there's a primary transit, lots of busing, but evenings and weekends there isn't. So, you know, what was that? What was that messaging back to the CA when they sent you that note?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24279.405, "end": 24320.025, "text": "That we've got onsite parking. So it would be, it would conform to the LAP. It would be rare parking and there's also street parking available. So currently, you know, I've used the residences and uh there hasn't been an issue, but you know, I didn't do a traffic study, and uh so it it conforms to the LAP, and that's what I responded was you know that we would have the on site parking at rear lane. The rear lane I was supportive of um having it paved a couple years ago, so now it's paved. So it's a it is a very desirable back lane that uh that accesses both of those uh properties.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 24320.725, "end": 24338.605, "text": "So no comment back to the CA about the transit. So there was the the question about bus frequency one every ten minutes or less for 15 hours, seven days a week. So just the logic behind going to HCO. So they you know part of that is you're on a very primary transit network, lots of transit. That's the reason that the less more density and less uh parkings.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24338.605, "end": 24367.265, "text": "So you're two to three hundred meters from public transit um on Richmond and then I think it's like three to four hundred on yeah, so there's there's definitely transit options. Um and I would have you know I can't speak you know and there's on site parking. So you know that that was addressed in the note back to, and I do have those emails they were sent. There was multiple emails sent to um to the community association that I did not hear back.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 24368.305, "end": 24372.565, "text": "Thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alrighty, over to Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24373.305, "end": 24384.945, "text": "Uh you mentioned some experience with this site. What what has been uh your history? With the site that you're seeking to redevelop here.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24386.385, "end": 24389.205, "text": "In terms of ownership or in terms of development?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24389.205, "end": 24390.225, "text": "Ownership, yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24390.285, "end": 24422.605, "text": "Ownership. So yeah, so we like I've said we've owned real estate for quite a while. Um I've owned you know 3040 since 2015, and we've owned 3036 since uh I think it was 2021. Um yeah, so We've owned them for a while here and and the intention is that we'll own them into the future. That's why we would want this to work with the community. Is there's this isn't about a flip, a quick flip. This is about developing something that's a that's part of our legacy, and it's about getting it right.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24424.025, "end": 24497.665, "text": "And so I I totally understand what you're saying here, where you know you're you are following the policies as they've been laid out here. Westbrook LAP, the DP process, there's no requirement for a concurrent development permit, but you have mentioned that that you're aware of the community concerns that you would be open to future engagement. You know, I There's not necessarily a condition that's needed for that. Really, what it I think it comes down to is just the the trust that those conversations would happen and that there would be an openness to hearing what they're saying. And it's it's not before us today, but community engagement is before us today. So um as far as the site specifics and be many of the issues do relate to development permit issues. So um What what is your willingness and ability to continue that engagement as you look at the development permit options with the surrounding neighbors, the community association that uh have indicated an interest in the future of this site?", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24499.325, "end": 24581.145, "text": "I think the short answer is absolutely, we want to have those conversations. Um it fits in with the long term legacy play for us. So we want to get this right for the community, we want to get it right for us. Um you know, some of the H go stuff that um that was brought up in terms of how dense it is, we have some of the same concerns, like in terms of like is it gonna be You know, like the basement suite situation with all the H goes, is that going to be the highest vacancy component? Or, you know, are those going to be full? Like, do we need to actually look at the development permit process after we had some of these consultations? Um, this isn't just about meeting the metrics of what an MLS select product would be. You know, it's got to be a very intentional design. And uh so to me, it it's about go slow so that we can go fast to get this right and and if that means having conversations with the community which I would you know I would definitely have um and I I did get the you know the contact information today from Richard and it definitely was it was a nice conversation like in a lot of ways like I you know I I hope there can be better alignment because I know you're gonna hear opposing views on a on a number of factors associated to this development uh or this land use change and and I get it. To me, it's this has got to be an iterative process to get it right.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24583.125, "end": 24638.085, "text": "Yes, and we something that has uh I've come back to several times is that when when it comes to housing, Policy can only get us so far, and processes can only get us so far because there is a rightfully a strong emotional attachment to things that happen around your home. And you can't really especially as a smaller scale developer, work outside of the policy because there's there's risk involved with that. So um how do you how do you view the risk of Engaging with community and and finding compromise versus the risk of say d delaying this process further at the land use stage. Is there what what what would be your cost benefit of that if that question makes sense?", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24641.365, "end": 24704.945, "text": "I'll take it maybe in a bit of a different direction. As we remove uncertainty and risk, meaning you get land use, then you you know what I mean? The development permits another stage gate that I've got to go through. Which, in my mind, that would be the stage gate where we should be really having the consultation with the you know the community. That process in my mind probably needs some evolution at the city where we're actually having those conversations at that stage gate. Um, but going back to your initial question, there's a Rolodex of projects that I've got in the queue, and this is one of them. If we don't get past this stage, I've got two choices. I hire a professional like O2 or one of these other companies to come in here and do this presentation again. Or I put it on hold for a couple of years and then wait till another council. So we're patient. I don't know if that's the right answer, but it's the honest answer, in my opinion.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24706.065, "end": 24741.445, "text": "I mean it's really the reality of what we face here with all these um applications. Now, last question for you is when it comes to an LAP and potential land use, you do have a menu of options. Uh you settled on HGO, so Uh I mean Councillor Pantasopoulos, I think, asked this question, but overall the the decision for HGO and and what you envision as the future of this site and the future of of the what what you would like to see as a result of choosing HGO uh to bring before us here today.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 24742.385, "end": 24800.245, "text": "I think uh, you know, the reason I went with HCO is to give us the highest, you know, densification uh options, not necessarily meaning that we would have to use them for the highest density. So, you know, it might make more sense to go at eight at the development permit stage. Um it really will depend partly on consultation and a number of those other factors that I talked about, which were like do we really want five? Below grade level units. So I know I you know we're putting forth HGO, and I'm not giving a lot of details on the development permit in terms of the exact plan of what's going to be done here, but I do think there's a place to have a conversation around some of that with um with the community for sure, but also being very intentional about. getting this first step done which is land use.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24800.425, "end": 24801.365, "text": "Okay. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 24804.665, "end": 24810.905, "text": "All right, I think that's it for the applicant. Uh we'll continue our public hearing. We have Richard Craig registered.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 24821.285, "end": 25123.365, "text": "Good afternoon. I have a slide package, please. There we go. Thank you. Mayor Jeremy and Councillors, my name is Richard Craig, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the homeowners who are directly impacted by the proposed development. I sent out a quick email to my contacts to determine their reaction. I was I always add an unsubscribed note to my emails. The first response from a longtime contact was slide two, please. Next slide. Nope, one back. Nope, one back, please. That one. This is the this is the response I got to my email about the proposed development, which is pretty sad. Unfortunately, over the last two years I've had more of these than I'd like to admit. So I then went and did a bit of research around the community to see what others thought. And if I could have the next slide, please. And this, the spot in the middle, is the development or the proposed development, and the red stars are the uh neighbors that I talk to who object to the development. Simple as that. The issues, slide three, please, next slide. The issues are the usual ones, compatibility with the existing community, et cetera, and you can read them down. We do have um Some parking issues on there on the street. It is a busy street, that's correct. And the infrastructure and the reliability. A little while ago we um we had uh the sewer line in 29th Street collapse and we have an interesting potable water leak at the 3206 construction site, which is creating a little brook down the back alley um of uh the of the development. And it's very rustic, but it's wasting a lot of water. The other thing is we already have two HGOs at 3206 and 3207, which are just south of the proposed site. And those are still under construction, and we are still worried about what that's what's going to happen when they're completed and parking. I went onto the websites to the DMAP and looked for some information. Now let me back up. Two years ago, the developer of 3206 provided a postcard image of what they intended to build. Like it or not, we could see what was coming. We didn't like it, and we submitted 65 objection letters to the city planner. They were ignored and the project was approved. We went on to the websites to see what had happened, what was available on this project. The D map is quite vague and Tony's letter to the to the city for the requesting this also left me sort of wondering a bit. He's a developer with $1.5 million in real estate assets and is preparing to spend probably millions to construct it, but we don't get a good picture of what he is delivering. And that is the concern. So what we do then Now, I don't blame the builder for that. I think it's part of the development process. It isn't clear. At 3206, there was quite a lot of negotiation between the developer and the direct neighbor, resulting in adjustments to the setback of the building and the rear building height to reduce shadowing. The point is that this was done prior to the land use change. I am concerned that if we we lose the leverage, if the land use is changed. Next slide, please. From what I can tell, the output Hmm, sorry, yes. Next slide, please. I've jumped those. Next one. Here we get to that one. This is the houses within the 60 meters of the development. Um, but if I look at this development, I believe the red square is more consistent with who's going to be affected by it because it will increase traffic and it will um increase parking in the area.", "segments_merged": 44 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25126.885, "end": 25130.925, "text": "Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, you're just at time, but perhaps a final sentence to conclude.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25130.925, "end": 25158.945, "text": "Okay, I'll skip. So one of my okay, I'll skip down to the bottom. Next slide, please. This is what we are frightened we're going to get. That is on 26th Avenue and 33rd Street. So for this project, I would ask Council to reject the application to change the land use to HGO because that is a significant upgrade of usage.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25158.945, "end": 25164.005, "text": "Thank you very much. Please hold right there because Schmidt may have a question for you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25165.145, "end": 25179.985, "text": "Yes, and thank you for coming today. Um In in the context of what you're experiencing in your neighborhood, what would you see as a land use that you could support here?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25180.365, "end": 25291.125, "text": "Well, um, certainly not that. All right. Uh and I fear that once it becomes HGO, um, it can be developed at a lower level, but it can also be developed at that level. And this is still 29th Street is a busy street. It's the last street in Kalani in that area between 30th and 26th that has still got a lot of older homes on because of its busy. It's busy because it's a collector street for Kalani, and it's also busy because Richmond Road doesn't work. We've got four lanes of traffic to two lanes to five and six lanes. And in the afternoon that's completely blocked up, and so it flows down 29th Street. I would like to see, I mean, the ideal would be something like duplex or semi detached, because that's what's in the area. We are one and two stories. Most of the area still is. It's very heavily turned into duplexes to the east of 29th Street and to the west. So that's really the building form that is basically prevalent in the area. And there's still some old 50s homes. And the 50s homes fall into two categories. One is those that have been upgraded, and one is those that are not so upgraded and need to be replaced. So something smaller than HGO, not that. And so I I'm Petrified that if we get HGO, you know, Tony says he's not going to, but it could be flipped, and we will get that, because the next buyer will just buy it because of the HGO. Does that answer the question?", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25291.125, "end": 25296.045, "text": "It does. And you know, the the uncertainty is something that we we deal with a lot", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25296.045, "end": 25296.425, "text": "I know.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25296.425, "end": 25356.905, "text": "in these hearings. Uh both, I mean, you you heard from the applicant uncertainty from the applicant side and certainty from the resident side. And that that is the something that does create a lot of difficulty when it comes to making these decisions. And hearing that you had a long conversation with him today, you exchanged contact information. I mean, uh like I said before, policy sometimes can only take us so far. And this idea of of trying to build trust, of trying to build that relationship so that there's buy in from the applicant to want to work with the surrounding neighbors. So I mean, in this case, from what you heard today. How confident are you that that might exist in this situation given this is not um you know a large a larger scale uh type of applicant that that we would sometimes see in these situations?", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25357.745, "end": 25395.345, "text": "It's pleasing to see he's local and and not a major force. When I went looking for him, I couldn't find much about him. I I do know now why I didn't understand it. Um but once the HGO is is on that site. It might not be him. Now, I have also offered to um try to facilitate Tony meeting the people that I showed up there with the red stars to uh to try to get something that'll work. But they're we're petrified. I mean, HGO is ugly for us, and that's why we don't like it.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25396.965, "end": 25397.485, "text": "Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25398.725, "end": 25410.425, "text": "Sorry, sorry to to give a a different context in terms of RCG and all that, I don't have enough knowledge to that. Um the the semi-detached as what I'm used to", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25411.705, "end": 25443.705, "text": "and I mean as far as we we won't get too deep into this, but as far as the the flexibility that HGO provides for design, it is better than RCG. Just in in what can be built and what's possible. Um my last question for you is just around the Westbrook local area plan because that was that's been in place, I believe, since about 2021. Um I might be wrong about that, but that's I believe when it came in. So", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25443.705, "end": 25444.705, "text": "over two years ago.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25444.865, "end": 25461.985, "text": "yeah. So w what was did you have any experience or participation in that and now seeing the results of that? Um if If that had any effect on how you view this.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25462.125, "end": 25612.505, "text": "Um I don't like the the Westbrook plant. I mean there's twelve communities stuck in it in a monolithic result. Um somebody's gone around with a crayon and made this three stories and this four stories and this HGO and it it it it needs to be rethought with proper community input. I'm a I'm afraid I've been on a number of council or council city projects where you know traffic, etc., etc. And I'm a little jaundiced. I there's the engage and ignore process and there's the engage and and embrace process. And I think we get a lot of or we have in the past, have a lot of engage and ignore. Again, somebody in the administration, when we said in 65. Objection letters, somewhere they just disappeared. It was never mentioned. And I was stupid enough not to come down and do what I'm doing today, put a map up there and show you. The whole street was red. Everybody. We have homeowners, we have renters, and we have actually got vacant, vacant buildings on our street. One's brand new, one is being redone by. um the chur the Catholic Church. The the the um the effort of getting them to to respond is is is is getting 65 objections to the council is not trivial, as you can probably imagine. As a result of that exercise, I communicate with about a hundred or so folks in Kalani, mostly south of 28th Street uh 28th Avenue, but that's how I get t to hear what people are worried about. I think we need to look at uh West the Westbrook plan and we need to have it it's causing part of this problem. It's causing us grief because uh w we we we feel we can't control it. It causes the developer grief because he thinks he can get HGO, which he can, but we're not going to sit quietly and let it happen. That's the problem. It's con we get this constant conflict. And that's the result of it.", "segments_merged": 26 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25614.985, "end": 25619.425, "text": "Okay, I appreciate you coming and uh giving this input today. It's important for us to hear that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 25620.565, "end": 25621.105, "text": "You're welcome.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25621.645, "end": 25639.005, "text": "Thank you so much. We will continue the public hearing. Is there anybody here with us or on the line who'd like to speak to this item? Going once, going twice. All right, we shall close the public hearing. Over to you, Councillor Kelly, for questions for Admin.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 25642.145, "end": 25664.465, "text": "Thank you, worship. Um Admin, I a couple of questions here. First, I I note around this particular site, uh, to the north of uh 20, what is that uh 8th Avenue and then to south of Richmond Road, there's a bunch of like contiguous H go. Um has that disappeared or is that disappearing, pardon me, with the um with the blanket rezoning rescind?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25666.905, "end": 25680.705, "text": "Um, Councillor Kelly, to my knowledge, no, I don't believe that would be um reverting back to previous because it is located within the LAP area and aligns with the urban form category directions from the LAP.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 25681.085, "end": 25705.005, "text": "Okay, thanks. And then my follow-up question here is I note that this one little pocket has this uh DC 29Z91. Uh I'm just wondering if because obviously that's pretty old. Uh I'm wondering if you can just give me a bit of insight in terms of either a why that's a direct control or um why it was never rezoned.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25707.205, "end": 25756.125, "text": "Councillor Kelly, the so the purpose of the direct control district, it was approved in 1991 under the previous land use bylaw 2P80, and it was to limit density to single-detached, semi-detached, and duplex dwellings. I'm not too sure why it was created. It would have um it would meet the intent of the R2 district from that previous land use bylaw. So I'm sure somebody else may know the history. I don't have that on me though. Um but since, especially since the adoption of the LAP, that kind of target intensity or density doesn't align now with council's direction in the new LAP. Um that's part of the reason why administration and the Calgary Planning Commission are recommending that this go forward.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 25756.685, "end": 25771.045, "text": "Do you have any insight in terms of uh in the original blanket rezoning from 2024 why this uh wouldn't have been changed to RCG or HGO why it's stated DC? I I mean I think I know the answer to this question, but I want to ask it anyway.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25771.165, "end": 25786.765, "text": "Right. Um the answer to that is any parcels that were designated as direct control were not included. So only those parcels that had a an existing stock district or a standard district from our land use bylaw were included in that um rezoning for housing.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 25787.785, "end": 25790.605, "text": "That's what I thought. Okay, thank you very much. Those are my questions, your worship.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 25791.865, "end": 25797.745, "text": "All right. Any other questions for admin? Good seeing none. Can I go to you, Councillor Schmidt?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25800.025, "end": 25816.045, "text": "Yeah, so I'll move the item and use this also to ask a couple quick questions of admin. Um in for neighborhood flux within the Westbrook LAP, um the general policies in 2.4 apply to that, correct, I believe?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25816.645, "end": 25818.845, "text": "Just to clarify, this is neighborhood connector.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25819.345, "end": 25839.245, "text": "Oh, neighborhood connector, sorry. Um Oh boy, now I'm gonna have to relook at my so does section 2.4 apply to neighborhood connector as well? I'm just trying to find", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25839.245, "end": 25843.345, "text": "Sorry, Councillor, I'm just pulling up 2.4. What is that section?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25843.725, "end": 25888.185, "text": "um it's just the general policies. I guess I neighborhood connector, neighborhood local, they do have some constraints within the LAP just around what needs to be followed. So because of the the concerns expressed from the member of the community today. How much effect does the LAP have when it comes to the development permit process? Is that when when we have a file manager looking at the file, will the will the Westbrook LAP constraints and best practices uh inform the development permit process as well?", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25888.645, "end": 25912.705, "text": "In one word, absolutely. It's one of the lead statutory documents that a planner or file manager has to consider in rendering any decisions or conditions on a development permit. So this being Oh, sorry, I was just interrupted. Dwelling units in HGO are permitted use, so the LAP would not apply.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25912.705, "end": 25913.065, "text": "I see.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25913.065, "end": 25915.145, "text": "Sorry, I just I forgot that. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25915.645, "end": 25932.925, "text": "So then at at this point, um Should this be approved today, it would have a permitted use designation and then it would uh really be the applicant's willingness to meet with the community for further steps after land use.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25933.305, "end": 25956.565, "text": "That's correct. So it would be permitted, any dwelling unit development on this parcel would be permitted outright as long as there aren't any relaxations. So in the case where the rules of the district could not be met or they need to be exceeded, then it would be treated as a discretionary use. It would be advertised and open up to an appeal.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25957.185, "end": 25976.045, "text": "So then um anything just for the the community's benefit, anything that goes beyond what the expectations are within that permitted use, then there would there would be a requirement for that further engagement and review and and those types of processes as well.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25976.145, "end": 25988.105, "text": "That's correct. So if a development permit application comes in and it cannot meet every single rule of the HGO district, then exactly it's treated as discretionary use and open up to that discussion.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 25988.205, "end": 25998.965, "text": "And nothing stops an applicant from going under the say height or massing or all the all of those different parts of a permitted use.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 25999.065, "end": 26003.565, "text": "Yes, that's correct. Those measurable standard rules are typically maximums in the district.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26003.625, "end": 26005.665, "text": "Okay to go to manager Lee who wants to jump in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 26005.665, "end": 26039.105, "text": "The council just to clarify the requirement for engagement, even under a discretionary use, uh it is not a bylaw requirement to engage. However, it is always in the best interest of the applicant as well as the community members that are affected to engage with communities on any potential relaxations. It just causes a lot of trouble for them if they go to an appeal, and the demonstration that no um mitigation to to uh mitigate the effects of such a relaxation have been addressed. So um just to clarify that it's not a bylaw requirement to engage.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 26039.225, "end": 26041.705, "text": "Okay, thank you. Uh those are my questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26043.765, "end": 26062.445, "text": "Okay, Councillor, you have moved the item. Is there a second or seconded by uh Councillor Atkinson? Any further debate on this? All right. Seeing no further debate, uh over to you close, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 26064.045, "end": 26248.065, "text": "Uh these ones are tough, especially for uh in this case for me, where I am where where I have the benefit of local area plans to guide us. And The the concerns of the community are real. Certainly, I think there are changes that we can make outside of this process. And I am encouraged by the engagement that even happened within council chambers today between those affected. And um we we we have a bit of a unique applicant here today as well who is. Has has more connection to the site and and to the surrounding community and has expressed a willingness to move forward in a collaborative way. And that requires trust. And so it you know however I do end up voting on this, um, you know, should should I support this in a few moments here? I think that would be an affirmation of the undertaking of the applicant to continue that trust and continue that relationship because we do need more housing. Killarney is An area that has become a place where young people, young families can get a start. A lot of park spaces, close to amenities. It gets you close to downtown. It decreases the cost of living because something we don't factor in when we talk about affordability is the external costs of living 30 kilometers from. Downtown from the amenities that our inner city offers is that you know, something that factored in for myself and my family when we uh d found our first place to live was the difference between owning one car or two cars and the ability to own one car was what allowed us to afford to live where we live, even on a Councillor's salary. So um This does provide that opportunity, and with some compromise along the way, which we've heard there's a willingness for, uh, I think that that opportunity can be provided to other people in the community. So I will be supporting this today with the caveat that I am expecting that trust and that relationship to continue from the applicant, even though that's not a requirement of this here today. It is part of uh the quote I used previously, George Costanza, we live in a society, so let's act as a society.", "segments_merged": 26 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26249.765, "end": 26255.145, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Schmidt. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote on the uh recommendation.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 26276.785, "end": 26278.325, "text": "Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26279.085, "end": 26307.085, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. And on that, the motion has been defeated, six to nine, with Councillor Schmidt, Kelly, Daliwell, Atkinson. Yule and tires in support and the remainder of post. Alright, we will move now to item 7.2.13.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 26308.145, "end": 26308.965, "text": "Cross out the bylaws.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 26310.005, "end": 26501.165, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to enable a mixed use development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 61D 2026 for the redesignation of 2208, 2212, 2216, 2220, and 2224, 37th Street, Southwest, from the multiresidential contextual low profile, or MC1 district, to the mixed use general, or MU1 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is also located in the community of Clarney Glengarry and falls within the plan area of the Westbrook Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The subject site includes five parcels located on the east side of 37th Street, between 21st Avenue to the north and 23rd Avenue to the south. Each parcel is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and detached garage accessed from the rear lane. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of residential uses. 37th Street and 17th Avenue, located approximately three blocks to the north, are both neighborhood main streets and provide many commercial amenities and health services. Westbrook Mall and the Westbrook LRT station are also located approximately 650 meters or an eight minute walk north of the subject site. The subject parcels are currently designated as the MC1 district, which is primarily intended for multi residential development of low height and medium density. The maximum floor area ratio is 2.5 and the maximum building height is 14 meters. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the parcels to the MU1 district with a floor area ratio modifier of 4.0 and a maximum building height of 24 meters. The district is intended to accommodate a mix of residential and commercial uses, either in separate buildings or in the same building, and allows either residential or commercial uses to be located at grade facing a street. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Westbrook Community's LAP, which identifies the site as being within the Neighborhood Connector Urban Form category. Neighborhood Connector is characterized by a broad range of housing types along higher activity streets that may accommodate small scale commercial uses. The LAP also identifies the site as having a low building scale, which allows up to six stories. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing choice and amenities in this inner city area that is well served by convenient transit options. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the redesignation of the subject parcels. Thank you, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26502.565, "end": 26513.105, "text": "Thank you. We will go to the public hearing. We have Colin Hetnyak signed up to speak first. Or rather, the applicant. Come on down. We've been seeing a lot of you guys today.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 26526.805, "end": 26724.885, "text": "Helmara Farkas and members of council. My name is Colin Netka. I'm an urban planner with O2 representing the property owner as the applicant. Today we are seeking your support for a land use redesignation for five parcels located in the community of Killarney, Glengarry, totally totaling approximately 0.3 hectares. The application proposes to redesignate the site to the mixed use general ME1 district with heightened density modifiers to accommodate development up to six stories. The proposal aligns with the policy direction of the Westbrook Community's local area plan. Next slide, please. The site is located along the neighborhood Main Street of 37th Street and just south of another Main Street, 17th Avenue. It benefits from strong connectivity with direct access to surrounding arterials, an internal laneway, and a north-south multi-use pathway adjacent to the site. The area is rich in amenities such as the Westbrook Shopping Center, which is located directly north of the site, offering a range of retail and everyday services, while Killarney Aquatic and Recreation Center is just east, approximately a 14 minute walk or a three minute drive. The site is also well served by transit, with the restbrook LRT station a nine minute walk away and the MAX bus route running along 37th Street. Next slide, please. This proposed land use change enables a future mixed-use development that would introduce new housing and potential neighborhood serving uses along 37th Street. The massing model illustrates a typical six story form consistent with MU1 setback rules. At grade, the district allows for either commercial or residential uses, providing flexibility to respond to market demand while supporting an active streetscape over time. Parking would be accessed from the rear lane, helping maintain a pedestrian-oriented public realm. Next slide, please. Under the local area plan, the site is designated as a neighborhood connector with low building scale modifier. This designation supports development up to six stories and encourages a mix of residential and commercial uses oriented towards the street. The proposed MU1 district and modifiers align with this direction, providing a flexible framework for future mixed use development consistent with the LAP vision. Next slide, please. The site is currently designated multi-residential contextual low profile. The proposed redesignation to the mixed-use General MU1 district would enable development up to six stories of the maximum floor area ratio of four. Next slide, please. As part of our engagement process, we met with the Killarney Glengarry Community Association, which expressed support for seeing commercial at grade. We installed on site signage as per City of Calgary notice posting requirements and hosted an in person public open house with postcards delivered to nearby residents inviting them to attend. Next slide, please. In summary, this application provides an opportunity to diversify housing options in an amenity-rich area, supports the neighborhood Main Street growth by enhancing the public realm and reinforcing a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Introduces the ME1 designation to support mixed use development with flexibility for either commercial or residential frontage at grade. And lastly, it aligns with the Restbrook community's LAP and broader city planning objectives, including focusing mixed use development near the primary transit network and neighborhood main streets. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26726.045, "end": 26739.325, "text": "Thank you, uh folks. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, uh, we will continue our public hearing. I believe we have uh Colin Sui on the line. Colin, are you with us?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_55", "start": 26740.785, "end": 26741.265, "text": "I am.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26742.065, "end": 26743.205, "text": "Thank you. Please go ahead. You have", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_55", "start": 26743.205, "end": 26744.005, "text": "Are you able to hear me?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26744.345, "end": 26744.965, "text": "Yes, we can.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_55", "start": 26745.465, "end": 26755.325, "text": "Thank you. Um, unfortunately, I'm not there in person today, so I would just like to ask uh Madam Clerk that uh Clark, we have the uh presentation on on screen so I can synchronize with you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 26755.945, "end": 26759.685, "text": "Yep, it's uh on the screen, but you'll be delayed if you're watching on the live stream.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_55", "start": 26760.865, "end": 27079.925, "text": "Yeah, I'm I'm just running it on my own, but thank you. Um so today I'm here to speak with uh mayor and honorable members of the council about my uh view on this particular application, and I am standing opposing it. I have three points I want to bring to you today. Number one is the inverted planning, and two is the difficult construction logistics on top of aging infrastructure, and three, how does this impact Salarian's long term housing diversity and affordability? Next slide, please. So I want to begin by directly quoting the LEP. So it says here we should avoid orphan parcels that would restrict the feasibility of redevelopment on adjacent properties. And this particular project does just that. And if we take a look on the right, this particular uh demonstration here showed directly from the LAP again, shows that the highest buildings are typically around the corners. Well, The lower buildings are kind of tapered off to the mid block. Now let's go to the next slide. Looking at the DP for the city of Calgary, I have highlighted, I have pointed to an arrow of this particular rezoning. And this is really the only mid block condo development that's currently active across Kilarani Richmond. And if we expand further, even in community bank view. Next slide, please. I took this picture yesterday, and that is the uh zone, uh the sites in question. And as you can see, there is already a uh six-door condo in development next to a uh townhouse that's on the corner, highlighting that this is going to be a mid block location. Um, these pictures are generated by AI, and it's um as AI to help put together some perspectives. On the left, we can see that if you were a resident of that townhouse, you walk out, you're immediately slanked by a giant condo on one side. And the picture on the right demonstrates how this condo might look like. Once it's completed at a mid-ball location. Unfortunately, trees come in the way, but it kind of shows you that it dwarfs everything that's around it. Next slide, please. Now, this is yet another AI generated image, and I took this picture myself with the building placed on top, and as you can see on the left, it creates a canyon effect. A singular townhouse that's kind of you know sandwiched between two large condos, and then we have one orphaned uh parcel of land uh to the other side, uh, ripping pretty much all of his redevelopment appeal for it you know to be next to a 24 meter tall condo uh apartment building. Next slide, please. Let's take a different look at what logistics and infrastructure is in this particular site. Picture on the left demonstrates that because it's in mid-block, we're not going to have access to a side street where we can do construction staging or material holding. Even if we were to assume that we're going to take half of the lane on 37th Street plus the back alley, we we'd really only have access to two tiny construction areas. And this really poses access risk and building risk. And on the right, uh, this is a picture from uh a screenshot from the uh the water pipes uh map from the city. And it shows that the pipe right in front of it is still from 1953 using cast iron. Now, I have let's go to the next slide. So we have 96 units already being built, and we're hoping to add 100 plus units on these five lots, and we have 200 units towards 26 staff on top of 70 year old water pipes. And I think everybody here can agree with me that we probably not want to see more water problems in the city. And let's go to the next slide. I want to finally talk about what this means for housing, affordability, and diversity. CMHC published a research a couple years ago and it describes a effect called filtering. Filtering describes the movement of housing supplies from higher income household to lower income household as new diverse supplies are built. CMHC found that building a balance of mixed, building a balanced mix of low, mid, and high cost housing units is the best strategy to improve affordability because it allows existing housing to move organically from one family to another. This particular project, now before I talk about this project, I also wanted to give some statistics from CMHC. In 2025, 464 housing starts happened in Killarney, of which 332 were apartments. Calgary has had five years of record breaking housing start driven by apartments. Killarney will only add to this trend if we add another fourth six story apartment within a floor block radius. By adding a vast amount of singular housing type, we break down the filtering fact that organically promotes affordability and housing transition. To learn as a community deserves more diverse housing for true long term affordability. Next slide, please. I I hope we are still in tank. This is a picture of a uh uh establishment that's near uh the community, and it shows that there's a commercial at the bottom and a residential on top, and this in my mind is the perfect diversity and housing um zoning that that we should have. Um finally go to the next slide. Um I just want to say that, you know, we likely will only be able to make this distinctive once. And I want to say let's not allow for the wrong type of density for the sake of density and consider how this kind of thing. That wasn't the final sentence. I sincerely asked for a no in your vote.", "segments_merged": 34 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27080.985, "end": 27106.345, "text": "Okay. Thank you very much uh for being with us. Uh any questions, colleagues? Seeing none, uh, we'll continue our public hearing. Is there anyone else uh who would like to speak to this item? Going once, going twice, last call. All right, we will now close the public hearing on 7.2.13. Uh can I go back to you, Councillor Schmidt?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 27107.465, "end": 27112.685, "text": "Uh yes, opened and I will uh save it for closed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27115.005, "end": 27146.865, "text": "All right, is there a seconder, please? Okay, seconded by uh Councillor Atkinson. Any debate on this? Uh I will throw myself in. Uh largely agree with the uh commentary from Planning Commission. If Council, we're not going to go with a blanket approach, we're really gonna have to focus on nodes and corridors. And if uh there was ever a node and corridor, it's uh it's this area with a strong application supported by the local area plan. So over to you, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 27148.645, "end": 27268.505, "text": "Yes, I'm uh 37th Street has seen a lot of change. Uh it's got the multi-use pathways. It's close to the Westbrook Sea train station, MAX bus lines. We've seen new commercial pop up as a result of the developments. Uh in fact, went to one of those places over the weekend myself, uh, which was a bit of a walk, but worthwhile, and it was a great neighborhood experience. I I would say this is LAP compliant as part of my argument, but the last one was too. Uh so uh that part is is a little bit confusing to me as far as what our decision making process is here as a council. However, uh taken alone. Uh this development is in a place where the type of individual who might find this to be an attractive place to live uh might not even have to own a car um and not to start any wars. But um there are this close proximity to many different ways of getting around to biking, to walking, to taking transit, and a place where Again, we need to encourage a diverse form of housing types like HGO and like this. So I would hope that this node and corridor is appropriate, perhaps for some reason contextually different than the last node and corridor that we just heard. So in any event, I will be supporting this one today because 37th Street has been successful so far, and this will add to that success. So I would hope folks would support this today. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27272.385, "end": 27275.345, "text": "All right. Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 27293.465, "end": 27294.505, "text": "Councillor McLean, you vote.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27294.505, "end": 27294.805, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 27295.005, "end": 27301.105, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27301.625, "end": 27354.605, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On this, the motion is carried, 14 to 1, with uh Councillor Jameson opposed. Moving now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 61 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Jameson is opposed and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 61 D 2026, Councillor Jameson is opposed and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 61D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 61D 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Jameson is opposed, and that is carried. Alright, we will move now to 7.2.14.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 27358.225, "end": 27532.585, "text": "Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Hello, everyone. My name is Derek Pomeranki. I'm a senior planner with the planning department, and I'll be presenting the rest of the applications today. Item 7.2.14 is a land use amendment to allow for a place of worship in an industrial building. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you today is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 55D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 5325 1A Street Southwest from the Industrial Redevelopment or IR district to the Commercial Corridor 2 or C Corps 2 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the community of Manchester, which is sandwiched between McLeod Trail and the rail lines. This is approximately between 42nd and 58th Avenues. Manchester features an eclectic mix of small houses, large apartment buildings, and commercial and medical offices scattered throughout what is generally an industrial area. Next slide, please. Zooming in, we can see the site is a mid-block parcel on 1A Street, north of 53rd Avenue. It's currently developed with a two-story building that has served as the offices for both transit and bricklayers unions. Next slide, please. The surrounding development is generally characterized by a mix of industrial buildings shown in gray and commercial buildings shown in red and pink, with occasional housing scattered throughout shown in yellow. Land use districts to the east allow for high density residential, excuse me, to the west allow for high density residential and local commercial uses, while this site and the rest of 1A Street are zoned under the IR district, which is designed to support continued business operations and small scale redevelopment of these industrial parcels. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the site to the Commercial Corridor 2. It's the C Corps 2 district, which is which accommodates mixed use and commercial uses. And in particular, it accommodates the applicant's desired use of place of worship small. The proposed district can would allow for a maximum building height of 18 meters, that's up to about six stories, and a maximum building floor area ratio of 3.5. Next slide, please. The Chinook Community's Local Area Plan identifies the subject site as being part of the neighborhood Flex Urban Form category as shown on the left. It is also within an industrial transition area. Map four, the building scale on the right, identifies the site within the low height category, which allows for developments that are up to six stories. The proposed land use district allows for a mix of uses and up to six stories of height, which aligns with the plan's intent for this area. Next slide, please. In closing, this application proposes a land use district that allows for the intended use of place of worship and contains height and floor area modifiers that align with the local area plan and the municipal development plan. The Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27534.085, "end": 27541.325, "text": "Alright, uh, let's open up the public hearing. Do we have the applicant here with us on 7.2.14? Yeah, please come on down.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 27560.445, "end": 27567.505, "text": "Mayor, we have our consultant uh remotely as well. Uh he should be presenting first, and then we will be the next one.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27567.985, "end": 27574.645, "text": "Thank you. Alright, so I believe I have Aman Hamid uh remotely.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 27576.605, "end": 27813.365, "text": "Thank you for uh for your time and thank you, Council, for uh being so pleasant throughout the day. Uh my name is Aman Hamid. I'm here to speak about the Manchester Land use amendment, uh, where we're proposing to rezone from IR to commercial corridor two. Um I'm not sure if the slide is up, so I'll just uh request that it's next slide, please. So we're just gonna go through the uh cable of contents. We'll go over the city administration support, our rationale, our site location, why this amendment matters, our engagement, and then the overall summary. Next slide, please. City administration is in support of our land use amendment. Ultimately, why does city administration support this use? It does fall within the municipal district plan, so underneath sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.8, it identifies a worship place of worship as a social infrastructure. We believe that it essentially is the glue that builds a complete and inclusive community. Specifically, the Shinook LAP. Explicitly identifies the subject site for commercial and residential uses supported by community facilities. And the C Dash C R2 C O R2 review, it's the most effective tool to achieve this by providing us a floor area density of 3.5 and an 18 meter height, which we believe is necessary to meet the city's intensification goals for this corridor. Next slide, please. A rationale, it was a strategic density. Why did we propose or pursue the 3.5 floor area ratio? We decided that it is in alignment with the site, with the city's long term vision for the Manchester Corridor. Again, specifically the Pia Shuna Community LAP explicitly identifies this area for high intensity commercial and residential growth to leverage the existing target infrastructure. And ultimately the 3.5 FAR is the specific density target required to achieve the planning objective. Again, these community and policy fit, the social infrastructure of the MDP, encourages places of worship as a vital social infrastructure that fosters inclusive and complete communities. Next slide, please. Again, site subject, it's about 0.06 hectares, point of 0.14 acres in size, and it's approximately 15 meters by 38 meters deep. As mentioned by city administration, the surrounding area is a combination of industrial and commercial development of one or two stories. This parcels are designated as DC control, are located across the lane. And the west to the to this building is a commercial corridor as well. Connectivity, there the site is located in proximity to transit options, including the Chinook LRT station, approximately 1200 meters away to the southeast, and there are bus stops Route 10 located within a short five minute walk to this subject site. Again, amenities, the site is located within a major activity center identified in the MDP, and it's about a 13 minute walk to the Chinook Center Mall. Next slide, please. Ultimately, we believe the LAP explicitly identifies the sites for the use that we're proposing alongside the social infrastructure that has been mentioned in the previous section. And ultimately, this is an area that is going through a bit of a transition away from heavy industrial towards mixed-use community support. Next slide, please. And all and what we believe is that this will be a catalyst for the overall community revitalization. Approving this land use amendment will further accelerate identified transition zones that Manchester falls within. We again believe the F the FAR provides the necessary floor area for the modern multi use story place of worship. uh which assembles halls and support offices without exceeding the 18 meter height limit. And ultimately city administration um does review has reviewed it and they determined it to be a good fit. Thank you for your time.", "segments_merged": 21 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 27814.725, "end": 27819.405, "text": "Thank you so much. We'll move to the other individuals here present in the chamber. Please approach.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 27819.645, "end": 28118.585, "text": "Thank you. Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor Jeremy Farkas, uh, members of council, and our fellow Algerians here. My name is Gilberto Anchetta. I'm representing our church, the Way Christian Vision Fellowship. I am serving as the planning coordinator for our church. Together with me are Pastor Armando Fontalera, the church senior pastor, and Brother Lenin Tadan, the head of our building ministry. We are the applicants in favor of this application. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today and present our church purpose and mission. The Way Christian Mission Fellowship was established as a church in the year 2001 by our senior pastor Armando Fontelera, together with his wife, Mercedita Fontelera, who is on the gallery right now. It started as a Bible study with five families and around 20 regular attendees. Over the years, the WAI has consistently grown its family and individual membership, which is now 75 families and 300 members in the Calgary area. The WAI has regular Sunday services on two locations in Calgary, North Central Area and South Area. Several doctor churches were planted as well and established over the last 25 years in the city of Brook, Medicine Hat, and Airdrie. As you can see on the screen, our mission statement is winning, building, training, and sending. This is further characterized on the chart on the left side, left hand side of the slide, and guided by the following scriptures. Witness in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria to the ends of the earth in Acts 1 8. Encourage one another and build each other up in 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 11. Equipped for every good work in 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 17. Go and make disciples of all nations in Matthew chapter 28, verse 19. Our church vision is pursuing excellence in ministering. We are guided by the great Uh, the scripture for the Great Commission in Matthew chapter 28, verse 19-20, which reads, Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age. We abide by the Great Commission in making disciples of all nations, that has been our purpose as we establish a place of worship to our neighbors and brethren in the Manchester community. Our church has several ministries and programs, as listed on the right hand side of the slide. Allow me to highlight a few of these, which is our purpose in the community. The family care program. A family is considered as a small unit of the congregation. We have seasoned members who guide and encourage new Christians in their spiritual walk with God. We share life testimonies and miracles, praying for one another as a body of Christ, experiencing the infilling of the Holy Spirit and leading a life of spiritual strength and maturity. The seniors support program, where we conduct church services in three seniors' homes in Calgary. The Youth Development and Mentorship Program, which is very much needed in our city today. We have the Young Adults Professional Guidance Program, the Professional Volunteer Service Program, the Health, Wellness, and Hospital Visitation Program, where we provide comfort, encouragement, and pray for our physically challenged and sick brethren. We also have the new immigrants assistance program, the homeless feeding program, which we do occasionally. And lastly, the counseling and healing ministry, where we provide counseling about marriage, depression. Addiction, mental health, among other needs of our community. Our church, pastoral, and ministry team are committed to continue and fulfill our calling and our purpose as Christ's ambassadors in this world, particularly in the city of Calgary and in specific community of the Manchester area. We hope and pray that our listeners today would appreciate and support our church mission and how this will benefit the community. In alignment with the city's direction, that the development of places of worship are encouraged by the Municipal Development Plan as places of community congregation and contribute to the goal of building an equitable, diverse, and inclusive Calgary. The MDP recognizes these places as vital components of complete community. Thank you very much and looking forward to your support and favorable response. God bless you, and we are happy to answer some of your questions.", "segments_merged": 39 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28120.525, "end": 28131.285, "text": "Thank you so much. Any questions for this presenter? Okay, seeing none. The other two guests that we have with you, would you like to speak as well, or are you just here for support?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 28132.725, "end": 28136.485, "text": "I support that uh you will approve our zoning approving.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28136.905, "end": 28139.105, "text": "Thanks. Uh thanks so much for being here.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_12", "start": 28140.105, "end": 28141.945, "text": "I am very much uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28141.945, "end": 28144.725, "text": "Yeah, please approach and just uh let us know who we're who you are.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_12", "start": 28145.345, "end": 28170.765, "text": "uh I've been here in uh in uh uh Calgary for 35 years and uh I crossed over from uh Los Angeles and I found that Alberta is the uh wash the uh Bible belt of Canada. And I am very much uh uh uh challenged uh to make sure that uh uh uh name of Alberta uh stays on, and I praise God.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28171.645, "end": 28174.285, "text": "Thank you. And and what's your name if I don't if you don't mind me asking?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_12", "start": 28174.465, "end": 28176.085, "text": "Armando Fontalera. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28176.325, "end": 28189.305, "text": "Okay. Thank you so much, Amanda. All right. Is there anyone else who would wish to speak to this? All right, uh hearing none, we will close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Clark?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 28191.925, "end": 28211.945, "text": "Yeah, um happy to move this. Um it's a very interesting area, Manchester, with its uh close connections. I think both administration and the uh And the uh person supporting these folks in their application highlighted a number of changes that we're beginning to see in the area. So happy to move this. Hope I can find a second.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28212.845, "end": 28256.285, "text": "All right. Move moved by Councillor Clark, seconded by Deputy Mayor Chabot. I am gonna ask a question, and I I'm sorry for not uh providing this uh previously. Uh this is sort of in that dead zone of the two stops on the red line where I think it was contemplated at least on the the previous council I sat on for the infill station uh near where Nmax was. Is this a live discussion? And I'm sorry I'm asking this on the fly, but uh are we looking at building that station still, or is it very much a extreme stretch goal if suddenly we found money after we had fully built the green line and blue line to the airport and everything else?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 28260.965, "end": 28276.525, "text": "Shane Libatilla, Development Engineering, to the chair. Um, we did discuss that um back in the day, uh for sure. When you're around, there's been no further discussions on that beyond general policy saying um this is something we should look more into.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28277.185, "end": 28281.105, "text": "Okay. All right, thank you very much. Uh Councillor Penazopoulos on this, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 28281.345, "end": 28307.405, "text": "A really quick comment. Uh council excuse me, Commissioner Montgomery said uh quote, this application highlights the need to look at how places of worship are integrated into the land use bylaw. We have a lot of conversations about educational spaces, park spaces. Maybe just administration speak to that. Um we've seen, you know, some some schools trying to come into industrial and and just just maybe overall that strategy and how it uh sort of fits in. This one just jumped up at me, the one commissioner's comment. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 28310.345, "end": 28386.665, "text": "Yeah, it's an interesting it's an interesting problem that we face, which is that there's plenty of uses which have large land requirements, they have large parking requirements, and they're looking for they're often not run by nonprofits or places that don't make a lot of money. So they're searching for where can we find affordable land. Um so these would be things like you said, like schools, they can be places of worship. And what they often find is a lot of more the more affordable land tends to be industrial because it has it's less desirable for uh uh residential or commercial or other institutional uh purposes. But that has the effect of crowding out. Industrial uses. It has the effect of introducing conflicting users, such as the school that we looked at, perhaps in the heavier industrial area. So in administration, we're trying to strike a balance. Some uses are listed. For instance, the industrial general district allows for place of worship large, but it does not allow for place of worship small or medium. So that's why we end up with an interesting application like that's before you today, which we're trying to get a small or a medium use into an industrial area. In this case, we found the most appropriate land use district is C Core one, and that's because this industrial area is in that process of long term transition.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 28386.965, "end": 28405.205, "text": "Okay, I was just gonna ask that that that school just spooked me because that long term transition. So there's the belief that over time this yeah, this is a natural progression, if you will. Um m m yeah, it it's not an inappropriate place obviously to uh to put a place of worship and bring people on a on a Sunday and other days uh through the industrial side.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 28406.125, "end": 28416.085, "text": "I would I would say that this area is predominantly designated under the Industrial Redevelopment District, which promotes uh that transition. Other industrial areas perhaps not so much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 28416.305, "end": 28417.325, "text": "Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28421.765, "end": 28428.845, "text": "Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, back to you, Councillor Clerk.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 28429.865, "end": 28430.865, "text": "Yeah, close. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28431.545, "end": 28433.365, "text": "All right, Madam Clerk, let's please engage the U vote.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 28450.285, "end": 28455.005, "text": "Councillor Kelly is absent. Councillor Johnston, your vote please?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28455.525, "end": 28455.925, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 28456.285, "end": 28457.965, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28460.105, "end": 28460.465, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 28460.905, "end": 28462.985, "text": "Thank you. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28471.165, "end": 28514.705, "text": "Thank you. Please uh display the results. Alright, that motion is carried 14 to 0. I'll move now to the reading. So first reading of bylaw 55 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 55 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 55 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 55 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move on to item 7.2.15, land use amendment in Burns Industrial Ward 9.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 28516.345, "end": 28656.445, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Uh let's do this again. Item fifteen is a l another land use reset redesignation to allow for a place of worship in an industrial building. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 59D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 6010 12th Street Southeast from the Industrial Commercial or IC District to a direct control district based on the existing IC district. Next slide, please. This subject site is located in the Southeast community known as the Burns Industrial Park. This puts us to the west of Deerfoot Trail and it's just north of the interchange with Glenmore. Next slide, please. The site consists of a single parcel accessed from 12th Street Southeast, which is on the west. Surrounding land uses are industrial developments shown in gray under the IC district, such as the self-storage business to the north, and there are also commercial developments to the west shown in pink under the IB district, which are an industrial office park. Next slide, please. This site is developed with an existing two story building with two distinct portions, one to the north, and then a second portion of the building extending to the south. The north portion is the office for Crystal Creek Homes, which is visible while you're driving south on Deerfoot. This application proposes to use the southern portion of the building for a place of worship. Next slide, please. To achieve this goal, the applicants, excuse me, the app this application proposes to redesignate the site to a direct control district, which is based on the site's existing industrial commercial or IC district. The DC differs from the base district only through the addition of two discretionary uses, place of worship small and place of worship medium. Neither of these uses exist in the base district, and the applicant's need is close to the difference between them, so we've added both of these sizes so as to support changes over time and to accommodate minor changes in the size of the use. While the municipal development plan discourages places of worship from being located in industrial areas, we believe that the current uses in the area will be unaffected by the introduction andor expansion of this use. Next slide, please. For those reasons, the Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28657.925, "end": 28673.585, "text": "Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Do we have our applicant here with us? Come on down. We're in the home stretch. Thank you so much for waiting.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_58", "start": 28682.365, "end": 28801.785, "text": "Good day, Mayor and Council. My name is Andrew Ling, and together my wife and I, pastor our church, the Father's House, I'm here to speak in support of this land use amendment. I'd also like to say thank you, all of you, for your service to this great city and its residents. As a born and raised Calgarian, it's an honor to be speaking with you in these council chambers here today. I believe we all have something in common. We all love this city. We believe the welfare of the city helps determine the welfare of its people. And we love the people of our city and want to see them prosper in every arena of life. And we know that takes intentionality. There are many challenges, especially for the youth and young people, the next generation, which is quickly becoming the now generation. Economic pressures, mental health challenges, with anxiety and depression, uncertainty about their future, all of which can lead our young people to try and cope with alcohol, drugs, and isolation. With the completion of this project, we'll be able to impact more people in our community with a message of hope. To walk alongside these people and their families in some of the hardest seasons of life. Whether that's a meal for someone struggling with food insecurity, a new pair of shoes for a child in foster care, or a connection point for people to gather together to know that they're not alone and they have people surrounding them who believe in them. These are the future leaders of our city who are taught to respect and appreciate those in authority, those with hope that they can make a positive difference in the world around them. We love this city as you all do, and we are excited to be a part of its healthy growth and future success in partnership together. Therefore, I respectfully ask Council to support this motion. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28804.125, "end": 28821.705, "text": "Thank you. Anyone for the applicant? Okay, seeing none. Uh thank you so much for your kind words, Pastor. All right. Uh anyone else wishing to speak uh as part of the public hearing? All right. Hearing none, we shall close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Clark?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 28822.045, "end": 28846.745, "text": "Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. Um, I don't know that we'll do too industrial to small places of worship many more times in the near future, back to back like that. That was incredible. Um, glad to open. Uh, similar scenario here. We're seeing uh what I have described as legacy industrial or transitioning industrial uh take on new forms. Here are a couple of examples, one after the other, uh, open.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28848.365, "end": 28851.505, "text": "Thank you. Move by Council Clark, second by uh Deputy Mayor Chabot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 28852.085, "end": 28869.145, "text": "Yeah, just uh briefly I was just looking over this site. We talk about industrial and whether or not these kind of uses are appropriate for these kind of locations. I used to u run a shop here called Martin Electronic Marketing Corporation at 5920 12th Street. So I do know that it's", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28869.145, "end": 28870.465, "text": "On that parcel nearby.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 28870.725, "end": 28892.165, "text": "no just uh yeah, just a couple of doors down. So uh I do know the location and that this is in fact very suitable for that location. It's not heavy industrial, very light industrial. Um I was running an electronics uh component distribution business in that location, so very very suitable for that type of use. So happy to support it.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28894.685, "end": 28941.845, "text": "All right. Uh any further discussion? Okay. I'll uh I'll just briefly enter debate and I it from my perspective it makes a lot of sense. Uh I was I get a lot of opportunities to crisscross uh the cities visiting various places of worship. And one of the pieces that uh was suggested to me is most of these locations or the zonings in place were very residential focused. And what they're finding is that bit quite a bit more demand, proximate to jobs and employment, where it's a little bit more convenient. Um, not just uh close to where people live, but also after work in the area nearby. So it makes sense for these types of uses to be uh scattered throughout the city rather than just ultra concentrated in residential areas. So with that back to you, uh Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 28942.325, "end": 28947.225, "text": "Yeah, happy to uh support this application and uh hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28949.905, "end": 28952.845, "text": "All right, that is closed. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the evo.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 28967.105, "end": 28968.365, "text": "Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 28969.105, "end": 29016.305, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 0. Alright, I'll move to the readings. First reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move to 7.2.16 policy amendment in Ogden Ward 9.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 29019.445, "end": 29155.865, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.16 is a standalone policy amendment to allow for a four unit row house with four basement suites. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 13P 2026 to amend the Millican Ogden Area Redevelopment Plan. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the southeast community of Ogden. This is just north of Glenmore Trail and about two blocks west of Ogden Road. The site is one kilometer or a 15-minute walk from the South Hill Green Line Station, which will be across Glenmore to the southeast. And it's about 1.5 kilometers or a 20 minute walk from the Commercial Plaza on 18th Street, where the safeway is. Next slide, please. This site is a corner parcel at the corner of 80th Avenue and 24th Street Southeast, and it is currently developed with a single detached house and a detached garage accessed off the rear lane. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses are low density residential development shown in yellow and orange, with orange representing semi-detached dwellings. Due north of the site in blue is a fire station, and due east in pink is the Glenmore Inn. Next slide, please. This application proposes to amend the Milliken Ogden Area Redevelopment Plan to support the development of row houses, townhouses, and duplex dwellings on the subject site. Specifically, the amendment would revise Map 5 of the ARP by changing the land use classification of the site from low density conservation to low or medium density multi dwelling residential. In addition, this amendment proposes to change section 3.4.3 to allow for a maximum density of 75 units per hectare, which is consistent with the RCG district in the land use bylaw. We do have a development permit application under review on the site. It proposes the development of a four unit row house with rear lane access and a grade oriented design consistent with the intent of the proposed policy amendments. Next slide, please. In closing, these amendments would align the ARP with the intent and the regulations of the RCG district, which support a variety of grade oriented housing forms. Calvary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29156.785, "end": 29160.745, "text": "Thank you. Let's uh open up the public hearing. Do we have the applicant here with us?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 29165.025, "end": 29171.885, "text": "six so didn't come down to chambers today. Um but I'm just here to answer any questions if council has any. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29172.165, "end": 29193.705, "text": "Thanks. And that's uh Sean Tyson who was just speaking. Okay. Thank you. Please stand by. Don't think we have any questions for you. Thank you so much. Uh anyone else wish to speak as part of the public hearing? All right, we shall close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Council Clerk?", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29195.505, "end": 29200.105, "text": "Yes. Well it wouldn't be a public hearing if we weren't in Ogden for at least a moment. Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29200.105, "end": 29200.665, "text": "I know.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29200.665, "end": 29214.145, "text": "so I've spoken with the community association uh president uh regarding this application. Um I did uh I meant to RTS but sort of missed my opportunity to speak with the applicant there, but uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29214.205, "end": 29217.705, "text": "No, actually, we have the opportunity to recall the applicant.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29217.745, "end": 29219.765, "text": "Yeah, could we please? I just want to ask one question.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29219.765, "end": 29221.625, "text": "Madam Clerk, this is the first time we've done that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29222.305, "end": 29222.765, "text": "I do apologize.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29222.765, "end": 29224.425, "text": "How do we do this? Remind me.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 29225.225, "end": 29241.205, "text": "I'm actually going to the section myself. So the chair may recall the proponent or the applicant or other speakers to allow council to ask additional questions of clarification. Recalling the proponent or other speakers may only be done while the public hearing is open.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 29241.305, "end": 29244.545, "text": "Oh only while it's open. So we've closed. We've closed it um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 29244.565, "end": 29245.885, "text": "Would you like to reopen it?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29246.325, "end": 29247.785, "text": "Let's uh reopen the public hearing.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 29248.505, "end": 29260.645, "text": "So for reopening the public hearing, we would require either unanimous consent or a majority vote to reopen the public hearing which has been concluded so long that it is reopened in the same meeting. So no issues with that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29260.645, "end": 29265.845, "text": "Colleagues, any objection to reopening the public hearing to hear from the applicant? Assuming you're still with us, Sean.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 29266.945, "end": 29267.925, "text": "Yes, I'm still here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29268.125, "end": 29281.425, "text": "All right, uh seeing no objection, we've reopened the public hearing. You are up, and I'm acknowledging Councillor Clark here for some questions. Sorry, we were we're kind of chomping at the bit, uh, but I don't want to rush you along. Uh", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29281.425, "end": 29309.705, "text": "Well, that's true. And uh Sean, you're not here. And I'm so I apologize for this like added tension now of sort of calling you back for the most important question. Just one, but it's a fundamental one. Um Yeah, no problem. And uh no, like I say, I I've spoken with the community association about this. We see no real concern coming from uh very vocal public uh in community there. So just wondered if you could chat a little bit about your uh consultation, what that's looked like with community on this file.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 29311.005, "end": 29352.985, "text": "Uh uh with community they were a little bit worried about shadowing which was fair enough and so I tried to follow just height restrictions and also worried about parking which I think on a corner lot you have more than say uh an inner interior So essentially I'm hoping with the floor car garages that that can kinda help with that and then also with the green light seat train coming in that's hopefully that'll take away a little bit of the traffic and essentially yeah, so I sat down with them in front of the in front of the lot and you know, we had a good chat and about anything I could do I would would do, but also just try to follow city bylaw and", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29353.565, "end": 29353.905, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 29354.065, "end": 29355.225, "text": "go from there really.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29355.685, "end": 29368.385, "text": "Okay, great. Yeah, thank you very much. Like um, like I said, I just wanted to touch base on that. It's been a a rather engaged community, and so it is on a corner lot, like you said. Uh and this is great. Thanks again.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29369.765, "end": 29380.525, "text": "Okay. All right. Thank you so much, uh, Councillor Clark. Thank you, Sean, for being with us. Seeing no other questions, I will now close the public hearing. Okay, back to you, Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29381.345, "end": 29395.105, "text": "Uh yeah, so in the instance of a of a sort of end of block scenario here, we've heard from the applicant, I've heard from community. Um, this is uh something I'm happy to uh support and and uh hope my colleagues will join me. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29398.345, "end": 29409.645, "text": "All right, that's uh been moved by Council Clark and opened. Uh may I have a second or please? Councillor Brandisopoulos. Any further debate on this? Okay. Seeing none, back to you, Council Clark.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 29409.845, "end": 29410.225, "text": "Close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29410.425, "end": 29414.145, "text": "Okay. Um Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please, on the recommendation.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 29429.525, "end": 29437.325, "text": "Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29437.345, "end": 29437.665, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 29437.805, "end": 29440.545, "text": "Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29441.725, "end": 29484.105, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously, 15 to 0. We'll move now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that's carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move to 7.2.17, land use amendment in Maple Ridge Ward 11.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 29485.885, "end": 29677.245, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.17 is a land use amendment to allow for a temporary outdoor storage yard that is not intended to compromise the future developability of the area. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 60 D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 10411 15th Street Southeast from the Special Purpose Urban Nature or SUN District to a direct control district which is based on the special purpose future urban development district. Next slide, please. This subject site is located in the southeast community of Maple Ridge. This site is situated between the Bow River on the east and Deerfoot Trail to the west. And the site is accessed off of 15th Street Southeast, which is connected to the easternmost end of Southland Drive. Next slide, please. This site is approximately three hectares in size and is directly adjacent to the south end of Sioux Higgins Park. It's an off leash dog park. This site is currently vacant, though it appears that it was previously used as a driving range. Next slide, please. This site along with Sioux Higgins Park are designated as the Special Purpose Urban Nature SUN District. Across Deerfoot Trail to the west you can see Maple Ridge Golf Course under the SR Recreation District. And to the south of this site is large vehicle servicing under the Future Urban Development District. Next slide, please. The site's existing SUN district is intended to preserve the existing characteristics of natural areas and to provide for natural landforms, vegetation, and wetlands, if any. So through this application, we conducted a biophysical impact assessment. It was provided to us to determine if there were any elements of ecological importance, and it was confirmed that any wetland that existed on this site was infilled in the late 80s. And there's nothing on this site which would qualify as environmental reserve. Next slide, please. So, this application proposes to redesignate the site to a direct control district based on the future urban development district. The SFUD district is intended for land that is awaiting urban development and servicing, and it allows for a limited range of uses that can easily be removed prior to future development. This DC differs from the base district through the additional discretionary use of storage yard, and it also includes screening and setback requirements to provide appropriate interfaces with any adjacent properties. Next slide, please. The Heritage Community's Local Area Plan identifies this site as a comprehensive planning site, and it envisions some kind of mixed-use development in the future. The LAP doesn't have much else to say for this site, but it does allow for small scale redevelopment in advance of a comprehensive development plan. And so we believe that this is an appropriate interim use of the land. Next slide, please. In closing, this application is in keeping with relevant city policies and it provides the opportunity for interim uses prior to future redevelopment. The Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends council's approval. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29678.625, "end": 29683.245, "text": "Thank you for that. We will open up the public hearing and call down the applicant, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_41", "start": 29695.485, "end": 29771.525, "text": "Good evening, Mayor Parkas and members of council. My name is Amelia Iwanicki, and I'm with BA Studios, and I'm joined in the gallery by Jamie Cooper with Remington and Kathy Oberg from BA Studios, and we are here today to speak in support of this application. The subject site was acquired by Remington in 2016 from the city following closure of the driving range. The site was sold to Remington with the long term intention of developing a comprehensively planned mixed use community. Since that time, the province has expropriated portions of the south lands required for the Deerfoot Trail improvements, and as a result, Remington's previous plans for the area need to be reconsidered. The proposed direct control bylaw represents a practical interim solution for the lands that have sat vacant for over 10 years. It enables productive use of unserviced land while recognizing that longer term urban development is an option in the future. The proposed temporary storage uses are low impact, compatible with surrounding conditions, and can be implemented easily without precluding future comprehensive planning. Thank you to administration for your collaboration and to council for your consideration of this application. We are available if you have any questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29771.705, "end": 29785.665, "text": "Thank you so much for being here. Don't see any questions, but uh we'll continue the public hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this? Alright, seeing none, uh we will close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Ward?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_53", "start": 29786.405, "end": 29787.465, "text": "Yep, glad to move it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29788.945, "end": 29802.065, "text": "All right, uh move by Councillor Ward, seconded by Come on, Councillor Yule. All right. Uh any debate or discussion on this? Back to you, Councillor Ward, if you want to close.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 29802.225, "end": 29803.025, "text": "Yeah, closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29803.505, "end": 29805.325, "text": "Alright, I'm clerk, let's engage the U vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 29819.565, "end": 29820.945, "text": "Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29822.565, "end": 29840.765, "text": "Alright, please display the results. Alright, that motion is carried unanimously, 15 to 0. We'll now read the bylaw.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 29841.285, "end": 29841.725, "text": "All right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29841.845, "end": 29885.785, "text": "First reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right. Uh colleagues, we have two more land use items and then the urgent business on the waterboard. Just trying to manage staff behind the scenes. Uh are you guys okay with us pushing through to conclude this meeting rather than having the one hour? Or we have three more.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_38", "start": 29885.845, "end": 29887.105, "text": "line use items, I apologize.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 29887.625, "end": 29912.925, "text": "Are you guys okay though with us pushing through and concluding this meeting and not taking the hour 15? Okay. As long as we have dinner at the end. All right, Councillor Shabot. Madam Clerk, uh I'll have maybe the team can prepare that procedural motion, but we can start on the uh we'll we'll start on the next land use item 7.2.18 land use amendment in mahogany ward twelve.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 29915.665, "end": 30178.785, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.18 is a land use amendment to allow for six-story mixed-use development near the edge of a developing community. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 62D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 1236, 1251, and 1325 Mahogany Boulevard Southeast from the multi residential low profile or M1 district and a direct control district to the mixed use general or MU1 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the far southeast in the community of Mahogany, in the south central portion of the community. This application includes three parcels which straddle Mahogany Boulevard, which is the main interior collector through the community. The site also sits at the southern entrance to the community from Rangeview Boulevard. Next slide, please. In total, the three sites are about seven hectares in size. They are graded vacant sites ready for development. The northernmost parcel borders the Alorenshaw Ranch, which is the historic homestead of the property owners since the early 1900s. The two southern parcels are separated by Mercado Street Southeast, which will serve as a main connector between Mahogany Boulevard and the major road of Rangeview Boulevard to the south. Next slide, please. These photos are taken from Mahogany Boulevard looking south across the site towards Rangeview in the distance on the left, and looking north at the Ola Renshaw Ranch to the north, with the northernmost parcel on the right side of that image. Next slide, please. These photos show the scale of the southern parcels looking north from both the far west and the far eastern boundary of the site. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses are predominantly low density residential to the east and to the northwest. Land use districts to the north allow for suitable use of the ranch as well as school reserve under the SSPR district. Immediately west of the site is an MG parcel for townhouses, and to the south will be a community commercial center under the CC1 district. Next slide, please. The North Parcel is currently designated as Multiresidential Low Profile or M1 district, which would allow for three to four story apartments. The two South Parcels are designated as a direct control district based on the Commercial Corridor 1 district. C Corps 1 allows for a wide variety of commercial uses with residential above, and it has a maximum height of 15 meters or about three to four stories. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate all three parcels to the mixed-use general or MU1 district with a floor area ratio of 3.5 and a maximum building height of 26 meters. This would allow for up to six stories of development as opposed to the three to four allowed under the existing uses, and it also allows for a wide variety of commercial uses with residential above similar to what is currently allowed. Next slide, please. The area structure plan for the area is the 2007 Mahogany Community Plan. This plan projects a population of about 21,000 people at full buildout, and it provides them with a large scale commercial center to the west and a smaller village area to the south. The village area is intended to accommodate a mix of transit supportive uses, which does necessitate a certain level of residential density. The village area includes these three sub areas shown on the screen. The northern parcel, subject to this application, is within the green historic area, which is intended to support the educational and agricultural aspects of the Ola Renshaw Ranch, but it also envisions a multi-residential complex for seniors as well. The south parcels border Mikado Street, which is the neighborhood corridor of the area. This means development of these parcels should support the commercial function of the street while transitioning to the lower density, purely residential uses that surround it. This application overall has been determined to be consistent with the goals of the community plan. Next slide, please. In closing, this application allows for a moderate change in building scale that supports the ultimate objectives of the local area plan. Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 30180.985, "end": 30186.825, "text": "Thank you very much. Let's uh now open up the public here. I believe we have our applicant.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30194.445, "end": 30453.745, "text": "Good evening, Mayor, members of council. My name is Jack Model with BNA Studios. I'm joined by Kathy Oberg in the gallery and also by Allison Clark of Section 23 Online. Alison was making her way over here. We were surprised with how efficiently Council moved through those last four or five items. So I'm hoping she can join or she will call in. I have a presentation as well. Okay. So in the interest of time, I appreciate you're pushing through dinner, so I will keep it brief and maybe skip to the high points of the presentation. Next slide, please. So, as noted, the uh the application is for three parcels of land in the south of Mahogany. Um, it's just to the south of Mahogany Boulevard, uh, as well as the uh historic Ole Rancho Ranch site, which is also owned by Section 23, but is not part of this application. Uh, it's surrounded by some portions of low residential, uh low density residential that are already developing, as well as future development to the east and south. There's also also currently an application to the south for commercial lands as part of the village center. Next slide, please. So the land use proposed is mixed use one with a floor area ratio of three and a half and a density of 26 meters, which as mentioned allows for up to up to six stories. For the two parcels on the south, this is really just a modernizing of the existing direct control district, which was a precursor to the MU1 district, which didn't exist at the time. So we're replacing a DC with the standard MU1, and we are increasing the height slightly, and I'll go into a little bit of detail about why that is. Next slide, please. So, why the land use change? In reality, this is intended to support the development of the village center in alignment with the original vision through the mahogany community plan. As section 23 already has a development permit in for the southeast portion, this is intended to bring to life the mixed-use walkable street with retail along Mercado Street, services at street level, and residential above. The additional height up to six stories is to allow to more marketable and more developable type of mixed use, which we're seeing that the three and four stories is really hard to bring to market and hard to get the rooftops to support the commercial ad grade. Next slide, please. As mentioned, it aligns with the policies of the Mahogany Community Plan for the village center. Next slide, please. And this is a conceptual rendering of the site at development. You can see in the southeast corner we've included the portion of the site that already has an active development permit by section 23. We want to try to keep to the land use details at this stage, but we're bringing forward additional details through the development permit that's forthcoming for the rest of the site as well. So ground floor shops and services, a mix of different housing for life stages, public places running through the center of the site, in addition to adequate street parking and at grade parking, underground parking for the multi residential above. Next slide, please. As mentioned, this has been fully reviewed through the city's process, including a transportation impact assessment. Overall, density and mahogany has gone up and down with various applications, including an application to the east, which I brought forward to council a couple years ago to down zone the multi residential, and also a downzoning that recently was brought forward in the TOD area to the north. Next slide, please. So, as part of this application, we did engage with the community. We held a public open house. We also met with the mahogany CA and HOA. Primarily, what we heard through the actual open house session was interest in understanding what types of commercial amenities were going to be provided here. I think that as we provided more details getting into the development permit level, people started to understand the vision of what was being brought forth and how it aligned with the Mahogati Community Plan. So I'm here to answer any questions.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 30458.965, "end": 30466.825, "text": "Great. Uh colleagues, any questions for the applicant? Councillor Jameson, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 30470.405, "end": 30500.205, "text": "Coming. So there was some density concerns. Um, and I know it was a kind of a a mixed bag of concerns that uh maybe even even some confusion uh about the ranch, confusion about a 15 story building and and all kinds of other stuff that was that was being uh discussed. Can you just kind of get into some of the density concerns and how you address them? Because that that was one of the big issues.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30501.425, "end": 30573.405, "text": "Through the chair, thanks for the question. Prior to conducting our open house, we were informed by our file planner that we had received letters of opposition. And one of the most significant concerns was density, obviously, along with that also comes parking and traffic. I think as we uh as we went through the open house process, the number of people that attended the open house was was quite high, and we were excited to have that engagement. But I as I mentioned, I think some of the concerns were maybe a misunderstanding of what density would actually be proposed on the site. Also, that it might have included the Ola Rancha Ranch and other portions of the site that weren't actually part of the application. Generally speaking, this aligns with what was initially intended for this area of the plan. It does increase some density, specifically on this site. But as I mentioned, things have been moved around a little bit in mahogany, especially with some lower density product to the east. And so I think this is really the best place to focus some of that density. But overall, the density level in mahogany has remained about the same.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 30574.325, "end": 30584.965, "text": "And after that uh consultation, do you do you feel that the uh parking um issue has been um sufficiently uh addressed with with the community?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30585.925, "end": 30633.205, "text": "Thanks for the question. I think parking is one of the ones that we can most adequately address, especially through the development permit that's come forth for the Southeast site. The requirement for parking for the dwelling units under the bylaw is actually only about 0.65 per unit, and we're providing almost double that. That's just only in the underground parking. We'll also be providing angled parking on street, and we'll be providing additional above grade parking to serve the shops. Our experience has been that although there's no minimum parking requirement for commercial in the bylaw, it's really important to bring those vehicles to the front of shops in order for them to survive. So we think that we're able to address that, especially through the details that are coming forward.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 30634.205, "end": 30674.625, "text": "Yeah, that yeah, you're you're I think you're 1.1 or 1.2 vehicles per unit. Yeah, which which is is actually that's really fantastic. Um th there was there was some opposition, but you did have engagement. You had an open house. There was um uh people that attended the open house, and then after that communication, where you explained that there was already a proposed up to four stories, and this is what you're changing it to. Um I I think um can you clarify like how how much opposition was it after that communication and and after you guys described what was actually going to be going there?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30675.965, "end": 30720.605, "text": "Thanks for the question. It's a challenging one because I guess when we do engagement, our goal isn't to satisfy necessarily everyone because we we can't. But I believe that we were able to clarify and answer a lot of questions at the open house. I think that there were obviously a lot of interested parties, and I think there's there's some component of the challenge that that uh arises through the the way the notice postings are put on site in the city of Calgary. Um it it creates a vision of the maximum potential possible on this site. Um, but once we showed that we are planning on thoughtfully designing this and not necessarily building to the max at every corner, um, I think that helped to assuage some concerns.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 30722.345, "end": 30725.785, "text": "Thank you. Thank you, uh Councillor Penisopoulos, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 30725.905, "end": 30742.245, "text": "Just picking up on uh Councillor Jameson's uh uh 95 letters of opposition. So that probably would have come from the public session to to Maeve. If if you could summarize, you know, what their concerns with the mahogany community plan? If if you could just that's a big number.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30743.265, "end": 30794.065, "text": "Yeah, thanks for the question. My understanding is the majority of the letters of opposition were received through the circulation process before the open house. As the applicant, we don't always get directly forwarded every letter. Our file planner summarizes the concerns and passes those on to us. So I'm not sure if some of those may have been sort of duplicate concerns or similar concerns. I would say that the main concerns were about density, height, shadowing, and parking and traffic, of course. Those are all the very common concerns that we hear when we're proposing additional density. I think that we were able to address all of those in some way. I don't know if all of those residents were necessarily satisfied, but I suppose we're happy to continue the dialogue through the development permit stage as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 30794.565, "end": 30806.525, "text": "I have a sense the administration mentioned the mahogany community plan, and I just pulled it up 21,000 uh residents was the goal. With this density and sort of the growth, how how are we trending towards that ultimate plan for the community?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30808.045, "end": 30860.925, "text": "Thanks for the question. I've had several applications in mahogany over the years, and I've been tasked with monitoring and analyzing where density is at. Really challenging to do given the number of different developments that are actively building out, especially in the TOD area. Obviously, there's been some areas at the northern portion of the community that have developed at significantly higher density, like Westmond Village. And there's a lot of different development areas that are currently under active development permit around that area that are coming out higher as well. But there's also several that I've worked on personally that have downzoned across the southeast portion and in the central portion as well. So I can't say for sure that it comes out in the wash, but I say it's it's approximately on target.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 30861.545, "end": 30887.105, "text": "Got it, got it. A lot can change in 20 years, I guess, you know, the plan. Uh you made a comment about the I think you said the the economics of the commercial, the village space. You need that density. Uh but when the plan was made, that level of density wasn't required. So what in your judgment has changed? You know, when they contemplated it, they thought a certain level of density could support the village, and now you're saying not. Just people are spending less? What's what's the thought to support that commercial? What changed?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 30887.545, "end": 30994.425, "text": "Yeah, that's another great question. As you say, a lot can change in 15, 20 years since the land use and the outland plan were originally approved. We've learned a lot, and I don't mean just us as a company, but as a development industry, about what works of uh in terms of mixed use development. And actually, I have some slides just in case this came up. Can we forward on to slides? Uh it's very small. I'm not really sure if it's going to be helpful, but we did look at a lot of precedent examples across the city and specifically in mahogany at Westman Village. The types of density that can actually support activation in terms of a main street that has commercial, that thrives, that doesn't, you know, start up and just kind of die out over time. Um, it's really challenging within the mixed-use district. It requires a lot out of the commercial uses at grade. It requires them to be small, it requires them to have frequent entrances. There are a lot of commitments that a retail unit has to make in order to sort of fit within MU1. And so that also comes with uh other challenges like high rental rates and high turnover. So we find that it's really important to have the rooftops above, in addition to uh you know actual street parking in front of the retail in order to drive the commercial to those units and keep them thriving. I guess also six story is the maximum wood frame that you can do currently in Alberta with concrete base for uh retail at grade. So it it's sort of an economic threshold as well in terms of making the finances make sense.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 30994.825, "end": 31007.325, "text": "Maybe finally at 7.2.1 we uh approved to develop an area uh twenty thirty-two point six uh units per hectare. Uh this area, what would be that same formula calculation that's proposed here?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31007.945, "end": 31011.825, "text": "Um, thanks for the question. I have a hard time working in units per hectare.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 31011.825, "end": 31012.285, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31012.285, "end": 31015.245, "text": "I believe that was about 13 units per acre.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 31015.245, "end": 31015.785, "text": "Beg your pardon?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31015.885, "end": 31028.545, "text": "I think that was 13 units per acre, and I think mahogany, I was actually here for that, and I was thinking of mahogany as an example because mahogany has targeted 13 units per acre since its inception, and that's roughly where it's headed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 31028.725, "end": 31030.365, "text": "Almost identical. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 31030.365, "end": 31034.185, "text": "Colleagues, uh I may have actually been overly optimistic here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 31034.625, "end": 31037.145, "text": "Should I talk less?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 31037.145, "end": 31065.465, "text": "No, no, it's no, it's it's it's not your fault, Chuck. Uh I may have been overly optimistic here. We have this item and we have two more items requiring public hearing and uh what could potentially be the lengthy uh waterboard um item. Is there anyone brave enough to move a motion to suspend the procedure bylaw to continue pushing through now, or is the will of council to take the break?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 31066.105, "end": 31066.785, "text": "Can can I", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 31066.785, "end": 31067.885, "text": "Yeah, Councillor Jameson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 31067.885, "end": 31068.105, "text": "um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 31068.105, "end": 31068.405, "text": "Jump in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 31068.785, "end": 31070.905, "text": "Well, I could propose that we shorten the break.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 31071.885, "end": 31072.985, "text": "Yep, that's also an option.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 31072.985, "end": 31076.665, "text": "Like I I propose that we shorten it to a half an hour. Okay.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 31080.565, "end": 31088.545, "text": "Okay, Councillor Jameson is uh Madam Clerk, I believe it's a suspension of the procedure bylaw to alter the duration of the dinner recess.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 31088.765, "end": 31096.965, "text": "If we're going to keep the recess, we don't need to suspend the rules. It'll just be a motion to modify the dinner recess from the 75 minutes to the 30.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 31097.405, "end": 31121.405, "text": "All right, so Councillor Jameson has moved to modify the duration of the dinner recess from 75 minutes down to 30. Let's move move by Councillor Jameson. That's been seconded by Councillor McLean. Any debate on that? All right, seeing none, I'm gonna just I'm gonna call for a quick voice vote. All in favor. Any opposed? All right, seeing none, that is carried. We'll be back. Uh continue the public hearing at 6 32.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 32972.925, "end": 32976.245, "text": "Uh welcome back to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 32977.545, "end": 32984.105, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnson, Councillor Kelly,", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 32984.105, "end": 32984.445, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 32984.505, "end": 32987.885, "text": "Councillor McLean, Councillor McLean,", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 32988.705, "end": 32989.085, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 32989.365, "end": 33001.485, "text": "Councillor Pantasopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Shaboth,", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_52", "start": 33001.585, "end": 33001.865, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 33002.005, "end": 33007.445, "text": "Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywal, and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33007.445, "end": 33007.885, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 33007.885, "end": 33008.505, "text": "Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33008.905, "end": 33034.685, "text": "All right, we're still in the public hearing for 7.2.18. We just heard from Mr. Model. Uh colleagues, any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, uh any other speakers for this item? Any other members of the public? Going once, going twice, three times. All right, we will close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Jameson?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 33036.565, "end": 33036.945, "text": "Open.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33038.025, "end": 33050.265, "text": "All right, uh that's been moved by Councillor Jameson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Chabot. Any further debate or discussion on this? Seeing none, uh back to you to close, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 33052.265, "end": 33101.265, "text": "Um Yeah, well, you know what, for any Ward 12 residents watching, uh thank you for participating and being engaged in the process. I think that a lot of the concerns that were raised um were were mitigated by um the applicant. And I also want to thank the applicant for uh engaging with the community the way you did and uh responding to those concerns in a meaningful way. From what I've heard today, there was a genuine engagement. Adjustments and clarifications were made, and administration has confirmed that it does align with the community plan. No development application is ever without concerns, but I believe this application has gone through a thoughtful process and I will be supporting it. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33103.665, "end": 33106.045, "text": "All right, uh, Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 33117.465, "end": 33118.645, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33118.645, "end": 33118.985, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 33119.145, "end": 33122.845, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33122.905, "end": 33132.285, "text": "Yes. All right. Please just sorry.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 33133.865, "end": 33143.645, "text": "One moment, Mayor Farkas. All the votes are in. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33144.005, "end": 33162.685, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously, 14 to 0. I'll move now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 62D 2026. Anyone opposed?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 33163.265, "end": 33165.125, "text": "Sorry, point of something.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33166.005, "end": 33167.665, "text": "Yeah, that went awry. Okay.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 33167.805, "end": 33182.925, "text": "The the display did. Um, Mayor Farkas, as the display went up, it certainly looked different, but I can confirm that it was the motion was carried 14 to 0 with Councillor Schmidt being absent. Certainly happy to recast it, but the vote was concluded in a correct way.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33183.345, "end": 33235.645, "text": "Okay, colleagues, we we heard that the the votes were cast and they were recorded with a unanimity, uh, 14 to 0 with Councillor Schmidt absent. And based on that, uh we're I'm gonna proceed to the first readings. Red started to the first reading of bylaw 62D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 62d 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 62d 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 62d 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. We will move now to 7.2.19, land use amendment and bend a poor ward 14.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 33237.765, "end": 33389.665, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.19 is a land use amendment to allow for multi-residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 48D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 15307 1st Street Southeast from the special purpose Future Urban Development, or SFUD district, to the Multi-Residential Contextual Low Profile, or MC1 district. Next slide, please. This subject parcel is located in the southeast community of Midnipur. This is east of McLeod Trail and north of Mid Lake Boulevard Southeast, which travels across McLeod Trail. The site is 1.2 kilometers or a 17 minute walk to either the Fish Creek Station to the northwest or the Shaughnessy Station to the southwest. Next slide, please. The subject site is a mid-block parcel currently occupied by a single detached house and a detached garage accessible from both a front drive and a rear lane. Next slide, please. This image shows the front of the property from First Street. Next slide, please. And this image shows the rear of the property from the lane. Please note the three story apartment building on the left of the image. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses are single-detached housing to the south and to the east, shown in yellow, and there's multi-residential development to the north and west as shown in brown. Nearby commercial uses are shown in red and pink. Next slide, please. This subject site is currently designated as the special purpose future urban development district. This parcel, as well as its two neighbors to the south, are developed with single detached houses, and they appear to have been designated this way since they were incorporated into the city between 1961 and 1977. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the subject site to the multi-residential contextual low profile MC1 district, which allows for apartment buildings of low height and medium density. The maximum building height is 14 meters, which is approximately three to four stories, and the maximum density is 148 units per hectare, which would allow for up to 15 units on this parcel. This district is similar to size and scale to the parcels surrounding it to the north and west. Next slide, please. In closing, this application would allow for redevelopment of the site in a manner that is completely contextually appropriate. The Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends council's approval. Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33391.985, "end": 33398.845, "text": "Thank you so much. We will now move to the public hearing. Do we have the applicant with us? Thanks. Please approach.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 33404.505, "end": 33698.385, "text": "Is it that one? Good evening, Mayor and members of council. My name is Maya Kahn, and I'm here to present our application for land use resign redesignation for the property located at 15307 First Street, Southeast in Mindaport. The purpose of today's presentation is to explain why the MC1 district is appropriate for this site, summarize the community engagement we have undertaken, and outline how we will continue to address the feedback through the future development permit process. Next slide, please. Why is MC One appropriate? The proposed MC One district is appropriate for this site and aligns with the City of Calgary's planning framework and administrative report. The district supports modest residential intensification within established communities, which is consistent with how Calgary is intended to grow by making efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. The site is located in a developed neighborhood context where a transition in housing form is appropriate. The MC1 district provides that flexibility while still ensuring that any future development must go through a detailed development permit process. Importantly, this application is not about approving a specific building today. Instead, it establishes an appropriate land use framework that will still require full review of building design, massing, setbacks, parking, and site layout at the development permit stage. Next slide, please. We place a strong emphasis on early and direct community engagement. Our team conducted door-to-door outreach along with the entire streets surrounding the site. We spoke directly with residents and property owners at their homes, and we documented each visit and address as part, sorry, each visit and address as part of our consultation record. The purpose of this engagement was to ensure neighbors were informed early and had an opportunity to share their thoughts before any further steps in the planning process. We found that most residents were willing to engage in conversation and provide feedback, which we have taken seriously and recorded for consideration moving forward. Next slide, please. Three key themes emerged from our engagement. First, parking was the most common concern raised. Residents expressed interest in ensuring that any future development does not negatively impact on-street parking availability or increase congestion in the area. Second, one resident suggested that a park or additional community amenity space would be preferable on-site. Third, a neighboring condo owner expressed concern that the proposed change in land use may decrease their property value. From a planning perspective, we recognize and respect these concerns as important community feedback. However, it is also important to note that land use decisions are guided by city policy, including the municipal development plan and applicable district rules. Individual perceptions of property value are not a determining factor in land use resignation, rate designation decisions. All of these comments have been recorded and will be directly informed. We will be directly informed how we approach the next stage of the process. Next slide, please. So how the feedback will be addressed. At the development permit stage, we will be required to provide a detailed site and building design. At that time, we will specifically address parking supply and management to ensure compliance with city requirements and minimize neighborhood impacts. The site layout and design considerations to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties. Opportunities to improve landscaping and interface between development and the street. This is the stage where detailed design solutions are evaluated and refined. Next slide, please. Responsible development approach. We are committed to responsible development that respects the surrounding community. This includes continuing engagement, responding to all concerns through design, working closely with the administration to ensure the proposal meets all applicable planning and technical requirements. And closing slide, please. In closing, the proposed MC1 redesignation at 15307 First Street Southeast represents a planning approach that is consistent with city policy, supports thoughtful growth, and allows for appropriate intensification in an established community. We believe it strikes a balance between responsible land use planning and concerns raised by the community. Community feedback has been carefully considered, and we will continue to inform the detailed development permit stage where built form, massing, and interface will be fully reviewed. For these reasons, we respectfully request Council's support for this application. Thank you for your time, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33701.385, "end": 33718.065, "text": "Thank you so much for being here with us. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, uh, we'll continue through the public hearing. Do we have Alexander Brajansi with us on the line?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_54", "start": 33720.365, "end": 33722.285, "text": "Uh yes I'm here. Can you hear me?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33722.705, "end": 33724.025, "text": "Yes, uh, please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_54", "start": 33725.585, "end": 33753.205, "text": "Uh thank you. Uh good evening, Mayor and members of council. My name is Alexander Prisajny and I'm speaking in opposition to land use amendment LOC to zero two five dash zero two two six for one five three zero seven first street southeast. I live in the adjacent building and would be directly affected by the proposed development. I recognize that some level of redevelopment has occurred in the area. However, I believe this", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 33753.105, "end": 33755.425, "text": "Sorry to interrupt but I can't hear you very well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33755.425, "end": 33758.805, "text": "So unfortunately, uh, I'd ask uh you please to", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 33758.805, "end": 33759.605, "text": "Oh sorry. I just can't", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33759.605, "end": 33771.045, "text": "So you're you're unfortunately not able to speak at this point, uh only as the chair uh uh if you don't mind uh Sir Alexander, if you don't mind if you're on speakerphone to maybe take that off and uh speak closer to the microphone.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_54", "start": 33772.485, "end": 33935.525, "text": "Okay, uh can you hear me now? I'm not on speaker phone. I'm not just holding phone in my hand. Uh can you hear me? Okay, so we'll continue. Thank you. Um I recognize that some level of redevelopment has occurred in the area. However, I believe this proposal represents an over intensification of a constrained site and is not comparable comparable with the immediate context. The scale and proximity of a proposed development would create significant and disproportionate impacts on the adjacent properties. As was noted in my written submission, my concerns are focused on the direct impact this development would have on neighboring residents. First, the shared rear alley uh rear lane service in adjacent properties is narrow. I submitted photos with reading submission. Construction and subsequent addition of a multi unit building would increase vehicle movements, both personal and service vehicle traffic, potentially creating safety risks and limited functional access. Limited on-site parking at the proposed development could likely overflow into the alley, rear alley, further restricting access and safety. Second, the scale and proximity of a multi unit building may result in direct overlook into adjacent units of our building, thus creating significant and permanent loss of privacy. Third, the south facing side of our building is an important source of natural light for south facing units. It means that a a taller multi unit structure immediately adjacent would uh reduce sunlight access, particularly during winter months, uh potentially resulting in colder interior temperatures and negatively effective livability of those units. I'm also concerned about the cumulative effect of incremental abzoning in mid-Napur's lower density area. Approving the development of this scale on a relatively small parcel risks creating further pressure for similar intensification that may not align with the established character and built form of the surrounding area. Importantly, I am not opposing all redevelopment. Redevelopment within the existing zoning framework or development more appropriate to the surrounding context could likely result in temporary and manageable impacts. However, I believe the proposed land use amendment. enables a scale and intensity of development that is not appropriate for this specific site and would create disproportionate and unavoidable in impacts on affected properties. And lastly, for these reasons I respectfully request the Council refuse the application and thank you so much for your time and consideration.", "segments_merged": 21 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 33938.045, "end": 33958.205, "text": "Thank you. Any questions, colleagues? All right, seeing none, uh we'll continue with our public hearing. Is there anyone else uh in the public who would like to speak to this item? All right, hearing none, uh last call, we shall close the public hearing. Uh can I go to you, Councillor Johnson?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 33959.045, "end": 33990.585, "text": "Uh yes. Um admin, how many houses would be in that block of uh the 150 block here? Sorry, how many residents would live in this total blockage? Okay, so there's one, two, three, four, five, six large condo complexes. I mean. This land use change, what would be the maximum under that land use designation?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 33993.025, "end": 33996.545, "text": "I believe this would result in up to 15 units, I think.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 33996.545, "end": 34019.625, "text": "Up to 15. Yeah, okay. So relatively small percentage compared to the rest of the condos in the same block. Um I understand there's potential. Ah, I don't want to talk about development. Um yeah, I'm I'm okay with this, so I'll I'll just leave it there for questions.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34020.185, "end": 34021.905, "text": "Thanks. Are you looking to move the item then?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 34021.905, "end": 34022.565, "text": "Yes, I'll move it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34022.685, "end": 34035.545, "text": "Okay. Uh do we have a seconder? Seconded by uh Councillor Kelly. Alright, uh that's been moved and it's on the table. Any further debate?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 34037.385, "end": 34039.185, "text": "Maybe if I may, your worship, just uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34039.185, "end": 34040.045, "text": "Councillor Kelly, go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 34040.405, "end": 34049.185, "text": "this has been a long time coming. Uh SFUD, future urban development. We're finally here. The future has arrived. Um yeah, thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 34055.125, "end": 34055.645, "text": "So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 34056.445, "end": 34056.865, "text": "All right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34056.865, "end": 34058.265, "text": "Uh back to you to close, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 34058.585, "end": 34080.365, "text": "yeah, and so again, just with admin, just quickly here. Um this was designated for future development for a very long time, right? And the time has come. So I mean this applicant saw an opportunity, purchased the land, and I think this will be good for the neighborhood. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34083.365, "end": 34086.025, "text": "All right, with that, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the U vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 34102.905, "end": 34106.145, "text": "Councillor Schmidt is absent. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34107.185, "end": 34107.485, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 34109.405, "end": 34110.725, "text": "Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34112.065, "end": 34150.405, "text": "Thank you. Please uh display the results. On that, the motion is carried, 14 to 0. Move now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 48 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 48 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 48 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 48D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, let's move now to 7.2.20, land use amendment in Haskane, Ward 1.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 34153.325, "end": 34347.205, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Our last application for today, 7.2.20, is a land use amendment to allow for multi residential development and a fire hall in a developing community. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 54D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 6600 and 6815 133rd Street Northwest from the commercial Community 1 or CC1 district to the multi residential low profile M1 district and the special purpose community service SCS district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northwest community of Haskane. The Bears Paw Reservoir on the Bow River and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway are located to the south and west of the site. Or the area, excuse me. This community extends northwest along the river valley and projects into Rocky View County with the city limits here shown in red. Next slide, please. This site is approximately 3.9 hectares in size and is stripped and graded in advance of urban development. This site will be at the crossroads in the community as its main connector travels north along the river valley. Next slide, please. Surrounding land use districts in the area are a mix of residential, parks, and commercial. Of note is the variety of residential land use districts. You'll see singles and semis under the RG and RGM districts. There'll be townhouses in the MG to the southeast, and likely stacked townhouses or walk up apartment buildings in the M1 district to the south. Next slide, please. The site's existing CC1 district is intended to accommodate small to mid-scale commercial uses that serve the surrounding community. The CC1 district has a maximum building height of 10 meters and a floor area ratio of 1.0. Next slide, please. The proposed M1 district accommodates multi residential development in a variety of forms with low height and medium density. The M1 district allows for a maximum building height of 14 meters and requires a density of between 40 to 148 units per hectare, which would work out to about 125 townhouses or up to 370 apartments on the site. Next slide, please. The proposed SCS district accommodates community service uses. In this case, the intent is to allow for the use of protective and emergency service, which should allow for this site to be used as a permanent fire station in the future. Next slide, please. Development on this site is guided by the Haskane Area Structure Plan, with the subject site included within the Red Community Retail Center, indicated by the Red Asterisks. And the site is also indicated by the Red E for emergency response station. This site should also function cohesively with the adjacent neighborhood activity center, that's the purple star. So this proposal overall complies with the intent and the policies of the area structure plan. Next slide, please. In closing, this application is a suitable location for the construction of a necessary emergency service and for increased residential density next to future commercial uses. Calgary Planning Commission supports the application and recommends council's approval. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34348.965, "end": 34353.805, "text": "Thank you for that. Let's open up the public hearing. We'll call down the applicant.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 34362.225, "end": 34376.625, "text": "Evening. Mayor, members of council. I'm Jack Model with BNA. We're the applicant. With me is Elton Ma from Brookfield. We're speaking in favor, and I have a brief presentation. Again, I'll try to keep it short so you can go have dinner. Next slide, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34377.405, "end": 34380.465, "text": "I think we've already had dinner, so we're we're ready for you, Jack.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 34380.465, "end": 34384.365, "text": "Sorry, I forgot because we just sat here and waited.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34385.185, "end": 34385.805, "text": "We're no longer heading.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 34385.805, "end": 34578.525, "text": "So we can go have dinner. We're ready for it. So, as noted, this application is in the rapidly developing community of Rockland Park. It's at the heart of the village center. You can see there in the blue is the amendment area, and the pink is the remainder of the village center area that's not being affected by this application. Next slide, please. The original village center vision that was approved along with the outline plan included a mix of commercial, multi residential, and a future emergency response station. At the time, it was approved under the CC1 land use district, which can theoretically accommodate all of these uses. It does allow for multi residential in certain formats, as well as the fire hall. Next slide, please. This application was brought about for two reasons. One, because the city approached us to provide their requirements for the fire hall site and wanted it to be subdivided out under its separate land use. And also because Brookfield wanted to subdivide out the multi residential portion of this commercial area as a separate land use. So after uh amendment, we'll have a 2.75 acre firehouse site, a five and a half acre M1 site, and a six-acre commercial site that will accommodate 60,000 square feet of commercial and retail. Next slide, please. This shows the area of the application that is amended from the CC1 to the M1 and the SES. I'll just note that to the southeast of the pink area is the remaining CC1 parcel. And I think as as is shown on the notice posting signs when this application is posted, this led to the perception that all of the commercial was being redesignated, when in fact over half of it is remaining. Next slide, please. And finally, this is a comparison of the initial concept as compared to the revised concept that we are now working with. You can see that generally speaking, the land uses and the proposed uses are staying the same. They're just being relocated within this village center. So the multi-residential that was on the left in the bottom left area in brown is now in the top left. The fire hall that was previously shown in the bottom right is now in the top right. And the remainder is the commercial area that Brookfield has been working to develop the programming, and we provided some additional clarification through the open house about what specific retail uses would be provided there. Next slide, please. So, as mentioned, this application was submitted just over a year ago. In July of last year, we met with the Rockland Park HOA to give a presentation. There were changes through work with the administration to refine the size of the fire hall site. We held another open house in December of last year, and now we're bringing it before you today for approval. Next slide, please. Oh, that's the last slide. Okay. Well, uh, we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks for your time.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34578.525, "end": 34584.925, "text": "Any questions, colleagues? I'll jump in. Why the change?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 34587.405, "end": 34617.205, "text": "Right, that's through the chair. Thanks for the question. Um the two reasons that I mentioned are the fire hall site being identified by city uh and the specific sizing confirmed. Um, so it is funded. Uh, and now that that fire hall site is being brought forward, uh, it's preferred that it have its own land use under the SES use. And additionally, Brookfield is looking to develop a different portion of the site for a slightly different type of multi residential than was originally envisioned.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34617.645, "end": 34621.585, "text": "So you see this a bit as being nimble to be able to respond to market demand.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 34622.905, "end": 34624.245, "text": "I think that would be a fair assessment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34624.725, "end": 34626.285, "text": "That's it for me, uh, Councillor Targ.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 34627.625, "end": 34654.425, "text": "Uh yeah, so residents of my community have contacted my office and have expressed interest in having more emergency services, but they're concerned that this closes the door on a potential grocery store that they did hear about when they bought their properties in this commercial area. Can you provide comments on uh whether this does indeed close the door on a grocery store and other amenities in the area?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 34657.345, "end": 34692.385, "text": "Thank you for the question. And through the chair, uh from a land use perspective, no, it does not preclude uh grocery store coming in. Um the use is still that is still a use that falls within the CC1. Um the nature of grocery stores as we know them today are also shifting in size and changing in size. So, in terms of they've got grocery stores ranging from 100,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. This site couldn't accommodate the 100,000 square footer, but it could accommodate anywhere in between from the 40 to the 20. So that can still be accommodated on the site.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 34696.445, "end": 34708.045, "text": "Sorry. Um okay, so To clarify, there can be a grocery store and a fire hall to provide emergency services to the area at the same time.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_39", "start": 34708.525, "end": 34709.025, "text": "Correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 34709.145, "end": 34710.005, "text": "Okay, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34713.525, "end": 34724.465, "text": "Thank you. Anyone else? All right, uh hearing none, uh thank you very much for being here with us. Is there anyone else uh in the public wishing to speak to this?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 34727.105, "end": 34729.925, "text": "I have a few comments. I'm not sure if I'm on the line or not.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34730.245, "end": 34732.085, "text": "Thank you. Is that uh you, David Yude?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 34733.165, "end": 34733.605, "text": "Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34733.825, "end": 34734.745, "text": "Okay, please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 34736.025, "end": 34994.345, "text": "So I'll try to be brief. I know you've had all a long meeting. I'd like to submit my comments that I sent into the CPC on this item and speak to. And I know there's been a lot of chatter in the community to this, but listening to the previous applications, I guess that's 7.2.6 in Hillhurst to give third reading until the development permits come in. Perhaps maybe that's a good approach to balancing some of these concerns between the redesignation. And the actual details that come later. I guess at least for me that would make it easier to comment to on the application to get the full picture of what's going on. But I guess however I'm in walking distance to this site, but I'm not immediately next to it, so I'm less affected by traffic, density, and parking. My interest is mainly on the commercial portion, specifically around consideration of the sizes and the ratio of the areas being redesignated. And I guess what's left for the commercial site. So I know along with parking, density, all those fine details get Dealt with at the development permit stage, but I feel the size is one area where it should be carefully considered today at this stage. So the size of the designated area really determines what can be done at the development permit stage, whereas you know you can shift the parking, the building height, etc. You just can't adjust the area to work with at that stage. So the hope is council takes into consideration what will be left to that commercial site after redesignating for the fire hall and multifamily. And I guess at the committee meeting it wasn't really an open house um in December last year. Brookfield indicated they'd have a center similar to the Rocky Ridge commercial where and it's on the letter I sent in. So yeah, so they did have a grocery store, small retail, like a vet bank. It's about six acres. But they did indicate there was no definite timeline when this would occur in Rockland and it's subject to market feasibility. So I mean it would be great to see, but the question I had in my comments is how does this site allow for infilling and build-out over time? As kind of indicated in the Haskey and ASP that overlays the area. Does it recommend amenity spaces such as plazas, landscaped areas, walkway? And then again, I guess with the developer themselves, on their website, they have an 85,000 square foot area for future shop services, restaurants, and according to them an inviting outdoor plaza to beat my neighbors. It'd just be nice to see a demonstration of that size and it aligns with these goals and what Brookfield is marketing. And my last comment, so I'll be quick, is my read of the land use bylaw in the CC1 district allows for a seniors resident residence, and it's listed as assisted living, and although it is a discretionary use. So I have nothing against seniors, and the developer has indicated they want to develop a commercial space. However, they have noted again it's subject to market feasibility. My concern is that if the developer pivots and does put a seniors facility, it's really another form of multi residential. And if it's proposed accepted, then that site just gets smaller with a facility on it. So if you do a quick Google search of nearby sites, they're about one and a half to three acres in a footprint. So I would chop the commercial site in half. And I believe a seniors facility was shown conceptually on previous plans in addition to the multifamily proposed. I did uh recently email the applicant about this and it wasn't confirmed, but it wasn't ruled out either, as the response was it's something that will be looked at at the development stage and informed by the market. So I guess my question, maybe more clarification to the applicant through counsel, is the intent still for this full retail commercial site? And also if it's not feasible in the future, then would they be pivoting to maybe that senior's facility in addition to multifamily? And again, reiterating the concern, the CC one parcel is flipped, developed into maybe non retail, and then long term when the community fully builds out, we've lost that site and opportunity for a good local commercial area. And personally, I'd much rather see a vacant site until something good comes along instead of the Maybe a short term flip to residential and again losing it. So that's all I have and I guess thank you for your consideration.", "segments_merged": 24 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 34996.065, "end": 35017.505, "text": "Thank you so much uh for being here with us, David. Any follow up questions, counsel? Alright. Hearing none, we'll continue with our public hearing. Anyone else wish to speak to this item? Going once, going twice. Last call. Alright, uh, our public hearing is closed. Uh can I go to you, Councillor Tyres?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35021.245, "end": 35021.985, "text": "To move the item?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35022.305, "end": 35023.685, "text": "Yeah. If you'd like to or ask questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35023.825, "end": 35025.925, "text": "Oh, oh yeah. Um for admin.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35026.265, "end": 35027.645, "text": "Yeah. Either or", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35028.105, "end": 35055.185, "text": "Okay, sure. Um just wondering about the size of the lot and its I guess association with the potential fire station. Um what size I guess why was the size of this lot necessary for the fire station? And is it because you needed a two-bay fire station or is it because of a potential mixed-use uh fire station, which is kind of the trend that we've seen in recent fire stations?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 35057.185, "end": 35059.445, "text": "We'll defer to my colleague from facility planning.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 35068.165, "end": 35102.705, "text": "Good evening, uh Mayor and um members of council. My name is Cameron Gillis. I'm with facilities. Uh thank you for the question. When we were rationalizing the site of the the size of the uh fire hall site, we were really looking to be a critical safe distance from with the um driving uh drive apron uh from the apparatus base, what they call the tarmac, uh, and the curb cut that is associated with that, uh, a critical safe distance between the two uh main intersections at the north and the east uh corners of the site.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35105.125, "end": 35107.185, "text": "Um I don't quite follow", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 35108.225, "end": 35150.405, "text": "So that puts the drive, I don't know if it's possible to pull up a plan, but it puts the uh the curb cut equidistance along that northeast face of the site, frontage of the site, um, so that the fire hall can sit in the center of the site with parking. For that facility to one side or the other, we're recognizing that there is the potential with the roundabout at the north end of the site for something for some sort of more engaging use, higher and better use for that prominent corner site than than than a fire hall.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35150.525, "end": 35157.685, "text": "Okay, yeah, and th that makes sense. And I imagine you'd need a lot more space to like move the fire trucks around.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 35157.685, "end": 35166.525, "text": "Absolutely. They I can't speak to operations uh uh um with authority, but yes, they do maneuver on site on the on the tarmac.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35166.725, "end": 35173.945, "text": "Okay, excellent. And are you the one to uh um answer questions about uh fire response times for Rockland Park?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 35174.285, "end": 35175.205, "text": "No, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35174.805, "end": 35189.125, "text": "No. Oh, who's that? Oh, yeah. Yeah, just um can you please advise uh counsel here how long it takes uh for a firetruck to to reach Rockland Park?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 35190.325, "end": 35210.825, "text": "Uh through the chair excuse me, through the chair, Lauren Swong with Development Engineering, uh, the closest operating fire hall is the Tuscany One, and it's about seventy minutes uh to the center of Rockland. Uh the reason for the uh the fire hall is that there is more development coming uh westward. Uh so it is required to service the larger area.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35211.105, "end": 35226.825, "text": "And from what I understand, this was uh I I suppose um a fire hall was always planned in this area, but now it's become more urgent. Can you um expand on why it's uh come to our attention now and not before?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 35228.205, "end": 35236.925, "text": "Uh through the chair, it was planned through the ASP site was identified. Uh this is just um due planning process.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35237.465, "end": 35267.625, "text": "Okay. And um it seems that uh the public was under the impression that this would be a fully commercial site. Um can you I don't know, maybe expand on how things went wrong in the communication that led to that, or maybe not how things went wrong, but just um with the area structure plan that's always existed for this area, um, how would it be that residents would think that it would be fully commercial with with nothing else in mind?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 35270.545, "end": 35283.545, "text": "I'm afraid we can't speak to how the public is interpreting our planning policies or how they've been marketed to, but we can say that this was always the location of a fire station since the creation of the Serie structure plan in 2018. So", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35284.105, "end": 35288.325, "text": "Okay. I appreciate that. Um yeah, I believe that's it for me. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35289.945, "end": 35293.085, "text": "thank you. Uh over to Councillor Shabot for questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 35294.425, "end": 35315.405, "text": "Yeah, just um uh this is the standard um um Process insofar as when we develop uh a fire station, we allow build out to go to a certain level uh before we uh make it a requirement prior to allowing additional development to occur. Is that does that sound correct?", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 35316.305, "end": 35323.785, "text": "Generally speaking, yes, and aligning with budget as well, to be able to secure uh the land and then to operate it staff.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 35323.785, "end": 35327.505, "text": "Still maintaining a target of seven minutes as a response time.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 35328.765, "end": 35329.925, "text": "Th that is correct, yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 35330.525, "end": 35376.125, "text": "Yeah, I I'm uh gonna go directly into debate as well here and just say I I'm fully supportive of what's before us, what we've learned in the past is that whilst there is a target of seven and a seven minutes as a response time, typically we will uh won't allow anything going beyond eight and a half minutes as a response time. So if it's gett getting to that point where it's becoming a life safety issue and the response time is uh getting around eight and a half minutes for first responders uh for first engine uh that's when we it triggers the necessity. for us to build a new fire station. I think we've reached that threshold and so that's why I think it's important that we move forward with this one right now before we allow any further development. So happy to support.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35378.145, "end": 35380.785, "text": "All right. Uh Councillor Tyres, would you like to move the item?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35383.365, "end": 35383.705, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35384.845, "end": 35398.265, "text": "All right, that's been moved by Councillor Tyres. I'm gonna say seconded by Councillor Shabot. All right, uh colleagues, any further discussion, debate on this item? Alright, seeing none, back to you, Councillor Tyres.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_42", "start": 35399.465, "end": 35448.165, "text": "Okay, yeah. So um so this application is gonna provide much needed emergency service which will serve Haskane Park, um, or Haskane Rockland Park, and as Councillor Chabot mentioned, right now the emergency response times um are croaching on inadequate, and this is gonna make a large difference. And um I've been assured that a grocery store is also possible, also possible given the scope of this application and the areas of concerns of residents that are mentioned throughout the gauged process were addressed. I'm happy to connect with the city administration and the applicant to make sure that um that this is done correctly. So happy to support this application and continue building Rockland Park. Closed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35450.105, "end": 35453.745, "text": "Alrighty. Madam Clerk, let's uh engage the e-boat, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 35473.185, "end": 35476.705, "text": "Councillor Schmidt, absent. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35477.505, "end": 35477.805, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 35482.905, "end": 35484.305, "text": "Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35485.085, "end": 35556.285, "text": "Alright, please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 to 0. Councillor Schmidt absent. I will move to reading the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, folks, uh let's give it just a moment here to swap out folks to our final item here the added urgent business on the water utility oversight board. Whatever.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 35575.465, "end": 35580.385, "text": "Yeah. Wow.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 35584.985, "end": 35585.325, "text": "I know.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 35587.525, "end": 35590.965, "text": "Oh no, this isn't 720. This is 9-1, right?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35608.785, "end": 35634.145, "text": "Alright, we are now on item 9.1 water utility oversight board compensation and selection. Colleagues, uh, we had a quite exhaustive discussion of this at Executive Committee. I propose we we keep this tight. Um who would like to introduce the item? All right. All right, Councillor Penizopoulos.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 35636.605, "end": 35671.205, "text": "Thanks so much. Uh I think like you said, Mayor, we did a detailed discussion. We went through the compensation, understood what's there and the necessity, the necessity of having an extremely strong board. Um Recent camp proved that our water asset is one of our largest assets is and and we need that oversight and and uh I think this is sort of the first step of the journey, set up an amazing advisory board, uh get the experts to help us as a council and administration and uh move forward so that what happened on December 30th uh never happens again to this council or any subsequent council uh in the years to come.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35672.225, "end": 35707.925, "text": "All right, that's been uh the recommendations have been moved by Councillor Penizopoulos. Seconded by Councillor Kelly. It's on the table. Colleagues, any further discussion, questions, administration? All right, uh, Madam Clerk, uh maybe just from a process standpoint, if we could just walk through what's before us. If my understanding is if the recommendation here passes, we'll have the the readings of the bylaw. And then is it subsequent to the readings of the bylaw? We'll go into the uh potential election of council members to serve.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 35708.185, "end": 35728.445, "text": "That's exactly right, Mayor Farkas. The bylaw needs to be passed and enforced before any members can be appointed. So recommendation would be to start out with recommendations 1, 2, and 3 following council's decision on that. Council can then move forward with recommendations 4 onwards.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35730.845, "end": 35748.285, "text": "All right. Uh with that is there there is a private attachment that indicates the public member of the selection committee. Is there a requirement to go into closed session, colleagues? Nope. All right. Seeing none, uh I think it may be over to you to to close. Council Pranazopoulos.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 35750.185, "end": 35752.185, "text": "Were we intending to split it? One, two, three.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 35753.605, "end": 35770.785, "text": "It that's right, Councillor Pantyzoulis. So the bylaw needs to be in force before council can proceed with recommendation number four. So the proposal is to put recommendations one, two, and three together. And then following those decisions, um put recommendations four, five, six, and seven together.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_40", "start": 35771.525, "end": 35782.925, "text": "We we moved mountains as a city, taking a four year project to one year. Things are moving, and uh let's continue this momentum and Get this board uh water utility oversight board set up and and running. Thank you. Closed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35783.085, "end": 35788.885, "text": "Okay, that has been closed. Uh I'm going to go on process uh to councillor Johnston. You have a request for division?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 35789.905, "end": 35796.485, "text": "Yeah, sorry, I was just a little confused here. The last uh one had seven points to it, and now this one has three.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 35796.485, "end": 35796.805, "text": "Sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 35796.805, "end": 35797.885, "text": "I just missed that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35798.045, "end": 35817.605, "text": "Yeah, it's just further to the point I made with Madam Clerk is that uh the first three are requirement to proceed with uh the next one. So we're just simply going to vote on one, two, and three at this point. And if one, two, and three were to say fail, uh we wouldn't have a bylaw and we wouldn't have the need to appoint people to the uh the board that the bylaw calls for.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 35817.605, "end": 35826.665, "text": "Okay. I earlier it would have been number seven. I wanted divided from the rest of them. So I guess it'd be four on the next one.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35826.985, "end": 35834.225, "text": "Okay, I'll uh I'll acknowledge you. Uh if this were to pass on division for the next set of votes.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 35834.365, "end": 35835.105, "text": "Thank you, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35836.005, "end": 35839.045, "text": "Uh Councillor Wynus, on it's been closed but on process.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 35839.045, "end": 35848.285, "text": "well I had my RTS in before the closed. Uh it was uh both will council be made aware of the compensation for the the member and confidential?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35849.145, "end": 35868.425, "text": "Okay, uh I acknowledged Councillor Penazopoulos to close prior to your RTS being in the queue, but I will if we have general consent, colleagues, uh I think that this is important answer or clarification and question to ask for administration prior to us uh proceeding to the vote. Okay, seeing no objection, uh uh Ms. Johnson, if you don't mind.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 35868.905, "end": 35881.905, "text": "Yeah, so maybe if I can just clarify your question, make sure I'm answering the the correct one. Your uh well, actually, maybe I'm gonna pause. Attachment four is a confidential attachment", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 35881.965, "end": 35885.985, "text": "Yeah, I want to know what the compensation of that individual is for this process.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 35886.025, "end": 35888.565, "text": "for this process. Um", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 35888.565, "end": 35904.645, "text": "Because we know the compensation of the board members and the chair, but council's never been provided with the compensation of the individual participating in it, and I think it's important council knows as part of uh agreeing to what the process we're moving forward on.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 35904.885, "end": 35911.905, "text": "Yeah, and I just want to be clear for counsel my hesitation isn't actually about the compensation, it's about speaking to a confidential attachment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 35912.025, "end": 35915.245, "text": "So does it have to go inside for us to get my answer?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35915.245, "end": 35924.265, "text": "My reading personally is no. I think we could just address that. I I think the question is if they are part of the search committee, they would not be paid, is my understanding.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 35924.265, "end": 35928.265, "text": "Well, if they can't answer it publicly, then obviously there might there's compensation involved.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 35928.725, "end": 35929.045, "text": "They", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 35929.045, "end": 35929.945, "text": "They don't want to end.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_56", "start": 35931.585, "end": 35942.165, "text": "uh so there is no compensation directly attached to that. individuals participation in the selection process.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35945.845, "end": 35965.925, "text": "Okay. All right. Uh we will go to the e vote on that. Uh, Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, and that's for one, two, and three only is the approving of the retainers and the giving of the three readings of the uh bylaw and the exemption of the uh recruitment uh from the the standard uh process so that we can move faster.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 35978.145, "end": 35985.345, "text": "Councillor Ewell, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35986.105, "end": 35986.425, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 35988.225, "end": 35989.145, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 35989.645, "end": 36060.505, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On 1, 2, and 3, that motion is carried. 11 to 4. Counselors Dallywall, Atkinson, and Shabot and Yynus are opposed. All right. We will go now to the readings of bylaw 17M 2026. First reading of bylaw 17M 2026. Anyone opposed? I'm going to say counselors Dallywell, Atkinson, Shabot, and Wynus are opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 17 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Counselors Dallywall, Atkinson, Shabot, and Wynus are opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 17M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 17M 2026. Anyone opposed? Counselors Dallywall, Atkinson, Shabot, and Yynus are opposed, and that is carried. Alrighty, Madam Clerk, I believe at this point we go to the recruitment process of council members.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36060.545, "end": 36133.445, "text": "That's right, Mayor Farkas. I will just bring you the bylaw to sign first. Thank you for that, Mayor Farkas. So then the next item of business for council will be to contemplate the membership. We um we did solicit expressions of interest from members of council, so we do have a distribution that we will display to facilitate your decision making. As a brief reminder, um council is looking to appoint two additional members of council following the appointment of the two members of council from amongst the mayor and those two members of council. Council will then move on to select a chair. Oh we do have excuse me just one more announcement because Councillor Dollywall is remote. Um Councillor Dollywall, for you to cast your vote if needed, you would be emailing me um directly with your vote if needed. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36134.265, "end": 36140.965, "text": "Oh. Okay, so we have some uh interested members, and I believe Councillor Schmidt had joined uh previously. Yep.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36141.345, "end": 36142.105, "text": "Councillor Smith as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36142.105, "end": 36150.205, "text": "He's remote as well. Uh I will jump in uh real quick then. I will nominate Councillor Ward. Councillor Ward, do you accept the nomination?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36150.625, "end": 36151.485, "text": "Yes, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36151.905, "end": 36160.965, "text": "Okay, Councillor Ward uh his name is up there. Uh over to Councillor Wynnes. Oh uh Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_48", "start": 36162.025, "end": 36196.865, "text": "Yeah, I wonder if I can make this real simple. I'm happy to pull my name from this and let Councillor Pantozo and Ward's names uh stand. Part of the reason why I'm happy to pull my name from this is uh I do think because we have this and the CAO that are going to be going, I think it probably would be wise, colleagues, if we sort of divvy up and and and so we don't put somebody on both of those. And for me, certainly with the work that I'd be doing on the CAO, I think I'd prefer to let my name stand for that one. So I think that uh I might be able to keep this nice and easy for everyone if we only have two people nominated. So uh mayor's already put forward Councillor wards in the MCL put forward Councillor Panasopoulos of name. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36198.725, "end": 36217.105, "text": "All right. Uh Pantasopoulos and Ward have been nominated. Over to you, Councillor Yule. Okay. All right. Uh are there any further nominations? Colleagues. All right. Madam Clerk, I believe I can deem those two nominated and then we'll seek a chair.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36217.705, "end": 36222.045, "text": "That's right. It'd be a nomination by acclamation for Councillor Pantasopoulos and Ward.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36224.485, "end": 36235.905, "text": "Alrighty. So we we have those names that have been established. At this point, I believe we are seeking a nomination for chair. I will nominate Councillor Penazopoulos for chair.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36237.885, "end": 36240.045, "text": "Sorry, I'll nominate uh Councillor ward.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36240.385, "end": 36245.585, "text": "Okay. All right. Sorry, I'll go to you, Councillor Johnston, formally.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36246.285, "end": 36248.085, "text": "Yeah, I nominate Councillor ward for chair", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36248.085, "end": 36255.565, "text": "If you don't mind, just allow me to finish speaking. Uh I've nominated Councillor Penazopoulos uh for chair. Councillor Penazopoulos, do you allow your name to sound?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36255.625, "end": 36261.225, "text": "point of privilege. I thought we were gonna use the RTS system as a team to be fair.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36263.385, "end": 36266.645, "text": "Alright, there was nothing no one in the in the queue when I spoke, so uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36266.985, "end": 36268.225, "text": "Yes, I was in the queue before", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36268.225, "end": 36274.545, "text": "thank you, Councillor Johnston. Uh Councillor Penisopoulos has allowed his name to stand. I will go to you, Councillor Johnston, for your nomination.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36277.465, "end": 36280.525, "text": "Yes, I nominate Councillor uh ward for chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36280.885, "end": 36283.945, "text": "Thanks. Councillor Ward, uh, do you allow your name to stand? Yes.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36284.265, "end": 36284.485, "text": "Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36286.125, "end": 36487.045, "text": "Alrighty. Uh any further nope. No nom no more nominations are possible because I do not want more work. Just kidding. Uh any further nominations for chair? No. No, stop, Councillor Shabot, Deputy Mayor. All right, uh that having two names uh nominated, uh we will proceed to a secret ballot. So please indicate uh one or the other of Councillor Pentasopoulos or Councillor Ward to be the board chair, or sorry, the the chair of the water utility oversight board selection committee. Or no, the selection committee for the water utility oversight board chair. Yeah. Don't do it. Okay, so uh please indicate one or two of or one only of Panasopoulos or Ward. Thank you, colleagues. We have uh Councillor Ward elected as chair, and I believe that will fill in the requirements for bullet four.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36488.305, "end": 36534.845, "text": "That's right, Mayor. We will just draft those up for your consideration now. So recommendation number four will read that council appoint. Councillor Ward and Councillor Pantozopoulos as members of the Water Utility Board and Councillor Ward as the chair. The terms will expire upon the appointment by counsel of the chair of the Water Utility Oversight Board. Mayor Farkas, now you have recommendations four, five, six, and seven. I will just draw your attention to recommendation number seven. The report package did indicate to keep the discussions, the closed meeting discussions and confidential attachments. Confidential given that council did not go into closed session, we did remove that. So just want to highlight for you recommendation seven on the screen does look different than the cover report that was distributed.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36535.925, "end": 36547.745, "text": "Okay, great. Um prior to me calling for the e vote on this, if any questions, colleagues? Uh Councillor Johnston, you wanted a separation on this?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 36549.625, "end": 36552.065, "text": "I think the clerk clarified that we don't need it on there.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36552.405, "end": 36561.065, "text": "Okay. Yeah, so all of this will be voted as one. Uh seeing no other lights, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the e-vote on four, five, six, and seven.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36606.145, "end": 36609.405, "text": "Councillor Ewell, your vote please. Thank you. Councillor Dollywall, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 36611.905, "end": 36612.485, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36612.825, "end": 36626.785, "text": "Thank you. Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please. Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36628.005, "end": 36628.445, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36629.245, "end": 36632.245, "text": "I heard a yes. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36632.425, "end": 36632.725, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36632.925, "end": 36636.185, "text": "Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36636.665, "end": 36653.645, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. All right. Uh that motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Weinus opposed. All right, I believe there's no other business. Are there any administrative inquiries? Madam Clerk.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36654.065, "end": 36655.405, "text": "N non received Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36655.765, "end": 36693.445, "text": "All right, uh, can I have a motion to adjourn, please? Moved by Councillor Clark, seconded by Councillor Ewell. Uh I had request to again uh engage the e vote on the adjournment. Yep, and the motion is that this council adjourn. I'll remind you there is no other business.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36694.565, "end": 36699.525, "text": "Cancell Ewell, your vote please. Thank you. Cancer Pantazopoulos, your vote, please. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36699.705, "end": 36701.925, "text": "You just want to hang out, Councillor Atkinson? Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36702.805, "end": 36707.365, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please. That was a no.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 36707.525, "end": 36710.365, "text": "So can I can I rise on a point of procedure before", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36710.365, "end": 36710.685, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_49", "start": 36710.685, "end": 36714.685, "text": "um you do realize of course that if this motion carries we can't reconsider it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36715.625, "end": 36724.825, "text": "Alright, I I'm just gonna say for process wise, let's allow the clerk to to continue calling these names.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 36725.085, "end": 36726.325, "text": "Mayor Farkas, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_44", "start": 36726.325, "end": 36745.925, "text": "Uh no, let's hang. No. Alright, please display the results. All right, that motion is carried 12 to 3 with counselors Johnston, Farkas, and Clark opposed, and we will be hanging out all night. So see you guys.", "segments_merged": 6 } ], "full_text": "Good morning and welcome to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the rule. Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, Present. Councillor Clark, Present. Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnston, Yeah. Councillor Kelly, Councillor McLean, Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, and Mayor Farkas. I'm here. Thank you, Mayor. Oki Ambawastesh, Danitida, Tanshe. Indigenous peoples have their own names for this area that have been in use long before its settlers named this place Calgary. In the Blackfoot language, it is called Mukinstus. The Eskinakota Westabi First Nations refer to this place as Wachispa Oyede. And the people of the Sutina Nation call it Gutstis. The Metis call the Calgary area Otasquini. We appreciate and acknowledge that we are gathered on the ancestral and traditional territory of the Blackfoot Nations of the Siksea, Pikani and Kainai First Nations, the Ethnicoda, Wikestabi First Nations, comprised the Chinniki, Bearspaw, and Goodstoney First Nations, and the Sotina First Nation. The city of Calgary is also homeland to the historic Northwest Metis and the Antibisak Metis Government, Metis Nation Battle River Territory, Nos Hill Metis District 5, and Elbo Metis District 6. We acknowledge and give gratitude to the many First Nations, Metis and Inuit, who live here and call Calgary home. Welcome, Council. There being uh no request to speak, we'll move to confirmation of agenda. May please have a mover and seconder. Moved by Councillor Dallywell, seconded by Councillor Atkinson. The uh agenda is on the table. I believe we have a couple additions, maybe one or two. Madam Clerk, uh first on the agenda being amended to add the uh item 9.1 water utility to oversight board, compensation and selection as directed from the executive committee. Can I get a mover and seconder for that amendment? Moved by Councillor Panizopoulos, seconded by Councillor Shabot. That is on the table, and this was the urgent business that executive committee had agreed to forward to council. Any further debate on the adding of this business? All right, seeing none, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please, on the adding of this business, amending the agenda to allow for item 9.1 water utility oversight board, compensation and selection. Councillor Dollywall, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. All the votes are in, Mayor. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14th to 0. Councillor Weines is absent. To Councillor Schmidt, please, on procedure. Uh yes. Uh just uh I have received a late public submission. Oh no, sorry, the agenda hasn't been confirmed yet. I need to do it after confirmation of agenda, sorry. Okay. All right. Any further amendments to the agenda? Councillor Atkinson, please. Uh so uh 7.2.4, we're just uh going to be pushing that off to the July public hearing. Uh spoken with the applicant and uh there's a desire to do so. So there That's been uh that amendment's been moved by Councillor Atkinson. That's to postpone item 7.2.4 to the July 21 public hearing meeting of council. May I please have a second or Seconded by uh Councillor Ewell. Any further debate on this uh amendment to postpone the item? All right, seeing none, let's engage the e-vote, please. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 0. Councillor Wine is uh is absent. Any further amendments to today's agenda? Councillor Shabo? Yeah, no, I just want to make sure that the C CEO, CAO is also included in that motion for the Water Utility Oversight Board for selection committee, or is that gonna be a separate thing? Do you mean the CAO recruitment? Yes? Uh over to Madam Clerk. I believe that was being prepared as urgent business for the next. That will be Yeah, thank you for the question, Councillor Shabot through the chair. That item will be coming to your May 26th regular meeting of Council directly. As well as the water utility oversight board. Okay, thanks. All right. Any uh further discussion on the uh agenda as amended? Alright, seeing none, uh we'll close that and move to the e-vote, please, to approve the agenda as amended. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. All the votes are in. All right, uh please display the results. All right, that motion is carried. We have an agenda, so we have a meeting for today. Uh give us please a moment just to swap out some of the uh folks as we get into public hearing motion. Uh Madam Clerk, Now would be the time to over to Councillor Shab. I'm so sorry I forgot about you. Thank you. Yes, just uh uh I received a late uh public submission. It will need to go into confidential, just given that the identifying information was not able to be removed ahead of time. Uh but just for the corporate record and uh our office received this late yesterday. All right, so we've uh prepared a uh motion directing the uh city clerk's office to distribute the late confidential submissions. That's been moved by Councillor Schmidt. Is there a second or seconded by Councillor uh Kelly? Any further discussion on that? All right, seeing none, let's engage the e-vote on the uh distribution of the uh late submission. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On the distribution, that motion is carried 14 to 0. All right. Before we get into public hearing mode, uh it's my great privilege to welcome some visiting students from Third Academy School in Rocky View County. If you can give all give us please a wave. We have 40 students and 10 adults who are joining us from a first class grade four and five, and we have a second class grade six, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Christos Cassias. So please uh stand and be acknowledged by Calgary City Council. You you you got the reason we asked you guys to stand, if you look at the monitor there, you'll see yourselves on the monitor. You are on television, yes. And I believe that I am scheduled to join you, I believe, tomorrow or sometime imminently. So I so appreciate you guys uh being here. All right. Now we will jump into our public hearing mode. So for all items on the agenda under this section, section seven, reports for public hearing, we'll start with the presentation by administration representing the recommendations of the Calgary Planning Commission. Then we will open the public hearing. The applicant, if present, will make the first presentation. And once the applicant has finished speaking, we'll go to the list of registered speakers, rotating the remaining registered speakers between those in favor, against, and neither. Council is restricted in these public hearings to issues of land use, the use and not the user. And I'll stop you if you aren't speaking to the use. I'll also take this time to remind everyone that for every public hearing matter, council members are amenable to persuasion. Public speakers have a maximum of five minutes to make their presentation. For those that are presenting in the council chamber, there is a timer on the screen at the podium to help you manage your time. And council members may ask questions after each speaker is finished presenting. For remote participants, please set a five-minute timer for yourself. And after your presentation, please remain on the line as we may have questions for you. After your item concludes, please drop off the telephone line and continue following through the live stream. And we may establish panels of up to five speakers if there are enough people registered to speak to an item. And council will ask its questions after all speakers in the panel are done. Panels of registered speakers will rotate between those in favor, against, and neither, to the extent that that is practical. A speaker cannot transfer their speaking time to another speaker. And once we finish with all of the speakers, we'll close the public hearing. And questions of clarification from council members to administration can be taken at this point. Then we will go to council to debate the item. So first up on section 7, we have 7.2.1 Outline Plan, Policy, and Land Use Amendment in Stonegate Landing, Ward 5. Good morning, Mayor Farkas and Council. My name is Nancy Sanborn, Senior Planner with Community Planning, and I'll be presenting the first five items on the agenda today. The first item is a land use amendment and policy amendments to support the development of a new community. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to propose bylaw 15P 2026 for the amendments to the municipal development plan. Give three readings to proposed bylaw 16P 2026 for the amendments to the Northeast Industrial Area Structure Plan. And give three readings to proposed bylaw 64D 2026 for the redesignation of 194.8 hectares to multiple land use districts. Next slide, please. The subject lands are undeveloped and located in the northeast community of Stonegate Landing, which has previously been identified as an industrial area of the city. The communities of Redstone and Skyview Ranch are located east of the subject site, and Stony Trail is located to the north. The Calgary International Airport is located to the south and west of the subject site. Prior to 2021, the subject site was mainly within the airport vicinity protection area, the noise exposure contour or NEF 30 area, where residential development was prohibited. In August 2021, the NEF contours of the Calgary Airport Vicinity Protection Area regulation were updated to reflect reduced noise from modern airplanes. With this update, residential development was no longer prohibited in the northeast portion of the subject lands. This new opportunity for residential growth in the area was the catalyst for the current land use application before you today. Next slide, please. Industrial development currently in the forms of the Industrial General and the Industrial Business District, as well as some commercial development in the Commercial Regional 3 District, which allows larger format commercial development. To the east is residential development with a multiple multitude of residential districts, and to the west is predominantly industrial development. Next slide, please. There are 13 proposed land use districts within this application, allowing a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial development, as well as the required infrastructure, services, and open space amenities to serve the community. The outline plan figure is easier to decipher, so let's go to the next slide. Thanks. The outline plan includes two residential neighborhood areas located north and south of 128th Avenue Northeast. Each neighborhood has a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development, and each neighborhood is anchored by a neighborhood activity center, which includes a combination of multi residential housing, an open space amenity, and a non residential use, such as commercial development. In the north portion of the plan, a future Blue Line LRT station is located at the interface between the industrial area and the residential area, with proposed transit supportive land uses surrounding the station. In the south portion of the plan, a new school site will accommodate a K 9 Calgary Board of Education School and a K 12 FrancoSud Francophone School. A fire hall is also proposed just south of the school site. The proposed outline plan was reviewed by Calgary Planning Commission on April 16th, 2026. The commission reviewed the outline plan and determined that a public utility lot needed to be identified on the outline plan area along the east boundary adjacent to Metis Trail and the south boundary adjacent to Country Hills Boulevard. This public utility lot will not change the layout of the outline plan or surrounding land uses. Next slide, please. On January 28, 2025, a notion a notice of motion was approved by council directing administration to prepare amendments to the municipal development plan to enable residential development in Stonegate Landing. The map on the left shows the MDP amendments that were approved by Council on March 4, 2025, with the new neighborhood areas following the updated NEF contours. The map on the right shows additional map amendments to the MDP that are proposed for this application, which removes the standard industrial typology and changes it to the planned greenfield with ASP typology. This allows for the additional commercial uses proposed within this application. Next slide, please. In the January 2025 notice of motion from council, they also directed administration to add a comprehensive planning overlay to the Northeast Industrial Area Structure Plan to plan for residential development in Stonegate Landing. The map on the left shows the comprehensive planning overlay approved by Council. The intent of the overlay was to provide direction for additional planning and site design considerations that will inform future amendments to the ASP, which will be brought forward in conjunction with the land use and outline plan application. As these considerations have been reviewed as part of this application, the proposed amendments to the Northeast Industrial ASP are shown on the image to the right. The proposed changes include adding a range of residential uses, including mixed use, multi unit residential, and ground oriented residential. Also defining commercial areas and identifying the neighborhood activity centers, a school site, and fire hall location. Next slide, please. In closing, this application provides for a complete community with a range of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed policy amendments and land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Fargas. Thank you so much. We'll now open up the public hearing. We have a couple registered speakers from the applicant. Do we have Jennifer Duff with us? Then after Jennifer, I have Brendan, Kathy, Kathy, and Ben. Okay. I just have one presentation and then we'll all be available to answer questions. Sounds great. Good morning, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Jennifer Duff, and I'm with BA Studios. I'm here today with Ben Mercer and Jessica Anderson with Qualico, Kathy Oberg with BA, Kathy Agar with CASA Developments, and Brendan Stevenson with Watt Consulting Group. We also have Richard McNeil on the line from EXP. I will be presenting on behalf of our team, but we will all be available to answer questions after the presentation. Next slide, please. The site, which includes close to 500 acres, is located in the northeast community of Stonegate Landing. The lands were originally approved for industrial and commercial land uses, and the city of Calgary invested approximately $90 million in infrastructure to deliver services to Stonegate. The land has since sat undeveloped. In 2021, changes to the airport vicinity protection area has opened up a portion of this area to residential uses that were previously restricted. Our proposal is for a reimagined development plan that unlocks the investment made and provides for a complete community in a highly sought-after area. The plan will provide for much needed housing in Northeast Calgary where housing supply is limited. In March 2025, Council supported the industrial to residential conversion and approved the amendments to the MDP and ASP to allow for this project to advance to detailed outline plan, land use amendment, and associated ASP amendments. Next slide, please. Land use and outline plan approvals were previously granted and provided a framework for mostly industrial lands with some regional retail in the north portion of the plan area. Surrounding land uses include low density residential across Metis Trail to the east, industrial land uses with commercial land uses along Country Hills Boulevard to the west, and industrial land uses to the south. Our reimagined vision for the lands includes a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses while also providing parks and open spaces throughout. Next slide, please. We are very excited to share the highlights of this community. Higher density residential and mixed-use land use districts have been located surrounding the future LRT station, and the overall plan includes two residential neighborhoods with neighborhood activity centers. A joint joint use site to accommodate two future schools has been provided, as well as other parks and open space throughout the residential neighborhoods. Land for a future fire station has been included in the south portion of the plan area, and regional retail sites were relocated from the approved location in the north to the south to allow for better access and visibility from Country Hills Boulevard. Some of the regional retail remains in the north as those sites are owned by others. Industrial has been retained in both the north and south portions of the plan area. Next slide, please. The plan area is anticipated to provide for almost 3,000 dwelling units, achieving a density of approximately 13.2 units per acre. This complete community includes a variety of housing types, commercial industrial, schools, parks, and primary transit. The entire plan area is connected to adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial areas through the existing road network and active mode connections. Next slide, please. Our public engagement approach was designed to inform relevant groups, neighbors, and the public about the proposed land use amendment, gather feedback, and ensure transparency. In an in-person house, an in-person open house was broadly advertised and hosted in May 2025. Thirteen members of the community attended and were generally more interested in the project and the opportunities for housing and amenities nearby. There were some concerns with initial proposal not including a school site, as well as overall traffic in the area. Since then, two schools have been incorporated into the plan area, and we worked closely with administration on the traffic impact assessment, including any required upgrades. Next slide, please. In summary, the proposal aligns with city policies and goals in many aspects. It supports the creation of a complete community where residents can live, work, and play, enhances and activates adjacent industrial lands while supporting the future LRT station, contributes additional residential housing supply to the Northeast, incorporates new parks and open spaces, including a site for two future schools, and accommodates commercial and industrial uses in high demand locations. Next slide, please. Qualico is excited to advance development within this community. A development permit for stripping and grading, along with subdivision applications for phases 1A and 1B, are currently underway. These applications include both residential and industrial lands and reflect a clear commitment to progressing development on these lands in the very near future. And next slide, please. We are asking council to approve and give three readings to the bylaws to allow for the redesignation of this site. Thank you, and we are all available to answer any questions. Thank you. Over to Councillor Chabot, please. Or sorry, uh Councillor Delaware. Thank you, Mir. And thank you for your presentation. Um it's uh it's a long time coming. Uh I got some questions. There is no ASP, residential ASP, it's industrial ASP. Uh how were you able to make sure that you're putting a good community, a very complete community? And how can you tell me and residents or the city that this is a complete community? Yeah, thanks for the question. We worked really closely with administration on the ASP amendments to ensure they reflected modern ASPs that you see in other communities to ensure that there was a well mix of various land uses, and that is reflective in the outline plan and the ASP amendments that are before you. Yeah, okay. Um it's um I look at it uh when when you look at outline plan, your density is 32.6 units per hectare. That's very high. Um I looked at surrounding ASPs, Cornerstone, I looked at Northeast A communities, uh, which uh Redstone is part of it, that was developed by Qualco. Uh they're not that dense. Why this density and and and 20% of the second legal secondary suites are in board five, and secondary suites are not counted in the density. So you're looking at pretty much 40 units per hectare, in my opinion, and it's not units, it's people. Why we are going so high? Because when I look at density, there is nothing coming with density to accommodate that density from humanity's perspective. Yeah, I'll let Kathy speak to some other examples in the city, but one thing that we were trying to do with this plan is achieve a balance of intensity across the entire plan area while trying to retain some of that lower intensity industrial land uses. And so we are proposing some higher density residential closer to the train station, which has then resulted in higher residential density for the overall plan area. And then the entire plan area is actually coming in just shy of the 60 people and jobs per hectare in intensity when you include that industrial area. But I'll also let Kathy speak to some other examples in the city. No, it's a great question. Thank you for that. And to Jen's point, we tend to look at an overall area, and so we are kind of balanced between the non-residential and the residential. Things have changed over the time with area structure plans. A number of those area structure plans you mentioned were done before the MDP. The last MDP that was done 2010-2011, kind of in that range, increase the densities that we have to achieve within area structure plans. We also are seeing with the Cal Ray plan and the latest ASPs that have been done, the new minimum is now 10 units per acre. And so that is we've seen that through a couple approved plans that council has seen before today. So the Aurora and the West McLeod, the SATATS ASP. We do have examples that have been approved in the Southeast Ricardo Ranch achieving 15.2 units per acre. But I do recognize the comment that you're making in regards to suites. I do think the the new Calvary plan will be addressing that as well if it gets approved through council where some of those will be qualified as units. We, as Jenna's saying, we're trying to balance those. We do know that the Northeast will run out of supply in about three to five years. We took that as seriously when we were looking at this consideration, especially with balancing the LRT station and the neighborhood nodes. But we recognize your concerns that maybe the population might be higher than some of those other examples that you've noted. Yeah, I and I don't want to say it, and and apologies if someone gets offended. This is there's a flaw when we put density under the guise of future LRT. I mean, you go along 128 towards Skyview Redstone. It's so dense, so dense parking is an issue just because we one day we will have a Uh LRT coming there. Well, guess what? That one day is subjective. We don't have any money from any provincial government, federal government to extend that. So I know we want to put density. I want to we we have MDB targets, but it's frustrating, in my opinion, as a board Councillor, when density is not coming with proper amenities. There's no library, there is no rec center, there is no commercial nodes around it. And this is not your fault. And I'm not, I'm just trying to get your perspective. What could be done to support this density? So people, yes, they want to live there, but they have amenities so they don't have to drive long ways. And it's, I mean, it's it's part of the overall mixture of the framework, right? We do have park spaces and we do have municipal reserves. Um we also have to balance um putting money into fund for high schools so that the non-residential portions of this plan area do go to support um future high schools. We do have uh municipal reserves provided in land, so we do have park spaces and the school sites. Um appreciate that a lot of those no those things you identified are part of the sector, and that's kind of that global conversation, I guess, with administration. Um, but recognizing that, yes, certainly we weren't asked for some of those when it was circulated, and it might be a question for admin as well. Um, when it was circulated to all the departments, nothing came forward as we would like to see REC or we would like to see some other of those formal civic uses as part of the application process. But I appreciate your comments. Yeah, that's unfortunate. That's very unfortunate. Um, because I've been for the last four and a half years just crying out all the time that we are putting all this density in my ward without proper infrastructure, pro uh uh proper amenities support. And if that was not asked, that's unfortunate. Uh I I want to go to outline plan, please. And uh and and I think we talked about it. I see I don't I don't like when there is no transition between low density like RG built and M1. When I look at this uh outline plan, there's few instances where RG is right next to M1 without proper separation. And it creates a conflict because you don't want uh people, balconies peeking into your backyard and your living rooms, uh, and that's what's happening. And it is happening in my wood a lot, and it's happening across the city. Is there any room to Maybe it's too late to make some transition. There's a few sites like uh M1, RG, MG, RG on the south side too, to even put a laneway or something. Did you consider that seven meter separation? That's a very good question. I was just looking quickly and we'll put the plan up just so that you have reference to it. And I see the ones you're talking about. MG is a little bit different than say M1 or M2. MG is more a townhome, the heights are very comparable to low density. I think what's interesting as well, there are a couple places where I know you're noting where we don't have a lien transition between the product and say that those multi-family sites. It's certainly something through subdivision we could could consider liens being added into those sites. The RG land use allows us to go single semis in towns, and maybe we thoughtfully look at the product type as well to see if there's a different, like maybe it's not a single that's um that's that's backing onto it. Maybe we look to one of those other more in like those other forums, potentially townhomes. Um certainly the M1 also presents itself as being available as a townhome site, so it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a a four-story apartment, three to four-story apartment. Um we have done comprehensive sites with um with townhomes. The market will likely dictate this, as you and I both know. There's many areas in your city where we've got some of these transit nodes where it's the lower density that's more compatible than the higher density, and we've seen some of those form transitions. I think when we get to those phases, we certainly I think we certainly want to work on what those amenities are, which we can do through programming of the open spaces and also work at the land use transitions, and we can do that. Um I'll commit to that. I can have Jessica answer, but I I believe we can commit to working uh closely or with those product transitions just to avoid those serious kind of you know differences in product type. But I'll let Jessica answer that. Sorry, Kathy. Thank you for the question. Yeah, no, I would certainly echo uh Kathy's commentary there around uh appropriate product type and certainly detailed site design for the comprehensive sites. That's something that's considered a subdivision and development permit stage, as you've heard, and certainly there's a variety of tools at our disposal there with respect to architectural controls, landscaping, lighting, all of those types of things to manage those interfaces between sites. Yeah, I know. I I mean this is an opportunity to put safeguards then future when council will have no per like. We won't have leverage, let's put it this way. I want to build a good community. And some of the lessons learned, we don't want to create conflict between neighbors. We want neighbors to live there and joy. Would you guys be open to density cap in this application to 32.6, subject to any future changes, land use, going through a comprehensive planning to make sure that density could be supported, and then density is reflective of the population growth, not just the units? I think Yeah, and I think we do have triggers that make us look at transportation as well as we go. You're saying could we also have a mechanism to look at the forum and kind of as we build to take a look at it? I mean, certainly our our goal is not to go back into a you know continuous land use amendments, but I think we're we're open to kind of working through the phases and seeing what the implications are, knowing that you know the market will probably change things as we go. Um and and honestly, if the if if the cowry plan gets approved and things change with units, we would might have some of that adjustment as well. I mean, we're open to open to working on that kind of as we comprehensively grow to see if we're um making the situation um more intense or if we're we're balancing it as we go. I don't know what that would look like in your mind, but certainly um happy to discuss it further. Yeah, I I don't want to stop this land use. You guys have worked really uh with administration. All I'm saying is maybe put a caveat in ASP through motion arising, through density, cap. And this allows us to work even closer together. In the future, if you bring a land use, we can look at these things and bring an amendment to ASB if needed for you to accommodate that growth. But at least it allows a certain uh goalpost to work with. I see Jessica nodding, so. Carl, apologies. I just want to make sure I understand the thinking and how that would be incorporated or how that would be achieved. I was going to check, and I believe there is a policy currently presented for the ASP amendment to require a future amendment to the ASP with respect to the staging in terms of the off site transportation improvements. I think there is a policy there now, so perhaps there would be an opportunity to work within that wording language there and offer something. To achieve what you're looking to achieve there, just to make sure that there's kind of I think I'm understanding you're looking for kind of a touch point at some point in the future to gauge that growth, how the sites are building out. As we say, each of these land use districts has a range of available density within it, and so we're kind of making some assumptions at this point. So understand that, as you say, you'd like to see a threshold or a touch point in the future. I think if that was included in the ASP as a high level policy, that would be something we could certainly work with. Yeah, like what I'm saying is you guys are well above right now. Let's put a cap on it. When we go to let's say phase two, we can reevaluate it, and if there's amendment needed, do an amendment, but at least it gives a certain pathway now that this is the framework we are working in. And if any future land use allows as a ward Councillor to ask those questions, have we looked at transit? Have we looked at all that? So I'll so I'll be working with admin to see what could be done, but thank you. Um my last question is uh again, um And I'm I'm happy to hear that that transition between single family and all that we could be sorted out uh at the uh at the at the subdivision. Um just uh go to the south. Both school sites are uh on the south side. That is correct. Yes. And and was it was it um was it the proposal from you guys or administration? It was something, okay, so it started with us. Um I spoke earlier about the combination of cash and loo and residential dedication. It's very important that we put money into our high school fund. It's also important that we provide municipal reserve in land. And so when it was circulated, um it came back to uh with the outputs of Aschool with a strong desire to have two schools. And we said we're gonna struggle because we're we're trying to balance the municipal reserve dedication. There's also been some cash in loop provided already to date because there were previous development agreements. And so we said if we can enable some of the fields on the other side of the NEF line that enables it within the non-residential area, we think we can manage it, manage the dedication of reserve throughout both of the communities. And so we went, um JUCC worked with us, SPT worked with us, and we got to a conclusion where we had an acceptable two school option, and that um satisfied the school boards. So we on a reserve standpoint, we could have provided one and not had enough dedication to provide two, but it we got a positive outcome working with JUCC. So the best place to put it was in the South Cell. Well, uh my my my biggest fear is in my award I got these two schools. Um the problem is we are already b dealing with struggling with school safety, children, pedestrian crossing and all that. And school having two schools pretty much on the same street uh uh is is creates that incremental safety concerns because the timings are the same, traffic and all that. So uh hopefully um uh this is a discussion with Alberta infrastructure in the future if this is the proposal. Okay, great. Uh last question more of if there's an opportunity to work with the city or Third party on some sort of manatee upgrades is is applicant open to have those discussions moving forward. We are certainly open to that. I know we've had discussions in the past on just each community kind of lives differently in their communities. Sometimes there's certain amenities that are beneficial, and I know we've had some discussions about that just in the Northeast itself. We're certainly open to it. That would be kind of a trio kind of conversation as well. If there's some park space that needs different amenities, we'd have to have an open conversation with parks as well. But we're certainly open to working on what's the best outcome for those open spaces within this community. Great, thank you. That's all for me. Thank you for answering all the questions. That's it. That's it for me, Mayor. Thank you, uh, Deputy Mayor Chabot, please. Deputy Mayor, that sounds weird. Sorry. Um yeah, no, 129 prior to release conditions. I think it's amazing. Yeah, it's stuff that you guys have to comply with. Um the cash in lieu uh question, uh 4.065 acres or whatever it is, is that a dedication um attributed to the industrial commercial or is that Yes, correct. We do have the stats as well, and Jen might be better suited. Um it is. It's for the industrial commercial, which is typically what we do in order to put money into the high school fund. Yeah. or maybe this is not an appropriate question for you, but in here it talks about the developer shall provide payment in lieu of reserves, dedication. Uh the value of the payment in lieu of reserves the city of Calgary shall be shall be prepared to determine the value of the payment in lieu of reserve. Um and that there's costs here to do the assessment, the real estate development services team. What it doesn't tell me is uh what the land use it's gonna be assessed as. Oh, Do you know? land use. I don't know. It's a market rate. That might be a better question for administration and for the for the the team. I don't know. It we just know it's market rates. Great for commercial and dusty I don't know that it's high density has all different values. yeah, I totally agree with you. You should probably ask that of administration. I will. Thank you. I just thought I'd bounce it off you first. Oh that answer, sorry. Thanks. No, that's uh that's uh very uh good outline plan. Um lots of uh different uses. I think it's very comprehensive and complete. So good job. No further questions. All right, anybody else uh for the applicant? All right, seeing none, uh, I think you're off the hook. Thank you so much. Uh anyone else uh for the public hearing on 7.2.1? Going once, going twice. Last call. All right, the public hearing is closed. Uh over to Councillor Yule, please, for administration. Yeah, I'm just looking at the uh the map here. Um so 128th AV uh will eventually have access from Deerfoot, correct? Through the Chair Tom Hopkins Development Engineering, that is correct. Uh there will be a future interchange, uh partial interchange at 128th in Deerfoot. Will that line up with when this is expected to build out? Um I believe you'd have to ask the applicant on the build out of of their full project, but it is it has been identified within the potential tenure capital. Um The other question I had was on the blue line, end of line. Um this the way that this is outlined, this guarantees that the blue line will be end of line at this point, correct? Um from current understanding, that would be correct. Um okay. So that like I I I don't know why we're we're boxing in the the the blue line um at this point. Like it could go further um to the west or to the north. So um I'm struggling with with the way that this is lining up. That's all. Thanks. Councillor Dallywell, please. Thank you, Mayor. Um, just some questions for administration. Um and and I I want to start with this. Um Um first one is I think Councillor Shabot did ask this, but uh um this uh sorry, one second. Um attachment to planning. What does condition one and two mean? Uh what are we asking for? Why are we asking for cash? And how could this cash be? Will it move straight to the reserve, or this cash could be used for something else? Uh good morning. Travis Shaw, Open Space Planning Implementation. Um Yeah, happy to speak to that. So in this case, we have uh as as the applicant indicated, we have a balance of um of land being provided in in land, and uh a balance for the industrial areas being provided in cash. When that land is provided in cash for the industrial area, that goes towards the joint use fund, which is steered by the joint use coordinating committee. So that is there are uh city members of that, but also the school boards are members of that, and that typically goes towards the purchase of uh high school sites, sometimes rec sites, um, but citywide. Um Citywide amenities. So when we're when we're looking at this plan, we took the um the residential portion of the of the site and we we calculated 10% of that. So we we're um we know that we're getting 10% of the land in the residential areas, and then the balance of the site in the commercial and industrial areas, uh we are taking the 10% as cash and lieu in those areas as per our standard practice. So the residential area is getting the full 10% in land as we typically would for a residential area, and then we are getting the the cash and lieu for the for the industrial commercial sites. Okay, great. I forgot to ask this to the applicant. I should have asked them, but uh I'm just gonna put it out there. Uh there's also condition eight. Uh are there any existing closed right-of-ways? Uh I wanted to ask this to the applicant. If it does not affect their plans, what is their opportunity to convert some of these into local playgrounds, uh play areas for the residents? Yeah, so I'm happy to address that. So when we have um we we do have a role closure in here, the role closure was previously approved. So the roll closure uh as a bylaw is not before council today, but it is something that was previously approved, but has not been uh acquired by the by the uh developer yet. So that is why we have the the condition in there is that the the landowner still has to has to go through the um the legal subdivision of the closure and provide the the land for it. But the the closure bylaw has already been has already been approved. When it comes to the the use of of potentially closed lands, um that is something that we can look at is is open space uses. Now, when we're looking at closing roads, often that is an and unfortunately I'm I'm not um maybe someone else is able to bring up the the the plan of just what the road closure is. I don't have that before me right now. But often a road closure is a sliver of land along a road right-of-way. Often it's a it's a stub of a of a road right-of-way and and when we're looking at um when we're looking at um Comprehensive community development. Often those road closure areas are not exactly where we would prefer to see the open space. So we take a we take a comprehensive look at the at the entire community and we see say, hey, you know, where what is this community going to look like? Um and how do we best incorporate the open space into that? And and sometimes that's not uh consistent with the the existing road rights of way that we that we could use. But it is something that we have done before and it's it's something that we do look at. Yeah, we did one in settled crest area. Uh but okay, so but there is no direction needed. If applicant doesn't need those road closures, uh, is there an opportunity to direct administration to look at opportunity of Designating them open space so they could be maintained and not become uh infested with gophers? Uh when it comes to the the management and and stewardship of uh of road rights of way that are not um that are not actively used as roads, yeah that that is something that that administration can do and and have a look at and see how we can we can um best use those pieces of land. Okay, great, thank you. My other question is more of a planning. Like, why we went all the way to 32.6 units per hectare. What was the rationale? Uh MDP requires 20, but we went above and beyond, and we were heard from the applicant that yes, m like uh some of the ESPs I cited, they were before MDP. I struggle. Uh I mean, for sake of density, we're putting density where and I'm not against density uh in the master plan communities, but I don't see enough amenatees around to support that kind of density. Through the chair to Councillor Dalwell. So when we look at density, there is that minimum target in the MDP. But with that in mind, the MDP, you know, is several years old now, and as things progress and change, and as as housing um requirements are are increased in the city, we have seen an increase in density in new neighborhoods, new communities across the entire city. It is not just the northeast, it is everywhere. Alpine Park in the southwest, so that's west of Stony Trail. So the second stage of Alpine Park outline plan was approved at a density of 40.8 units per hectare, so 16.5 units per acre. And that was actually lower density than their first stage of Alpine Park. To put that in perspective, this density for this outline plan is 32.6 units per hectare or 13 units per acre. So it's actually less than even some of the southwest communities are being built at. So that's we just we are seeing that increase that need for housing. Um and and Alpine Park doesn't even have a future LRT station proposed. It's just how dense these communities are. And so we felt that the 32.6 units per hectare is uh reasonable and and can be accommodated in this area. This is um based on future LRT that we are putting that high density along 128, uh all that. I I looked at Alpine Park, 38.9 units per hectare. How many people per unit live based on our city profile? Maybe 2.4. Whereas Board 5 got the highest, 3.6 people per unit. Saddle Ridge, 4.1 people per unit. It's people who live in units, people who use transit, people who you go to retail, not the units. I know policy is units per hectare, but I just struggle all the time when we do not consider other things like secondary suites, people, that, and hopefully through Calgary Plan we'll fix it. I'm not blaming you. I'm just stating it out. You are doing what is written on a piece of paper. This is for um for uh uh mobility. Uh I see in the conditions uh we are asking for um letters of um uh I believe it's called um uh we are asking for letter of credit for pedestrian actu uh crossing signals and we are asking Dwelper to provide seven, eight of these. Unfortunately, you're just at time, Councillor. So maybe a final sentence to conclude. I just wanna know w why we need to take this and then make a decision and be at mercy how we do that and can't ask the developer to put them in place right from the get-go because community's gonna need those. Through the chair, there is a warrant process for identifying the need and the timing of these of these rapid flashing beacons. They are identified at this stage to ensure that they they get recognized that subdivision and development permit in the future and that we can ensure that there are safe um safe streets um tied to these pedestrian crossings. So we typically try to identify as many as we can at this stage, even though this is very high level. But we want to ensure the the safe crossings in these neighborhoods. So trying to identify them up front Thank you. Over to uh Councillor Johnston, please, for recognition. Hello, today we have Lake Bonavista School here. And I was lucky enough to uh hang out with them for a bit yesterday and we talked about uh uh civic politics and what we enjoy about the job and um pros and cons and uh we also gotta talk about video games and um a little history about our building here. Um but one of the biggest questions you guys have for us is how do the choices we make contribute to stronger connections to ourselves, each other, and the world? And It really just comes down to being friendly, right? Forgiving people who make mistakes and uh you know, just the little things in our neighborhood like picking up garbage and you know, helping neighbors who need help. Um, but yeah, um if you guys want to stand up and we can give you a round of applause. Yeah. And thank you again for coming to join us today, okay? Yeah. Thank you. Over to Council no, Deputy Mayor Shabot, please. Not sure how I got in the queue this quick, but that's fine. Um pretty straightforward question. Uh land value evaluation on on uh the cash in lieu. How do we determine that? Highest and best use, or what's Uh through the chair. It is uh based off of the adjacent land uses. So it would be assessed in this case as industrial commercial combination, adjusted for servicing or other infrastructure requirements in place, and then the assessment done on that. essentially where the where the reserve would be taken from. Correct. And it that is done uh on the whole city. So if you are doing cash and loo in the downtown, it would be a different valuation than an industrial commercial as an example. Can we uh raise the the um uh the designation of the commercial and industrial to higher higher value? No, I'm kidding. Thanks. Appreciate the answer. That was the only question I had. But I do like to reserve the right to debate when it's moved. Over to Councillor Penizopoulos, please. Thanks so much for the presentation in the background and recognizing, you know, prior council's uh priorities. We just hear a lot lately, industrial, we're short space and you know, low vacancies and it's obviously an uptick in values, and just just sort of strategically uh taking away adjacent to an airport uh a few hundred meters from a runway and making it residential. Maybe just walk through that in the context of our industrial land strategy and uh how this sort of all uh comes together. Through the chair to Councillor Panasopoulos. The northeast quadrant of the city does have a large inventory of vacant industrial lands currently. So we have about over 1200 hectares that are currently vacant. So we have been working with the industrial strategy team to confirm that the city will have sufficient industrial land supply after this outline plan is approved. These lands have been sitting vacant for a while. They have been designated as industrial for several years, and that investment just hasn't been there. So this we believe this plan is a good balance between still maintaining some of that industrial as well as then incorporating some residential aspects to bring some more housing to the area. Uh how long of an inventory, assuming an absorption at current rates for industrial? I'm not sure that's a good question. I'd have to get back to you on that. If you Could that be great? No. I don't know if we have anyone from our industrial strategies. Thank you. Oh there Morning. Thank you, Councillor Panasopoulos. Through the chair, maybe just to your first question. As part of our industrial action plan, we did a market supply study, and it did indicate that Calgary has more than sufficient industrial land. And so given the airport vicinity protection changes that happened in this area, we believe that this was an appropriate area to consider residential. But I'll ask uh Ms. Chen to address your supply question specifically. Yeah, uh thank you for the question. So uh based on the 2023 Industrial Land Inventory, the city uh has uh around 24 hectares of vacant uh land within the industrial area. So based on the projection of the next uh 50 years, the city should maintain at least 1,500 to 1900 of vacant land in industrial area. So uh after this conversion, the city still have uh sufficient industrial land supply for the future. Yeah. Thank you so much. I can't remember if it was IPC or a council meeting in an industrial area. We uh there was a school proposed and and council voted it down for the reasons that having schools and residences immediately adjacent or within uh industrial obviously caused concerns, sterilizing area. Uh note there's two schools, absolutely amazing, but they're you know across the street literally from the industrial. There's a multi use potential across the street from industrial. By putting uh residential so close, will it sterilize the go forward uses of the industrial area immediately to the west? I'd look to the team to address that. Thank you. you through the chair. So the industrial um districts that are proposed beside the school are industrial commercial. That's a bit a lot lighter and more commercial style or light industrial. So it wouldn't be more of the industrial general, which you can get into more of the medium um medium um industrial uses that we would be more concerned about. What about to the north? There was sort of an MU or M1 or something proposed just adjacent to Stony. Yeah, so that one is industrial general. We would just look to make sure that we maintain the proper setbacks and look at what types of uses go in. Because it is vacant and those lands aren't developed. We have a little bit more discretion when applications come in for that industrial general district and can can approve maybe more appropriate uses for sites that are adjacent to that residential. So it will sterilize that from an IG, more of a higher intensity industrial. And the city, how do you feel about that? Because I'm assuming that's a little more tougher to get uh land um in existing areas. Just just h how does the city feel about that? Losing that IG, that really um higher use lands. But for this application, there is that mix. So there is still quite a bit of IG. So sorry, I'll just bring up the outline plan again, and it'll be easier for us to look at it. So that can you um go to page six, please? Yeah, so the dark purple is um where all of those IG lands are. And I'd have to look at the stats, but it's that's quite a large area still of IG. And are you worried about that one dark purple site beside the Yeah. Just thinking that to the other? to the west where it says stormwater management, go to the east, that purple, and then the brown, uh, I think it says MU. Um, just they're literally adjacent. So picturing a four or five six-story building next to chemical plant, and now what would be sterilized um on the IG if if we approved this. Yes, so some uses may be limited directly beside that MU site, but there's still a lot of uses in the IG district that could be very compatible beside a multi residential site. So we would just look when we were when we would review a development permit on what would be appropriate besides that site. But yes, we we would see this area as more of a light industrial area and not getting into those heavier uses. Perfect. And just picking up on Councillor Dollywalls, uh the 32.6 uh units per ha, may you just speak about that in the context of of approvals that we've had in the last few months. You know, if this was a brand new greenfield, north, south, east, or west, how does that uh fit in? Thanks for the question. So through through the chair, as I mentioned, there as as new outline plans come through, we're actually seeing higher and higher densities, actually, probably higher densities than maybe we even anticipated in the area structure plans for those areas. And I think that's just a reflection of the housing crisis and and then the demand for houses in Calgary. So we look at when we review an outline plan, we look at what amenities are available, what types of transportation networks are around future transit, all those types of things to help accommodate that population growth. We would say that this is in general alignment with other outline plans we've seen across the city for for average densities, they are getting higher. If this was in a greenfield, you wouldn't be asking the applicant for additional density. You'd be saying 32.6 is is a sweet spot if it was down in one of the quadrants. Yeah, and I'll I'll let uh Director Goldstein. I only came up because this council doesn't have the benefit of the conversation that happened with the last council when they directed us to do the work on this specific area. So this is a pilot project. It would be considered a new greenfield, exactly what you said, because it does not have any existing except for two small pockets of development on the site. And so for consideration, we would treat this exactly the same as any other new community that we were evaluating. And 13.6 units per acre as opposed to nostalgia in the southeast at 15.1 or what we heard for Alpine Park, you know, is very, very consistent. And so at 13.6, even with additional population density that we are seeing in the Northeast communities, it would be very consistent with the rest of the communities that we are approving in under those new communities. I really appreciate the context. Thank you so much for the answers, and uh, that's all for me. Thank you, Chair. All right, Councillor Atkinson, please. yeah, um just a quick follow up on Councillor Yule's questions around the blue line extension. So if we could go to page eight for a second, and then we'll go back to six in a minute here. Um So this kind of shows sort of this longer term plan with the blue line wrapping north through the community and uh and then potentially across Stony Trail there. And then if we go back to six, um I just wanted to get clarification on this idea of like the the line ending and sort of stubbing in this location uh without the possibility of building for the future and making sure that we're we've got that potential future growth in in mind. through the chair. Well through the chair. It's a good question. Um, route ahead uh the 30-year plan with transit shows a station at this location and it shows a potential extension. So I misspoke earlier when I said that this would be the end of the line. It could potentially go further, and if you look at the outline plan, there is the line identified similar to what is in when the ASP going north. So there's there is the possibility to go further north, but there hasn't been any stations designed beyond this one. Right. But the the right-of-way potentially or whatever would be designed or like with the potential in mind that um that blue line could be extended or or would we be just like if we are starting to build this out, thinking about the yeah, the right-of-ways and the uh roadways and and such through the area, uh how much how much do we build in the idea of the uh the train line coming in? So we have this idea that there would be a stop here. Would how would we approach, I guess, south of that station and the potential connection to the existing blue line, and then uh preparations for north of that station for anything in the future? Through the chair, the outline plan has the line going northwards, which is also identified within route ahead. It is identified as as mode to be determined in the future, so there is the possibility for LRT to be extended. To the west, likely there would be a road connection for transit. Whether that's BRT, it's to be determined still. Okay. Yeah, but those allocations would be made as a part of the development as it goes forward. Yeah. Correct. That is within the within the outline plan as you've been been reviewing. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Kelly, please. Thank you. I actually wanna pick up right there where Councillor Atkinson was just talking about the LRT. Um, the original ASP for for here had this entirely industrial, correct? And we plan to have an LRT station there. I was just wondering if you could square that for me what the what the thinking was there by placing an LRT station in the middle of an a full industrial park. Through the chair, the LRT was to extend to employment areas in this area to support to support the LRT, but also provide connections to residential areas further to the east and south. So it was a long-term plan to connect employment to the LRT versus residential initially, from what I recall. And so I guess my question here is really about supporting the development in the in in the area. So uh love the fact we're able to squeeze in some more residential here. I think that makes a ton of sense to me. But uh do we have the ability to support this LRT station with the industrial to the west? I uh when we say employment intensive, like I mean we're not at zoning right now, but uh like if this is sort of the industrial parks that we sort of normally see, I do we have enough ridership to warrant this LRT station to support this station? Through the chair, I think it'd be premature to answer that question as we don't actually have funding for any of the LRT to this point. The mix of uses do support LRT in the long term future, but there is no funding for the blue line beyond design to 88th or 88th. So this is this is a long term project, but um the mix of uses would um support the future uh ridership that would be needed. I I appreciate that. And with respect, I'm more worried about us getting money to build an LRT that doesn't that isn't going to have support of ridership. We almost need to send an LRT to a place where we know that there's going to be people, i.e. Green Line North, looking to be able to get the line up there where we know that we have the ridership. Whereas in here, with it being half in half industrial, um I'm a little bit worried about that. I'll just sort of say that here. Maybe I'll I'll ask the question one other way in terms here, just in terms of uh self-sufficiency of the area as a whole, sort of pick uh picking up on uh Commissioner Harleck's comments that were submitted uh that were uh circulated to us. Uh how long do we anticipate it'll take from like to get to full at fill full build out, will this area be able to be self sufficient just because this is a little bit of an interesting mix for us uh in terms of including uh uh LRT in a station with residential and industrial. I just want to make sure that we're going to uh uh it'll be able to pay for itself eventually operating. Yeah, through the chair to Councillor Kelly. I can't speak to specifics about Paying for itself, but typically industrial and commercial land through the non-residential tax base does pay for itself. But this combination of uses, so we have an LRT station here. We have other LRT stops in the city that go to commercial or employment areas. 39th Street station on the red line is one of them. Chinook station is another one. You see more residential trying to come around the Chinook station, but 39th is purely an industrial station at this point. Whereas the benefit of this station is it has some of that employment features as well as the residential and the high density on the other side of it. So it kind of maybe has the best of both worlds in that some people can get to work or the high density residential can use it as as well. Um this is this is what we have to w work with. The industrial the purely industrial area of this plan. Wasn't working before. We had a lot of vacant land. So this is a way to get development in this area. While the NEF contours are still limiting how much industrial or how much residential we put in, we can only put in so much residential in that northeast corner, and the rest has to be employment lands. So we feel this is a good balance between the two. Councillor Kelly, if I may add. This may feel like we're in a bit of a different spot related to new community growth. Council has certainly seen growth applications in other areas. The reason you don't have a growth application here is by policy under our new community guidebook. This area is located within the growth boundary, and so it's not subject to a growth application. So while it's still a greenfield site, we haven't done a full growth application analysis. What I can tell you though is the team does estimate that under our current operating cost model, this area would likely yield a positive result. based on the current costs that we account for, the densities that are planned here, and the remaining um industrial revenue potential um at the in the in the uh top left corner there. So we do think this is a positive uh If it were to go through a growth application, we do believe it would return a positive operating cost model. There's quite a bit of capital infrastructure required here as well. More confident in that, I guess. We haven't run the full model, but our best estimates are that this would yield a positive result. Should we be waiting until we run that full model? It is not required under our policy to do a growth application in this area, so we're already at this stage of the process. What one of the things I do love about this is that we're actually planning a neighborhood with an LRT. That is fantastic. We should be doing more of that. Where I struggle a little bit here is the fact that we're also planning with the industrial. And to to the point from earlier, I don't think any of us would make an argument that if 39th Avenue existed somewhere else in the city, we'd be building an LRT to it. It it kind of was a cheap station that we could put in on our way to better things. And I don't think we're making the argument here that we're expecting this industrial land to have the same employment as Schinook Center. Correct me if I'm wrong on either of those two things. Um I'm happy to approve this, but I just wanted to make sure that from an administration standpoint that as as you said that this we think we have the best of both worlds. I want to make sure that we don't have the worst of both worlds. Any comments or thoughts there? From a new community growth application, I have no concerns. I think the team has done a really great job in assessing the plan that's before you. Okay, thank you. And I would just add to that that part of that is the densities that you've seen there help support that transit. So I would say that the density is important to have around that area to support it. Alright, over to Councillor Dallywell to start us off. Thank you. Yeah, I want to start by saying thank you to the applicant. Thank you to administration. It was a long journey. But we have a really nice outline plan in front of us. I was just going through some of the sites that are gonna have RFPs. They are the sites exactly what I wanted to see. And it's it's it's actually when I was asking complete community, that's exactly what I was getting at. Work industrial, live, residential, commercial, retail, work, play, and shop. That's a complete community to me, walking distance. So kudos to to to uh Applicant coming forward about two years ago with the proposal. Because again, these industrial lands are the dumping grounds of illegal dumping in my vote. You go there, all you see is illegal dumping. Infrastructure is already in place, we're not putting in any extra penny, and it was a sunk cost, in my opinion. It was gonna if it was gonna sit there. What this do is it revitalizes the the area, it's gonna bring people to live there, it's gonna make best use of the infrastructure. And I'm so happy that uh that we are moving forward with that, with this. And uh I will be working with the applicant in next uh hopefully few months to see what amenities we can bring to support the density there. Let's build a community that you guys, I'm pretty sure, want to leave a legacy behind too. Uh so with that I urge my council colleagues to approve it. And like uh Director Goldstein said, this is a pilot, and hopefully, we can get some learnings from it and apply it to the rest of the city so we can start building communities that are more uh uh more complete communities. With that, I'm open. All right, that's been moved. Uh seconded by Deputy Mayor Shabot and over to you, Councillor Shabot, to speak. Yeah, no, I'm also going to support this application. I want to thank the applicant for uh for being very creative in in response to the amendments to the uh AVPA regulations, the noise exposure exposure forecast uh um contours that have been amended by the province, which allowed residential to go into this area. Not just here, but other places as well in the northwest that we've also seen some transitions to have more residential. And of course, I I applaud the fact that they are reaching higher with regards to densities to make them more sustainable. Um course the other uses are not as affected by uh by air air traffic, and so I think it's very um uh very innovative design that you've come up with, and it's uh I I think it's gonna be uh great community. Um Uh and obviously because of the densities and and the industrial commercial uh elements, I I truly believe it's gonna be self-sustaining. So thank you. Good job. Bring us some more of this. Thanks. Councillor Kelly. Yeah, I kind of dove in a little bit in debates in the end of my questions there, so I figured I'd jump in here to make it official. Yeah, building a new neighborhood with an LRT stop in it, like you're blowing my mind. Absolutely. Like these are the kinds of things I'd love to see a lot more of where we're doing this and the density being planned to be able to support that. I assume it's going to be supported by BRT to start with, a max line, and then eventually build out the the the blue line here. Like I said, a little bit concerned as it relates to uh how we might be able to build up the industrial and commercial areas in order to be able to fully support that level of infrastructure investment, but uh willing to try it here. Um thank you. Appreciate it. Happy to support. Councillor Yule, please. Well, I I feel like I was goaded into this this debate when we say planning a community for LRT. I I turned 40 years old this this week, and uh in my area, Ward 3 has been planned my entire life for LRT to come. And so I I I'm a little I'm disappointed. I I I don't think I can support this. It's um We we gotta have a better plan for that blue line. I think we have an indust like I I do think we need LRT industri in industrial areas, and there is more industrial area across Deerfoot. And I think we're going the wrong way with this blue line. I think if if we are gonna if like my my expectation is this end of line of blue line I'm gonna see before I ever see the green line. And so if we can actually revisit where we're taking that blue line, I think it could go along 144th Avenue, uh the BRT um extension that we're working on right now. I think we really need to revisit that. So I'm I I can't support this uh this application at this time. Alright, over to Councillor Dalwell to close. Yeah, no, thank you. I'll keep it brief. This is land use. If we want to change the how blue line is gonna run, that's that is route ahead strategy. Let's work on that. Let's bring an amendment to that. Land use got nothing to do with it. Um so route ahead strategy, let's work on it. And I agree with you. Uh, if you want to take blue line, we want to take it across along 128 or 144. Let's not penalize the land use just because it's shown there. And I don't know how like how far like to your green line. I don't think in my lifetime I'm gonna see this going there to be realistic unless miracles happen. But with that, I just want to say this is a complete community. I just love it. This is the very first community that uh is kind of coming in my career as a Councillor, we're as a community which will be approving moving forward. Other communities I inherited. So thank you to applicant administration for doing such an amazing job. And hopefully, this pilot will be successful and we can move on and use this for the rest of the city. Colleagues, let's support it and let's move to the next item. Thank you so much. And clerks, just a clarification there will be a motion arising that will be after the third, uh, after the approval or the second, uh, first uh I I'll leave it to you. E motion arising is appropriate to be placed following all the readings of the bylaw. So there's three bylaws here. After the third bylaw has received all the readings, that would be appropriate to make it then. Thank you. And uh uh uh chair, I just giving you a heads up. And the motion arising is maybe I'm just bringing it today, maybe well after Calgary plan, we may not need it. But I just want to put a mechanism in place. So with that, please support it. Thank you. Alrighty, Madam Clerk, let's uh engage the vote, please, on the recommendations for the three readings for the three bylaws. Councillor Tyres, your vote please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried, 14 to 1, with Councillor Yule opposed. Alright, now I will move to the three readings of three different bylaws. And with some luck, I will do this properly. Not luck, preparation, and support from our amazing clerks team. All right. First reading of bylaw 15P 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 15 p 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 15P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 15 p 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. First reading of bylaw 16P 2026, anyone opposed, Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 16P 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed and that is carried. Authorization for bylaw 16P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 16P 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed, and that is carried. First reading of bylaw 64 D 2026, anyone opposed? Councillor Ewell is opposed and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 64 D 2026, anyone opposed? Councillor Yule is opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 64 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 64 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Yule is opposed, and that is carried. Alright, over to you, uh Councillor Dollarwell for a motion arise. Yeah, just this is very straightforward. It's emotional rising kind of saying let's put a cap in the ESP on the density and bring it back to public hearing for July 21. Again, this is just a temporary thing. I'm pretty sure when our Calgary plan comes in, we may not need this one. It's just to make sure what if there's any land uses coming, we put a holistic uh uh review of those land uses to make sure that uh they're supported uh by proper infrastructure. With that, uh yeah, colleagues please support it. Uh it's just a more of a safeguard. Alright, uh that's on the table. Is there a seconder? Second by Councillor Clark. Over to Councillor Chabot to speak. Yeah, I'm not gonna support this. I'm gonna encourage council not to support it as well. We should not be looking at capping the maximum density. We should be encouraging more density. We want to talk about building a sustainable city. The higher our density that we can we can develop, the more sustainable we'll be as a city. That's it. That's all I have to say to that. Alright, Councillor Atkinson, please. Uh just a question maybe for administration thoughts or concerns about uh This sort of cap in the ability then of us to sort of execute on the plan as proposed and what we just approved. Hi, Council. As I was speaking about earlier on, when we were having questions of administration, the density as proposed of 13 units per acre is completely consistent with our new communities across Calgary, all of Calgary. I would say it's actually lower than some. The community of Mahogany is much higher, 19, I believe it's 19.1. I said Alpine Park. I also spoke about nostalgia. And so we would not be in support of a density cap here. Also to note the guidance for density would come from the area structure plan. So, irregardless of what the Calgary Plan says, we would be required to bring forward a rescindment of this if. Council no longer wanted to use that. So if this if a density cap goes into an area structure plan when reviewing applications, we are required to take that. And if there is inconsistencies between plans, we either have to rectify those or based on plan hierarchy, we have to determine what is the more appropriate policy. And so we are not in support of that. Yeah. Okay, great. Um yeah, I'll just I guess debate. I I worry, yeah, train station going through uh I think density around train stations and also a bit of a concern around if we've made the transition from industrial to residential, and we're hoping to sort of make back some of the tax productivity in the area. Um and I I don't like the idea of having things coming back to council to potentially rescind down the road. I think leaving the flexibility and then doing the Calgary plan pieces properly to then get to this result. So let's work on that process instead. Thanks. Over to Councillor Clark, please. Yeah, thank you. Uh pleased to second it um to bring it to uh debate and to the conversation, but I have to agree with my colleagues who've spoken uh to this already. I won't be supporting this either, but uh felt it prudent to share that as I was second. Thank you. Alright, over to Councillor Dallywell close. Thank you. Um it's interesting. That a comment was made, let's keep our city more sustainable through density, and yet we repeal the blanket zoning. Isn't that an irony? That was the density that was also needed to keep the sustainability of the city. So pick and choose is always so nice. And secondly, I urge some of the counselors to come see my vote once in a while, please, to see what density looked like. It's people, it's people per unit, not the unit per uh hectare. So, with that, if you don't want to support it, uh no problems, but I just wanted to let my residents know that density is a problem when it's people, and we don't have a mechanism in place right now to make sure that we are building the right communities with proper density. And this was just a mechanism as a ward Councillor who deal with my residents every day to make sure that we put a cap. And even then, 36.2 is wrong. It's actually giving bigger cap, it should be 32.6 units per hectare. So, with that, if uh you don't want to support it, no problem. Go ahead and vote against it. Thank you. With that, I'm closed. Alright, Madam Clerk, let's uh please engage the vote on the motion arising. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Thank you. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. Oh no, my teams has crashed. Alright, that motion is uh carried, or rather, motion has been defeated three to twelve with only counselors uh Johnston, Daliwell, and myself in favor. All right, let's uh move over to item the next uh item on our agenda. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item is a proposed land use amendment to support low density residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 52D 2026 for the redesignation of the subject site from residential low density mixed housing RG district to direct control DC district with guidelines. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northeast community of Cityscape, on the northeast corner of the intersection of Metis Trail Northeast and Airport Trail Northeast. Surrounding lands are comprised of developing low density residential areas. The subject area shown in pink is the outline plan area that was approved by Calgary Planning Commission. The actual land use amendment area is a smaller piece of land within this area. Next slide, please. This slide shows the land use amendment area, which is approximately 0.36 hectares in size and is currently undeveloped. The existing land use for the subject site is the residential low density mixed housing RG district, which is intended for a range of low density residential development, including single detached, semi detached dwellings, and row house buildings, along with secondary suites and backyard suites. The maximum building height in this district is 12 meters. Next slide, please. The proposed direct control district is based on the residential low density mixed housing RGM district, which accommodates the same uses and rules as the RG district, but is not intended for single detached dwellings. The DC district modifies the rules of the RGM district to accommodate semi-detached and row house development on shallow lots served by rear lanes with a reduced rear yard setback, reduced parcel area, increased parcel coverage, increased building height to 13 meters, and to allow for live work units. The proposed DC would generally match the existing DC District 260 D2019 to the north and east of the subject site, allowing a contiguous block pattern and built form in this area. Next slide, please. This image shows the approved outline plan and the area of the land use amendment within the orange block. The DC district area will match and integrate with surrounding uses and is well served by a rear lane and collector road and a future multi-use pathway and bus stops. Next slide, please. The Northeast Community A area structure plan identifies the plan area as predominantly residential area, which supports low to medium density housing and encourages innovative housing forms to enhance housing variety. The proposal is in alignment with the policies of the ASP. Next page, please. In closing, this application provides for an innovative housing form, and Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mary Farkas. Thank you. We'll open the public hearing for this item. Do we have uh Jack Mul with us? Good morning, Mayor and members of council. My name's Jack Model with BNA. We are the applicant speaking in favor of this application. With me is Joel of Matime, and we are uh here to answer any questions you may have. All right. Any questions, colleagues? Seeing none, I think you're off the hook. Alright, uh, we'll continue our public hearing. Anyone else here to speak to this item? Going once, twice, last call. All right, the uh public hearing is closed. Uh could I go to you, Councillor Dallywell? Whooped. Okay. Simple. Straightforward. All right, it's been moved by Councillor Dallywell, seconded by Councillor Shabot. Any questions or debate? Uh Councillor Kelly? Yeah, uh just DC. I always yeah, want to get on the DC. Uh my question is just uh uh because obviously we're talking about the innovative housing forum here with the um is there any plan within the update to the zoning bylaw to Create a housing type that this would fit into instead of it being direct control. I I would I'll take that Councillor and suggest that the answer is yes. A future where we do not need council to approve direct controls for what nowadays would not be considered as innovative as it might have once been uh is a future we all are looking looking towards. So but for now it does require a DC. Perfect. I'll pay attention to it when we get to that point in uh a little over a year from now. Thank you. All right, over to Councillor Daliwa close. Close. All right, Madam Clerk, let's uh engage the vote, please, on the recommendations. Councillor Pantozopoulos. Absent. Councillor Tyres. Absent. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 13 to 0. We'll now move to the readings. I believe uh Councillor Tyres and Penazopoulos were absent for the vote to initiate the readings, however, they were present for the public hearing. So we will now go into the uh readings of the bylaw. So first reading of bylaw 52D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 52D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 52 D. 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 52D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move to 7.2.3 land use amendment in West Winds Ward 5. Thank you. The next item is a proposed land use amendment to support commercial development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 51D 2026 for the redesignation of the subject site from commercial regional 1 district to commercial commercial regional 3 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northeast community of West Winds, which is east of Metis Trail and south of 64th Avenue Northeast. The majority of the subject site is within the 600 meter radius of the McKnight West Winds LRT station. Next slide, please. The subject site is approximately 8.4 hectares and is currently developed with commercial uses, specifically a real Canadian superstore, grocery store, liquor store, and gas station. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses consist of low-density residential uses to the north and east and commercial and industrial uses to the south. The existing land use for the subject site is the Commercial Regional 1, CR1 district, which is intended for large big box single use buildings and requires every parcel to have one building, 3,600 square meters or more in gross floor area, and a maximum of three buildings per parcel. The maximum building height is 15 meters, and the maximum floor area modifier for the site is 0.2. Next slide, please. The proposed land use is the Commercial Regional 3, CR3 district, which is intended to be characterized by comprehensively planned development with multiple buildings on multiple parcels and the opportunity for a variety of building sizes and use areas. The modifiers for the subject site include an FAR of 0.25 and a maximum building height of 18 meters. The proposed application would allow for a broader range of commercial, retail, and personal services offered to the community and provide an additional 45,000 square feet or 4,200 square meters of commercial area on the site. In closing, this application allows for additional and smaller commercial services on the site, enhancing the services provided to the surrounding area. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you. We'll open the public hearing. We have Grant Melshon. Register. Your worship and members of council, my name is Grant Mahalsham with me in A Studios, and I'm here in support of the application and to answer any questions you may have. I think you have uh a bite from Councillor Dollarwell. Thank you, Mayor. Just briefly, um, we're this is again uh just uh uh cleaning up uh the land use. Uh grant, uh we talked about it. The east development will not go to 18 meters, right? That's correct. The um the the height is identified to accommodate the existing. Yeah, we're sorry. Okay, great. Thank you. That's it. Please keep us in the loop on the DP. I really want to see how this thing works out. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else for the applicant? Seeing none, I think you're off the hook. Anyone else wishing to speak as part of the public hearing? Going once, going twice. Alright, the public hearing is closed. Over to you, Councillor Dollarwell, please. Again, simple. Like I said, just cleaning up uh land use and straightforward. Please support it. Uh and I urge uh request applicant to keep us in the loop on the DP to see how this thing works out with that. Colleagues, please support it. Thanks. Alright, that's been seconded by Deputy Mayor Chabot. Any further debate? Seeing none, back to you, Councillor. Close. Alright, Madam Clerk, let's engage the vote, please, on the recommendation. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Atkinson, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously, 15 to 0. Move now to the readings of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 51 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. 7.2.4 was postponed, which brings us to 7.2.5 land use amendment in BAV Trail Ward 7. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item is a proposed land use amendment to support multi residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 63D 2026 for the redesignation of the subject site from multi residential, high density, low rise MH1 district to a direct control district with guidelines. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northwest community of Banff Trail at the corner of 24th Avenue Northwest and 23rd Street Northwest and just east of Crowchild Trail. The site is in close proximity to the University of Calgary, Foothills Athletic Park, and McMahon Stadium, which are identified as major activity centers in the municipal development plan. The site is also about 400 meters or a seven minute walk from the Banff Trail LRT station. Next slide, please. The subject site is a corner lot that is approximately 0.11 hectares in size and is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and rear detached garage. Rear lane access is available from 24th Avenue. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses consist of low density residential in the form of single and semi-detached dwellings, as well as institutional uses across 24th Avenue, and a direct control district across 23rd Street, which is envisioned for a mixed-use development with a maximum floor area ratio of 3.9 and a maximum height of 23 meters. The existing land use for the subject site is the MH1 district, which is intended to provide multi residential development in a variety of forms, with specific modifiers of a floor area ratio of 3.6 and a maximum building height of 20 meters, and a maximum density of 280 units per hectare, which would equate to 30 dwelling units for this site. Next slide, please. The proposed land use is for a direct control district based on the multi-residential high density medium rise MH2 district. The direct control district uses the rules of the MH2 district with a maximum floor area ratio of 5 and no maximum density. However, the DC district provides the following changes: a maximum building height of 26 meters, and it establishes site specific rules for setbacks adjacent to a street, rear lane, and low density residential uses due to the irregular shape of the lot. It also excludes the specific uses of secondary suite, backyard suite, duplex dwelling, semi detached dwelling, and single detached dwelling. Next slide, please. The subject site is within the Neighborhood Connector Urban Form category of the South Shaganapi Community's Local Area Plan, which provides for a broad range of housing types along higher activity streets and may accommodate small-scale commercial uses. The LAP also identifies the site building scale as mid up to 12 stories and includes forms such as apartments, offices, and mixed-use buildings. Next slide, please. The subject site is also within the Banff Trail LRT's core zone, where pedestrian activity and building scale are envisioned to be the highest. Core zones are intended to support transit infrastructure and promote a walkable and well connected neighborhood. Next slide, please. In closing, this application provides for high density residential development near an LRT station and major activity center. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you so much. We will open up the public hearing. Do we have Colin Hitka with us? Good afternoon, Mayor. My name is Brian Horton. I'm here with Colinetka and uh Brogan from Moda. We're the applicant team. Uh, we'll be making a quick presentation and uh then we'll be available to answer any questions. Take us away. Heike, if you could advance to the next slide, please. So, as described by administration, this site is um fantastically located for intensification, uh located uh just steps away from the BAF Trail LRT station on the 24th Avenue corridor, close to many amenities such as the University of Calgary, um, lots of local parks around it, and well connected uh to the rest of the city. Next slide, please. Development vision for this site is to build a six-story multi-residential building that really fits within the site context and adds housing to this important corridor. Next slide, please. The local area plan is envisioned to create a mixed-use corridor along 24th Avenue. This site is actually designated for up to 12 stories in the local area plan in the mid-building scale and under the Neighborhood Connector Land Use District. Next slide, please. As mentioned, the proposed land use is a direct control based on the MH2. As you can see, this site has a very irregular shape. It has uh it is a well it's kind of a wedge shape site. And so for able to be able to develop an efficiently designed multifamily building, uh what we were what we did is we adjusted some of the MH2 uh rules so that specifically to setbacks, to stepbacks, um, that a that a building that would fit within this site could be developed. Um and so it was really important to be able to develop something that was under the MH2 with these rules. Uh thank you. Next slide, please. Uh for engagement, we um We had a comprehensive engagement strategy. There was on-site signage. We had postcards to the immediate neighbors. We held a public open house and we also met with the community association. Next slide, please. So in summary, we ask for your support for this application. We believe that it provides a diversity of housing, it is transit oriented, it is on the 5A network, and it also aligns with the LAP. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, uh Councillor Atkinson. Um yeah, the you you mentioned setbacks, stepbacks, uh as a part of why you're going for sort of the the changes. So if you can I was trying to wrap my head around the numbers and whatever between sort of the districts, uh MH2, like not using just the standard um Yeah, thanks for that question. I'll start and maybe Brogan can add. MH2 specifically requires a step back at 10 meters. And maybe if we could go back to one of the development vision slides, that's the second slide, please. This one. Yeah, so here's the building as designed. And I will mention that a development permit has been submitted by MODA and is in the circulation process. It is ready to be approved once land use is has been approved. As you can see, this building provides articulation, provides a variety of building materials. Because of the tight nature of this site, if we used MH2, we would require a three meter step back at 10 meters, which would effectively shrink the floor plate, and that would be on three sides. So it would effectively shrink the floor plate so much that it would make the building inefficient and probably unbuildable. But maybe I'll let Brogan expand. Yeah, I think you uh addressed that fairly well, but especially with like the wedge shape, like if we're stepping back on like all of the sides when we go up, um, it just it starts to make it very challenging to provide like the density that we're looking for, um, to give that mix of like two and one bedroom units. Um we kind of we worked like with the city to kind of establish which setbacks could maybe be a revised uh with like the a DC. So, yeah, the LAP in this area potentially allows for up to 12 stories. My sort of read, and just to sort of run this by, is basically you took what could be a tall, skinny building, squashed it down a little bit, and and you're looking for that sort of pushing out to the 24th Avenue and sort of those step setbacks so that we're not going as high. Is that a right read on why you would be doing that? Yeah, exactly. I think like a twelve story building, even if it was like skinnier, would be quite a change for this site, even if it isn't the LAP. Right. Okay. Yeah, that's great. Thank you. Anyone else for the applicant? All right. Seeing none, uh, we'll continue the public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak to this? Going once, going twice. All right, our public hearing is closed. Over to Councillor McLean, please. Thank you, Mayor. I wasn't going to ask any questions today, but I question for administration. This intersection, was is there not a proposed interchange? I thought I've seen that on our tenure capital plan. That might uh maybe enlighten me. Through the chair, there is a future interchange planned at uh 24th in Crochild um that was uh an initial design was done with the Crochild Trail Study a few years ago. Yeah, which take up a lot of rooms. I know I'm talking all the time about interchanges. There's one in fiftieth and McLeod. We've owned the land around it forever and and there's a lot of things that could go in there, but I'm told that we can't do anything because of future plans ten, twenty years down the road. So how does this work then? If they acquire this property and develop it, is there going to be room for a future interchange or again, I just this seems a little bit that they don't work together. Uh through the chair, um this site is unaffected by the design. um the current property lines on the north side would uh align with the future interchange. Perfect. I was thinking that was going to be the answer that you guys had thought that out, but I just wanted some clarification. So thanks. All right, can I go over to you, Councillor Atkinson? Yeah, uh happy to move. Thanks for that question. It was good, good, good thought on the interchange. And I think my understanding is that yeah, it's more on the north side where it impacts and we've got Capitol Hill Crescent. It's not super clear because we've got the train and whatever going in there, but it's uh it's got a little bit of a buffer. Um I think the six-story instead of the 12, which is allowed within the ALAP, this is will really be kind of the first, one of the first buildings that will be built sort of up in this area. So I think actually as like a as a move towards the densification around Banff Trail train station, uh, this is a good step. It's right on 24th Avenue, which is sort of the main um main throughfare uh between the north and south sides of Banff Trail. Um, and uh appreciate that the applicant is actually already going through with the DP, and so there's a little bit of clarity uh on what is to to potentially be coming into this site. So happy to support uh you know, landing this and uh and having the setbacks, I think, actually might even help with some of the issues of uh of sort of speeding um that we're having around 24th Avenue and just match a lot of what we're seeing further down the block uh with this coming in. So happy to support. Alright, it's been moved by Councillor Atkinson. Seconded by Councillor McLean. Alright, uh any further debate? Seeing none, uh, let's engage the evote. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously. 15 to 0. I'll now move to the readings. First reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Or sorry, uh Madam Clerk. Apologies for interruption. Just want to confirm not proceeding. Okay, so sorry about that. Yeah. There was a potential amendment. Wanted to make sure we weren't going to miss it. Thank you. Sounds good. We'll uh move to the readings now. First reading of bylaw 63D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 63 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Let's move on to item 7.2.6. Line use amendment in L Hearst. Forward seven. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item and the last one that I will be presenting today is a proposed land use amendment to support high density multi residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 46D 2026 for the redesignation of eight parcels from direct control DC district to multi-residential high-density high-rise MH3 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northwest community of Hillhurst, immediately south of Riley Park and west of 10th Street Northwest, which is identified as a neighborhood Main Street in the Municipal Development Plan. The site is in proximity to St. Polytechnic and the Southern Jubilee Auditorium, which are identified as a community activity center in the Municipal Development Plan. The site is also about 400 meters or a seven minute walk from the Hillhurst Sunnyside LRT station. Next slide, please. The subject site consists of eight properties and 0.31 hectares, forming one block between 11 and 11A Street Northwest on the north side of Fifth Avenue Northwest. There is an existing lane located between the subject block and Riley Park to the north. There's also a bus stop immediately adjacent to the site along Fifth Avenue, as well as an on street bike lane that is part of the Always Available for All Ages and Abilities 5A network. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses consist of multi-residential development along the north side of Fifth Avenue and along 10th Street, and lower density residential uses in the form of single detached dwellings located south of 5th Avenue. A direct control district directly west of the subject site, 52D 2011, provides for multi-residential development based on the multi-residential high density low rise or MH1 district with a maximum floor error ratio of 4 and a maximum building height of 20 meters. The subject site and the block to the east are currently designated a direct control district, 34D 2016, which is also based on the MH1 district with a maximum floor error ratio of 4 and a maximum building height of 26 meters. Next slide, please. The proposed land use is the multi-residential high density high-rise MH3 district, which provides for multi-residential development with high intensity and is located on strategic parcels, including landmark locations and transit and transportation corridors and nodes. The modifiers applied to the site include a maximum floor area ratio of six and a maximum building height of 40 meters, or approximately 12 stories. Next slide, please. The subject site is within the Neighborhood Connector urban form category of the Riley Community's local area plan, which provides for a broad range of housing types along higher-activity streets and may accommodate small-scale commercial uses. Next slide, please. The LAP identifies the site's building scale as mid up to 12 stories, which includes forms such as apartments, offices, and mixed-use buildings. The subject site is also within the Hillhurst Sunnyside LRT's transition zone. While the transition zone is less intense than the core zone, the entire transit station area is envisioned to continue developing as a mixed use neighborhood with densities that support the transit infrastructure and promote a highly walkable, well connected neighborhood. Next slide, please. In closing, this application provides for high-density residential development, near a neighborhood Main Street, an LRT station, and a significant open space amenity, and is in alignment with the local area plan. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed land use amendment. Thank you, Mayor Fargas. Thank you. Let's open up the public hearing. Do we have the applicant with us? Good morning, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Jennifer Daubin with Daubin Consulting, and I'm the applicant on the file. I also have some of the owner group here willing to answer questions. I have a brief presentation. The rendering shows here it reflects the design direction for the Harriet on Riley Park, developed through extensive engagement, technical review, and urban design refinement over the past year. I've had the pleasure of working with DAS Architecture on this project and I wanted to note their thoughtful and responsive work on this project. The presentation is brief, but I have a lot of their materials here if council would like to see things or have questions. Next slide, please. This application implements the Riley Community's Local Area Plan and reflects the growth direction established by Council. The LAP anticipates higher density development along the Fifth Avenue corridor with building heights of up to 12 stories as shown on map four. While MH3 is the highest standard multi-residential district in the land use bylaw, it is intended for locations with strong transit access, significant amenities, and excellent walkability. These characteristics are all present at this site adjacent to Riley Park and the Sunnyside LRT. This is the type of inner city location where the city's policy framework anticipates significant residential growth, and this is a location where many people want to live and work. Next slide, please. The proposed floor area ratio has been discussed in several public submissions and the community association letter, and I'd just like to briefly note how it relates to the local area plan. I note that the LAP does not prescribe a specific FAR for this site. Instead, it regulates development through urban form, building scale, setbacks, stepbacks, and building and public realm interface. The proposed FAR of six is a reflection of the building form and massing strategy, which has been shaped through engagement and UDRP review. The proposed form supports affordable housing units, live work units, public realm, and off site infrastructure improvements. Next slide, please. Significant engagement has been conducted over the past year. The project has evolved significantly, responding with revisions to massing, servicing, circulation, shadowing, and public realm. Importantly, the project remains subject to further refinement and controls through the development permit process, including urban design review panel review. Next slide, please. This slide summarizes the main feedback items and developers' responses in the what we heard and what we did engagement framework, and the engagement report is included in your materials. Notably, rather than a uniform monolithic 12 story form, the building steps down to eight stories along the east edge near Ezra, include increasing to 12 stories to the east. This approach reduces shadowing on Riley Park by about 40% above the eighth floor and establishes a gateway condition on the historic 11th Street Northwest entrance to Riley Park. Next slide, please. This slide shows the site circulation and public realm strategy. Key elements of the site and project design include building placement shifted to the west to respect the park entrance with primary pedestrian entrance on 11th Street, consolidation of access and servicing shared with Ezra on 11A Street, a loading stall and staging area for residents moving in and out, integration of the existing bus stop and bike lane, a public plaza and potential commercial cafe, enhancement to the historic 11th Street entrance to Riley Park, and a commitment to heritage integration within the public realm areas. Next slide. This project delivers purpose-built rental housing, with the majority of units being family-oriented two and three-bedroom. The project also includes 25 CMHC affordable units, which are subject to affordability requirements and reporting obligations over a 10 year period. Next slide, please. In closing, this application implements the local area plan, delivers housing in an amenity rich, transit oriented location, uses standard zoning as directed by administration, has evolved in response to community and city feedback, and contributes to public realm and infrastructure improvements. For these reasons, we believe this is a reasonable and supportable policy outcome. Representatives of the ownership group are here and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone here or anyone wish to speak with the applicant? Council members? Councillor Panizopoulos? Thank you so much. Just gonna grab my notes. Thanks so much for the presentation and uh that broad engagement going all the way down to the south. And uh I think I saw a thousand homes or something, you know. Usually if we're if we get a hundred meters, that's a good day. So I mean a thousand homes. Uh maybe that that engagement, obviously, uh this appeal I'm sure to your renters and and investors would be the public realm being to the north, Riley Park, and and lots of Calgaryans use that. So maybe just talk about did you ever contemplate or engage with the users of the park? Um You know, sort of the work you're doing and anything a pop-up shop, if you will, to talk to folks. But how how did you think about the users, uh the dog owners like myself that it and so on? Um there was a lot of interest in the shadow studies and how it affected Riley Park. A lot of um people had written in about it. The intention is when there's a a building with massing, we're hoping that DOS is able to do uh like in location, three-dimensional the word is slipping my mind, sorry. But to be able to see it like through your phone while you're in the park to understand more about it, more intensive engagement to be done during the development permit process when there's a building for people to see and have feedback on. But we did rely on just the the amount of people we engaged with, and we had quite a bit of people show up that were nearby residents and users of the park. Uh the primary drive was focusing on not overshadowing the park too much, which informed some of the massing decisions that were made and pushing the building further south to reduce it. I do have some shadow studies if you would be curious to see them, but they're also in your materials. But yeah, the intention is to do more engagement, significantly more engagement when there's a building to look at that's designed as well. Got it, got it. Um you know, maybe just come back that you mentioned the FR and thank you for doing that, because I know the community association, um you know, four, and then they said five is appropriate, and I think six is the final. And and maybe just sort of loop in um, you know, what considerations on the final design and the plan? Uh How did you incorporate all that engagement with individuals? It was pretty clear six was from the first and six was again. So I'm just trying to curious what other changes. You alluded to, we made some changes, but you never identified what were some of the changes that were made specific to this amended application based on engagement with community. Yeah, um one example was the originally we talked about the we rec recognized that with the bike lane there we don't want the entrance to be central like it was on Ezra because people are stopping in the loading zone. So we knew it was going to be on one end or the other. Originally, we had we had heard back from the community that they would prefer to have the parquet entrance onto 11th Street so that it was not loading on with the Ezra cul-de-sac where their parquade comes out. So we had done that and then heard back from the community that uh and then from the city that 11th Street being a historic entrance to Riley Park and they wanted they have it slated for improvements that this developer wants to participate in, moved it all back over to the other side and made sure that there was loading zone. We heard from Ezra residents that they are having trouble with moving and move out, so added a loading zone while closing the lane on the back to match Ezra's pedestrian realm that they have changed that lane to. It won't be vehicles anymore. Also, the original materials that came in and designed with a different architect was two towers with a slim division in the middle to reduce shadowing, but it was found when transferred over to DOS, it was actually a bigger impact to reduce shadowing by taking part of the building down and making it monolith on the bottom. There's on the circulation plan, we also got a lot of feedback from UDRP that was incorporated into it. So the circulation plan that was shown shows those implemented, not what was originally proposed. But there's been quite a bit of back and forth with the community and good feedback from the community on what they're concerned about. Privacy, shadowing was the biggest one, height was a big one, and that it aligned with the local area plan. So some education had to go back and forth. Um one thing that jumped out, and I can't remember if it was the CA or a resident. They talked about precedent. And I totally understand that. You know what the precedent was set at three, four stories, and now potentially uh ten stories? Twelve story. So you you can see that as once you the cats out of the bag, it's an amazing so so just maybe talk through that. You know, to the east, or excuse me, to the west, you said there's some issues, density, like like all that. Um yeah, that precedent it that stuck out at me, that one word. So It is. It is and I understand why they're coming from. We hear that often from community associations. What I would say is that this is not seeking to uh break or exceed the local area plan, and I was involved in both the developer and public side of that local area plan engagement. It was extensive. And I remember watching when the 12 stories came through, and I expected to see more engagement on that, but there were so many things for the community to be talking about on the local area plan. But this application is in direct response to the policies that are set in the local area plan indicating 12 stories could be achieved. And so that's where the alignment is coming from. That's where the response and that height is proposed from, is in response to the local area plan that was just completed last year. appreciate that. Uh the CMHC, that twenty five, fifteen, twenty percent, you know, obviously great. It's it's a need. Um uh how do we know that? You know, after this approval, a year later when you start construction, the economics change. I think I saw somewhere that said the economics are impacting. You need this density for economics. I'm assuming that gives you a lower cost of capital you borrow at one or two percent and you know it all sort of works together. So maybe just talk through that community guarantee. If if part of the thought process for council is we want that non market housing, I'll just lump that in. I I hope it's you know the right out uh uh uh definition. But how do we get some certainty that it's not a year later something changed when it's sort of outside of this council floor? Yeah, c like could it be converted to all condominiums and not go through C M H C for an Exactly, yeah, because that's a business decision and yeah. Yeah, um this originally came in as a direct control guideline because at the time the local area plan indicated that direct control guidelines that had the community amenity funding in it would have to, if a new DC came in, it had to use that again, and then the plan changed. Through a direct control guideline, even that way you'd have trouble forcing a developer to include the affordable housing. I haven't seen that written in in a DC, but unfortunately, the way that the system works, it could be approved as MH3 with this height and density, and then the developer could pivot. They're not going to pivot to a commercial building, but they could pivot away to condos. That is an that is always an option with these. This particular developer is trying to access CMHC financing because it's lower interest rates, but also going through all three streams. So they're not just doing the affordable housing, they are seeking to do an accessible building as well as the green initiatives that are there. So they're pretty motivated to stay in that in that approach. And I think maybe finally I was I had to read it a few times. The uh uh the point nine, usually we look for relax parking, usually we look for relaxation from you know point five to point four or something. And this is going the other way. Uh maybe just just talk about that rental. Um as the market changing, like what was driving that is it.5 or 0.65 going up to nine? Like that's obviously more parking. Just talk through that logic. It is and the original inspirations on this building were looking at, you know, New York City and Central Memorial Park being on such a beautiful park. So they're looking to be, although there will be affordable units mixed in, they would be hidden for lack of a better word, but fully mixed into it. But the intention of the building is a very high amenity, high rental building. And so those people are always looking for parking at least one. It's a little bit underparked. I think we're at you said 0.92. And then the other end of that is just what we wouldn't have enough parking with one level. And by the time you go down to a second level, doing a split level isn't very cost efficient. So you do two full levels and you end up with 163 parking stalls. So one of the feedback we did integrate was that Ezra residents had indicated that visitor parking was desperately needed. So we've pushed some down in there and would be open to more if needed. But I think we've currently have six visitor parking stalls. There could be more. But it's sort of a factor of efficiency in building design. Once you go down to the second layer, you get all the stalls that you get. Yeah, No, it's a yeah, like I said, usually it's relaxation the other way. And uh, you know, look, you seem to thread the needle. Uh a biker in Walker Paradise and a.9 compared to a point five. So so you obviously this seems to be uh hitting all sort of three for three. So thanks so much. Thank you, uh Councillor Atkinson, please. Uh yeah, Councillor Pancelopolis hit on my affordable units question. So uh maybe I'll actually get clerks to go to admin's presentation of uh on page 17 because that does show the shadow study, which is was one of the big sort of concerns um heard from community. And if you wanted to just speak uh to some of the uh you mentioned how you changed the design from being two towers divided to sort of this um Sort of more like base eight and then twelve on the one side, and how that's affected the shadowing outcomes. certainly. You can see when you look in the fall and spring where you see the longer shadows, that with two towers you had a much deeper sweep of shadow into the park, even though there was a sliver of sunlight that would come through between the two of them. With the eight story height, it's just shorter and you get less of a sweep across the depth of the park. So it felt like although we are going for 12 stories in one portion, there's less portion of shadow for the totality of shadow across the park. So it stays in much closer to the building itself on the eight story area. Right. Um, and then there has been this change where there is no longer the uh community amenity fund within the area, um, but you you are also talking a lot within your own proposal. Um Around sort of improvements. So the bike lane improvements, the improvements on 11th Street. How do you how are you looking to make those things a reality if not through sort of the mechanism with the community association? Well, I mean if it was a direct control guideline, you could write those in, those participation in, but it can certainly be enforced through the development permit as well. The developer remains committed to it. I mean, the line item was there understanding the levy would be about a quarter million dollars. And then through discussions, we're finding that there's uh we had found and been informed that 11th Street is intended to become a more formal and beautified entrance to Riley Park, connecting it into the Fifth Avenue bike lane and that. And so I've encouraged the developer and they're in agreement that in investing into improving uh that that entranceway would be in that realm of money. Uh and then also we've been talking to the mobility group and the community association, they would like to see the Fifth Avenue bike lane for some portion of it to actually be divided with you know the curb and the stanchion so that it's safer. They get a lot of people parking in that bike lane, which is unfortunate. And so the developer would like has committed to doing that. I think that could be locked in in the development permit phase, but it might be a question for administration how that mechanism exactly works. But the developer would like to and intends to participate in those. Right. My final question is around uh the live work units that are sort of proposed along Fifth Um Avenue. What are you imagining those like to be? So all of the units on Fifth Avenue are two-story townhomes. And so the imagine imagining would be that the main floor entranceway you would go in, and there this might be your living room, dining room, or it might be a meeting area that's available there. There's also, and Callie might speak to this as well, but there's an idea that within the building amenity spaces, there's a great amount of amenity space in the core of the podium area. There's intended to be uh open working area with desks and a printing area, things like that, and then um some smaller uh office spaces sort of that can be tied to your lease on your on yours, and you can use it for something like massage therapy or Therapy, if you're a therapist, you can meet with your clients in your dedicated little area within the podium. So it's sort of a creative way of looking at how to make this building very, very live work. The cafe on the main floor was first discussed about being private to the building with discussions with the community. It was it was a they thought that a cafe would be nice for people to actually use it there. But the idea had originally been that that would be a meeting area with exterior access so people could come. Of course, it can still be that as a commercial amenity that's available to the public. Yeah. But the idea is a building that very much lets people live and work in it and have meeting areas, a conference of board remote for rental, those sorts of things. Okay. Starting to get into DP, not land use. Uh point of order. Uh sorry, Councillor Weinus, you can go ahead. Yeah, we're going into DP, not land use. Like when they're describing amenities, then you are way beyond the scope of zoning it. And I just hope the chair is listening so that we can sorry, like you're you want to get this across the finish line. Let's not get into Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wynus. Point taken. I'm back. I'm good. Councillor Atkinson, you're good? That was it? Yeah. All right, uh, Councillor Jameson, please. Thank you, Chair. I just want to quickly just go over some parking ratios. So right now you guys are I believe it's at 0.9 stalls per unit. So there's 162 stalls and 175 units. I think we're down to 171 units. I think some of the penthouses might have been rearranged a little, but yeah. Okay. Yep. Um so do you see that as a as a concern that there's less than one parking spa stall per unit? Um no, but as has been mentioned earlier, often we see in transit-oriented development areas you see more like a five, a half, half of them would have units. So it's actually overparked by a lot of transit-oriented development expectations, but we're trying to meet this sweet spot in between. There could be less parking, but again, it's a function of doing a level of parquade is X number, and then you double it when you do another level of parquade. So we've ended up with quite a few stalls. There could be more visitor stalls. And we've also made sure we did all the the biking stalls as needed. Um do I understand it correctly? I was reading on on on page uh page one of uh attachment four, um, just so I understand correctly that the CA actually wants less parking. That's what they're Asking for? It's it's interesting and it's um The community association was hoping and what their concern is it makes sense. Their concern is that more cars means more traffic, means more people driving across the bike lane, coming in and out of the cul-de-sac. What we would hope as developers is that it's such a walkable neighborhood. People may have a vehicle, but it's two blocks to Safeway, it's two blocks to the C train. It's certainly going to be easier for them and cheaper for them to not drive into downtown and park there, that they will utilize the transit-oriented development without the enforcement of not having the option of having a car in Calgary. That's fair. There is public opposition uh b because of the parking though. You know, it's already very difficult to find a spot around there if you're able to. So would would this not just really exacerbate the problem because there's not even enough for the you know the the new people that are gonna live there? Like where so so what happens if all hundred and seventy one units have a vehicle? You know, w that they're gonna have to find street parking. Yeah, and that that's the balance between TOD expectations and the renters' users' expectations, and we're hoping that being just slightly under park will work. There'll be some that are maybe people are taking them for their students who are up the up at SAIT and things like that. But we're also finding, as we're all finding, that having a car is more expensive than it used to be. So I think that there's a balance that's struck there. There is the option to have less parking if you did a split parquade uh for the bottom level, that might drop it down to a hundred, hundred and twenty parking stalls. Well I I don't I don't think less parking is better, but that's what I'm trying to say. Yeah, I I think you know universally this is probably what even during uh you know blanket rezoning this was was parking was one of the you know one of the biggest issues that o overdensity leads to. And if there's not sufficient parking, it leads to a lot of issues on the street and in the community. And and I I'm just trying to understand how this uh what wouldn't add to that already existing problem in that area. yeah. Well and I mean if you took away the six visitor parking stalls, that would cause less security concerns with the parquet having public access to it and would put them back into the inventory and and get us up to a little bit higher parking ratio. But and visitor parking isn't required for the multifamily, so they could be put back into that inventory as well and gain a few back. Thank you. Welcome. All right. Anybody else for the applicant? Seeing none, I think you're off the hook. Is there anyone else who would like to speak uh on this public hearing? Yep. Please approach. Morning, Mayor Farkas, uh Councillors. Um my name is uh Philip Bryden, and I'm presenting on behalf of the uh Board of Directors of the uh ESRA on Riley Park, which is the condominium corporation that uh uh owns and operates the um uh condominium that's immediately to the west of the proposed development. Um if we could move to the next slide, please. Um let me just give you some brief context on uh our building. Uh it is uh two eight-story towers with 99 residential units. It was built in 2017, um, primarily owner-occupiers, but some of the building some of the uh uh suites are are rentals, uh investment uh investment properties. Um the our submission is uh the views, the unanimous views of the board of directors of the condo corporation. We don't purport to um represent the views of every resident in our building, but we have talked to a large number of people in our building, and I think most of the people in our building would uh share uh the views, but technically I'm just speaking on behalf of the Condo Corporation. Next slide, please. So our main concern is that we would like to see the height restriction retained at the sort of 26-meter level or roughly eight stories. We're not in principle opposed to high-rise development on the site that's in question. We simply want it to be in character with the other buildings that are on the south side of Raleigh Park. Ours is the tallest at eight stories. There's a six story apartment building, a three story apartment building, and this development. would significantly be uh higher than our building or um uh any of the other buildings. Uh next slide please. Um We note that you're going to receive a presentation on wind impact, so I won't speak to that. I'll let the the clerks uh uh speak to that, but that is a uh concern for us. And we believe that even though the um uh 12 story limit is acceptable within the the larger community, that the area that's immediately to adj adjacent to Riley Park is special. And that we should try to preserve that eight-story height limit in the developments that are immediately adjacent to Raleigh Park. Next slide, please. There's one other point that I would like to speak to, and it was raised by the developer in their presentation. And that is that the developer has been directed by city staff to put the parquet entrance. Of the proposed building on 11A Street, which is also the small cul-de-sac where our parquet entrance is, and that puts a lot of traffic on a small uh cul-de-sac. And the rationale for the city's staff's not wanting to have the entrance on 11th Street is that they want to have a heritage entrance for Riley Park. And we're not opposed to a heritage entrance uh for Riley Park, but we don't see why you can't both have a heritage entrance, an attractive uh entrance for the park, and have uh uh cars exit and and enter off of uh 11th Street, and that's uh if I can just ask you to put up the last slide. Um it seems to us that creating a heritage entrance for Riley Park is not inconsistent with having uh some vehicle traffic on 11th Street. So thank you very much for your uh time and attention. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Colleagues, uh we're just at uh time for a break. We have multiple registered speakers, so I'm gonna bang the gavel now, come back at 1 15, and we'll follow up with any uh questions and and future presentiers. Welcome back to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson, Here. Councillor Johnston, Here. Councillor Kelly, Councillor McLean, Councillor McLean, That's me. Councillor Panchezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt. Councillor Tyres. Here. Councillor Ward. Councillor Wyness. Councillor Ewell. Here. Councillor Atkinson. Councillor Chabot and Mayor Farkas. I'm here. Thank you, Mayor. All right, uh, we are still on 7.2.6. We had heard from Philip Bryden. There was no questions of Philip yet. Uh before we go back to potentially Philip or uh more presenters as part of the public hearing. Uh, just a quick uh process question here. What council members, we had heard from uh CO Duckworth uh likely the need for to receive a confidential update uh from our chief administrative administrative officer. I'm gonna go over to Councillor Tyres. Yes, I'm putting forward a uh notice of motion so that council waive notice and add item 9.2 update with CAO verbal as an item of confidential urgent business to be dealt with following item 7.2.6 land use amendment in Hillhurst Ward 1. Sorry, Ward 7. Okay, so that that won't be a notice emotion, it's just the the waiving of the notice because uh this is not something that was advertised on our agenda. Okay. Yes, waiv of notice Great. And this would uh be an update received like immediately after this land use. after this item. Yes. So then the intent uh councillor tires would be to conclude this land use item and then go to our confidential update with CAO and then come back and resume the rest of the public hearing That is correct. items. Okay, that's been seconded by Councillor Kelly. Any further debate on this? Okay. Seeing none, uh Madam Clerk, I believe this requires 10 votes. No, it's majority. Oh, just simple majority. Okay. All right. Uh let's go to the vote, please, on this. I'll save you the effort, Madam Clerk. Yes. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with uh Councillor Schmidt opposed. So to be clear, we're gonna finish up 7.2.6. Uh we're gonna conclude, we're gonna go through the presenters through the public hearing. We'll have the questions for administration, the debate. And then after 7.2.6, we will go in close session with uh Chief Administrative Administrative Officer. So we last heard from uh Philip Bryden. Colleagues, were there any questions for Mr. Bryden? Okay, seeing none, uh, we'll continue through the registered speakers. On 7.2.6, do we have Kim Pfeiffer with us? Okay, please approach, and then after Kim, we'll go to ask if there's any other members of the public present who'd like to speak to this. Thank you. Please go ahead. Um for being here today. I got a slide deck in there somewhere. There we are. I thought this might be an appropriate joke for today to kick things off. Um it's uh on the construction aspect of peop what people go through. So um next slide please. Uh I'm here for three purposes today. Um I want to talk about uh loading zones and bike paths, and this is in relation to this development with the Harriet. Talk about the Harriet entrance to their parquade and the responsibility of council. So next next slide, please. So in this section uh next slide, um what we have at Ezra where I live, I'm a resident in uh Ezra and owner. I've lived there for the past five years. Um I let um during that period of time I've had a lot of frustration with um the front entrance of the building. With I was on the condo board for a long time. We don't have a loading zone in front of our building. People stop there, and then I've had altercations with people on bicycles who say you can't park there and things like this. And there's plenty of room there. That sidewalk on the left picture is 11 feet wide. That green strip that you see there is also something that's we can't maintain properly because trucks keep parking on it and driving over it. So it's just been a constant headache to the maintenance of our building. And there's limited street parking across the street on fifth on the uh on the south side of the road. Uh so this is, you know, this is not an easy place to get dropped off or get a Uber or picked up and that kind of thing. So perhaps the next slide. What I'm proposing is that we have enough room there to create a loading zone where um an Amazon truck could park, uh, a Uber could park, and people could get in and out of the U out of vehicles safely. There's plenty of sidewalk there. So that um I think it's it's sort of uh nonsensical that we don't have a loading zone in front of the building. So next slide, please. Um I did some AI research on on this whole um land use amendment to save myself some time. It seems like um that there's been a lot of um back and forth uh going on with respect to the um integration of this bike path. Uh it seems to be uh constantly in the news or in the in the in the mix here. Maybe I'll go to the next slide because I want to show you some things. There's been a lot of talk about having barriers against this bike plane. There's already that's impossible for somebody to cross to get across to get into a cab or whatever. There aren't any uh if you look at the far right picture, that's 10th Street heading north. There are no barriers on 10th Street, and if there was any place I think you wouldn't have barriers for bike paths, it'd be up there. So I think that this is a bad idea. This is going to further restrict traffic. Next slide, please. My solution. This could apply permanently and through construction of the Harriet is reroute the bike path on the north side of 5th Street Avenue to Riley Park. Um there's plenty of room there. Uh that's what it uh the b the pathways have been paved in the last couple of years in there. They're regularly cleaned of snow, um just as uh as fast as they do all the bike paths. And so that is my proposal on what should happen permanently with this bike road. It's not a big deal, in my opinion, to reroute it through the park. Maybe take the next picture or the next slide, please. This is how wide that is, it's 20 feet wide. The pathway through the park. There's plenty of room there for bicycles, and this would remove all this issue of having this bike lane in everybody's mind in the planning and construction. Next slide, please. Now we talk about the Harriet entrance, which uh Philip uh Bryden had spoken earlier. Uh next slide, please. This um this is what seems to be the driver behind this is this heritage entrance to Riley Park. And that being um uh to me is a is is not there's 10 or 11 10 or 11 entrances to Riley Park already. Some of them are nicer than others. I don't see what's it what the issue is with this entrance preventing the access to Harriet's parkade off this c that cul-de-sac on 11th. Maybe next slide, please. If you look at the the picture on the right, that I measured this myself. The two roadways are twenty feet wide each. You're just at time, but perhaps a final sentence to conclude your thoughts. Okay. I'm here about the the the the entrance to this building for the Harriet. The the Harriet's design team can't go on with um com completing their work to get the development permit unless this issue is settled to where this entrance is. So I'm here to lobby Thank you very much. Okay. Any any questions for the presenter? Okay. We will continue through our public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to speak to 7.2.6? Going once, going twice. All right. We shall close the public hearing. Any questions for administration? Okay, seeing none, uh, maybe I can go to you, uh, Councillor Atkinson. Yeah, I'm I'm just gonna be moving a slightly altered uh set of uh A slightly altered motion here. So as you've heard, like this site is, I think, it's a pretty it's a pretty special site backing onto Raleigh Park, a beautiful asset within the community. There is some concerns that I think the the applicants have been really working with community to try and address from community, but a lot of that comes in through the development permit side of things. So this is, you know, we heard around uh affordable units, we we've heard pieces around sort of the shaping of the building. The the trick with this is that what's being asked of us is to go to basically approve a full land use change that goes to a 12 story height building. Um but as you saw, there's this stepping down on the sort of west side of the site to sort of Have more of a gradient and a matching of the height of the Ezra on the one side and then bring it up to the 12 story on the other side. So what this uh this uh amendment is is sort of proposing is that we give first reading of the proposed bylaw um to to sort of this what they've what the uh the applicant has asked for, but it um Then allows for them to to we withhold the second and third readings of the proposed bylaw until the development permit has gone through an approval process specifically with uh the Calgary Planning Commission. So they'll be able to really sort of see this through, see some of the really technical specific pieces of this site before we would then uh release second and third readings of the bylaw, and then everything would come through. So it's it's because of the complexity of this site uh and some of the pieces that community has been sort of asking for, what we heard from sort of the community association. How do we make sure that when we're here today with a land use change that we're not just uh putting through something and then having a 12-story building on site that uh no longer hits those contextual sort of pieces that we've we've heard? Um this file, if you read through all the attachments, um you know we had uh urban design review panel comments, we had comments from multiple CPC members, uh, lots from the community in and around. And so we really want to make sure that we don't just do a land use change and sort of throw it up in the air and then we kind of get railroaded on the other side. So this allows for the um the team to continue their path, go through the development permit process, but without us just releasing higher density on the site, uh, without those contextual pieces that I think are such an important part in terms of the shading of Riley Park and these kinds of elements that are all baked in. This uh is something that I've uh I've worked through uh administration with. Um uh but uh yeah, I can answer any questions in close if you have any any questions about it. All right, that's been moved by Councillor Atkinson. Uh may I please have a second her? All right, seconded by Councillor Ewell. And this is a revised uh recommendation. It is to give the first reading, but it's to withhold the second and third reading and until a development permit is at the point of approval and it's directing that uh Coward Planning Commission. Be the development authority. Any discussion on this? Uh Councillor Shabot? I'm just curious how administration would manage this request. Yeah. So thank you for the question, Councillor. So should this motion as written be approved and uh council does give first reading, it would signal to the applicant that there is some of somewhat of an intent for the land use to be granted. It would be contingent on numbers two and three being uh being met. So what would happen here is that once so it would delegate the planning commission to be the development on authority on this item for the development permit portion. Uh once it goes to CPC and it's ready to be approved, should CPC provide approval to the development permit, a condition uh prior to the final approval being issued would be that we would come back through a bylaw tabulation, which previous councils have seen before. This one has not yet, so this is the first time. That's the order of operations. The the only reason I'm asking this question is typically development permits being approved by the Planning Commission is only in special circumstances on typically a very large comprehensive project. So I don't know if this actually meets that test. Is this a standard process or This is not I would suggest this is not a standard process. This but nothing precludes this council from delegating uh administration to bring this forward to CPC. well maybe maybe the mover can address uh some issues in his clothes because just um curious as to what the outcome, what the intent is, and what he hopes is gonna get accomplished through this process. And uh if there's an opportunity for uh some further input from some of the adjacent residents, like in regards to the entrance that we just heard, uh, or other issues, then maybe maybe it's a worthwhile process, but maybe you can address it in your close. Alright. Anyone else uh wish to speak to this? Yeah, I'll just jump in briefly and say thanks for your uh leadership, Councillor Atkinson. Uh this type of approach was undertaken a bit more on the council where I sat as a elected city Councillor and I had the opportunities, I'd say at least three or four times, to do something similar and to work with the community and come up with something that much more broadly reflected the consensus of the community. I think uh makes a lot of sense for us to support you and uh as long as you're personally committing to to be engaging through that and to address some of the concerns that the community has. Let's uh see what uh you can deliver for us. Okay, over to you to close, sir. Uh yeah, that's that's great. Uh so yeah, this um gives the the question around specifically CPC and sort of the be making them the development authority. Uh as you you sort of see in the in the package, there there have been a number of concerns, some of which have been, I think, uh, you know, met through the back and forth between the applicant and community, things like the massing of the building down to eight stories on the one side, twelve stories on the other, these kinds of elements, but there are still some outstanding concerns. Uh, and so by delegating this through uh CPC, it allows community to sort of work through this process uh by having it going through the Calvary Planning Commission, which is gives it that sort of extra level of oversight. Uh, and it's just really given this very unique spot. I wouldn't actually make the this kind of, we don't want to necessarily be um doing this, I would say, on, I'm not gonna be proposing this on any other applications today, and probably not many, to be honest, in the future. It's specifically because uh it's related to Raleigh Park, a heritage asset within uh the community, and making sure that we really sort of see uh a beautiful and and community contextual outcome with uh with the what we're getting from the applicant here. So that's that's why there's that higher level of uh of uh CPC uh direction within within the uh the motion here. So uh yeah, uh hope you'll support. I think this is a great way to start um landing some more density. Really happy to see some of those pieces like the affordable units potentially coming into play, uh, like the idea of having people living in uh in higher density units, having Raleigh Park as their backyard, you know, folks from the Ezra uh have have sort of spoken to that. It's a bright, beautiful spot to to live and and sort of have that uh that amenity right next door. Uh and I think that we can find that path. We just want to make sure that there's that proper level of oversight, and this helps us to do that. So thank you. Closed. All right, uh that's been closed and again colleagues this is to give first reading to the proposed bylaw only. It's to withhold the second and third readings until a development permit is at the point of approval and it's directing that the Calgary Planning Commission be the development authority on the associated uh development permit and and just to make that crystal clear uh madam clerk it would come back to council for the the second and third reading at that point it's not debatable for the readings but uh we would get that chance to vote yes or no based on what the development permit was That's correct. The way that this is framed, the matter would be coming back for second and third reading of proposed bylaw. okay On a point of procedure, your worship, um amendments can be made prior to second reading. So when it comes back, there's still an opportunity to make amendments and then subsequently debate it, right? that's right yeah Okay, thanks. alrighty on that uh let's engage the evote please Councillor Kelly, absent. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. thank you please display the results on that the motion is carried unanimously 14 to zero i'll move to one reading only of the proposed bylaw and that's First reading of bylaw 46D 2026. Anyone opposed? And hearing none, that is carried. All right, that concludes item uh 7.2.6. We have a time specific uh agenda amendment for the uh update with uh Chief Administrative Officer. Can I please have a motion to move into closed session? Moved by Councillor Tyres. Second by Councillor Pantozopoulos. Any further debate on that? Actually, we'll have that up on the screen to know the uh Legislative authority. Mr. Mayor, don't we usually include who's gonna be attending from administration? We ran into that issue. Does that need to add or is it Only external members. Councillor Pantasopoulos. Yep. Typically when uh we move into closed session, if it's a member of administration, the CAO has the ability to bring the appropriate person in. It's only when there's an external guest who's not part of the city of Cowry. All right, that's his on the table. Over to Councillor Johnston, please. Yeah, I get why we're going on camera kind of on this, but Um if we go in camera on this, is that gonna make it confidential or is it already confidential before we go in camera? It really varies on the matter that the chief administration spirit of officer is going to bring to us. He's providing advice, and uh I'd say we hear him out on the on the topic, and then you have the the latitude to choose whether to keep the discussion confidential or not. Uh voting say for example, if it was um I'm just brainstorming a potential idea. If if if there was say a confidential matter that he was bringing to us in a closed session, it would still remain confidential uh regardless of us having a meeting about it. Okay, thank you. All right, uh any further debate on this? All right, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please. Councillor Jamison, your vote please. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Kelly is absent. Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Okay. Uh please display the results. All right, that motion is carried 13 to 1 with uh Councillor Johnston opposed and Councillor Kelly absent. Council will be resuming in public meeting shortly. Please make your way back to chamber. Welcome back. Uh Madam Clerk, please call the rule. Thank you, Mayor. On the roll. Councillor Dolly Wall. Here. Councillor Jameson. Councillor Johnston. Here. Councillor Kelly. Present. Councillor McLean. Councillor Pantasopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Shabot, Present. Councillor Clark, Present. and Mayor Farkas. Here. Thank you, Mayor. All right. I believe we have a motion to rise and report. Uh moved by Deputy Mayor Chabot, seconded by Councillor Kelly. On that are we agreed? Any opposed? Councillor Johnston is opposed, and that motion is carried. All right. Next, I believe we have another uh item, or rather, uh holding in. Confidence, the closed meeting discussions. We'll get ready. That's right. It's just coming up momentarily. Thanks for your patience. It will be third as Okay, and this is to direct that the closed meeting discussions be held confidential. Alright, moved by uh Deputy Mayor Chabot, second by Councillor Panasopoulos. Any debate on that? Seeing none, uh let's engage the vote, please. You don't have enough tabs open. Councillor Ewell, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Johnston opposed. Alright, we can now move to item 7.2.7. Thank you, Mayor Farkas, and good afternoon, Council. My name is Lindsay Ganzar. I am a senior planner in the Community Planning Department, and I will be presenting the next portion of items on the agenda today. Item 7.2.7 is a land use redesignation application to enable a townhouse development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 49D 2026 for the redesignation of 1601 Bonus Road Northwest from the Mixed Use General or MU1 district to the residential grade-oriented infill or RCG district. Next slide, please. The subject parcel is located in the community of Hillhurst and falls within the plan area of the Riley Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The parcel is located on the south side of Boness Road, adjacent to 14th Street Northwest to the east. It is currently vacant and has rear lane access, but no direct access onto 14th Street. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of low density residential developments shown in yellow and orange, multi residential developments, shown in brown, and commercial developments shown in red. 14th Street and Kensington Road, which is located two blocks to the north, are both neighborhood main streets and form part of the primary transit network. They offer a wide variety of commercial, retail, and health services. The subject site is currently designated as the MU1 district with an FAR modifier of 1.0 and a maximum height of 13 meters. The district is intended to accommodate a mix of residential and commercial uses, either in separate buildings or in the same building, and allows either residential or commercial uses to be located at grade facing a commercial street. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the parcel to the RCG district, which would allow for the site to be consolidated with the adjacent parcel to the west to increase the amount of developable land. The district allows for a variety of low-density housing forms, including row houses and townhouses. The maximum building height is 11 meters and the maximum density is 75 units per hectare. Based on parcel area, this site would allow up to five dwelling units with suites. However, if consolidated, the applicant intends to develop nine dwelling units with suites. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Riley Communities LAP, which identifies the site as being within the neighborhood local urban form category. Neighborhood Local is intended for a range of housing types and home based businesses. The LAP also identifies the site as having a limited building scale, which allows for up to three stories in height. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing in an inner city area that is close to amenities and public transit. As such, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you. With that, we'll uh go to the public hearing. Do we have Lee Wang with us? Hey Mayor, yes, this is Lee Wang. Thank you. Uh please go ahead. Thanks, Mayor. Sorry I'm not in the console chamber. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Lee Wang from Horizon Land Development and Consulting Inc. I'm speaking in support of this application. As you can see, this is a downward zoning from the current mixed use one with flow ratio one and maximum height 13 meters to RCG. The initial mixed use zoning was approved back in 2019 to accommodate the existing business use on site. At the time of this mixed use application, there was a lot of opposition from the Residents and Community Association. Since then, the buildings, the commercial buildings have been demolished. The site has sitting vacant for quite some time. Our proposal is to change the zoning to RCG back to residential zoning. And then the RCG will reduce the maximum height from 13 meters to 11 meters and also remove the commercial use. The uh with the consultation with the Community Association, the Community Association has made clear that their intention uh is their preference is for residential use uh for this specific lot. This lot is also within the uh Main Street corridor. The uh the proposal fully aligns with the local uh local ready communities local airplane. The only comments we mostly hear uh is with regard to heritage guidelines. I want to make it clear we're going to fully adhere to the HIRIT guideline and then development permit uh that was sued for the uh for the contacts of the community. Uh with that I I hope counselors can support that uh this project. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Wang. Any questions for the applicant? All right, hearing none. Uh anyone else uh wishing to speak to this item as part of the public hearing? Going once, going twice. Last call. All right, we shall close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Atkinson? Absolutely. Yeah, happy to move this. Um this line use actually makes a lot more sense based on sort of uh accessibility to the site, uh to have it just based on residential rather than sort of the MU1 um District that it it currently is sitting under, there's not really access to and from 14th Street. So to have people sort of coming to to uh commercial business, uh you'd actually be putting a lot of traffic down through uh this area of West Hillhurst. So um to to to take it back to an RCG style development there, uh I think this this makes a lot of sense. Already. Uh do I have a second or please? Second by Councillor Schmidt. Uh Councillor Kelly for debate. Yeah, as we are sort of moving forward with the uh the notice of motion that's coming to council next weekend to do some more local area plans. A lot of people have sort of said, well, the city council just does whatever they want anyway. They don't pay attention to the local area plans. This is one of the ones that I look at this and I'm like, I I think we got the zoning for this site wrong in the local area plan, but what is before us today from the applicant aligns with the local area plan, and so To everybody who is worried the council's just gonna go off and do other things that aren't in there, no. This aligns with the local area plan. I'm happy to vote in favor. All right, any further debate? Seeing none, back to you, Councillor Atkinson. Alright, let's engage the U vote, please. Councillor Clark, your vote please. Thank you. Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Jameson opposed. Alright, we will now move to the readings of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 49 D 2026. Anyone opposed? That is carried. Second reading of bylaw 49 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 49 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 49D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, we'll move to 7.2.8, land use amendment in Hillhurst Ward 7. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to enable a mixed use development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 53D 2026 for the redesignation of 207 and 211 14th Street Northwest from the Commercial Corridor 2 or C Corps 2 district and a direct control or DC district to the mixed use active frontage or MU2 district. Next slide, please. The subject parcels are located in the community of Hillhurst and fall within the plan area of the Riley Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The site consists of two parcels and is located on the west side of 14th Street Northwest, south of 2nd Avenue. The northern portion of the site is currently vacant and the southern portion is developed with a two-story commercial building. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of residential, commercial, and community uses. 14th Street and Kensington Road are both neighborhood main streets and form part of the primary transit network. They offer a wide variety of multi-residential housing, commercial, retail, and health services, as well as access to transit. The subject site currently has two designations. The northern portion is designated as a DC district based on the MU2 district. It contains density bonusing opportunities outlined in the previous area redevelopment plan for the community, which has since been repealed and replaced by the Riley Community's LAP. The maximum building height in this direct control district is 26 meters, and the maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, is 5.0 with bonusing provisions. The southern portion of the site is designated as the C Corps 2 district, which is intended for a mix of commercial and residential uses in a mid rise built form and where vehicular access is acceptable from the street or the lane. The maximum FAR is 2.8, and the maximum building height is 16 meters. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate both parcels to the MU2 district with a maximum FAR of 4.0 and a maximum building height of 24 meters. The MU2 district enables street oriented developments with a mix of residential and commercial uses, but requiring commercial uses on the ground floor to promote activity at the street level. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Riley Communities LAP, which identifies the site as being within the Neighborhood Flex urban form category. Neighborhood Flex is intended for a mix of commercial and residential uses in standalone or mixed use buildings that are oriented towards the street. The LAP also identifies the site as having a mid building scale, which allows for up to 12 stories in height. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing and amenities in an inner city area that is located on the primary transit network. As such, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you very much. Let's open up the public hearing and I see we have the applicant with us, so please approach. Good afternoon, Mayor Farrakus and Council. My name is Brian Horton. I'm with O2. We're the applicant team. With me is Stefan Slot from Port Communities and Colinekka from O2. Stefan's going to start with the presentation, then Colin will go, and then we're all here to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, uh Mayor and uh Mayor and Council. If I we can go over to the second slide, please. Um my name is Stefan Slott, and I'm here today on behalf of the applicant, Port Communities. Uh, Port was founded back in 1968, and for nearly 60 years, we have been uh we've built a reputation for integrity, responsible development, and long-term ownership of the communities that we help uh we help create. What makes us different is that we are not simply developers, we are long-term owners and operators of the properties that we develop. We stay invested in our buildings and in the communities where we work long after construction has been completed. That long-term perspective shapes how we approach design, construction quality, but also relationship with residents, commercial tenants, neighbors, and our municipal partners. Today we manage over 1,100 rental homes and have delivered over 3,800 homes across British Columbia and Alberta. Here in Calgary, we have active been active since 2020, and we continue to grow our presence thoughtfully. This application would represent our seventh residential development here in Calgary. And alongside projects such as our Madison and Harrison projects in Marteloup, our projects recently approved on 17th Avenue and our Curry Barracks project. We are proud to focus us on mixed use uh rental communities that contribute to complete and livable neighborhoods, and we appreciate the opportunity to bring another thoughtfully designed project to council today. Thank you for your time. We're here for any questions. Yeah. Thank you. Any follow up colleagues? Sorry, I'll just continue. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Yep. Next slide, please. The site is located along the neighborhood Main Street of 14th Street and just north of another Main Street, Kensington Road. It benefits from strong connectivity with direct access to surrounding arterials and an internal laneway. The area is rich in amenities with access to the Bow River, parks, schools, and community services all within walking distance. Kensington Road and 10th Street are a short distance away and act as commercial corridors, offering convenient access to services and employment. The site is also well served by transit and active modes, with the Sunnyside LRT station nearby and regular bus routes directly adjacent to the site. The Bow River Pathway Network is just south of the site and provides a direct connection to the surrounding communities and downtown. Next slide, please. The proposed land use change enables a new mixed use development that will add both housing options and neighborhood amenities along 14th Street. By requiring commercial uses at grade, along the street, and locating residential uses on upper levels, the project strengthens the walkable and main street vision of the area while creating an active and engaging street edge. The rendering shown here illustrates the current development permit design, featuring a six-story building that aligns with the MU-2 district rules for setbacks and stepbacks. Parking for the development would be underground and accessed from the rear lane, keeping the streets focused on pedestrians and active uses. Next slide, please. The site is currently designated Commercial Corridor 2 and a direct control. The proposed redesignation to the mixed-use active frontage MU2 district would enable development up to six stories with a maximum floor area ratio of four. Notably, the north portion of the site already permits a height of 26 meters under the existing direct control district. Next slide, please. These diagrams compare building heights between the local area plan, the existing land use, and proposed land use. The proposed massing reduces visual impact, shadowing, and height, resulting in a more contextually appropriate built form relative to existing policy and land use. Next slide, please. Under the Riley Local Area Plan, the subject site is designated Neighborhood Flex with a mid-building scale modifier, allowing development up to 12 stories and supports a mix of commercial and residential uses oriented to the street. The proposed MU-2 district and modifiers reflect the LAP's vision for the future mixed use development with Accurate Activation, while supporting the neighborhood Main Street designation through enhancements to the public realm and pedestrian experience. By increasing density, this proposal will help the city better leverage its Main Street investments, creating added value for both future residents and commercial tenants. Next slide, please. A semi-concurrent development permit application was submitted alongside the land use in December. To support a transparent process, details of both applications were shared during engagement, including at two public open house events, ensuring the public had a comprehensive understanding of the proposal. Development permit is anticipated to be approved in late spring to early summer. As part of our engager process, we met with the Hillhurst Sunnyside Community Association, which expressed support for the proposal, installed on site signage as per the city of Calgary, noticed posting requirements, hosted an in person public open house with postcards delivered to nearby residents inviting them to attend, and delivered follow up postcards as the development permit evolved, inviting residents to a digital open house to provide updates on the project. Next slide, please. In summary, this application provides an opportunity to diversify housing options in an amenity-rich century located area. It supports neighborhood Main Street growth by enhancing the public realm and reinforcing pedestrian-oriented streetscapes. It introduces the MU2 designation to support mixed use development with commercial frontage at grade. And lastly, it aligns with the Riley community's LAP and broader city planning objectives, including focusing mixed use development near the primary transit network and neighborhood main streets. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for the time, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Over to Councillor Jameson, please. Oh, there we go, I got it. Thanks. Wasn't working. Uh can you just provide uh me with a ballpark um of what the final parking ratios will look like? Um the the submission doesn't mention parking, and I want to understand uh what residents and businesses can expect, even at this early stage. I believe we'd be going for an MU2, which would have a parking ratio of 0.75 stalls per unit, along with a 0.1 uh visitor stall uh per unit as well ratio. Um yeah. Have you had um um any any engagement specifically about parking and the concern there? Um in general, typically when we hold public public open houses and uh speak with the community association, uh parking is typically something that comes up. Um so there is underground parking which will be accessible thro through the rear lane. Um, and there were no major concerns brought up with that ratio. There's typically people like to see a one provided, but um going by the land use, that's typically accepted accepted. Um they were mostly concerned about. Traffic adjacent to 14th Street, but there is no traffic study required for this permit as well, so we can't speak to an increase of traffic from that perspective. Okay, thank you. Anyone else for the applicant? Seeing none, uh, thank you so much for being with us. Anyone else wishing to speak as part of the public hearing? Going once, going twice. Last call. Alright, we shall close the public hearing. Over to you, Councillor Atkins. Yeah, um happy to support this application. Um they The the site is so this is a combination of two sites. There's there's one building on sort of the south side that has that commercial corridor zoning. And uh I think MU2 is actually much more fitting and in context with the rest of 14th Street, which largely just has commercial on the main level and then residential above. Uh commercial corridor would require multiple levels of commercial uh before you get to the residential on top, and really for 14th Street in the way that it's developing, this is a much more fitting fitting building. So, yeah, the MU2 seems to fit. Uh happy to answer any questions if anyone's got any concerns and close. All right, that's been moved. Uh, can I have a second or please? Second by Councillor Schmidt. Any further debate? Seeing none, I think we can call the e vote. Let's engage the evote, Madam Clerk. Please. Councillor Tyres. Absent. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 to 0. Councillor Tyres is absent. First reading of bylaw 53 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 53 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 53 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 53 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, let's move on to 7.2.9 Policy and Land Use Amendment in Downtown Commercial Court. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for a mixed use development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 14P 2026 for an amendment to the Eau Claire Area Redevelopment Plan and to proposed bylaw 58D 2026 for the redesignation of 728 Fourth Avenue Southwest from a direct control or DC district to a new DC district. Next slide, please. The subject parcel is located in the downtown commercial core and falls within the plan area of the Eau Claire Area Redevelopment Plan, or ARP. Next slide, please. The parcel is located on the north side of 4th Avenue between 6th Street to the east and 7th Street to the west. It is currently being used as a surface parking lot. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of high density residential developments, commercial uses, and public open space. The site is within a five minute walk to either the 7th Street or 8th Street LRT stations, and is within an eight minute walk to the Kensington Village area. The parcel is currently designated as a DC district based on the former CM2 Downtown Business District that was replaced in the land use bylaw in 2014. The intent of the DC District is to create a transition from the downtown core to the south to the residential neighborhood of Eau Claire to the north. The district also includes requirements related to the Plus 15 pedestrian walkway system, which were established before council approved the Plus 15 policy in 2021. Next slide, please. This application proposes a DC district based on the Center City Mixed Use District, or CCX. It is intended to update the bonus density rules and provisions and restrict building mass adjacent to residential developments. The proposed district also eliminates any plus 15 requirements for the site as it does not fall within the plus 15 policy area. Next slide, please. In order to support the proposed redesignation, a text amendment is required to the Eau Claire ARP. The commercial policies currently state that any floor area ratio or FAR from 0 to 5.0 for residential or commercial uses requires contributions. And then any FAR from 5.0 to 8.0 for commercial uses requires contributions. The proposed amendment allows for a base density of 5.0 FAR without any contributions, and then any FAR from 5.0 to 8.0 for commercial or residential uses require contributions. That's confusing. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing downtown, close to amenities, and public transit. The Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation and the policy amendment. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you so much. We'll uh now move to the public hearing. I believe we have the applicant with us. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Brian Horton with O2. On behalf of Trico Homes, who are the landowner of the site, we'll give a brief presentation, then happy to answer any questions. If you could advance to the next slide, please. As mentioned, the site is well located in the Eau Claire area, just steps away from the Bull River Pathway, LRT access, and all the amenities that downtown has to offer. Next slide, please. As mentioned by administration, we're proposing to change the land use designation of this site from an outdated DC to a new DC based on the CCX land use district. A DC is required. It's really the only option for a site in Eau Claire, and there's a couple reasons for that. One is it to implement the policies of the Eau Claire ARP. It has to either to bring over a downtown district such as CCX. We have to use a direct control district. Then we also use the DC, as mentioned by administration, to remove the requirement for the plus 15 access, which would normally be required of CCX. And then we also use the DC to shape the building to be very site-specific. So we're using the DC to implement uh floor plate sizes that decrease as as the uh as the as the stories rise. And this is specific in relation to the residential building that you can see to the north, so that there's some separation between that building and also that there's a an existing uh slab block tower uh to the west. So it's a unique condition and unique site condition that we use the direct control um to uh to craft a specific uh rules that will result in a building that fits within the context. Next slide, please. So I want to include this side that shows the land use districts in in Eau Claire. As you can see, pretty much all the all the parcels are direct control. We're hoping that with the with the new land use bylaw uh things can be cleaned up and as we move forward with uh land use applications in Eau Claire, we don't have to use direct control in the future, but that is where we are today, and so uh it is consistent with uh all the all the land use districts that are in the Eau Claire area, um uh specific obviously to the north. Next slide, please. As mentioned, we uh have one small amendment to the to the ARP. Um again, it it's a very outdated uh ARP. It needs some updating, so we had to effectively do a small amendment to bring the ARP in alignment with our direct control and the bonus density rules that were uh that are that exist in the CCX. Next slide, please. So, in summary, we're asking for your support today. We believe this is an appropriate land use for this site. It will enable development, it will allow TRICO to build homes in this downtown location on the west side. Diversity of housing, as I mentioned, it's very close to transit, so it's transit supportive. It's also mobility and active modes with the Bull River Pathway so close, it's walkable to downtown. It's mixed use, it'll offer mixed use development, retail like grade on the avenue with a with residential units above above. And with the ARP amendment, it is compliant with the with the ARP. So with that, thank you and happy to answer any questions. Yeah. Great. Any questions for the applicant? Councillor Kelly? I just want to say thanks for taking the time to meet with me previously because uh knowing that I'm not a huge fan of uh direct control, you you definitely introduced me to, I think, my least favorite part of town, apparently, because the DC's everywhere. But uh, thank you for the explanation for why it's required in this particular case. And I I do look forward to administration us hopefully being able to clean that up at some point in the future. But for now, thank you. All right. Uh we'll continue with the public hearing then. Anyone else wish to speak to this? Going once, going twice. Last call. All right. Uh public hearing is closed. Uh over to you, Councillor Atkins. Yeah, uh this is gonna take a surface parking lot and turn it into housing and maybe a coffee shop for folks in Eau Claire. It's uh it's a pretty no-brainer in my opinion, but happy to answer any questions that anyone would have in my clothes if needed. Second by Councillor Kelly. Any further debate? Seeing none, uh, let's engage the vote. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor McLean, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. We have the policy and the land use to go through. So first reading of bylaw 14P 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 14P 2026, anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 14P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 14P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. First reading of bylaw 58D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 58D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 58 D. 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 58 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, on to 7.2.10, Landie's amendment and belt line ward eight. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for supportive commercial uses within an existing multi-residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 56D 2026 for the redesignation of 310 15th Avenue Southwest from various direct control or DC districts and the Center City Multiresidential High Rise District or CCMH to the Center City Multiresidential High Rise Support Commercial District, or CCMHX. Next slide, please. The subject parcel is located in the Beltline and falls within the plan area of the Beltline Area Redevelopment Plan. Next slide, please. The parcel is located at the northwest corner of 15th Avenue and 2nd Street Southwest. It was recently redeveloped with a six-story multi-residential building. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of high density residential, commercial, and community uses. 17th Avenue is located one block to the south and offers a wide variety of commercial, retail, and health services. It is considered a neighborhood main street and forms part of the primary transit network. The subject site currently has four designations. There are three direct control districts, all based on the previous land use bylaw 2P80, that allow for multi residential uses with limited office or retail use. The fourth designation on the site is the CCMH district from the current land use bylaw, which is intended primarily for residential uses with a very limited range of health and care uses. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the entire site to the CCMHX district. This district is very similar to the existing CCMH district, but allows for a limited range of small commercial uses such as retail stores, restaurants, and cafes. Next slide, please. The proposed redesignation complies with the Beltline ARP. As per map 3 seen here, the subject site falls within the primarily residential area, which allows for small scale commercial uses that provide additional amenities for the community. In this particular location, policies require that any non residential uses be limited to street corners and not mid block. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would allow small scale commercial uses to be located within an existing multi residential building, providing accessible on site amenities to its residents and surrounding community. Therefore, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you. Let's open up our public hearing. Do we have uh Paul Needham with us? Good afternoon, Mayor Farkas and members of council. My name is Paul Needham with Civic Works, the applicant representing our client Truman. Next slide, please. This land use redesignation proposal is minor and technical in nature. It applies to the property at 310 15th Avenue Southwest, a development known as the Broward, as seen here in this photo. As the building is already constructed and occupied, the purpose of the redesignation is to consolidate and modernize the land use districts that apply to the site to allow a limited range of small-scale commercial uses within the existing corner unit at grade. The intent is to create flexibility for a neighborhood serving commercial use, such as a coffee shop, cafe, or small retail space based on market interest. The site is appropriate for the proposed change as it is located on a corner and aligns with the policy direction of the Beltline ARP. The proposed redesignation and contemplated commercial uses would support street corner activation, encourage pedestrian activity, and provide a small neighborhood amenity within an already completed multi residential building. Outreach was appropriately scaled to the minor nature of the application. Information was shared with the Ward 8 Office, the Beltline Neighborhoods Community Association, and the Victoria Park BIA. No community feedback was received through the outreach process. So, in summary, this is a modest technical change that creates the opportunity for a more active community scaled corner frontage while maintaining and respecting the multi residential function of the building. That concludes my presentation. We respectfully ask for Council support and happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Alright, any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, let's continue our public hearing. Anyone else uh here to speak to this? Going once, going twice. All right, public hearing is closed. Uh can I go to you, Councillor Schmidt? Uh I will open and then I will. Close at some point. Okay. Uh that's been moved by Councillor Schmidt. Can I please have a second? All right, second by Councillor Kelly. Seeing no debate, over to you to close. This is a great idea. Commercial near 17th Ave on an already completed building. Let's do it. All right, thank you, uh Councillor Schmidt. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the Evo. My computer just monky. Counter Pantasopoulos, your vote please. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Yes. Councillor Dollywall, your vote, please. Yes. Councillor Atkinson, absent. My little wheel is spinning. Yes. If you have encountered a technical difficulty, one moment, please. My big wheel keeps on turning. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Yes. Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Councillor McLean, your vote, please. Yes. And Councillor Atkinson is absent. Okay. Mayor Farkas, Yes. all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. You may not be able to display. We can't even blame it on Mondays anymore because Tuesday Madam Clerk, you moved the council meetings to Tuesdays. we practiced on Monday. Um, I can let you know what the outcome was, Mayor Farkas. If you don't Madam Clerk, please read the OCAM. so the motion was carried 14-0 with Councillor Atkinson absent. Alright, we'll now move to the reading of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 56 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 56 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 56 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that's carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 56D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right. Let's move to 7.2.11. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for a density transfer from one parcel to another. Next slide, please. The recommendation before Council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 57D 2026 for the redesignation of 721 13th Avenue Southwest and 1302 14th Avenue Southwest from a direct control or DC district and the Center City Multiresidential High Rise District or CMH to a new direct control district. Next slide, please. The subject parcels are both located in the Beltline and fall within the plan area of the Beltline Area Redevelopment Plan. The source parcel is located to the east and the receiving parcel is located to the west. Next slide, please. The Source Parcel is located on the south side of 13th Avenue between 7th Street to the west and the Lawheed House and Bolia Gardens to the east. It is currently developed with the Moxon Apartments, which is a three story residential building that is a municipally designated heritage building built in 1912. In order for a heritage site to transfer its unused density, it must be legally designated, and this site has been since 2018. The receiving parcel is located at the northwest corner of 14th Avenue and 12th Street Southwest and is currently undeveloped. Next slide, please. Each of these parcels is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including multi-residential developments, commercial and retail uses, community uses, and parks. The source parcel to the east is currently designated as a DC district based on the CCMH district. The maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, is 4.04, which resulted from a previous density transfer. The receiving parcel to the west is currently designated as the CCMH district and has a maximum FAR of 5.0. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate both sites to a DC district that would enable a third party agreement between landowners to transfer the surplus density on the source site to the receiving site. The existing heritage building on the source site currently has an FAR of 1.53, which is approximately 2,090 square meters less than the maximum FAR allowed on the parcel. The DC district would allow that 2,090 square meters to be transferred to the receiving parcel, which would increase its maximum base FAR from 5.0 to 7.1. Next slide, please. The proposed redesignation complies with the Beltline ARP. Heritage density transfers are encouraged in the policy as a mean to conserve heritage resources. The policies also allow receiving sites to exceed their maximum FAR by 10%, where density transfers have come from municipal heritage sites within the plan area. Next slide, please. In closing, this application would help facilitate the transfer of additional density for new development that would provide additional housing while also enabling the conservation of a historic resource. As such, the Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the land use redesignation. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you. Council, can I have your general consent to conclude this item before we go to our afternoon break? All right. Seeing no objection, we'll continue. Let's open up the public hearing for this item and uh hear from the applicant. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Aaron Van Wyck, and I'm a heritage planner with City and Regional Planning Business Unit. As this land use redesignation is city initiated and solely for the purpose of tracking the density transfer, we are the applicants. In addition to Ms. Gansar's presentation, I'm also here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. All right, so seeing no questions uh for the applicant, uh we're still in the public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak to this? Okay. Come on down. Mayor and counselors, uh good afternoon. My name is Chris Weeb with that At Large Architecture. I'm here on behalf of the owner of the receiving parcel, um, Globe Capital Management. Mostly here to answer any questions about the uh intended use of the of the receiving site, uh which is 100% uh residential rentable units. Uh we have planned uh 66 units um in a 12 story building with underground parking. Um the uh The owners also own the neighboring Chelsea estates, and this would sort of be uh uh a pairing to that uh residential um uh dense development. Uh we believe it's consistent with the Beltline ARP. We've been in contact with the uh Beltline Neighborhoods Association, uh have their support. And we also have a uh traffic and parking study on hand. Right now we're in the early stages of uh design development, uh working towards a development permit application. If we could go to the next slide, please. We have a preliminary landscape plan. This is on the corner of 14th Avenue at 12th Street. It's a very tight site. It's hard to squeeze enough density to make this project feasible. Six suites per story, hence the need for increased density. Next slide, please. Just another uh drawing of the main floor, a covered plaza opening up the corner, a very modest lobby, and uh all the suit, all the uh floors above. Uh if we go to the next slide, please. Um six suites uh per floor. Um uh again adding to the housing density in the belt line enclave, which uh we believe is uh um in keeping with uh with the planning. Uh to the last slide, please. This is uh a very preliminary uh rendering. Of the corner uh and just to indicate uh stale uh scale of the building. Uh with that uh thank you and we're here to answer any questions. Thank you. I think we have uh Councillor Schmidt interest in you. Yes, I actually just I missed uh administration saying this, but you're going from seven FAR to seven point one far. Is that correct? Did I mishear that? It's uh 7.7 we've we've 7.7. Yeah, we've gained um two FAR points uh based on landscape uh contribution, and the additional uh 7 per uh 0.7 percent is 10% of that seven FAR. And is the landscape contribution The floor area ratio for the folks. Yes. uh oh yes, I knew that though. Um the land the landscaping is that coming from density bonusing from additional height that was sought as well? Yes. Okay, perfect. And then are there there's no plans for commercial No. in this? Okay. Those are my questions. Thanks. Thank you. Uh we'll continue with the public hearing. Anyone else wish to speak to this? All right, seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Back to you, Councillor Schmidt. I will move the item and save my words for close, but I do have some questions of admin after I get a second here. Uh seconded by Councillor Atkinson. Yeah, go ahead, Councillor. Uh with this, so these transfers that the the applicant didn't mention they're getting density, they they have density bonusing for the landscaping if When you do these heritage transfers and then go above the floor area ratio of the building, uh does density bonusing still apply or does that is that does density bonusing only apply if there's additional density above the transfer from that heritage transfer? Councillor Schmidt, if I could clarify, so the CCMH district, which is the existing district on the receiving site, and then the direct control district will be based on that, the base FAR floor area ratio is 5.0. And with the amount of square meterage that they're receiving from the historic site, that bumps up their base FAR to 7.1. And then at the development permits or permit stage, after this hearing, if it goes forward, they have the opportunity for that 10% increase that the beltline ARP allows for if you've received density from a heritage site. And then there are also the density bonusing opportunities within the land use district as or within the land use bylaw as well. So we're simply today talking about their base district, and anything above that will be dealt with at development permit. I see. So these transfers just functionally change the base number that they're working on, and then density bonusing would function if they go above that base number. Okay. Thanks. That's good to know. And then um I could have looked at the policy and I didn't, so I apologize ahead of time as far as the uh finer points, but the building, the source building is already heritage on on the municipal heritage registry, correct? That's correct, Councillor Schmidt. So how does this transfer um further protect the heritage status of that building? So the first of all the density transfer will now limit that heritage building to exactly the form that it is in now. They have no more FAR to expand the building. In these cases, though, it is a historic building, so we don't imagine them wanting to make the building larger or expand on it any further. And then also what this or what the third party agreement does is there is monetary change of hands for that extra density. And typically we see that money being used to help conserve the building. So they can use that for repairs or what have you in order to maintain the building as it was approved as a historic building. I see. Okay, perfect. And then does this uh policy only apply within the beltline ARP or is this a citywide policy that can be used? This is only within the beltline area redevelopment plan area plan area, excuse me. Okay, perfect. Those are my questions. Thank you. All right, I'm gonna consider you have as opened. I'm seeing no further debates, over to you to close. Um like we added commercial with the last one, preserving heritage whereas it exists is a good thing, and we get more housing as a bonus, and a density bonus is another bonus. So uh this does feel like a win win. Thank you. Alright, you have closed. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote. Councillor Dollywall, your vote please. So yes. Thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Yes. Whoops. Oh my gosh. Yes. I'm Yes, they are. Alright, uh, please uh display the results. That is carried 15 to 0. Alright, uh let's do the readings. Uh first reading of bylaw 57 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 57 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 57 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 57 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Um, I'm gonna bang the gavel. We'll be back at 350 for 7.2.12 land use amendment in Klarney Glengury. All right, welcome back to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the rule. Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Jamison. Councillor Johnston. Councillor Kelly. Councillor McLean. I'm here. Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Here. Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Clerk, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Johnston, Here. and Mayor Farkas. Present. Thank you, Mayor. All right, I believe we're on 7.2.12 land use amendment in Clarney Glengarry Ward 8. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to allow for grade-oriented housing. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 50D 2026 for the redesignation of 3036 and 3040 29th Street, Southwest, from a direct control or DC district to the housing grade oriented or HGO district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the community of Killarney Glengarry and falls within the plan area of the Westbrook Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The subject site includes two parcels located on the east side of 29th Street, one block north of Richmond Road. Each parcel is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and detached garage accessed from the rear lane to the east. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of residential districts. A park and the Killarney-Glengarry Community Association facilities are located two blocks to the northeast, and Killarney Elementary School is located one block to the west. A commercial center with a variety of amenities and services is located one block south along Richmond Road. The subject parcels are currently designated as a DC district from the 1990s for the purpose of accommodating low density residential development in the form of single detached and semi detached dwellings. Next slide, please. The proposed HGO district allows for a variety of grade-oriented housing forms that are contextually appropriate in low density areas. The maximum building height is 12 meters and the maximum floor area ratio is 1.5. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Westbrook Communities LAP, which identifies the site as being within the neighborhood connector urban form category. Neighborhood Connector is characterized by a broad range of housing types along higher activity streets that may accommodate small-scale commercial uses. The LAP also identifies the site as having a low modified building scale, which allows up to four stories in height. Next slide, please. In closing, this application would allow for appropriate residential uses that would provide more housing options in the community. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the redesignation of the subject parcels. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you. We'll open up the public hearing. We'll move through the registered speakers list. First with uh Tony Grigoff, the applicant. Uh hello. Good morning, or I guess it's uh afternoon here, Mayor and uh council members. My name's Tony Gregoff, and I'm the applicant of LOC 20 2025 uh 0179 at uh 3036 3040 29th Street Southwest Calgary. Thank you for taking uh the time to listen to me here. Um my wife and I have owned and managed real estate since uh 2002. Um and the company that manages that's Greg Off property, so our name's right on the properties. Self-representing intentionally today. These properties are intended to be long-term family investments because our name is attached to them, as I've said. We take responsibility, like we take this as a very serious redevelopment plan. Our goal is to contribute positively to communities where we invest and take this approach in a thoughtful and responsible manner. In terms of a little bit about myself, I'm an environmental consultant with GCL Environmental. GCL Environmental is a company I founded in 2008. We represent uh literally uh thousands of sites that are being reclaimed across the province. I've been involved in brownfield redevelopment and understand the land use and regulatory context of cleaning up sites and also dealing with land use changes and the public interest process and respect uh the policies and and all of the appropriate framework. So, in terms of today's application, it's uh Specifically, it's an HGO status from the DC, which you guys heard, which is an old outdated land use that's not really appropriate for this area in terms of uh so I'll get into some of that. So, in terms of the proposed uh, you know, the proposal it aligns with the M MD or the Municipal Development Plan LAP and the sitters city's uh broader policy direction with this uh gradual intensification. And inner city communities. So we did a site test with the architectural firm. I can bring up some of the details if we need to today, but it does conform to what we've put forward as has been recommended. The site is located in inner city with moderate growth and increased choice over time. This is not intended to be a large scale apartment style development. It's intended to be moderate ground oriented housing. That uh is evolves and you know being sensitive to the surrounding properties, there's a couple that uh that are already in under uh development in this accord. So the site is uh is uh along 29th Street, so from a mobility standpoint, uh high kind of traffic area that's uh interconnected with walking distance to Richmond Road, um transit, as well as 26th Avenue. So there's lots of amenities, parks, schools, infrastructure in the area. And I know that transit will continue to evolve over time. Another important point in this application is it's not occurring in isolation, as I alluded to. A portion of Clarney is already transitioning with near nearby redevelopment projects, similar forms of density emerging in the area. In the context of the proposal, yeah, so it's yeah. I wanted to acknowledge uh the concerns from the community. I've definitely gotten an opportunity to meet Richard, and I know he'll be representing a number of other residents. In particular around parking, traffic, height, and fitting in with the neighborhood. So today got a good chance to chat with them about some of that and hope there's an opportunity in the future that we could uh you know maybe even you know have a future conversations around uh what the development permit would look like. So, in terms of our community outreach, included signage, uh flyers, and uh direct communication with the community association that we didn't get response from. We also offered to, yeah, like I said, meet with them and have a conversation. So I'm glad I had a conversation with Richard today. With respect to parking and transportation, we recognize the practical reality. Residents will continue to own vehicles. Our intent is to balance the reality with the city's broader mobility goals by incorporating a rear lane access, on site parking, secure bicycle storage, as well as mobility storage. With respect to height and massing, We understand their sensitivity, sensitive topics within the community, and we'd want to ensure that it's aligned with HGO framework and the LAP. We make sure that the development permit process includes considerations around shadowing, overlook, overlook, landscape. I know there's a couple trees that we'd probably leave in place. Architectural treatment Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, you're just at time, but perhaps a final sentence to conclude your thoughts. for sure. Thank you. Ultimately, our intention is not to disrupt uh to disrupt be disruptive in terms of the redevelopment and uh to make sure that it's a like aligned with the policies. Thank you again, Jeremy. Thank you so much. Are there any questions for the applicant? Uh Councillor Panzopolis? thanks so much uh for coming in and presenting? Just wanted to pick up uh a couple of your comments that you made. Um a gradual density. Do you want to speak to ten units next to you know single family homes and and where that Logic comes from this is sort of a the gradual density that uh comes in a neighborhood. Yeah, yeah, 29th Street's already seen a number of the single family homes that have been taken down. So there's uh there's a number of infills, and then there are some H GO houses on that lot like along that uh corridor already. So, in terms of the gradual piece, um you know I think this is just part of the evolution of that whole street, is it's gonna be Evolving and changing over time. So some of those uh infills are up to four units, and so it's not just two units, it's four units, and then obviously there's the the HGO stuff that's ongoing. The context of uh you your neighbors, you said you mentioned um what did you hear from residents and you you wish you would have talked to some. We'll make some changes later. Maybe just speak to that engagement. So the folks you met, they just live sixty-one meters from your contact, or what was the this, you know, why didn't you engage with those folks earlier if they were directly impacted? Well, the the only opposition that we did receive was an email that uh we received from the city of Calgary. However, I did watch um the previous kind of applications go in, so and you know, and then I wasn't surprised to see um Richard here, and I did reach out to the the association. We did uh the flyers. Um you know I have you know historically I talked to the the neighbors um right beside the one property but uh in terms of actual direct communication there hasn't been too much. Um I don't know if you've got a follow-up question on that one. No, I'm just curious, you mentioned, you know, looking forward to engaging with them after on a development permit. You know, this is obviously a big land change, so we're just trying to reconcile engagement with uh So So on that note, I'll just quickly respond to that. I think the key to me is, you know, currently today we're dealing with uh land use change. I do believe that in the process of development permit that there could be a condition or conditions associated with some engagement with the community to ensure that it, you know, is more in alignment with what they're looking for and makes sure that there's a consultation piece to uh to address some of the items that I've talked about because there isn't details today. And I get that there isn't details, but I didn't want to put forward an application for land use without having certainty before I actually went to development permit, if that makes sense. And you chose HGO. Why uh H Go classification designation? You know, I looked at uh the overall landscape of what's happening in the community and I felt that that would be the best blend use, gives the most flexibility. It doesn't mean that, you know, that that's where we'll end up in terms of the engagement process, but I thought that it was a you know, in my opinion, it it fit. You know, there's other properties that are H go and Um given the affordability pieces that uh the you know, because that's something I didn't touch on, is that you know obviously we would want to look at, you know, and and I know affordability can have different definitions depending on which user group and audience, but wanted to have that flexibility built into this at the land use stage. H CO g allows a little more uh density, like you're you're allowed that five which triggers the same HC, right? That that's the issue. The reason like like Yeah. all that aside, you wanted that for those reasons, like squeeze as much as you can into the lot. Well, the CMHC piece, if you guys have been following it, has changed a lot with MLS select product. Um, so the conditions around How you get financing related to those products continue to evolve and and it's real time. So you know now you know you need it used to be that it was part of the you know financing of the construction. It's no longer like there's a lot more strings attached to that. And then in addition to that, you need to have certain lease rates up. So you know you know, that again, you know, if you put that with the DP and you actually put that forward, it might all collapse if you didn't actually go through this in kind of a rational logical process. So I wanted to slow this down, get land use, create some. Maybe even some allowance to have some conversations with the public if there is a string attached to the land use change where the DP requires that, so at or some form of communication with the community. In conjunction with that, is looking at the landscape as it continues to evolve with different financing and then just the whole landscape of what's happening in the city with blanket rezoning, et cetera. Maybe just finally, the the CA um had a comment about transit and they said, you know, absolutely uh Richmond is on a you know primary transit network, but the bus, this is relating to parking and the point five and the two developments, it's gonna be really tight. So so what was your comments and address back to the CA where you've got a bunch of density adjacent, so the street parking will be diminished. Um the logic is there's a primary transit, lots of busing, but evenings and weekends there isn't. So, you know, what was that? What was that messaging back to the CA when they sent you that note? That we've got onsite parking. So it would be, it would conform to the LAP. It would be rare parking and there's also street parking available. So currently, you know, I've used the residences and uh there hasn't been an issue, but you know, I didn't do a traffic study, and uh so it it conforms to the LAP, and that's what I responded was you know that we would have the on site parking at rear lane. The rear lane I was supportive of um having it paved a couple years ago, so now it's paved. So it's a it is a very desirable back lane that uh that accesses both of those uh properties. So no comment back to the CA about the transit. So there was the the question about bus frequency one every ten minutes or less for 15 hours, seven days a week. So just the logic behind going to HCO. So they you know part of that is you're on a very primary transit network, lots of transit. That's the reason that the less more density and less uh parkings. So you're two to three hundred meters from public transit um on Richmond and then I think it's like three to four hundred on yeah, so there's there's definitely transit options. Um and I would have you know I can't speak you know and there's on site parking. So you know that that was addressed in the note back to, and I do have those emails they were sent. There was multiple emails sent to um to the community association that I did not hear back. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alrighty, over to Councillor Schmidt. Uh you mentioned some experience with this site. What what has been uh your history? With the site that you're seeking to redevelop here. In terms of ownership or in terms of development? Ownership, yeah. Ownership. So yeah, so we like I've said we've owned real estate for quite a while. Um I've owned you know 3040 since 2015, and we've owned 3036 since uh I think it was 2021. Um yeah, so We've owned them for a while here and and the intention is that we'll own them into the future. That's why we would want this to work with the community. Is there's this isn't about a flip, a quick flip. This is about developing something that's a that's part of our legacy, and it's about getting it right. And so I I totally understand what you're saying here, where you know you're you are following the policies as they've been laid out here. Westbrook LAP, the DP process, there's no requirement for a concurrent development permit, but you have mentioned that that you're aware of the community concerns that you would be open to future engagement. You know, I There's not necessarily a condition that's needed for that. Really, what it I think it comes down to is just the the trust that those conversations would happen and that there would be an openness to hearing what they're saying. And it's it's not before us today, but community engagement is before us today. So um as far as the site specifics and be many of the issues do relate to development permit issues. So um What what is your willingness and ability to continue that engagement as you look at the development permit options with the surrounding neighbors, the community association that uh have indicated an interest in the future of this site? I think the short answer is absolutely, we want to have those conversations. Um it fits in with the long term legacy play for us. So we want to get this right for the community, we want to get it right for us. Um you know, some of the H go stuff that um that was brought up in terms of how dense it is, we have some of the same concerns, like in terms of like is it gonna be You know, like the basement suite situation with all the H goes, is that going to be the highest vacancy component? Or, you know, are those going to be full? Like, do we need to actually look at the development permit process after we had some of these consultations? Um, this isn't just about meeting the metrics of what an MLS select product would be. You know, it's got to be a very intentional design. And uh so to me, it it's about go slow so that we can go fast to get this right and and if that means having conversations with the community which I would you know I would definitely have um and I I did get the you know the contact information today from Richard and it definitely was it was a nice conversation like in a lot of ways like I you know I I hope there can be better alignment because I know you're gonna hear opposing views on a on a number of factors associated to this development uh or this land use change and and I get it. To me, it's this has got to be an iterative process to get it right. Yes, and we something that has uh I've come back to several times is that when when it comes to housing, Policy can only get us so far, and processes can only get us so far because there is a rightfully a strong emotional attachment to things that happen around your home. And you can't really especially as a smaller scale developer, work outside of the policy because there's there's risk involved with that. So um how do you how do you view the risk of Engaging with community and and finding compromise versus the risk of say d delaying this process further at the land use stage. Is there what what what would be your cost benefit of that if that question makes sense? I'll take it maybe in a bit of a different direction. As we remove uncertainty and risk, meaning you get land use, then you you know what I mean? The development permits another stage gate that I've got to go through. Which, in my mind, that would be the stage gate where we should be really having the consultation with the you know the community. That process in my mind probably needs some evolution at the city where we're actually having those conversations at that stage gate. Um, but going back to your initial question, there's a Rolodex of projects that I've got in the queue, and this is one of them. If we don't get past this stage, I've got two choices. I hire a professional like O2 or one of these other companies to come in here and do this presentation again. Or I put it on hold for a couple of years and then wait till another council. So we're patient. I don't know if that's the right answer, but it's the honest answer, in my opinion. I mean it's really the reality of what we face here with all these um applications. Now, last question for you is when it comes to an LAP and potential land use, you do have a menu of options. Uh you settled on HGO, so Uh I mean Councillor Pantasopoulos, I think, asked this question, but overall the the decision for HGO and and what you envision as the future of this site and the future of of the what what you would like to see as a result of choosing HGO uh to bring before us here today. I think uh, you know, the reason I went with HCO is to give us the highest, you know, densification uh options, not necessarily meaning that we would have to use them for the highest density. So, you know, it might make more sense to go at eight at the development permit stage. Um it really will depend partly on consultation and a number of those other factors that I talked about, which were like do we really want five? Below grade level units. So I know I you know we're putting forth HGO, and I'm not giving a lot of details on the development permit in terms of the exact plan of what's going to be done here, but I do think there's a place to have a conversation around some of that with um with the community for sure, but also being very intentional about. getting this first step done which is land use. Okay. Thank you. All right, I think that's it for the applicant. Uh we'll continue our public hearing. We have Richard Craig registered. Good afternoon. I have a slide package, please. There we go. Thank you. Mayor Jeremy and Councillors, my name is Richard Craig, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the homeowners who are directly impacted by the proposed development. I sent out a quick email to my contacts to determine their reaction. I was I always add an unsubscribed note to my emails. The first response from a longtime contact was slide two, please. Next slide. Nope, one back. Nope, one back, please. That one. This is the this is the response I got to my email about the proposed development, which is pretty sad. Unfortunately, over the last two years I've had more of these than I'd like to admit. So I then went and did a bit of research around the community to see what others thought. And if I could have the next slide, please. And this, the spot in the middle, is the development or the proposed development, and the red stars are the uh neighbors that I talk to who object to the development. Simple as that. The issues, slide three, please, next slide. The issues are the usual ones, compatibility with the existing community, et cetera, and you can read them down. We do have um Some parking issues on there on the street. It is a busy street, that's correct. And the infrastructure and the reliability. A little while ago we um we had uh the sewer line in 29th Street collapse and we have an interesting potable water leak at the 3206 construction site, which is creating a little brook down the back alley um of uh the of the development. And it's very rustic, but it's wasting a lot of water. The other thing is we already have two HGOs at 3206 and 3207, which are just south of the proposed site. And those are still under construction, and we are still worried about what that's what's going to happen when they're completed and parking. I went onto the websites to the DMAP and looked for some information. Now let me back up. Two years ago, the developer of 3206 provided a postcard image of what they intended to build. Like it or not, we could see what was coming. We didn't like it, and we submitted 65 objection letters to the city planner. They were ignored and the project was approved. We went on to the websites to see what had happened, what was available on this project. The D map is quite vague and Tony's letter to the to the city for the requesting this also left me sort of wondering a bit. He's a developer with $1.5 million in real estate assets and is preparing to spend probably millions to construct it, but we don't get a good picture of what he is delivering. And that is the concern. So what we do then Now, I don't blame the builder for that. I think it's part of the development process. It isn't clear. At 3206, there was quite a lot of negotiation between the developer and the direct neighbor, resulting in adjustments to the setback of the building and the rear building height to reduce shadowing. The point is that this was done prior to the land use change. I am concerned that if we we lose the leverage, if the land use is changed. Next slide, please. From what I can tell, the output Hmm, sorry, yes. Next slide, please. I've jumped those. Next one. Here we get to that one. This is the houses within the 60 meters of the development. Um, but if I look at this development, I believe the red square is more consistent with who's going to be affected by it because it will increase traffic and it will um increase parking in the area. Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, you're just at time, but perhaps a final sentence to conclude. Okay, I'll skip. So one of my okay, I'll skip down to the bottom. Next slide, please. This is what we are frightened we're going to get. That is on 26th Avenue and 33rd Street. So for this project, I would ask Council to reject the application to change the land use to HGO because that is a significant upgrade of usage. Thank you very much. Please hold right there because Schmidt may have a question for you. Yes, and thank you for coming today. Um In in the context of what you're experiencing in your neighborhood, what would you see as a land use that you could support here? Well, um, certainly not that. All right. Uh and I fear that once it becomes HGO, um, it can be developed at a lower level, but it can also be developed at that level. And this is still 29th Street is a busy street. It's the last street in Kalani in that area between 30th and 26th that has still got a lot of older homes on because of its busy. It's busy because it's a collector street for Kalani, and it's also busy because Richmond Road doesn't work. We've got four lanes of traffic to two lanes to five and six lanes. And in the afternoon that's completely blocked up, and so it flows down 29th Street. I would like to see, I mean, the ideal would be something like duplex or semi detached, because that's what's in the area. We are one and two stories. Most of the area still is. It's very heavily turned into duplexes to the east of 29th Street and to the west. So that's really the building form that is basically prevalent in the area. And there's still some old 50s homes. And the 50s homes fall into two categories. One is those that have been upgraded, and one is those that are not so upgraded and need to be replaced. So something smaller than HGO, not that. And so I I'm Petrified that if we get HGO, you know, Tony says he's not going to, but it could be flipped, and we will get that, because the next buyer will just buy it because of the HGO. Does that answer the question? It does. And you know, the the uncertainty is something that we we deal with a lot I know. in these hearings. Uh both, I mean, you you heard from the applicant uncertainty from the applicant side and certainty from the resident side. And that that is the something that does create a lot of difficulty when it comes to making these decisions. And hearing that you had a long conversation with him today, you exchanged contact information. I mean, uh like I said before, policy sometimes can only take us so far. And this idea of of trying to build trust, of trying to build that relationship so that there's buy in from the applicant to want to work with the surrounding neighbors. So I mean, in this case, from what you heard today. How confident are you that that might exist in this situation given this is not um you know a large a larger scale uh type of applicant that that we would sometimes see in these situations? It's pleasing to see he's local and and not a major force. When I went looking for him, I couldn't find much about him. I I do know now why I didn't understand it. Um but once the HGO is is on that site. It might not be him. Now, I have also offered to um try to facilitate Tony meeting the people that I showed up there with the red stars to uh to try to get something that'll work. But they're we're petrified. I mean, HGO is ugly for us, and that's why we don't like it. Um Sorry, sorry to to give a a different context in terms of RCG and all that, I don't have enough knowledge to that. Um the the semi-detached as what I'm used to and I mean as far as we we won't get too deep into this, but as far as the the flexibility that HGO provides for design, it is better than RCG. Just in in what can be built and what's possible. Um my last question for you is just around the Westbrook local area plan because that was that's been in place, I believe, since about 2021. Um I might be wrong about that, but that's I believe when it came in. So over two years ago. yeah. So w what was did you have any experience or participation in that and now seeing the results of that? Um if If that had any effect on how you view this. Um I don't like the the Westbrook plant. I mean there's twelve communities stuck in it in a monolithic result. Um somebody's gone around with a crayon and made this three stories and this four stories and this HGO and it it it it needs to be rethought with proper community input. I'm a I'm afraid I've been on a number of council or council city projects where you know traffic, etc., etc. And I'm a little jaundiced. I there's the engage and ignore process and there's the engage and and embrace process. And I think we get a lot of or we have in the past, have a lot of engage and ignore. Again, somebody in the administration, when we said in 65. Objection letters, somewhere they just disappeared. It was never mentioned. And I was stupid enough not to come down and do what I'm doing today, put a map up there and show you. The whole street was red. Everybody. We have homeowners, we have renters, and we have actually got vacant, vacant buildings on our street. One's brand new, one is being redone by. um the chur the Catholic Church. The the the um the effort of getting them to to respond is is is is getting 65 objections to the council is not trivial, as you can probably imagine. As a result of that exercise, I communicate with about a hundred or so folks in Kalani, mostly south of 28th Street uh 28th Avenue, but that's how I get t to hear what people are worried about. I think we need to look at uh West the Westbrook plan and we need to have it it's causing part of this problem. It's causing us grief because uh w we we we feel we can't control it. It causes the developer grief because he thinks he can get HGO, which he can, but we're not going to sit quietly and let it happen. That's the problem. It's con we get this constant conflict. And that's the result of it. Okay, I appreciate you coming and uh giving this input today. It's important for us to hear that. You're welcome. Thank you so much. We will continue the public hearing. Is there anybody here with us or on the line who'd like to speak to this item? Going once, going twice. All right, we shall close the public hearing. Over to you, Councillor Kelly, for questions for Admin. Thank you, worship. Um Admin, I a couple of questions here. First, I I note around this particular site, uh, to the north of uh 20, what is that uh 8th Avenue and then to south of Richmond Road, there's a bunch of like contiguous H go. Um has that disappeared or is that disappearing, pardon me, with the um with the blanket rezoning rescind? Um, Councillor Kelly, to my knowledge, no, I don't believe that would be um reverting back to previous because it is located within the LAP area and aligns with the urban form category directions from the LAP. Okay, thanks. And then my follow-up question here is I note that this one little pocket has this uh DC 29Z91. Uh I'm just wondering if because obviously that's pretty old. Uh I'm wondering if you can just give me a bit of insight in terms of either a why that's a direct control or um why it was never rezoned. Councillor Kelly, the so the purpose of the direct control district, it was approved in 1991 under the previous land use bylaw 2P80, and it was to limit density to single-detached, semi-detached, and duplex dwellings. I'm not too sure why it was created. It would have um it would meet the intent of the R2 district from that previous land use bylaw. So I'm sure somebody else may know the history. I don't have that on me though. Um but since, especially since the adoption of the LAP, that kind of target intensity or density doesn't align now with council's direction in the new LAP. Um that's part of the reason why administration and the Calgary Planning Commission are recommending that this go forward. Do you have any insight in terms of uh in the original blanket rezoning from 2024 why this uh wouldn't have been changed to RCG or HGO why it's stated DC? I I mean I think I know the answer to this question, but I want to ask it anyway. Right. Um the answer to that is any parcels that were designated as direct control were not included. So only those parcels that had a an existing stock district or a standard district from our land use bylaw were included in that um rezoning for housing. That's what I thought. Okay, thank you very much. Those are my questions, your worship. All right. Any other questions for admin? Good seeing none. Can I go to you, Councillor Schmidt? Yeah, so I'll move the item and use this also to ask a couple quick questions of admin. Um in for neighborhood flux within the Westbrook LAP, um the general policies in 2.4 apply to that, correct, I believe? Just to clarify, this is neighborhood connector. Oh, neighborhood connector, sorry. Um Oh boy, now I'm gonna have to relook at my so does section 2.4 apply to neighborhood connector as well? I'm just trying to find Sorry, Councillor, I'm just pulling up 2.4. What is that section? um it's just the general policies. I guess I neighborhood connector, neighborhood local, they do have some constraints within the LAP just around what needs to be followed. So because of the the concerns expressed from the member of the community today. How much effect does the LAP have when it comes to the development permit process? Is that when when we have a file manager looking at the file, will the will the Westbrook LAP constraints and best practices uh inform the development permit process as well? In one word, absolutely. It's one of the lead statutory documents that a planner or file manager has to consider in rendering any decisions or conditions on a development permit. So this being Oh, sorry, I was just interrupted. Dwelling units in HGO are permitted use, so the LAP would not apply. I see. Sorry, I just I forgot that. Thanks. So then at at this point, um Should this be approved today, it would have a permitted use designation and then it would uh really be the applicant's willingness to meet with the community for further steps after land use. That's correct. So it would be permitted, any dwelling unit development on this parcel would be permitted outright as long as there aren't any relaxations. So in the case where the rules of the district could not be met or they need to be exceeded, then it would be treated as a discretionary use. It would be advertised and open up to an appeal. So then um anything just for the the community's benefit, anything that goes beyond what the expectations are within that permitted use, then there would there would be a requirement for that further engagement and review and and those types of processes as well. That's correct. So if a development permit application comes in and it cannot meet every single rule of the HGO district, then exactly it's treated as discretionary use and open up to that discussion. And nothing stops an applicant from going under the say height or massing or all the all of those different parts of a permitted use. Yes, that's correct. Those measurable standard rules are typically maximums in the district. Okay to go to manager Lee who wants to jump in. The council just to clarify the requirement for engagement, even under a discretionary use, uh it is not a bylaw requirement to engage. However, it is always in the best interest of the applicant as well as the community members that are affected to engage with communities on any potential relaxations. It just causes a lot of trouble for them if they go to an appeal, and the demonstration that no um mitigation to to uh mitigate the effects of such a relaxation have been addressed. So um just to clarify that it's not a bylaw requirement to engage. Okay, thank you. Uh those are my questions. Okay, Councillor, you have moved the item. Is there a second or seconded by uh Councillor Atkinson? Any further debate on this? All right. Seeing no further debate, uh over to you close, Councillor Schmidt. Uh these ones are tough, especially for uh in this case for me, where I am where where I have the benefit of local area plans to guide us. And The the concerns of the community are real. Certainly, I think there are changes that we can make outside of this process. And I am encouraged by the engagement that even happened within council chambers today between those affected. And um we we we have a bit of a unique applicant here today as well who is. Has has more connection to the site and and to the surrounding community and has expressed a willingness to move forward in a collaborative way. And that requires trust. And so it you know however I do end up voting on this, um, you know, should should I support this in a few moments here? I think that would be an affirmation of the undertaking of the applicant to continue that trust and continue that relationship because we do need more housing. Killarney is An area that has become a place where young people, young families can get a start. A lot of park spaces, close to amenities. It gets you close to downtown. It decreases the cost of living because something we don't factor in when we talk about affordability is the external costs of living 30 kilometers from. Downtown from the amenities that our inner city offers is that you know, something that factored in for myself and my family when we uh d found our first place to live was the difference between owning one car or two cars and the ability to own one car was what allowed us to afford to live where we live, even on a Councillor's salary. So um This does provide that opportunity, and with some compromise along the way, which we've heard there's a willingness for, uh, I think that that opportunity can be provided to other people in the community. So I will be supporting this today with the caveat that I am expecting that trust and that relationship to continue from the applicant, even though that's not a requirement of this here today. It is part of uh the quote I used previously, George Costanza, we live in a society, so let's act as a society. Thank you, Councillor Schmidt. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote on the uh recommendation. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. And on that, the motion has been defeated, six to nine, with Councillor Schmidt, Kelly, Daliwell, Atkinson. Yule and tires in support and the remainder of post. Alright, we will move now to item 7.2.13. Cross out the bylaws. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. The next item on the agenda is a land use redesignation application to enable a mixed use development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before council is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 61D 2026 for the redesignation of 2208, 2212, 2216, 2220, and 2224, 37th Street, Southwest, from the multiresidential contextual low profile, or MC1 district, to the mixed use general, or MU1 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is also located in the community of Clarney Glengarry and falls within the plan area of the Westbrook Community's Local Area Plan, or LAP. Next slide, please. The subject site includes five parcels located on the east side of 37th Street, between 21st Avenue to the north and 23rd Avenue to the south. Each parcel is currently developed with a single detached dwelling and detached garage accessed from the rear lane. Next slide, please. Surrounding development consists of a mix of residential uses. 37th Street and 17th Avenue, located approximately three blocks to the north, are both neighborhood main streets and provide many commercial amenities and health services. Westbrook Mall and the Westbrook LRT station are also located approximately 650 meters or an eight minute walk north of the subject site. The subject parcels are currently designated as the MC1 district, which is primarily intended for multi residential development of low height and medium density. The maximum floor area ratio is 2.5 and the maximum building height is 14 meters. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the parcels to the MU1 district with a floor area ratio modifier of 4.0 and a maximum building height of 24 meters. The district is intended to accommodate a mix of residential and commercial uses, either in separate buildings or in the same building, and allows either residential or commercial uses to be located at grade facing a street. Next slide, please. The proposal is in alignment with the Westbrook Community's LAP, which identifies the site as being within the Neighborhood Connector Urban Form category. Neighborhood Connector is characterized by a broad range of housing types along higher activity streets that may accommodate small scale commercial uses. The LAP also identifies the site as having a low building scale, which allows up to six stories. Next slide, please. In closing, the proposed application would enable more housing choice and amenities in this inner city area that is well served by convenient transit options. Calgary Planning Commission recommends that Council give three readings to the proposed bylaw for the redesignation of the subject parcels. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Thank you. We will go to the public hearing. We have Colin Hetnyak signed up to speak first. Or rather, the applicant. Come on down. We've been seeing a lot of you guys today. Helmara Farkas and members of council. My name is Colin Netka. I'm an urban planner with O2 representing the property owner as the applicant. Today we are seeking your support for a land use redesignation for five parcels located in the community of Killarney, Glengarry, totally totaling approximately 0.3 hectares. The application proposes to redesignate the site to the mixed use general ME1 district with heightened density modifiers to accommodate development up to six stories. The proposal aligns with the policy direction of the Westbrook Community's local area plan. Next slide, please. The site is located along the neighborhood Main Street of 37th Street and just south of another Main Street, 17th Avenue. It benefits from strong connectivity with direct access to surrounding arterials, an internal laneway, and a north-south multi-use pathway adjacent to the site. The area is rich in amenities such as the Westbrook Shopping Center, which is located directly north of the site, offering a range of retail and everyday services, while Killarney Aquatic and Recreation Center is just east, approximately a 14 minute walk or a three minute drive. The site is also well served by transit, with the restbrook LRT station a nine minute walk away and the MAX bus route running along 37th Street. Next slide, please. This proposed land use change enables a future mixed-use development that would introduce new housing and potential neighborhood serving uses along 37th Street. The massing model illustrates a typical six story form consistent with MU1 setback rules. At grade, the district allows for either commercial or residential uses, providing flexibility to respond to market demand while supporting an active streetscape over time. Parking would be accessed from the rear lane, helping maintain a pedestrian-oriented public realm. Next slide, please. Under the local area plan, the site is designated as a neighborhood connector with low building scale modifier. This designation supports development up to six stories and encourages a mix of residential and commercial uses oriented towards the street. The proposed MU1 district and modifiers align with this direction, providing a flexible framework for future mixed use development consistent with the LAP vision. Next slide, please. The site is currently designated multi-residential contextual low profile. The proposed redesignation to the mixed-use General MU1 district would enable development up to six stories of the maximum floor area ratio of four. Next slide, please. As part of our engagement process, we met with the Killarney Glengarry Community Association, which expressed support for seeing commercial at grade. We installed on site signage as per City of Calgary notice posting requirements and hosted an in person public open house with postcards delivered to nearby residents inviting them to attend. Next slide, please. In summary, this application provides an opportunity to diversify housing options in an amenity-rich area, supports the neighborhood Main Street growth by enhancing the public realm and reinforcing a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Introduces the ME1 designation to support mixed use development with flexibility for either commercial or residential frontage at grade. And lastly, it aligns with the Restbrook community's LAP and broader city planning objectives, including focusing mixed use development near the primary transit network and neighborhood main streets. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, uh folks. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, uh, we will continue our public hearing. I believe we have uh Colin Sui on the line. Colin, are you with us? I am. Thank you. Please go ahead. You have Are you able to hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Um, unfortunately, I'm not there in person today, so I would just like to ask uh Madam Clerk that uh Clark, we have the uh presentation on on screen so I can synchronize with you. Yep, it's uh on the screen, but you'll be delayed if you're watching on the live stream. Yeah, I'm I'm just running it on my own, but thank you. Um so today I'm here to speak with uh mayor and honorable members of the council about my uh view on this particular application, and I am standing opposing it. I have three points I want to bring to you today. Number one is the inverted planning, and two is the difficult construction logistics on top of aging infrastructure, and three, how does this impact Salarian's long term housing diversity and affordability? Next slide, please. So I want to begin by directly quoting the LEP. So it says here we should avoid orphan parcels that would restrict the feasibility of redevelopment on adjacent properties. And this particular project does just that. And if we take a look on the right, this particular uh demonstration here showed directly from the LAP again, shows that the highest buildings are typically around the corners. Well, The lower buildings are kind of tapered off to the mid block. Now let's go to the next slide. Looking at the DP for the city of Calgary, I have highlighted, I have pointed to an arrow of this particular rezoning. And this is really the only mid block condo development that's currently active across Kilarani Richmond. And if we expand further, even in community bank view. Next slide, please. I took this picture yesterday, and that is the uh zone, uh the sites in question. And as you can see, there is already a uh six-door condo in development next to a uh townhouse that's on the corner, highlighting that this is going to be a mid block location. Um, these pictures are generated by AI, and it's um as AI to help put together some perspectives. On the left, we can see that if you were a resident of that townhouse, you walk out, you're immediately slanked by a giant condo on one side. And the picture on the right demonstrates how this condo might look like. Once it's completed at a mid-ball location. Unfortunately, trees come in the way, but it kind of shows you that it dwarfs everything that's around it. Next slide, please. Now, this is yet another AI generated image, and I took this picture myself with the building placed on top, and as you can see on the left, it creates a canyon effect. A singular townhouse that's kind of you know sandwiched between two large condos, and then we have one orphaned uh parcel of land uh to the other side, uh, ripping pretty much all of his redevelopment appeal for it you know to be next to a 24 meter tall condo uh apartment building. Next slide, please. Let's take a different look at what logistics and infrastructure is in this particular site. Picture on the left demonstrates that because it's in mid-block, we're not going to have access to a side street where we can do construction staging or material holding. Even if we were to assume that we're going to take half of the lane on 37th Street plus the back alley, we we'd really only have access to two tiny construction areas. And this really poses access risk and building risk. And on the right, uh, this is a picture from uh a screenshot from the uh the water pipes uh map from the city. And it shows that the pipe right in front of it is still from 1953 using cast iron. Now, I have let's go to the next slide. So we have 96 units already being built, and we're hoping to add 100 plus units on these five lots, and we have 200 units towards 26 staff on top of 70 year old water pipes. And I think everybody here can agree with me that we probably not want to see more water problems in the city. And let's go to the next slide. I want to finally talk about what this means for housing, affordability, and diversity. CMHC published a research a couple years ago and it describes a effect called filtering. Filtering describes the movement of housing supplies from higher income household to lower income household as new diverse supplies are built. CMHC found that building a balance of mixed, building a balanced mix of low, mid, and high cost housing units is the best strategy to improve affordability because it allows existing housing to move organically from one family to another. This particular project, now before I talk about this project, I also wanted to give some statistics from CMHC. In 2025, 464 housing starts happened in Killarney, of which 332 were apartments. Calgary has had five years of record breaking housing start driven by apartments. Killarney will only add to this trend if we add another fourth six story apartment within a floor block radius. By adding a vast amount of singular housing type, we break down the filtering fact that organically promotes affordability and housing transition. To learn as a community deserves more diverse housing for true long term affordability. Next slide, please. I I hope we are still in tank. This is a picture of a uh uh establishment that's near uh the community, and it shows that there's a commercial at the bottom and a residential on top, and this in my mind is the perfect diversity and housing um zoning that that we should have. Um finally go to the next slide. Um I just want to say that, you know, we likely will only be able to make this distinctive once. And I want to say let's not allow for the wrong type of density for the sake of density and consider how this kind of thing. That wasn't the final sentence. I sincerely asked for a no in your vote. Okay. Thank you very much uh for being with us. Uh any questions, colleagues? Seeing none, uh, we'll continue our public hearing. Is there anyone else uh who would like to speak to this item? Going once, going twice, last call. All right, we will now close the public hearing on 7.2.13. Uh can I go back to you, Councillor Schmidt? Uh yes, opened and I will uh save it for closed. All right, is there a seconder, please? Okay, seconded by uh Councillor Atkinson. Any debate on this? Uh I will throw myself in. Uh largely agree with the uh commentary from Planning Commission. If Council, we're not going to go with a blanket approach, we're really gonna have to focus on nodes and corridors. And if uh there was ever a node and corridor, it's uh it's this area with a strong application supported by the local area plan. So over to you, Councillor Schmidt. Yes, I'm uh 37th Street has seen a lot of change. Uh it's got the multi-use pathways. It's close to the Westbrook Sea train station, MAX bus lines. We've seen new commercial pop up as a result of the developments. Uh in fact, went to one of those places over the weekend myself, uh, which was a bit of a walk, but worthwhile, and it was a great neighborhood experience. I I would say this is LAP compliant as part of my argument, but the last one was too. Uh so uh that part is is a little bit confusing to me as far as what our decision making process is here as a council. However, uh taken alone. Uh this development is in a place where the type of individual who might find this to be an attractive place to live uh might not even have to own a car um and not to start any wars. But um there are this close proximity to many different ways of getting around to biking, to walking, to taking transit, and a place where Again, we need to encourage a diverse form of housing types like HGO and like this. So I would hope that this node and corridor is appropriate, perhaps for some reason contextually different than the last node and corridor that we just heard. So in any event, I will be supporting this one today because 37th Street has been successful so far, and this will add to that success. So I would hope folks would support this today. Yeah. All right. Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote. Councillor McLean, you vote. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On this, the motion is carried, 14 to 1, with uh Councillor Jameson opposed. Moving now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 61 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Jameson is opposed and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 61 D 2026, Councillor Jameson is opposed and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 61D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 61D 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Jameson is opposed, and that is carried. Alright, we will move now to 7.2.14. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. Hello, everyone. My name is Derek Pomeranki. I'm a senior planner with the planning department, and I'll be presenting the rest of the applications today. Item 7.2.14 is a land use amendment to allow for a place of worship in an industrial building. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you today is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 55D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 5325 1A Street Southwest from the Industrial Redevelopment or IR district to the Commercial Corridor 2 or C Corps 2 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the community of Manchester, which is sandwiched between McLeod Trail and the rail lines. This is approximately between 42nd and 58th Avenues. Manchester features an eclectic mix of small houses, large apartment buildings, and commercial and medical offices scattered throughout what is generally an industrial area. Next slide, please. Zooming in, we can see the site is a mid-block parcel on 1A Street, north of 53rd Avenue. It's currently developed with a two-story building that has served as the offices for both transit and bricklayers unions. Next slide, please. The surrounding development is generally characterized by a mix of industrial buildings shown in gray and commercial buildings shown in red and pink, with occasional housing scattered throughout shown in yellow. Land use districts to the east allow for high density residential, excuse me, to the west allow for high density residential and local commercial uses, while this site and the rest of 1A Street are zoned under the IR district, which is designed to support continued business operations and small scale redevelopment of these industrial parcels. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the site to the Commercial Corridor 2. It's the C Corps 2 district, which is which accommodates mixed use and commercial uses. And in particular, it accommodates the applicant's desired use of place of worship small. The proposed district can would allow for a maximum building height of 18 meters, that's up to about six stories, and a maximum building floor area ratio of 3.5. Next slide, please. The Chinook Community's Local Area Plan identifies the subject site as being part of the neighborhood Flex Urban Form category as shown on the left. It is also within an industrial transition area. Map four, the building scale on the right, identifies the site within the low height category, which allows for developments that are up to six stories. The proposed land use district allows for a mix of uses and up to six stories of height, which aligns with the plan's intent for this area. Next slide, please. In closing, this application proposes a land use district that allows for the intended use of place of worship and contains height and floor area modifiers that align with the local area plan and the municipal development plan. The Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you. Alright, uh, let's open up the public hearing. Do we have the applicant here with us on 7.2.14? Yeah, please come on down. Mayor, we have our consultant uh remotely as well. Uh he should be presenting first, and then we will be the next one. Thank you. Alright, so I believe I have Aman Hamid uh remotely. Thank you for uh for your time and thank you, Council, for uh being so pleasant throughout the day. Uh my name is Aman Hamid. I'm here to speak about the Manchester Land use amendment, uh, where we're proposing to rezone from IR to commercial corridor two. Um I'm not sure if the slide is up, so I'll just uh request that it's next slide, please. So we're just gonna go through the uh cable of contents. We'll go over the city administration support, our rationale, our site location, why this amendment matters, our engagement, and then the overall summary. Next slide, please. City administration is in support of our land use amendment. Ultimately, why does city administration support this use? It does fall within the municipal district plan, so underneath sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.8, it identifies a worship place of worship as a social infrastructure. We believe that it essentially is the glue that builds a complete and inclusive community. Specifically, the Shinook LAP. Explicitly identifies the subject site for commercial and residential uses supported by community facilities. And the C Dash C R2 C O R2 review, it's the most effective tool to achieve this by providing us a floor area density of 3.5 and an 18 meter height, which we believe is necessary to meet the city's intensification goals for this corridor. Next slide, please. A rationale, it was a strategic density. Why did we propose or pursue the 3.5 floor area ratio? We decided that it is in alignment with the site, with the city's long term vision for the Manchester Corridor. Again, specifically the Pia Shuna Community LAP explicitly identifies this area for high intensity commercial and residential growth to leverage the existing target infrastructure. And ultimately the 3.5 FAR is the specific density target required to achieve the planning objective. Again, these community and policy fit, the social infrastructure of the MDP, encourages places of worship as a vital social infrastructure that fosters inclusive and complete communities. Next slide, please. Again, site subject, it's about 0.06 hectares, point of 0.14 acres in size, and it's approximately 15 meters by 38 meters deep. As mentioned by city administration, the surrounding area is a combination of industrial and commercial development of one or two stories. This parcels are designated as DC control, are located across the lane. And the west to the to this building is a commercial corridor as well. Connectivity, there the site is located in proximity to transit options, including the Chinook LRT station, approximately 1200 meters away to the southeast, and there are bus stops Route 10 located within a short five minute walk to this subject site. Again, amenities, the site is located within a major activity center identified in the MDP, and it's about a 13 minute walk to the Chinook Center Mall. Next slide, please. Ultimately, we believe the LAP explicitly identifies the sites for the use that we're proposing alongside the social infrastructure that has been mentioned in the previous section. And ultimately, this is an area that is going through a bit of a transition away from heavy industrial towards mixed-use community support. Next slide, please. And all and what we believe is that this will be a catalyst for the overall community revitalization. Approving this land use amendment will further accelerate identified transition zones that Manchester falls within. We again believe the F the FAR provides the necessary floor area for the modern multi use story place of worship. uh which assembles halls and support offices without exceeding the 18 meter height limit. And ultimately city administration um does review has reviewed it and they determined it to be a good fit. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. We'll move to the other individuals here present in the chamber. Please approach. Thank you. Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor Jeremy Farkas, uh, members of council, and our fellow Algerians here. My name is Gilberto Anchetta. I'm representing our church, the Way Christian Vision Fellowship. I am serving as the planning coordinator for our church. Together with me are Pastor Armando Fontalera, the church senior pastor, and Brother Lenin Tadan, the head of our building ministry. We are the applicants in favor of this application. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today and present our church purpose and mission. The Way Christian Mission Fellowship was established as a church in the year 2001 by our senior pastor Armando Fontelera, together with his wife, Mercedita Fontelera, who is on the gallery right now. It started as a Bible study with five families and around 20 regular attendees. Over the years, the WAI has consistently grown its family and individual membership, which is now 75 families and 300 members in the Calgary area. The WAI has regular Sunday services on two locations in Calgary, North Central Area and South Area. Several doctor churches were planted as well and established over the last 25 years in the city of Brook, Medicine Hat, and Airdrie. As you can see on the screen, our mission statement is winning, building, training, and sending. This is further characterized on the chart on the left side, left hand side of the slide, and guided by the following scriptures. Witness in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria to the ends of the earth in Acts 1 8. Encourage one another and build each other up in 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 11. Equipped for every good work in 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 17. Go and make disciples of all nations in Matthew chapter 28, verse 19. Our church vision is pursuing excellence in ministering. We are guided by the great Uh, the scripture for the Great Commission in Matthew chapter 28, verse 19-20, which reads, Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age. We abide by the Great Commission in making disciples of all nations, that has been our purpose as we establish a place of worship to our neighbors and brethren in the Manchester community. Our church has several ministries and programs, as listed on the right hand side of the slide. Allow me to highlight a few of these, which is our purpose in the community. The family care program. A family is considered as a small unit of the congregation. We have seasoned members who guide and encourage new Christians in their spiritual walk with God. We share life testimonies and miracles, praying for one another as a body of Christ, experiencing the infilling of the Holy Spirit and leading a life of spiritual strength and maturity. The seniors support program, where we conduct church services in three seniors' homes in Calgary. The Youth Development and Mentorship Program, which is very much needed in our city today. We have the Young Adults Professional Guidance Program, the Professional Volunteer Service Program, the Health, Wellness, and Hospital Visitation Program, where we provide comfort, encouragement, and pray for our physically challenged and sick brethren. We also have the new immigrants assistance program, the homeless feeding program, which we do occasionally. And lastly, the counseling and healing ministry, where we provide counseling about marriage, depression. Addiction, mental health, among other needs of our community. Our church, pastoral, and ministry team are committed to continue and fulfill our calling and our purpose as Christ's ambassadors in this world, particularly in the city of Calgary and in specific community of the Manchester area. We hope and pray that our listeners today would appreciate and support our church mission and how this will benefit the community. In alignment with the city's direction, that the development of places of worship are encouraged by the Municipal Development Plan as places of community congregation and contribute to the goal of building an equitable, diverse, and inclusive Calgary. The MDP recognizes these places as vital components of complete community. Thank you very much and looking forward to your support and favorable response. God bless you, and we are happy to answer some of your questions. Thank you so much. Any questions for this presenter? Okay, seeing none. The other two guests that we have with you, would you like to speak as well, or are you just here for support? I support that uh you will approve our zoning approving. Thanks. Uh thanks so much for being here. I am very much uh Yeah, please approach and just uh let us know who we're who you are. uh I've been here in uh in uh uh Calgary for 35 years and uh I crossed over from uh Los Angeles and I found that Alberta is the uh wash the uh Bible belt of Canada. And I am very much uh uh uh challenged uh to make sure that uh uh uh name of Alberta uh stays on, and I praise God. Thank you. And and what's your name if I don't if you don't mind me asking? Armando Fontalera. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much, Amanda. All right. Is there anyone else who would wish to speak to this? All right, uh hearing none, we will close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Clark? Yeah, um happy to move this. Um it's a very interesting area, Manchester, with its uh close connections. I think both administration and the uh And the uh person supporting these folks in their application highlighted a number of changes that we're beginning to see in the area. So happy to move this. Hope I can find a second. All right. Move moved by Councillor Clark, seconded by Deputy Mayor Chabot. I am gonna ask a question, and I I'm sorry for not uh providing this uh previously. Uh this is sort of in that dead zone of the two stops on the red line where I think it was contemplated at least on the the previous council I sat on for the infill station uh near where Nmax was. Is this a live discussion? And I'm sorry I'm asking this on the fly, but uh are we looking at building that station still, or is it very much a extreme stretch goal if suddenly we found money after we had fully built the green line and blue line to the airport and everything else? Shane Libatilla, Development Engineering, to the chair. Um, we did discuss that um back in the day, uh for sure. When you're around, there's been no further discussions on that beyond general policy saying um this is something we should look more into. Okay. All right, thank you very much. Uh Councillor Penazopoulos on this, please. A really quick comment. Uh council excuse me, Commissioner Montgomery said uh quote, this application highlights the need to look at how places of worship are integrated into the land use bylaw. We have a lot of conversations about educational spaces, park spaces. Maybe just administration speak to that. Um we've seen, you know, some some schools trying to come into industrial and and just just maybe overall that strategy and how it uh sort of fits in. This one just jumped up at me, the one commissioner's comment. Thank you. Yeah, it's an interesting it's an interesting problem that we face, which is that there's plenty of uses which have large land requirements, they have large parking requirements, and they're looking for they're often not run by nonprofits or places that don't make a lot of money. So they're searching for where can we find affordable land. Um so these would be things like you said, like schools, they can be places of worship. And what they often find is a lot of more the more affordable land tends to be industrial because it has it's less desirable for uh uh residential or commercial or other institutional uh purposes. But that has the effect of crowding out. Industrial uses. It has the effect of introducing conflicting users, such as the school that we looked at, perhaps in the heavier industrial area. So in administration, we're trying to strike a balance. Some uses are listed. For instance, the industrial general district allows for place of worship large, but it does not allow for place of worship small or medium. So that's why we end up with an interesting application like that's before you today, which we're trying to get a small or a medium use into an industrial area. In this case, we found the most appropriate land use district is C Core one, and that's because this industrial area is in that process of long term transition. Okay, I was just gonna ask that that that school just spooked me because that long term transition. So there's the belief that over time this yeah, this is a natural progression, if you will. Um m m yeah, it it's not an inappropriate place obviously to uh to put a place of worship and bring people on a on a Sunday and other days uh through the industrial side. I would I would say that this area is predominantly designated under the Industrial Redevelopment District, which promotes uh that transition. Other industrial areas perhaps not so much. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, back to you, Councillor Clerk. Yeah, close. Thank you. All right, Madam Clerk, let's please engage the U vote. Councillor Kelly is absent. Councillor Johnston, your vote please? Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please uh display the results. Alright, that motion is carried 14 to 0. I'll move now to the reading. So first reading of bylaw 55 D 2026, anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 55 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 55 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 55 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move on to item 7.2.15, land use amendment in Burns Industrial Ward 9. Thank you, Mayor. Uh let's do this again. Item fifteen is a l another land use reset redesignation to allow for a place of worship in an industrial building. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 59D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 6010 12th Street Southeast from the Industrial Commercial or IC District to a direct control district based on the existing IC district. Next slide, please. This subject site is located in the Southeast community known as the Burns Industrial Park. This puts us to the west of Deerfoot Trail and it's just north of the interchange with Glenmore. Next slide, please. The site consists of a single parcel accessed from 12th Street Southeast, which is on the west. Surrounding land uses are industrial developments shown in gray under the IC district, such as the self-storage business to the north, and there are also commercial developments to the west shown in pink under the IB district, which are an industrial office park. Next slide, please. This site is developed with an existing two story building with two distinct portions, one to the north, and then a second portion of the building extending to the south. The north portion is the office for Crystal Creek Homes, which is visible while you're driving south on Deerfoot. This application proposes to use the southern portion of the building for a place of worship. Next slide, please. To achieve this goal, the applicants, excuse me, the app this application proposes to redesignate the site to a direct control district, which is based on the site's existing industrial commercial or IC district. The DC differs from the base district only through the addition of two discretionary uses, place of worship small and place of worship medium. Neither of these uses exist in the base district, and the applicant's need is close to the difference between them, so we've added both of these sizes so as to support changes over time and to accommodate minor changes in the size of the use. While the municipal development plan discourages places of worship from being located in industrial areas, we believe that the current uses in the area will be unaffected by the introduction andor expansion of this use. Next slide, please. For those reasons, the Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you. Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Do we have our applicant here with us? Come on down. We're in the home stretch. Thank you so much for waiting. Good day, Mayor and Council. My name is Andrew Ling, and together my wife and I, pastor our church, the Father's House, I'm here to speak in support of this land use amendment. I'd also like to say thank you, all of you, for your service to this great city and its residents. As a born and raised Calgarian, it's an honor to be speaking with you in these council chambers here today. I believe we all have something in common. We all love this city. We believe the welfare of the city helps determine the welfare of its people. And we love the people of our city and want to see them prosper in every arena of life. And we know that takes intentionality. There are many challenges, especially for the youth and young people, the next generation, which is quickly becoming the now generation. Economic pressures, mental health challenges, with anxiety and depression, uncertainty about their future, all of which can lead our young people to try and cope with alcohol, drugs, and isolation. With the completion of this project, we'll be able to impact more people in our community with a message of hope. To walk alongside these people and their families in some of the hardest seasons of life. Whether that's a meal for someone struggling with food insecurity, a new pair of shoes for a child in foster care, or a connection point for people to gather together to know that they're not alone and they have people surrounding them who believe in them. These are the future leaders of our city who are taught to respect and appreciate those in authority, those with hope that they can make a positive difference in the world around them. We love this city as you all do, and we are excited to be a part of its healthy growth and future success in partnership together. Therefore, I respectfully ask Council to support this motion. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone for the applicant? Okay, seeing none. Uh thank you so much for your kind words, Pastor. All right. Uh anyone else wishing to speak uh as part of the public hearing? All right. Hearing none, we shall close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Clark? Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. Um, I don't know that we'll do too industrial to small places of worship many more times in the near future, back to back like that. That was incredible. Um, glad to open. Uh, similar scenario here. We're seeing uh what I have described as legacy industrial or transitioning industrial uh take on new forms. Here are a couple of examples, one after the other, uh, open. Thank you. Move by Council Clark, second by uh Deputy Mayor Chabot. Yeah, just uh briefly I was just looking over this site. We talk about industrial and whether or not these kind of uses are appropriate for these kind of locations. I used to u run a shop here called Martin Electronic Marketing Corporation at 5920 12th Street. So I do know that it's On that parcel nearby. no just uh yeah, just a couple of doors down. So uh I do know the location and that this is in fact very suitable for that location. It's not heavy industrial, very light industrial. Um I was running an electronics uh component distribution business in that location, so very very suitable for that type of use. So happy to support it. All right. Uh any further discussion? Okay. I'll uh I'll just briefly enter debate and I it from my perspective it makes a lot of sense. Uh I was I get a lot of opportunities to crisscross uh the cities visiting various places of worship. And one of the pieces that uh was suggested to me is most of these locations or the zonings in place were very residential focused. And what they're finding is that bit quite a bit more demand, proximate to jobs and employment, where it's a little bit more convenient. Um, not just uh close to where people live, but also after work in the area nearby. So it makes sense for these types of uses to be uh scattered throughout the city rather than just ultra concentrated in residential areas. So with that back to you, uh Councillor Clark. Yeah, happy to uh support this application and uh hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you. All right, that is closed. Uh Madam Clerk, let's please engage the evo. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 0. Alright, I'll move to the readings. First reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 59 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move to 7.2.16 policy amendment in Ogden Ward 9. Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.16 is a standalone policy amendment to allow for a four unit row house with four basement suites. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 13P 2026 to amend the Millican Ogden Area Redevelopment Plan. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the southeast community of Ogden. This is just north of Glenmore Trail and about two blocks west of Ogden Road. The site is one kilometer or a 15-minute walk from the South Hill Green Line Station, which will be across Glenmore to the southeast. And it's about 1.5 kilometers or a 20 minute walk from the Commercial Plaza on 18th Street, where the safeway is. Next slide, please. This site is a corner parcel at the corner of 80th Avenue and 24th Street Southeast, and it is currently developed with a single detached house and a detached garage accessed off the rear lane. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses are low density residential development shown in yellow and orange, with orange representing semi-detached dwellings. Due north of the site in blue is a fire station, and due east in pink is the Glenmore Inn. Next slide, please. This application proposes to amend the Milliken Ogden Area Redevelopment Plan to support the development of row houses, townhouses, and duplex dwellings on the subject site. Specifically, the amendment would revise Map 5 of the ARP by changing the land use classification of the site from low density conservation to low or medium density multi dwelling residential. In addition, this amendment proposes to change section 3.4.3 to allow for a maximum density of 75 units per hectare, which is consistent with the RCG district in the land use bylaw. We do have a development permit application under review on the site. It proposes the development of a four unit row house with rear lane access and a grade oriented design consistent with the intent of the proposed policy amendments. Next slide, please. In closing, these amendments would align the ARP with the intent and the regulations of the RCG district, which support a variety of grade oriented housing forms. Calvary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you. Thank you. Let's uh open up the public hearing. Do we have the applicant here with us? six so didn't come down to chambers today. Um but I'm just here to answer any questions if council has any. Thank you. Thanks. And that's uh Sean Tyson who was just speaking. Okay. Thank you. Please stand by. Don't think we have any questions for you. Thank you so much. Uh anyone else wish to speak as part of the public hearing? All right, we shall close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Council Clerk? Yes. Well it wouldn't be a public hearing if we weren't in Ogden for at least a moment. Um I know. so I've spoken with the community association uh president uh regarding this application. Um I did uh I meant to RTS but sort of missed my opportunity to speak with the applicant there, but uh No, actually, we have the opportunity to recall the applicant. Yeah, could we please? I just want to ask one question. Madam Clerk, this is the first time we've done that. I do apologize. How do we do this? Remind me. I'm actually going to the section myself. So the chair may recall the proponent or the applicant or other speakers to allow council to ask additional questions of clarification. Recalling the proponent or other speakers may only be done while the public hearing is open. Oh only while it's open. So we've closed. We've closed it um Would you like to reopen it? Let's uh reopen the public hearing. So for reopening the public hearing, we would require either unanimous consent or a majority vote to reopen the public hearing which has been concluded so long that it is reopened in the same meeting. So no issues with that. Colleagues, any objection to reopening the public hearing to hear from the applicant? Assuming you're still with us, Sean. Yes, I'm still here. All right, uh seeing no objection, we've reopened the public hearing. You are up, and I'm acknowledging Councillor Clark here for some questions. Sorry, we were we're kind of chomping at the bit, uh, but I don't want to rush you along. Uh Well, that's true. And uh Sean, you're not here. And I'm so I apologize for this like added tension now of sort of calling you back for the most important question. Just one, but it's a fundamental one. Um Yeah, no problem. And uh no, like I say, I I've spoken with the community association about this. We see no real concern coming from uh very vocal public uh in community there. So just wondered if you could chat a little bit about your uh consultation, what that's looked like with community on this file. Uh uh with community they were a little bit worried about shadowing which was fair enough and so I tried to follow just height restrictions and also worried about parking which I think on a corner lot you have more than say uh an inner interior So essentially I'm hoping with the floor car garages that that can kinda help with that and then also with the green light seat train coming in that's hopefully that'll take away a little bit of the traffic and essentially yeah, so I sat down with them in front of the in front of the lot and you know, we had a good chat and about anything I could do I would would do, but also just try to follow city bylaw and Yeah. go from there really. Okay, great. Yeah, thank you very much. Like um, like I said, I just wanted to touch base on that. It's been a a rather engaged community, and so it is on a corner lot, like you said. Uh and this is great. Thanks again. Okay. All right. Thank you so much, uh, Councillor Clark. Thank you, Sean, for being with us. Seeing no other questions, I will now close the public hearing. Okay, back to you, Councillor Clark. Uh yeah, so in the instance of a of a sort of end of block scenario here, we've heard from the applicant, I've heard from community. Um, this is uh something I'm happy to uh support and and uh hope my colleagues will join me. Thank you very much. All right, that's uh been moved by Council Clark and opened. Uh may I have a second or please? Councillor Brandisopoulos. Any further debate on this? Okay. Seeing none, back to you, Council Clark. Close. Okay. Um Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please, on the recommendation. Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously, 15 to 0. We'll move now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that's carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 13P 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right, let's move to 7.2.17, land use amendment in Maple Ridge Ward 11. Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.17 is a land use amendment to allow for a temporary outdoor storage yard that is not intended to compromise the future developability of the area. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 60 D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 10411 15th Street Southeast from the Special Purpose Urban Nature or SUN District to a direct control district which is based on the special purpose future urban development district. Next slide, please. This subject site is located in the southeast community of Maple Ridge. This site is situated between the Bow River on the east and Deerfoot Trail to the west. And the site is accessed off of 15th Street Southeast, which is connected to the easternmost end of Southland Drive. Next slide, please. This site is approximately three hectares in size and is directly adjacent to the south end of Sioux Higgins Park. It's an off leash dog park. This site is currently vacant, though it appears that it was previously used as a driving range. Next slide, please. This site along with Sioux Higgins Park are designated as the Special Purpose Urban Nature SUN District. Across Deerfoot Trail to the west you can see Maple Ridge Golf Course under the SR Recreation District. And to the south of this site is large vehicle servicing under the Future Urban Development District. Next slide, please. The site's existing SUN district is intended to preserve the existing characteristics of natural areas and to provide for natural landforms, vegetation, and wetlands, if any. So through this application, we conducted a biophysical impact assessment. It was provided to us to determine if there were any elements of ecological importance, and it was confirmed that any wetland that existed on this site was infilled in the late 80s. And there's nothing on this site which would qualify as environmental reserve. Next slide, please. So, this application proposes to redesignate the site to a direct control district based on the future urban development district. The SFUD district is intended for land that is awaiting urban development and servicing, and it allows for a limited range of uses that can easily be removed prior to future development. This DC differs from the base district through the additional discretionary use of storage yard, and it also includes screening and setback requirements to provide appropriate interfaces with any adjacent properties. Next slide, please. The Heritage Community's Local Area Plan identifies this site as a comprehensive planning site, and it envisions some kind of mixed-use development in the future. The LAP doesn't have much else to say for this site, but it does allow for small scale redevelopment in advance of a comprehensive development plan. And so we believe that this is an appropriate interim use of the land. Next slide, please. In closing, this application is in keeping with relevant city policies and it provides the opportunity for interim uses prior to future redevelopment. The Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends council's approval. Thank you. Thank you for that. We will open up the public hearing and call down the applicant, please. Good evening, Mayor Parkas and members of council. My name is Amelia Iwanicki, and I'm with BA Studios, and I'm joined in the gallery by Jamie Cooper with Remington and Kathy Oberg from BA Studios, and we are here today to speak in support of this application. The subject site was acquired by Remington in 2016 from the city following closure of the driving range. The site was sold to Remington with the long term intention of developing a comprehensively planned mixed use community. Since that time, the province has expropriated portions of the south lands required for the Deerfoot Trail improvements, and as a result, Remington's previous plans for the area need to be reconsidered. The proposed direct control bylaw represents a practical interim solution for the lands that have sat vacant for over 10 years. It enables productive use of unserviced land while recognizing that longer term urban development is an option in the future. The proposed temporary storage uses are low impact, compatible with surrounding conditions, and can be implemented easily without precluding future comprehensive planning. Thank you to administration for your collaboration and to council for your consideration of this application. We are available if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. Don't see any questions, but uh we'll continue the public hearing. Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this? Alright, seeing none, uh we will close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Ward? Yep, glad to move it. All right, uh move by Councillor Ward, seconded by Come on, Councillor Yule. All right. Uh any debate or discussion on this? Back to you, Councillor Ward, if you want to close. Yeah, closed. Alright, I'm clerk, let's engage the U vote, please. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Alright, please display the results. Alright, that motion is carried unanimously, 15 to 0. We'll now read the bylaw. All right. First reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 60 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right. Uh colleagues, we have two more land use items and then the urgent business on the waterboard. Just trying to manage staff behind the scenes. Uh are you guys okay with us pushing through to conclude this meeting rather than having the one hour? Or we have three more. line use items, I apologize. Are you guys okay though with us pushing through and concluding this meeting and not taking the hour 15? Okay. As long as we have dinner at the end. All right, Councillor Shabot. Madam Clerk, uh I'll have maybe the team can prepare that procedural motion, but we can start on the uh we'll we'll start on the next land use item 7.2.18 land use amendment in mahogany ward twelve. Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.18 is a land use amendment to allow for six-story mixed-use development near the edge of a developing community. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 62D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 1236, 1251, and 1325 Mahogany Boulevard Southeast from the multi residential low profile or M1 district and a direct control district to the mixed use general or MU1 district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the far southeast in the community of Mahogany, in the south central portion of the community. This application includes three parcels which straddle Mahogany Boulevard, which is the main interior collector through the community. The site also sits at the southern entrance to the community from Rangeview Boulevard. Next slide, please. In total, the three sites are about seven hectares in size. They are graded vacant sites ready for development. The northernmost parcel borders the Alorenshaw Ranch, which is the historic homestead of the property owners since the early 1900s. The two southern parcels are separated by Mercado Street Southeast, which will serve as a main connector between Mahogany Boulevard and the major road of Rangeview Boulevard to the south. Next slide, please. These photos are taken from Mahogany Boulevard looking south across the site towards Rangeview in the distance on the left, and looking north at the Ola Renshaw Ranch to the north, with the northernmost parcel on the right side of that image. Next slide, please. These photos show the scale of the southern parcels looking north from both the far west and the far eastern boundary of the site. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses are predominantly low density residential to the east and to the northwest. Land use districts to the north allow for suitable use of the ranch as well as school reserve under the SSPR district. Immediately west of the site is an MG parcel for townhouses, and to the south will be a community commercial center under the CC1 district. Next slide, please. The North Parcel is currently designated as Multiresidential Low Profile or M1 district, which would allow for three to four story apartments. The two South Parcels are designated as a direct control district based on the Commercial Corridor 1 district. C Corps 1 allows for a wide variety of commercial uses with residential above, and it has a maximum height of 15 meters or about three to four stories. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate all three parcels to the mixed-use general or MU1 district with a floor area ratio of 3.5 and a maximum building height of 26 meters. This would allow for up to six stories of development as opposed to the three to four allowed under the existing uses, and it also allows for a wide variety of commercial uses with residential above similar to what is currently allowed. Next slide, please. The area structure plan for the area is the 2007 Mahogany Community Plan. This plan projects a population of about 21,000 people at full buildout, and it provides them with a large scale commercial center to the west and a smaller village area to the south. The village area is intended to accommodate a mix of transit supportive uses, which does necessitate a certain level of residential density. The village area includes these three sub areas shown on the screen. The northern parcel, subject to this application, is within the green historic area, which is intended to support the educational and agricultural aspects of the Ola Renshaw Ranch, but it also envisions a multi-residential complex for seniors as well. The south parcels border Mikado Street, which is the neighborhood corridor of the area. This means development of these parcels should support the commercial function of the street while transitioning to the lower density, purely residential uses that surround it. This application overall has been determined to be consistent with the goals of the community plan. Next slide, please. In closing, this application allows for a moderate change in building scale that supports the ultimate objectives of the local area plan. Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends Council's approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's uh now open up the public here. I believe we have our applicant. Good evening, Mayor, members of council. My name is Jack Model with BNA Studios. I'm joined by Kathy Oberg in the gallery and also by Allison Clark of Section 23 Online. Alison was making her way over here. We were surprised with how efficiently Council moved through those last four or five items. So I'm hoping she can join or she will call in. I have a presentation as well. Okay. So in the interest of time, I appreciate you're pushing through dinner, so I will keep it brief and maybe skip to the high points of the presentation. Next slide, please. So, as noted, the uh the application is for three parcels of land in the south of Mahogany. Um, it's just to the south of Mahogany Boulevard, uh, as well as the uh historic Ole Rancho Ranch site, which is also owned by Section 23, but is not part of this application. Uh, it's surrounded by some portions of low residential, uh low density residential that are already developing, as well as future development to the east and south. There's also also currently an application to the south for commercial lands as part of the village center. Next slide, please. So the land use proposed is mixed use one with a floor area ratio of three and a half and a density of 26 meters, which as mentioned allows for up to up to six stories. For the two parcels on the south, this is really just a modernizing of the existing direct control district, which was a precursor to the MU1 district, which didn't exist at the time. So we're replacing a DC with the standard MU1, and we are increasing the height slightly, and I'll go into a little bit of detail about why that is. Next slide, please. So, why the land use change? In reality, this is intended to support the development of the village center in alignment with the original vision through the mahogany community plan. As section 23 already has a development permit in for the southeast portion, this is intended to bring to life the mixed-use walkable street with retail along Mercado Street, services at street level, and residential above. The additional height up to six stories is to allow to more marketable and more developable type of mixed use, which we're seeing that the three and four stories is really hard to bring to market and hard to get the rooftops to support the commercial ad grade. Next slide, please. As mentioned, it aligns with the policies of the Mahogany Community Plan for the village center. Next slide, please. And this is a conceptual rendering of the site at development. You can see in the southeast corner we've included the portion of the site that already has an active development permit by section 23. We want to try to keep to the land use details at this stage, but we're bringing forward additional details through the development permit that's forthcoming for the rest of the site as well. So ground floor shops and services, a mix of different housing for life stages, public places running through the center of the site, in addition to adequate street parking and at grade parking, underground parking for the multi residential above. Next slide, please. As mentioned, this has been fully reviewed through the city's process, including a transportation impact assessment. Overall, density and mahogany has gone up and down with various applications, including an application to the east, which I brought forward to council a couple years ago to down zone the multi residential, and also a downzoning that recently was brought forward in the TOD area to the north. Next slide, please. So, as part of this application, we did engage with the community. We held a public open house. We also met with the mahogany CA and HOA. Primarily, what we heard through the actual open house session was interest in understanding what types of commercial amenities were going to be provided here. I think that as we provided more details getting into the development permit level, people started to understand the vision of what was being brought forth and how it aligned with the Mahogati Community Plan. So I'm here to answer any questions. Great. Uh colleagues, any questions for the applicant? Councillor Jameson, please. Coming. So there was some density concerns. Um, and I know it was a kind of a a mixed bag of concerns that uh maybe even even some confusion uh about the ranch, confusion about a 15 story building and and all kinds of other stuff that was that was being uh discussed. Can you just kind of get into some of the density concerns and how you address them? Because that that was one of the big issues. Through the chair, thanks for the question. Prior to conducting our open house, we were informed by our file planner that we had received letters of opposition. And one of the most significant concerns was density, obviously, along with that also comes parking and traffic. I think as we uh as we went through the open house process, the number of people that attended the open house was was quite high, and we were excited to have that engagement. But I as I mentioned, I think some of the concerns were maybe a misunderstanding of what density would actually be proposed on the site. Also, that it might have included the Ola Rancha Ranch and other portions of the site that weren't actually part of the application. Generally speaking, this aligns with what was initially intended for this area of the plan. It does increase some density, specifically on this site. But as I mentioned, things have been moved around a little bit in mahogany, especially with some lower density product to the east. And so I think this is really the best place to focus some of that density. But overall, the density level in mahogany has remained about the same. And after that uh consultation, do you do you feel that the uh parking um issue has been um sufficiently uh addressed with with the community? Thanks for the question. I think parking is one of the ones that we can most adequately address, especially through the development permit that's come forth for the Southeast site. The requirement for parking for the dwelling units under the bylaw is actually only about 0.65 per unit, and we're providing almost double that. That's just only in the underground parking. We'll also be providing angled parking on street, and we'll be providing additional above grade parking to serve the shops. Our experience has been that although there's no minimum parking requirement for commercial in the bylaw, it's really important to bring those vehicles to the front of shops in order for them to survive. So we think that we're able to address that, especially through the details that are coming forward. Yeah, that yeah, you're you're I think you're 1.1 or 1.2 vehicles per unit. Yeah, which which is is actually that's really fantastic. Um th there was there was some opposition, but you did have engagement. You had an open house. There was um uh people that attended the open house, and then after that communication, where you explained that there was already a proposed up to four stories, and this is what you're changing it to. Um I I think um can you clarify like how how much opposition was it after that communication and and after you guys described what was actually going to be going there? Thanks for the question. It's a challenging one because I guess when we do engagement, our goal isn't to satisfy necessarily everyone because we we can't. But I believe that we were able to clarify and answer a lot of questions at the open house. I think that there were obviously a lot of interested parties, and I think there's there's some component of the challenge that that uh arises through the the way the notice postings are put on site in the city of Calgary. Um it it creates a vision of the maximum potential possible on this site. Um, but once we showed that we are planning on thoughtfully designing this and not necessarily building to the max at every corner, um, I think that helped to assuage some concerns. Thank you. Thank you, uh Councillor Penisopoulos, please. Just picking up on uh Councillor Jameson's uh uh 95 letters of opposition. So that probably would have come from the public session to to Maeve. If if you could summarize, you know, what their concerns with the mahogany community plan? If if you could just that's a big number. Yeah, thanks for the question. My understanding is the majority of the letters of opposition were received through the circulation process before the open house. As the applicant, we don't always get directly forwarded every letter. Our file planner summarizes the concerns and passes those on to us. So I'm not sure if some of those may have been sort of duplicate concerns or similar concerns. I would say that the main concerns were about density, height, shadowing, and parking and traffic, of course. Those are all the very common concerns that we hear when we're proposing additional density. I think that we were able to address all of those in some way. I don't know if all of those residents were necessarily satisfied, but I suppose we're happy to continue the dialogue through the development permit stage as well. I have a sense the administration mentioned the mahogany community plan, and I just pulled it up 21,000 uh residents was the goal. With this density and sort of the growth, how how are we trending towards that ultimate plan for the community? Thanks for the question. I've had several applications in mahogany over the years, and I've been tasked with monitoring and analyzing where density is at. Really challenging to do given the number of different developments that are actively building out, especially in the TOD area. Obviously, there's been some areas at the northern portion of the community that have developed at significantly higher density, like Westmond Village. And there's a lot of different development areas that are currently under active development permit around that area that are coming out higher as well. But there's also several that I've worked on personally that have downzoned across the southeast portion and in the central portion as well. So I can't say for sure that it comes out in the wash, but I say it's it's approximately on target. Got it, got it. A lot can change in 20 years, I guess, you know, the plan. Uh you made a comment about the I think you said the the economics of the commercial, the village space. You need that density. Uh but when the plan was made, that level of density wasn't required. So what in your judgment has changed? You know, when they contemplated it, they thought a certain level of density could support the village, and now you're saying not. Just people are spending less? What's what's the thought to support that commercial? What changed? Yeah, that's another great question. As you say, a lot can change in 15, 20 years since the land use and the outland plan were originally approved. We've learned a lot, and I don't mean just us as a company, but as a development industry, about what works of uh in terms of mixed use development. And actually, I have some slides just in case this came up. Can we forward on to slides? Uh it's very small. I'm not really sure if it's going to be helpful, but we did look at a lot of precedent examples across the city and specifically in mahogany at Westman Village. The types of density that can actually support activation in terms of a main street that has commercial, that thrives, that doesn't, you know, start up and just kind of die out over time. Um, it's really challenging within the mixed-use district. It requires a lot out of the commercial uses at grade. It requires them to be small, it requires them to have frequent entrances. There are a lot of commitments that a retail unit has to make in order to sort of fit within MU1. And so that also comes with uh other challenges like high rental rates and high turnover. So we find that it's really important to have the rooftops above, in addition to uh you know actual street parking in front of the retail in order to drive the commercial to those units and keep them thriving. I guess also six story is the maximum wood frame that you can do currently in Alberta with concrete base for uh retail at grade. So it it's sort of an economic threshold as well in terms of making the finances make sense. Maybe finally at 7.2.1 we uh approved to develop an area uh twenty thirty-two point six uh units per hectare. Uh this area, what would be that same formula calculation that's proposed here? Um, thanks for the question. I have a hard time working in units per hectare. Okay. I believe that was about 13 units per acre. Beg your pardon? I think that was 13 units per acre, and I think mahogany, I was actually here for that, and I was thinking of mahogany as an example because mahogany has targeted 13 units per acre since its inception, and that's roughly where it's headed. Almost identical. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, uh I may have actually been overly optimistic here. Should I talk less? No, no, it's no, it's it's it's not your fault, Chuck. Uh I may have been overly optimistic here. We have this item and we have two more items requiring public hearing and uh what could potentially be the lengthy uh waterboard um item. Is there anyone brave enough to move a motion to suspend the procedure bylaw to continue pushing through now, or is the will of council to take the break? Can can I Yeah, Councillor Jameson. um Jump in. Well, I could propose that we shorten the break. Yep, that's also an option. Like I I propose that we shorten it to a half an hour. Okay. Okay, Councillor Jameson is uh Madam Clerk, I believe it's a suspension of the procedure bylaw to alter the duration of the dinner recess. If we're going to keep the recess, we don't need to suspend the rules. It'll just be a motion to modify the dinner recess from the 75 minutes to the 30. All right, so Councillor Jameson has moved to modify the duration of the dinner recess from 75 minutes down to 30. Let's move move by Councillor Jameson. That's been seconded by Councillor McLean. Any debate on that? All right, seeing none, I'm gonna just I'm gonna call for a quick voice vote. All in favor. Any opposed? All right, seeing none, that is carried. We'll be back. Uh continue the public hearing at 6 32. Uh welcome back to Calgary City Council. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. On the roll, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnson, Councillor Kelly, Present. Councillor McLean, Councillor McLean, Here. Councillor Pantasopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Shaboth, Present. Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywal, and Mayor Farkas. Present. Thank you, Mayor. All right, we're still in the public hearing for 7.2.18. We just heard from Mr. Model. Uh colleagues, any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, uh any other speakers for this item? Any other members of the public? Going once, going twice, three times. All right, we will close the public hearing. Can I go to you, Councillor Jameson? Open. All right, uh that's been moved by Councillor Jameson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Chabot. Any further debate or discussion on this? Seeing none, uh back to you to close, Councillor. Um Yeah, well, you know what, for any Ward 12 residents watching, uh thank you for participating and being engaged in the process. I think that a lot of the concerns that were raised um were were mitigated by um the applicant. And I also want to thank the applicant for uh engaging with the community the way you did and uh responding to those concerns in a meaningful way. From what I've heard today, there was a genuine engagement. Adjustments and clarifications were made, and administration has confirmed that it does align with the community plan. No development application is ever without concerns, but I believe this application has gone through a thoughtful process and I will be supporting it. Thanks. All right, uh, Madam Clerk, let's please engage the vote. Councillor Clark, your vote please. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. All right. Please just sorry. One moment, Mayor Farkas. All the votes are in. Thank you. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried unanimously, 14 to 0. I'll move now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 62D 2026. Anyone opposed? Sorry, point of something. Yeah, that went awry. Okay. The the display did. Um, Mayor Farkas, as the display went up, it certainly looked different, but I can confirm that it was the motion was carried 14 to 0 with Councillor Schmidt being absent. Certainly happy to recast it, but the vote was concluded in a correct way. Okay, colleagues, we we heard that the the votes were cast and they were recorded with a unanimity, uh, 14 to 0 with Councillor Schmidt absent. And based on that, uh we're I'm gonna proceed to the first readings. Red started to the first reading of bylaw 62D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 62d 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 62d 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 62d 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. We will move now to 7.2.19, land use amendment and bend a poor ward 14. Thank you, Mayor. Item 7.2.19 is a land use amendment to allow for multi-residential development. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 48D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 15307 1st Street Southeast from the special purpose Future Urban Development, or SFUD district, to the Multi-Residential Contextual Low Profile, or MC1 district. Next slide, please. This subject parcel is located in the southeast community of Midnipur. This is east of McLeod Trail and north of Mid Lake Boulevard Southeast, which travels across McLeod Trail. The site is 1.2 kilometers or a 17 minute walk to either the Fish Creek Station to the northwest or the Shaughnessy Station to the southwest. Next slide, please. The subject site is a mid-block parcel currently occupied by a single detached house and a detached garage accessible from both a front drive and a rear lane. Next slide, please. This image shows the front of the property from First Street. Next slide, please. And this image shows the rear of the property from the lane. Please note the three story apartment building on the left of the image. Next slide, please. Surrounding land uses are single-detached housing to the south and to the east, shown in yellow, and there's multi-residential development to the north and west as shown in brown. Nearby commercial uses are shown in red and pink. Next slide, please. This subject site is currently designated as the special purpose future urban development district. This parcel, as well as its two neighbors to the south, are developed with single detached houses, and they appear to have been designated this way since they were incorporated into the city between 1961 and 1977. Next slide, please. This application proposes to redesignate the subject site to the multi-residential contextual low profile MC1 district, which allows for apartment buildings of low height and medium density. The maximum building height is 14 meters, which is approximately three to four stories, and the maximum density is 148 units per hectare, which would allow for up to 15 units on this parcel. This district is similar to size and scale to the parcels surrounding it to the north and west. Next slide, please. In closing, this application would allow for redevelopment of the site in a manner that is completely contextually appropriate. The Calgary Planning Commission supports this application and recommends council's approval. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much. We will now move to the public hearing. Do we have the applicant with us? Thanks. Please approach. Is it that one? Good evening, Mayor and members of council. My name is Maya Kahn, and I'm here to present our application for land use resign redesignation for the property located at 15307 First Street, Southeast in Mindaport. The purpose of today's presentation is to explain why the MC1 district is appropriate for this site, summarize the community engagement we have undertaken, and outline how we will continue to address the feedback through the future development permit process. Next slide, please. Why is MC One appropriate? The proposed MC One district is appropriate for this site and aligns with the City of Calgary's planning framework and administrative report. The district supports modest residential intensification within established communities, which is consistent with how Calgary is intended to grow by making efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. The site is located in a developed neighborhood context where a transition in housing form is appropriate. The MC1 district provides that flexibility while still ensuring that any future development must go through a detailed development permit process. Importantly, this application is not about approving a specific building today. Instead, it establishes an appropriate land use framework that will still require full review of building design, massing, setbacks, parking, and site layout at the development permit stage. Next slide, please. We place a strong emphasis on early and direct community engagement. Our team conducted door-to-door outreach along with the entire streets surrounding the site. We spoke directly with residents and property owners at their homes, and we documented each visit and address as part, sorry, each visit and address as part of our consultation record. The purpose of this engagement was to ensure neighbors were informed early and had an opportunity to share their thoughts before any further steps in the planning process. We found that most residents were willing to engage in conversation and provide feedback, which we have taken seriously and recorded for consideration moving forward. Next slide, please. Three key themes emerged from our engagement. First, parking was the most common concern raised. Residents expressed interest in ensuring that any future development does not negatively impact on-street parking availability or increase congestion in the area. Second, one resident suggested that a park or additional community amenity space would be preferable on-site. Third, a neighboring condo owner expressed concern that the proposed change in land use may decrease their property value. From a planning perspective, we recognize and respect these concerns as important community feedback. However, it is also important to note that land use decisions are guided by city policy, including the municipal development plan and applicable district rules. Individual perceptions of property value are not a determining factor in land use resignation, rate designation decisions. All of these comments have been recorded and will be directly informed. We will be directly informed how we approach the next stage of the process. Next slide, please. So how the feedback will be addressed. At the development permit stage, we will be required to provide a detailed site and building design. At that time, we will specifically address parking supply and management to ensure compliance with city requirements and minimize neighborhood impacts. The site layout and design considerations to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties. Opportunities to improve landscaping and interface between development and the street. This is the stage where detailed design solutions are evaluated and refined. Next slide, please. Responsible development approach. We are committed to responsible development that respects the surrounding community. This includes continuing engagement, responding to all concerns through design, working closely with the administration to ensure the proposal meets all applicable planning and technical requirements. And closing slide, please. In closing, the proposed MC1 redesignation at 15307 First Street Southeast represents a planning approach that is consistent with city policy, supports thoughtful growth, and allows for appropriate intensification in an established community. We believe it strikes a balance between responsible land use planning and concerns raised by the community. Community feedback has been carefully considered, and we will continue to inform the detailed development permit stage where built form, massing, and interface will be fully reviewed. For these reasons, we respectfully request Council's support for this application. Thank you for your time, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much for being here with us. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, uh, we'll continue through the public hearing. Do we have Alexander Brajansi with us on the line? Uh yes I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, uh, please go ahead. Uh thank you. Uh good evening, Mayor and members of council. My name is Alexander Prisajny and I'm speaking in opposition to land use amendment LOC to zero two five dash zero two two six for one five three zero seven first street southeast. I live in the adjacent building and would be directly affected by the proposed development. I recognize that some level of redevelopment has occurred in the area. However, I believe this Sorry to interrupt but I can't hear you very well. So unfortunately, uh, I'd ask uh you please to Oh sorry. I just can't So you're you're unfortunately not able to speak at this point, uh only as the chair uh uh if you don't mind uh Sir Alexander, if you don't mind if you're on speakerphone to maybe take that off and uh speak closer to the microphone. Okay, uh can you hear me now? I'm not on speaker phone. I'm not just holding phone in my hand. Uh can you hear me? Okay, so we'll continue. Thank you. Um I recognize that some level of redevelopment has occurred in the area. However, I believe this proposal represents an over intensification of a constrained site and is not comparable comparable with the immediate context. The scale and proximity of a proposed development would create significant and disproportionate impacts on the adjacent properties. As was noted in my written submission, my concerns are focused on the direct impact this development would have on neighboring residents. First, the shared rear alley uh rear lane service in adjacent properties is narrow. I submitted photos with reading submission. Construction and subsequent addition of a multi unit building would increase vehicle movements, both personal and service vehicle traffic, potentially creating safety risks and limited functional access. Limited on-site parking at the proposed development could likely overflow into the alley, rear alley, further restricting access and safety. Second, the scale and proximity of a multi unit building may result in direct overlook into adjacent units of our building, thus creating significant and permanent loss of privacy. Third, the south facing side of our building is an important source of natural light for south facing units. It means that a a taller multi unit structure immediately adjacent would uh reduce sunlight access, particularly during winter months, uh potentially resulting in colder interior temperatures and negatively effective livability of those units. I'm also concerned about the cumulative effect of incremental abzoning in mid-Napur's lower density area. Approving the development of this scale on a relatively small parcel risks creating further pressure for similar intensification that may not align with the established character and built form of the surrounding area. Importantly, I am not opposing all redevelopment. Redevelopment within the existing zoning framework or development more appropriate to the surrounding context could likely result in temporary and manageable impacts. However, I believe the proposed land use amendment. enables a scale and intensity of development that is not appropriate for this specific site and would create disproportionate and unavoidable in impacts on affected properties. And lastly, for these reasons I respectfully request the Council refuse the application and thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you. Any questions, colleagues? All right, seeing none, uh we'll continue with our public hearing. Is there anyone else uh in the public who would like to speak to this item? All right, hearing none, uh last call, we shall close the public hearing. Uh can I go to you, Councillor Johnson? Uh yes. Um admin, how many houses would be in that block of uh the 150 block here? Sorry, how many residents would live in this total blockage? Okay, so there's one, two, three, four, five, six large condo complexes. I mean. This land use change, what would be the maximum under that land use designation? I believe this would result in up to 15 units, I think. Up to 15. Yeah, okay. So relatively small percentage compared to the rest of the condos in the same block. Um I understand there's potential. Ah, I don't want to talk about development. Um yeah, I'm I'm okay with this, so I'll I'll just leave it there for questions. Thanks. Are you looking to move the item then? Yes, I'll move it. Okay. Uh do we have a seconder? Seconded by uh Councillor Kelly. Alright, uh that's been moved and it's on the table. Any further debate? Maybe if I may, your worship, just uh Councillor Kelly, go ahead. this has been a long time coming. Uh SFUD, future urban development. We're finally here. The future has arrived. Um yeah, thank you. So All right. Uh back to you to close, Councillor. yeah, and so again, just with admin, just quickly here. Um this was designated for future development for a very long time, right? And the time has come. So I mean this applicant saw an opportunity, purchased the land, and I think this will be good for the neighborhood. So I'll leave it there. Thank you. All right, with that, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the U vote, please. Councillor Schmidt is absent. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please uh display the results. On that, the motion is carried, 14 to 0. Move now to the readings. First reading of bylaw 48 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 48 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 48 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 48D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, let's move now to 7.2.20, land use amendment in Haskane, Ward 1. Thank you, Mayor. Our last application for today, 7.2.20, is a land use amendment to allow for multi residential development and a fire hall in a developing community. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is to give three readings to proposed bylaw 54D 2026 to redesignate the site located at 6600 and 6815 133rd Street Northwest from the commercial Community 1 or CC1 district to the multi residential low profile M1 district and the special purpose community service SCS district. Next slide, please. The subject site is located in the northwest community of Haskane. The Bears Paw Reservoir on the Bow River and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway are located to the south and west of the site. Or the area, excuse me. This community extends northwest along the river valley and projects into Rocky View County with the city limits here shown in red. Next slide, please. This site is approximately 3.9 hectares in size and is stripped and graded in advance of urban development. This site will be at the crossroads in the community as its main connector travels north along the river valley. Next slide, please. Surrounding land use districts in the area are a mix of residential, parks, and commercial. Of note is the variety of residential land use districts. You'll see singles and semis under the RG and RGM districts. There'll be townhouses in the MG to the southeast, and likely stacked townhouses or walk up apartment buildings in the M1 district to the south. Next slide, please. The site's existing CC1 district is intended to accommodate small to mid-scale commercial uses that serve the surrounding community. The CC1 district has a maximum building height of 10 meters and a floor area ratio of 1.0. Next slide, please. The proposed M1 district accommodates multi residential development in a variety of forms with low height and medium density. The M1 district allows for a maximum building height of 14 meters and requires a density of between 40 to 148 units per hectare, which would work out to about 125 townhouses or up to 370 apartments on the site. Next slide, please. The proposed SCS district accommodates community service uses. In this case, the intent is to allow for the use of protective and emergency service, which should allow for this site to be used as a permanent fire station in the future. Next slide, please. Development on this site is guided by the Haskane Area Structure Plan, with the subject site included within the Red Community Retail Center, indicated by the Red Asterisks. And the site is also indicated by the Red E for emergency response station. This site should also function cohesively with the adjacent neighborhood activity center, that's the purple star. So this proposal overall complies with the intent and the policies of the area structure plan. Next slide, please. In closing, this application is a suitable location for the construction of a necessary emergency service and for increased residential density next to future commercial uses. Calgary Planning Commission supports the application and recommends council's approval. Thank you. Thank you for that. Let's open up the public hearing. We'll call down the applicant. Evening. Mayor, members of council. I'm Jack Model with BNA. We're the applicant. With me is Elton Ma from Brookfield. We're speaking in favor, and I have a brief presentation. Again, I'll try to keep it short so you can go have dinner. Next slide, please. I think we've already had dinner, so we're we're ready for you, Jack. Sorry, I forgot because we just sat here and waited. We're no longer heading. So we can go have dinner. We're ready for it. So, as noted, this application is in the rapidly developing community of Rockland Park. It's at the heart of the village center. You can see there in the blue is the amendment area, and the pink is the remainder of the village center area that's not being affected by this application. Next slide, please. The original village center vision that was approved along with the outline plan included a mix of commercial, multi residential, and a future emergency response station. At the time, it was approved under the CC1 land use district, which can theoretically accommodate all of these uses. It does allow for multi residential in certain formats, as well as the fire hall. Next slide, please. This application was brought about for two reasons. One, because the city approached us to provide their requirements for the fire hall site and wanted it to be subdivided out under its separate land use. And also because Brookfield wanted to subdivide out the multi residential portion of this commercial area as a separate land use. So after uh amendment, we'll have a 2.75 acre firehouse site, a five and a half acre M1 site, and a six-acre commercial site that will accommodate 60,000 square feet of commercial and retail. Next slide, please. This shows the area of the application that is amended from the CC1 to the M1 and the SES. I'll just note that to the southeast of the pink area is the remaining CC1 parcel. And I think as as is shown on the notice posting signs when this application is posted, this led to the perception that all of the commercial was being redesignated, when in fact over half of it is remaining. Next slide, please. And finally, this is a comparison of the initial concept as compared to the revised concept that we are now working with. You can see that generally speaking, the land uses and the proposed uses are staying the same. They're just being relocated within this village center. So the multi-residential that was on the left in the bottom left area in brown is now in the top left. The fire hall that was previously shown in the bottom right is now in the top right. And the remainder is the commercial area that Brookfield has been working to develop the programming, and we provided some additional clarification through the open house about what specific retail uses would be provided there. Next slide, please. So, as mentioned, this application was submitted just over a year ago. In July of last year, we met with the Rockland Park HOA to give a presentation. There were changes through work with the administration to refine the size of the fire hall site. We held another open house in December of last year, and now we're bringing it before you today for approval. Next slide, please. Oh, that's the last slide. Okay. Well, uh, we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks for your time. Any questions, colleagues? I'll jump in. Why the change? Right, that's through the chair. Thanks for the question. Um the two reasons that I mentioned are the fire hall site being identified by city uh and the specific sizing confirmed. Um, so it is funded. Uh, and now that that fire hall site is being brought forward, uh, it's preferred that it have its own land use under the SES use. And additionally, Brookfield is looking to develop a different portion of the site for a slightly different type of multi residential than was originally envisioned. So you see this a bit as being nimble to be able to respond to market demand. I think that would be a fair assessment. That's it for me, uh, Councillor Targ. Uh yeah, so residents of my community have contacted my office and have expressed interest in having more emergency services, but they're concerned that this closes the door on a potential grocery store that they did hear about when they bought their properties in this commercial area. Can you provide comments on uh whether this does indeed close the door on a grocery store and other amenities in the area? Thank you for the question. And through the chair, uh from a land use perspective, no, it does not preclude uh grocery store coming in. Um the use is still that is still a use that falls within the CC1. Um the nature of grocery stores as we know them today are also shifting in size and changing in size. So, in terms of they've got grocery stores ranging from 100,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. This site couldn't accommodate the 100,000 square footer, but it could accommodate anywhere in between from the 40 to the 20. So that can still be accommodated on the site. Sorry. Um okay, so To clarify, there can be a grocery store and a fire hall to provide emergency services to the area at the same time. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, uh hearing none, uh thank you very much for being here with us. Is there anyone else uh in the public wishing to speak to this? I have a few comments. I'm not sure if I'm on the line or not. Thank you. Is that uh you, David Yude? Yep. Okay, please go ahead. So I'll try to be brief. I know you've had all a long meeting. I'd like to submit my comments that I sent into the CPC on this item and speak to. And I know there's been a lot of chatter in the community to this, but listening to the previous applications, I guess that's 7.2.6 in Hillhurst to give third reading until the development permits come in. Perhaps maybe that's a good approach to balancing some of these concerns between the redesignation. And the actual details that come later. I guess at least for me that would make it easier to comment to on the application to get the full picture of what's going on. But I guess however I'm in walking distance to this site, but I'm not immediately next to it, so I'm less affected by traffic, density, and parking. My interest is mainly on the commercial portion, specifically around consideration of the sizes and the ratio of the areas being redesignated. And I guess what's left for the commercial site. So I know along with parking, density, all those fine details get Dealt with at the development permit stage, but I feel the size is one area where it should be carefully considered today at this stage. So the size of the designated area really determines what can be done at the development permit stage, whereas you know you can shift the parking, the building height, etc. You just can't adjust the area to work with at that stage. So the hope is council takes into consideration what will be left to that commercial site after redesignating for the fire hall and multifamily. And I guess at the committee meeting it wasn't really an open house um in December last year. Brookfield indicated they'd have a center similar to the Rocky Ridge commercial where and it's on the letter I sent in. So yeah, so they did have a grocery store, small retail, like a vet bank. It's about six acres. But they did indicate there was no definite timeline when this would occur in Rockland and it's subject to market feasibility. So I mean it would be great to see, but the question I had in my comments is how does this site allow for infilling and build-out over time? As kind of indicated in the Haskey and ASP that overlays the area. Does it recommend amenity spaces such as plazas, landscaped areas, walkway? And then again, I guess with the developer themselves, on their website, they have an 85,000 square foot area for future shop services, restaurants, and according to them an inviting outdoor plaza to beat my neighbors. It'd just be nice to see a demonstration of that size and it aligns with these goals and what Brookfield is marketing. And my last comment, so I'll be quick, is my read of the land use bylaw in the CC1 district allows for a seniors resident residence, and it's listed as assisted living, and although it is a discretionary use. So I have nothing against seniors, and the developer has indicated they want to develop a commercial space. However, they have noted again it's subject to market feasibility. My concern is that if the developer pivots and does put a seniors facility, it's really another form of multi residential. And if it's proposed accepted, then that site just gets smaller with a facility on it. So if you do a quick Google search of nearby sites, they're about one and a half to three acres in a footprint. So I would chop the commercial site in half. And I believe a seniors facility was shown conceptually on previous plans in addition to the multifamily proposed. I did uh recently email the applicant about this and it wasn't confirmed, but it wasn't ruled out either, as the response was it's something that will be looked at at the development stage and informed by the market. So I guess my question, maybe more clarification to the applicant through counsel, is the intent still for this full retail commercial site? And also if it's not feasible in the future, then would they be pivoting to maybe that senior's facility in addition to multifamily? And again, reiterating the concern, the CC one parcel is flipped, developed into maybe non retail, and then long term when the community fully builds out, we've lost that site and opportunity for a good local commercial area. And personally, I'd much rather see a vacant site until something good comes along instead of the Maybe a short term flip to residential and again losing it. So that's all I have and I guess thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much uh for being here with us, David. Any follow up questions, counsel? Alright. Hearing none, we'll continue with our public hearing. Anyone else wish to speak to this item? Going once, going twice. Last call. Alright, uh, our public hearing is closed. Uh can I go to you, Councillor Tyres? To move the item? Yeah. If you'd like to or ask questions. Oh, oh yeah. Um for admin. Yeah. Either or Okay, sure. Um just wondering about the size of the lot and its I guess association with the potential fire station. Um what size I guess why was the size of this lot necessary for the fire station? And is it because you needed a two-bay fire station or is it because of a potential mixed-use uh fire station, which is kind of the trend that we've seen in recent fire stations? We'll defer to my colleague from facility planning. Good evening, uh Mayor and um members of council. My name is Cameron Gillis. I'm with facilities. Uh thank you for the question. When we were rationalizing the site of the the size of the uh fire hall site, we were really looking to be a critical safe distance from with the um driving uh drive apron uh from the apparatus base, what they call the tarmac, uh, and the curb cut that is associated with that, uh, a critical safe distance between the two uh main intersections at the north and the east uh corners of the site. Um I don't quite follow So that puts the drive, I don't know if it's possible to pull up a plan, but it puts the uh the curb cut equidistance along that northeast face of the site, frontage of the site, um, so that the fire hall can sit in the center of the site with parking. For that facility to one side or the other, we're recognizing that there is the potential with the roundabout at the north end of the site for something for some sort of more engaging use, higher and better use for that prominent corner site than than than a fire hall. Okay, yeah, and th that makes sense. And I imagine you'd need a lot more space to like move the fire trucks around. Absolutely. They I can't speak to operations uh uh um with authority, but yes, they do maneuver on site on the on the tarmac. Okay, excellent. And are you the one to uh um answer questions about uh fire response times for Rockland Park? No, sorry. No. Oh, who's that? Oh, yeah. Yeah, just um can you please advise uh counsel here how long it takes uh for a firetruck to to reach Rockland Park? Uh through the chair excuse me, through the chair, Lauren Swong with Development Engineering, uh, the closest operating fire hall is the Tuscany One, and it's about seventy minutes uh to the center of Rockland. Uh the reason for the uh the fire hall is that there is more development coming uh westward. Uh so it is required to service the larger area. And from what I understand, this was uh I I suppose um a fire hall was always planned in this area, but now it's become more urgent. Can you um expand on why it's uh come to our attention now and not before? Uh through the chair, it was planned through the ASP site was identified. Uh this is just um due planning process. Okay. And um it seems that uh the public was under the impression that this would be a fully commercial site. Um can you I don't know, maybe expand on how things went wrong in the communication that led to that, or maybe not how things went wrong, but just um with the area structure plan that's always existed for this area, um, how would it be that residents would think that it would be fully commercial with with nothing else in mind? I'm afraid we can't speak to how the public is interpreting our planning policies or how they've been marketed to, but we can say that this was always the location of a fire station since the creation of the Serie structure plan in 2018. So Okay. I appreciate that. Um yeah, I believe that's it for me. Thanks. thank you. Uh over to Councillor Shabot for questions. Yeah, just um uh this is the standard um um Process insofar as when we develop uh a fire station, we allow build out to go to a certain level uh before we uh make it a requirement prior to allowing additional development to occur. Is that does that sound correct? Generally speaking, yes, and aligning with budget as well, to be able to secure uh the land and then to operate it staff. Still maintaining a target of seven minutes as a response time. Th that is correct, yes. Yeah, I I'm uh gonna go directly into debate as well here and just say I I'm fully supportive of what's before us, what we've learned in the past is that whilst there is a target of seven and a seven minutes as a response time, typically we will uh won't allow anything going beyond eight and a half minutes as a response time. So if it's gett getting to that point where it's becoming a life safety issue and the response time is uh getting around eight and a half minutes for first responders uh for first engine uh that's when we it triggers the necessity. for us to build a new fire station. I think we've reached that threshold and so that's why I think it's important that we move forward with this one right now before we allow any further development. So happy to support. All right. Uh Councillor Tyres, would you like to move the item? Yes. All right, that's been moved by Councillor Tyres. I'm gonna say seconded by Councillor Shabot. All right, uh colleagues, any further discussion, debate on this item? Alright, seeing none, back to you, Councillor Tyres. Okay, yeah. So um so this application is gonna provide much needed emergency service which will serve Haskane Park, um, or Haskane Rockland Park, and as Councillor Chabot mentioned, right now the emergency response times um are croaching on inadequate, and this is gonna make a large difference. And um I've been assured that a grocery store is also possible, also possible given the scope of this application and the areas of concerns of residents that are mentioned throughout the gauged process were addressed. I'm happy to connect with the city administration and the applicant to make sure that um that this is done correctly. So happy to support this application and continue building Rockland Park. Closed. Alrighty. Madam Clerk, let's uh engage the e-boat, please. Councillor Schmidt, absent. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please? Yes. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Alright, please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 to 0. Councillor Schmidt absent. I will move to reading the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 54 D 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Alright, folks, uh let's give it just a moment here to swap out folks to our final item here the added urgent business on the water utility oversight board. Whatever. Yeah. Wow. I know. Oh no, this isn't 720. This is 9-1, right? Alright, we are now on item 9.1 water utility oversight board compensation and selection. Colleagues, uh, we had a quite exhaustive discussion of this at Executive Committee. I propose we we keep this tight. Um who would like to introduce the item? All right. All right, Councillor Penizopoulos. Thanks so much. Uh I think like you said, Mayor, we did a detailed discussion. We went through the compensation, understood what's there and the necessity, the necessity of having an extremely strong board. Um Recent camp proved that our water asset is one of our largest assets is and and we need that oversight and and uh I think this is sort of the first step of the journey, set up an amazing advisory board, uh get the experts to help us as a council and administration and uh move forward so that what happened on December 30th uh never happens again to this council or any subsequent council uh in the years to come. All right, that's been uh the recommendations have been moved by Councillor Penizopoulos. Seconded by Councillor Kelly. It's on the table. Colleagues, any further discussion, questions, administration? All right, uh, Madam Clerk, uh maybe just from a process standpoint, if we could just walk through what's before us. If my understanding is if the recommendation here passes, we'll have the the readings of the bylaw. And then is it subsequent to the readings of the bylaw? We'll go into the uh potential election of council members to serve. That's exactly right, Mayor Farkas. The bylaw needs to be passed and enforced before any members can be appointed. So recommendation would be to start out with recommendations 1, 2, and 3 following council's decision on that. Council can then move forward with recommendations 4 onwards. All right. Uh with that is there there is a private attachment that indicates the public member of the selection committee. Is there a requirement to go into closed session, colleagues? Nope. All right. Seeing none, uh I think it may be over to you to to close. Council Pranazopoulos. Were we intending to split it? One, two, three. It that's right, Councillor Pantyzoulis. So the bylaw needs to be in force before council can proceed with recommendation number four. So the proposal is to put recommendations one, two, and three together. And then following those decisions, um put recommendations four, five, six, and seven together. We we moved mountains as a city, taking a four year project to one year. Things are moving, and uh let's continue this momentum and Get this board uh water utility oversight board set up and and running. Thank you. Closed. Okay, that has been closed. Uh I'm going to go on process uh to councillor Johnston. You have a request for division? Yeah, sorry, I was just a little confused here. The last uh one had seven points to it, and now this one has three. Sorry. I just missed that. Yeah, it's just further to the point I made with Madam Clerk is that uh the first three are requirement to proceed with uh the next one. So we're just simply going to vote on one, two, and three at this point. And if one, two, and three were to say fail, uh we wouldn't have a bylaw and we wouldn't have the need to appoint people to the uh the board that the bylaw calls for. Okay. I earlier it would have been number seven. I wanted divided from the rest of them. So I guess it'd be four on the next one. Okay, I'll uh I'll acknowledge you. Uh if this were to pass on division for the next set of votes. Thank you, Chair. Uh Councillor Wynus, on it's been closed but on process. well I had my RTS in before the closed. Uh it was uh both will council be made aware of the compensation for the the member and confidential? Okay, uh I acknowledged Councillor Penazopoulos to close prior to your RTS being in the queue, but I will if we have general consent, colleagues, uh I think that this is important answer or clarification and question to ask for administration prior to us uh proceeding to the vote. Okay, seeing no objection, uh uh Ms. Johnson, if you don't mind. Yeah, so maybe if I can just clarify your question, make sure I'm answering the the correct one. Your uh well, actually, maybe I'm gonna pause. Attachment four is a confidential attachment Yeah, I want to know what the compensation of that individual is for this process. for this process. Um Because we know the compensation of the board members and the chair, but council's never been provided with the compensation of the individual participating in it, and I think it's important council knows as part of uh agreeing to what the process we're moving forward on. Yeah, and I just want to be clear for counsel my hesitation isn't actually about the compensation, it's about speaking to a confidential attachment. So does it have to go inside for us to get my answer? My reading personally is no. I think we could just address that. I I think the question is if they are part of the search committee, they would not be paid, is my understanding. Well, if they can't answer it publicly, then obviously there might there's compensation involved. They They don't want to end. uh so there is no compensation directly attached to that. individuals participation in the selection process. Okay. All right. Uh we will go to the e vote on that. Uh, Madam Clerk, let's engage the e vote, and that's for one, two, and three only is the approving of the retainers and the giving of the three readings of the uh bylaw and the exemption of the uh recruitment uh from the the standard uh process so that we can move faster. Councillor Ewell, your vote, please. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On 1, 2, and 3, that motion is carried. 11 to 4. Counselors Dallywall, Atkinson, and Shabot and Yynus are opposed. All right. We will go now to the readings of bylaw 17M 2026. First reading of bylaw 17M 2026. Anyone opposed? I'm going to say counselors Dallywell, Atkinson, Shabot, and Wynus are opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 17 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Counselors Dallywall, Atkinson, Shabot, and Wynus are opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 17M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 17M 2026. Anyone opposed? Counselors Dallywall, Atkinson, Shabot, and Yynus are opposed, and that is carried. Alrighty, Madam Clerk, I believe at this point we go to the recruitment process of council members. That's right, Mayor Farkas. I will just bring you the bylaw to sign first. Thank you for that, Mayor Farkas. So then the next item of business for council will be to contemplate the membership. We um we did solicit expressions of interest from members of council, so we do have a distribution that we will display to facilitate your decision making. As a brief reminder, um council is looking to appoint two additional members of council following the appointment of the two members of council from amongst the mayor and those two members of council. Council will then move on to select a chair. Oh we do have excuse me just one more announcement because Councillor Dollywall is remote. Um Councillor Dollywall, for you to cast your vote if needed, you would be emailing me um directly with your vote if needed. Thank you. Oh. Okay, so we have some uh interested members, and I believe Councillor Schmidt had joined uh previously. Yep. Councillor Smith as well. He's remote as well. Uh I will jump in uh real quick then. I will nominate Councillor Ward. Councillor Ward, do you accept the nomination? Yes, thank you. Okay, Councillor Ward uh his name is up there. Uh over to Councillor Wynnes. Oh uh Councillor Kelly. Yeah, I wonder if I can make this real simple. I'm happy to pull my name from this and let Councillor Pantozo and Ward's names uh stand. Part of the reason why I'm happy to pull my name from this is uh I do think because we have this and the CAO that are going to be going, I think it probably would be wise, colleagues, if we sort of divvy up and and and so we don't put somebody on both of those. And for me, certainly with the work that I'd be doing on the CAO, I think I'd prefer to let my name stand for that one. So I think that uh I might be able to keep this nice and easy for everyone if we only have two people nominated. So uh mayor's already put forward Councillor wards in the MCL put forward Councillor Panasopoulos of name. Yeah. All right. Uh Pantasopoulos and Ward have been nominated. Over to you, Councillor Yule. Okay. All right. Uh are there any further nominations? Colleagues. All right. Madam Clerk, I believe I can deem those two nominated and then we'll seek a chair. That's right. It'd be a nomination by acclamation for Councillor Pantasopoulos and Ward. Alrighty. So we we have those names that have been established. At this point, I believe we are seeking a nomination for chair. I will nominate Councillor Penazopoulos for chair. Sorry, I'll nominate uh Councillor ward. Okay. All right. Sorry, I'll go to you, Councillor Johnston, formally. Yeah, I nominate Councillor ward for chair If you don't mind, just allow me to finish speaking. Uh I've nominated Councillor Penazopoulos uh for chair. Councillor Penazopoulos, do you allow your name to sound? point of privilege. I thought we were gonna use the RTS system as a team to be fair. Alright, there was nothing no one in the in the queue when I spoke, so uh Yes, I was in the queue before thank you, Councillor Johnston. Uh Councillor Penisopoulos has allowed his name to stand. I will go to you, Councillor Johnston, for your nomination. Yes, I nominate Councillor uh ward for chair. Thanks. Councillor Ward, uh, do you allow your name to stand? Yes. Yep. Alrighty. Uh any further nope. No nom no more nominations are possible because I do not want more work. Just kidding. Uh any further nominations for chair? No. No, stop, Councillor Shabot, Deputy Mayor. All right, uh that having two names uh nominated, uh we will proceed to a secret ballot. So please indicate uh one or the other of Councillor Pentasopoulos or Councillor Ward to be the board chair, or sorry, the the chair of the water utility oversight board selection committee. Or no, the selection committee for the water utility oversight board chair. Yeah. Don't do it. Okay, so uh please indicate one or two of or one only of Panasopoulos or Ward. Thank you, colleagues. We have uh Councillor Ward elected as chair, and I believe that will fill in the requirements for bullet four. That's right, Mayor. We will just draft those up for your consideration now. So recommendation number four will read that council appoint. Councillor Ward and Councillor Pantozopoulos as members of the Water Utility Board and Councillor Ward as the chair. The terms will expire upon the appointment by counsel of the chair of the Water Utility Oversight Board. Mayor Farkas, now you have recommendations four, five, six, and seven. I will just draw your attention to recommendation number seven. The report package did indicate to keep the discussions, the closed meeting discussions and confidential attachments. Confidential given that council did not go into closed session, we did remove that. So just want to highlight for you recommendation seven on the screen does look different than the cover report that was distributed. Okay, great. Um prior to me calling for the e vote on this, if any questions, colleagues? Uh Councillor Johnston, you wanted a separation on this? I think the clerk clarified that we don't need it on there. Okay. Yeah, so all of this will be voted as one. Uh seeing no other lights, uh Madam Clerk, let's engage the e-vote on four, five, six, and seven. Councillor Ewell, your vote please. Thank you. Councillor Dollywall, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Shabot, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please. Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please. Yes. I heard a yes. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Farkas, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. All right. Uh that motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Weinus opposed. All right, I believe there's no other business. Are there any administrative inquiries? Madam Clerk. N non received Mayor. All right, uh, can I have a motion to adjourn, please? Moved by Councillor Clark, seconded by Councillor Ewell. Uh I had request to again uh engage the e vote on the adjournment. Yep, and the motion is that this council adjourn. I'll remind you there is no other business. Cancell Ewell, your vote please. Thank you. Cancer Pantazopoulos, your vote, please. Thank you. You just want to hang out, Councillor Atkinson? Yeah. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. That was a no. So can I can I rise on a point of procedure before Yeah. um you do realize of course that if this motion carries we can't reconsider it. Alright, I I'm just gonna say for process wise, let's allow the clerk to to continue calling these names. Mayor Farkas, your vote, please. Uh no, let's hang. No. Alright, please display the results. All right, that motion is carried 12 to 3 with counselors Johnston, Farkas, and Clark opposed, and we will be hanging out all night. So see you guys.", "num_speakers": 59, "consolidated": true, "metadata": { "source_file": "3b6a6a55-5f63-43ea-9726-b632dc8b1552.json", "original_segment_count": 3048, "consolidated_segment_count": 968, "max_gap_seconds": 150.0, "reduction_percentage": 68.24 }, "file": "/tmp/tmpb34nvipj/4c953311-8dc0-4e39-bfa8-09e9e9953c29.mkv" }